children out of school in america - University of Tennessee Digital ...

CHILDREN OUT OF SCHOOL
IN AMERICA
A Report by the
CHILDREN'S DEFENSE FUND
of the Washington Research Project, Inc.

CHILDREN OUT OF SCHOOL
IN AMERICA
A Report by the
CHILDREN'S DEFENSE FUND
of the Washington Research Project, Inc.

Copyright If.> October 1974
by the Children's Defense Fund
of the Washington Research Project, Inc.
All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmiued
in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including
photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval
system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
For information address:
Children's Defense Fund
1746 Cambridge Street
Cambride, Mass. 02138
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 74-20229
Printed in the United States of America
First Printing
Price: $4.00

This report is dedicated to the memory of
Vernon Eagle who was Executive Director of the
New World Foundation from 1957 to 1974.
He loved children and greatly encouraged and
supported our undertaking to provide
systematic advocacy on behalf of all American children.

People Who Worked Oft This Report
. Melanie Barron
Rochelle Beck
Alletta Belin
Jean Bellow
Don Bersoff
Joanna Breyer
Donna Brown
Sheila Brown
Debby Campbell
Sarah Carleton
Audrey Colom
Thomas Cottle
Franna Diamond
Frances Dukehart
Kathleen Dyrek
Tim Gage
Marjorie Hawkins
Patricia Hervey
Fred Hiatt
Caroline Jackson
Bill Kuntz
Howard Lenow
1 Included are a number of part-time students and
summer employees.
PROJECT DIRECTORS
Marian Wright Edelman
Marylee Allen
Cindy Brown
Ann Rosewater
CDF STAFF1
Sanford Levinson
Sally Makacynas
Kimberly Mathai
Stephan Michelson
David Mixner
John Nadas
Marilyn Nichols
Richard Parker
Kimberly Pollard
Marlene Provizer
Marilyn Rash
Hillary Rodham
Charlene Sanders
Janet Shur
Irene Solet
Tim Spofford
Carolyn Tapscott
Gail Trachtenberg
Fred Turner
Gilbert Venable
Mary Wilson
Daniel Yohalem
Andrea Young

Autauga County, Alabama
Carol Buehrens
Penny Jenkins
Brenda Lazin
Andrew Marrisett
Montgomery, Alabama
Faye Bracy
Thelma Craig
Martha Hammond
Penny Jenkins
Julie Kaeser
Frankie King
Brenda Lazin
Andrew Marrisett
Tom Mitchell
Melvin Phillips
Janet Wells
Denver, Colorado 1
Helen Hufnagel
Lynne Hufnagel
Treece Hufnagel
Dave Radovich
Lovice Riffe
District of Columbia
CDF Staff
Bibb County, Georgia
Robert Brown
Oleta Fitzgerald
Sylvia Knight
Janet Wells
Hancock County, Georgia
Janet Wells
Robert Brown
Sylvia Knight
AFSC
AFSC
AFSC
AFSC
AFSC
AFSC
Vista
AFSC
Vista
Vista
Vista
AFSC
AFSC
AFSC
AFSC
Family
Family
Family
Family
Family
AFSC
AFSC
AFSC
AFSC
AFSC
AFSC
AFSC
weAL MONITORSl
Law Center
Law Center
Law Center
Law Center
Law Center
1 In these locations, local monitors worked along with CDF
staff.
Davenport, Iowa
Cathy Alter·
Betty Clark
Susan Collins
Nora Dejohn·
Ellen Digman
Sharon DuFault
Jill Eastin
Karen Fitzsimmons
Anne Hahn
Mandy Hahn
Ida Johnson
Chip Kory
Kaye Kory
Carrie Leder·
Dan McWard
Cheryl Rigdon·
Steve Schulte
Sue Stolze
Floyd County, Kentucky
A group of local citizens interested in educational
issues.
Katie Adkins
Juanita Akers
Mary Blevins
Frank Daniels
Eleanor Fields
Nick Frasure
Junior Hall
Nannetta Hall
Verlie Hall
Dorothy Hamilton
Glen Hyden
Central & Western
Neighborhood Development
Corporation (C&Wj
C & W
C&W
C & W
C&W
C&W
C & W
C&W
C&W
C&W
Nancy Justice
Barbara Martin
Opal Maynard
Cosetta McClanohan
Fannie McKinney
Viola Mitchell
Harold Newsome
Muriel Perkins
Betty Stewart
Pina Williams
·Members of an informal group of citizens

Portland, Maine
CDF staff
Cambridge, Massachusetts
CDP Staff
Holyoke, Massachusettsl W. Colon
Elba Cruz
Julio Garcia
N. Nigrun
New Bedford, Massachusetts l
Tom Allen
J. Beals
Angelina Coelho
Gracia Hillman
Somerville, Massachusetts l
Tom Allen
Karla Forsythe
Cecilia Givens
Anne Kaufman
Mimi Lucas
Hector Olivera
Tom Vellereal
Carlos Vega
Jose Jorges
Doris Manero
Maureen Pinard
Eddie Velasquez
Sara Lurie
Alice O'Donnell
Jeanne Schaberg
Mary Ann Tow
Sally Wallace
Springfield, Massachusetts l
Otis Barnett Urban League Cadet
Elba Cruz
Julio Garcia
Todd Howard Urban League Cadet
Hector Olivera
Angel Padua
Mark Pedrazzi Urban League Cadet
Debbie Woods
John Young Urban League Cadet
Canton, Mississippi
Rims Barber
Pat Derian
Winifred Green
Diane Hunley
Melvin Phillips
Elizabeth Singleton
Jewel Williams
Delta Ministry
AFSC
AFSC
Richland County # 1, South Carolina
Bobby Jolly
Willie Lester
Rubystene Mazyck
Hayes Mizell
Terry Peterson
Jackie Williams
AFSC
AFSC
AFSC
AFSC
AFSC
AFSC
Sumter County #2, South Carolina
Bobby Jolly
Willie Lester
Hayes Mizell
Terry Peterson
Jackie Williams
Photo Credits
Lee Goff: p. 126. Roland L. Freeman: pp. 12; 14;
19; 32; 34; 35; 39; 43; 54; 58; 63; 66; 75; 77; 79;
119; 137; 140; 146; 148. Guranich: p. 45. Ilene
Landis of the Kennedy Memorial Hospital for Children:
page facing "Foreword"; pp. 93; 98; 104; 106;
107; 110. Seymour Leicher: pp. 3; 8; 27; 31; 71; 88;
133. Lynn McLaren: p. 87. Johanna Resnick: page
facing "Introduction"; pp. 16; 23; 73; 122. Dick
Rogers: pp. 15; 41.
The photographs in this book are for illustrative
purposes only. They are meant to imply no direct
relationship between any particular child and the text.
Cover
The drawing on the cover was done by Maria
Cote when she was five years old. Maria is now in
fourth grade at the Dallin School in Arlington,
Massachusetts.

Americans think of themselves as a child-loving
people. This is a myth.
Idolizing youth is not the same as placing societal
priority on ensuring that all children get enough
food, clothing, health care, education and other services
that will enable them to develop and function
fully in American society. As a nation we have
failed to provide every child a chance to a decent
life.
In 1968 the Washington Research Project, Inc.,
was formed to help poor people investigate and
monitor federal programs designed to serve them.
We found many children living in poverty, ignorance,
ill-health and oppression. We also found that
neglected children are not only poor and nonwhite
but come from many ethnic and income groups.
To help policy makers, other adults, and social
agencies understand and better serve the needs of
all children, we formed the Children's Defense Fund
(CDF) in 1973. We are a nonprofit organization
of lawyers, federal policy monitors, researchers, and
community liaison people dedicated to long-range,
systematic advocacy and reform on behalf of the
nation's children. We seek to improve the conditions
of American children through public information,
research, administrative agency monitoring,
litigation, and through technical back-up to local
groups working with children.
In 1970, The Way We Go To School, a report by
the Massachusetts Task Force on Children Out of
School, was released. It estimated that "a minimum
of 4,000 school age children are excluded from the
Boston Public Schools with the likely number rang-
Foreword
ing as high as 10,700."1 The profiles of excluded
children were haunting. We wanted to find out
whether children like these were only in several
particularly troubled cities, or whether being out of
school was a problem of national proportions. That
report sparked this effort.
"Children Out of School in America" is the first
in a series of reports we will issue during the next
several months on conditions of children which urgently
require recognition and correction. These
include problems of (1) children in adult jails; (2)
children of women prisoners; and (3) school and
other children's record keeping practices.
We are prepared to work in cooperation with
policy makers, responsible officials, parents and
local citizen groups to research thoroughly the particular
problems raised in this report and to help
design, implement, and monitor the effectiveness of
proposed solutions.
This report is the result of much effort by many
CDF staff members, and others to whom I am
deeply grateful. Special thanks go to Marylee Allen,
Cindy Brown and Ann Rosewater for their persistence
in completing this project.
Marian Wright Edelman,
Director
1 Task -Force on Children Out of School, The Way We Go
To School (Boston: Beacon Press, 1970), p. 69.

Foreword
Introduction
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Table of Contents
We Owe Them More Than Nothing
CDF Survey Findings on Nonenrollment
Characteristics of Children Out of School
Barriers to Attendance
Children With Special Needs and Misclassi6cation
School Discipline
Recommendations
Postscript: On Child Advocacy
Children Out of School aud What It Means to Them
Who Are The Children Out Of School?
Reasons Children Are Out of School
Profiles of Excluded Children
How Many Children Are Out of School?
U.S. Census Data on Nonenrollment
Proportion of Minority Children
Proportion of Children in Rural Areas
Social and Economic Factors
School Financing
Limitations of Census Data
Minority Undercount
The Seven·Person Family Problem
CDF Survey of Children Out of School
CDF Survey Undercount
Barriers to School Attendance
How Compulsory is Compulsory Attendance
Exemptions
Truancy
Enforcement of Compulsory Attendance Provisions
Pregnant Girls, Student Parents, and Married Stndents
Children Excluded by Language
Poverty
Textbook and Workbook Charges
School Fees
Children Without Clothing
Transportation Barriers
1
2
3
4
4
5
8
11
17
17
18
20
33
33
36
37
38
40
41
42
42
43
44
55
56
56
62
65
68
71
78
80
84
85
86

Appendix N
Appendix 0
Appendix P
Appendix Q
Special Education in CDF Survey Districis
Table I -OCR Data on Enrollments 268
Table II -Description of Special Education Programs 272
Table III-Special Education Placement Procedures 276
A Comparisou of Recommended Procedures in Assessment
and Placement With State Special Education Statutes
and Regulations 278
Right to Education: Principles and Cases 280
Letter to OCR Director Recommending Changes in Forms
and Sample Forms OSICR 101 and OSICR 102 of the Fall
1974 Elemental"y and Secondary School Civil Rights Survey 286
Appendix R OCR Data on Student Suspensions 1972-1973
Appendix S
Appendix T
•
Appendix U
Appendix V
Appendix W
Table I -Arkansas
Table II -Maryland
Table III-New Jersey
Table IV-Ohio
Table V -South Carolina
308
314
316
322
324
Number of Students Expelled as Reported to OCR 330
Suspensions in CDF Survey Districts 1972·1973
Table I -OCR Data on Total Student Suspensions 332
Table IT -OCR Data on Secondary Students Suspended 334
Table III-Frequency of Suspensions of Secondary School
Age Children (Age 12.17) 338
Table IV-Duration of Suspensions of Secondary School Age
Children (Age 12.17) 342
Discipline Procedures in 15 of 17 CDF Survey Districts 346
Statutory Provisious for Suspension and Expulsion 350
Letter to Congressman Carl D. Perkins, Chairmau, Committee
ou Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives
Outlining Gaps in Federal Data Collection Relating to
Children Out of School 357
..

CHAPTER 1
Table I
CHAPTER 2
Table I
Table n
Table In
Table IV
Table V
Table VI
Table ViII
Table VIII
Table IX
Tables
Reasons Given for Children Out of
School 45 Days or More
Children Not Enrolled
By Regions
(Ages 7.17)
Children Not Enrolled as a Percent of
Population Rankings by State
(Ages 7.17)
Children Not Enrolled
U.S. By Regions
White and Non White Populations
(Ages 7.17)
Children Not Enrolled
U.S. By Regions
Urban and Rural Populations
(Ages 7.17)
Children Not Enrolled By Education
and Income of Parent
(Ages 7.17)
Children Not Enrolled By
Occupation of Father
(Ages 7.17)
Children Not Enrolled
Living With One or Two Parents or By Self
(Ages 7.17)
Children Out of School
Three or More Consecutive Months
(Ages 6·17)
Children Out of School
45 Days or More, Consecutive or Non-Consecutive,
But Not More Than Three Consecutive
Months
(Ages 6.17)
19
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
46
48

Table X
Table XI
Table XII
CHAPTER 3
Table I
Table II
CHAPTER 4
Table I:
CHAPTER 5
Table I
Table II
Table HI
Table IV
Table V
All Children Out of School
45 Days or More
(Sum of Tables VITI & IX)
(Ages 6-17)
All Children Out of School
Rank Order By Area
Areas Where At Least 25 Percent
Children Out of School by Racial/Ethnic Group
(Agcs 16 & 17)
Statutory and Constitutional Provisions for
Compulsory and Permissive Education
Attendance Staff By
District
Summary of Enrollments in EducaJ>le Mentally Retarded
(EMR) Classes in 1973-74
in Five States
Reason for Suspensions
Found in CDF Survey
Students Suspended from School
1972-1973
OCR Data
Percent of Secondaloy Students Suspended From School
1972-1973
School-Age Children Suspended
At Least Once
Summary of Student Suspensions
in Five Selected States
Table VI Areas Where 50 Percent or More of the Suspended Secondary
Students Were Suspended Two or More Timet! 132
Table vn Children from Female-Headed Families
Suspended at Least Once 134
50
52
53
57
67
103
120
125
125
127
131

community leaders concerned with education. 5
While our data should not be extrapolated to the
nation as a whole, we are confident that the children
we identified as out of school are typical of the kinds
of children out of school nationally. We are equally
confident that the school policies and practices which
we uncovered and which cause children to be out of
school fairly represent ways in which school systems
operate.
In the 30 areas we surveyed we found 5.4 percent
of all children'6 to 17 years old out of school for at
least 45 days, one-quarter of the school year. 19.6
percent of the 16 and 17 year olds we found were
out of school. 6 As with Census data, however, the
overall average understates the severity of the problem
for certain groups of children in specific places.
-In Portland, Maine's Rivertol) Housing Project,
children 6 to 17 from the predominantly white
and poor population were out of school at a
rate twice our survey average, 10.8 percent.
-In a Census tract in Holyoke, Massachusetts,
with a heavy concentration of Puerto Ricans,
6.7 percent of Puerto Rican children 7 to 15
and 37.5 percent of Puerto Rican children 16
to 17 were out of school.
-In a New Bedford, Massachussetts Census
tract, 60.0 percent of all 16 and 17 year olds
and 72.7 percent of Portuguese youths that age
were out of school.
5 Appendix A explains the methodology of our survey and
includes a copy of our questionnaire; Appendix C lists the
names and titles of officials interviewed and others who
provided assistance and information. Appendix 0 lists state
school officials' responses to our request for inforrna:ion on
cbildren out of school. Most school officials were cooperative
and helpful and we greatly appreciate their aid. A
few would not talk to us at aU. The Superintendents of
Hancock County and Bibb County, Georgia repeatedly refused
to be interviewed. The Superintendent of Autauga
County, Alabama did permit an interview, but would not
permit otber scbool employees to be interviewed.
6 Compulsory attendance laws in 48 states require attendance
for 7-15 year olds, but states vary as to the ages children
must start scbool and when they may leave. Our judgment
is that children should be expected to stay in school until
they have acquired requisite literacy skills and credentials,
wbich generally takes children to age 17 and beyond.
Therefore, in our analysis of Census data, we used the 7-15
age grouping to allow for comparability within the compulsory
attendance framework, and the 7-17 age grouping as
well. Our own COP survey reflects our further judgment
that 6 year olds should be in school as well, and data is
therefore summarized for 6 to 17 year olds.
-In a virtually all black Census tract in Washington,
D.C., 20.8 percent of 16 and 17 year
olds were out of school.
Characteristics of Children Out of School
Census data helped us begin to draw a picture of
the children most likely to be out of school. Children
are out of school all over America and come
from every racial and income group. But low income
children and those from unemployed households
are disproportionately nonenrolled. Children
from families with less education are out of school
more than children whose families have more education.
Minority children are out of school more than
white children. And rural children are nonenrolled
more than urban children.
The Census asked no questions about why these
children are out of school, what their problems
are, how their parents tried to deal with them, and
what are the school policies and practices that these
children and their families have to encounter. These
are the questions we sought to answer in our survey.
We found that if a child is not White, or is white
but not middle class, does not speak English, is poor,
3

districts in Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi,
and Arkansas which had children enrolled
in classes for the educable mentally retarded (EMR),
we found that:
-In 190 of the districts (37.4 percent), the probability
that a black student would be in an EMR
class was five times as great as for a white student.
There were 51 districts in which the probability
of being in an EMR class was ten times
greater for a black student than for a white
student.
-Over 80 percent of the students in EMR classes
in tbese districts were black, even though less
than 40 percent of the total enrollment in these
districts were black.
-46 percent of these 505 districts reported that
5 percent or more of their black students were
in EMR classes, but only 4 districts (less than
1 percent) reported 5 percent or more of their
white students in EMR classes.
-At least 10 percent of the black students were
in EMR classes in 64 of the districts.
-Not only are the probability rates different for
black and white students, but the number of
black children affected by these rates is significant.
Using the percentage of white students who
are in EMR classes as a standard, the number
of black students in EMR classes in excess of
the corresponding ratio is 32,381. In only 13
districts were there fewer black students than
would be implied by the white ratio. T
The racial disproportion in special education
placement indicated in OCR data for these five states
was also reflected in OCR data available for 15 of
the 17 districts in our survey. There were only five
districts in which the majority of students were nonwhite.
But there were nine districts where most of
the students in EMR classes were nonwhite.
-In Davenport, Iowa where 6.9 percent of the
students in the public schools were black, 22.8
percent of the enrollment in the EMR school
operated by the County was black.
-In five districts - Autauga County, Alabama,
Montgomery, Alabama, Denver, Colorado,
Davenport, Iowa, and Sumter County No.2,
South Carolina-the probability that minority
----
7 These figures represent only the districts reporting to OCR
and not all of the districts in each of the states. The school
districts surveyed. however, account for over 50 percent of
the pupils enrolled in public schools in these states. See
detailed discussion of OCR undercount on pp. 124-125.
students would be' in EMR classes was three
times greater than the probability that white
students would be in the EMR classes.
Our own survey data show racial disproportion
in New Bedford, Massachusetts as well.
-6.3 percent of the black children were in special
education, almost twice as great as the percent
of Portuguese children (3.2 percent) and over
four times greater than the percent of white
children in these classes (1.5 percent).
School Discipline
Chapter 5 discusses the rampant use of suspensions
and other disciplinary devices to throw children
out of school. They are imposed for a wide array
of offenses, many of which are educationally indefensible.
Our analysis of suspension data submitted to OCR
for ,five selected states - Arkansas, Maryland, New
Jersey, Ohio, South Carolina - reveals that during
the 1972-73 school year, at least 152,904 children
were suspended at least once for over 575,000
school days or 3,200 school years. 8
Among secondary school students the suspension
problem is particularly acute. In selected districts
we analyzed, secondary school students were suspended
almost twice as often as other children.
Worse still is the impact of suspension on minority
children. Almost 7 percent of the minority children
in the five states analyzed were suspended at least
once during the 1972-73 school year. Over 50 percent
of the students suspended in these states were
minority although less than 40 percent of the total
districts' enrollment was minority. 50 percent of the
402 districts analyzed reported suspending 5 percent
or more of their black students. Only 23 percent of
the districts reported suspending 5 percent or more
of their white students. At least 10 percent of the
black students were suspended in 100 of the districts
surveyed.
Our own survey corroborated this pattern of
disproportionate suspension of minority children.
While 4.4 percent of al1 those surveyed were suspended
at least once, 7.3 percent of the black chil-
8 See Appendix R for more detailed data on suspension from
OCR.
5

dren were suspended. The next highest rates of suspension
occurred among children of Spanish origin:
4.5 percent of Puerto Rican children and 3.9 percent
of Mexican-American children.
At the secondary school level, black students
in our survey were suspended more than three
times as often as white students - 12.8 percent compared
with 4.1 percent. We also found 9.4 percent
of the Puerto Rican students, 7.1 percent of the
Mexican-American students and 1.2 percent of the
Portuguese students suspended.
OCR data for our survey districts show eight of
the 15 districts reported suspending 5 percent or
more of their black students. In two of the eight
- Denver and Richland County No. 1 - approximately
15 percent of the black students were suspended.
Only five districts reported suspending 5
percent or more of their white students.
Expu.lsions and suspensions are frequently a unilateral
process with little or no chance for children
or their parents to be heard. And they are often
imposed so arbitrarily that they lack all semblance
of fairness. For example:
-In Macon, Georgia, a 16-year-old black youngster
was expelled for the rest of the school term
(three months) because he could not pay $5.00
to replace a ruler he had broken accidentally in
shop class.
-In New Bedford, Massachusetts, a l7-year-old
white boy was suspended for two days when he
left the school grounds to help an old man
change a fiat tire. When his mother called the
school to inquire about the incident, she was
told her son had done a good deed but the
rule was that he had to be suspended for leaving
school grounds and it could not be broken.
Whether children are "allowed" to be out, "exempted"
out, "counseled" out, "pushed" out, not
permitted to enroll, expelled, suspended or "encouraged"
to drop out, the result is the same: exclusion
from school. What does this do to children and to
society?
For children, it means being outcasts. Schools in
effect say to a child ". . . that he is unfit to be where
society has determined all acceptable citizens of his
age should be."9 What do children think of themselves
in that position? What do they believe they
6
can become? Where do they get the confidence and
skills to succeed in society? All they get is a label
- dummy, truant, dropout, retarded - and the opportunity
to miss growing up as more privileged
children do in America. By treating them so, schools
make it more likely that these children will grow up
to be illiterate, unemployed, delinquent, rebellious,
and dependent. And for society, it means that
enormous amounts of services will be inevitable to
remediate children's needs ignored today.
That certain groups of children have been singled
out for special deprivation of education should not
encourage the complacence of those outside these
groups. There are far too many children out of
school to isolate or to forget. It is important to care
about the children who are excluded from school
not only for themselves but also because the attitudes
and practices that exclude them affect all children
who attend public schools in this country. Most of
us think that exclusion because of discipline, mislabeling,
pregnancy, or truancy, happens to "other"
children, never to "ours." We try to overlook the
problem, since we tell ourselves it does not affect us.
But it does. Schools that carelessly mislabel poor
children as retarded also carelessly mislabel rniddleclass
children as dyslexic or hyperkinetic. Systems
that have inadequate or segregated special education
classes stigmatize and fail to help all children with
learning disabilities, regardless of their social class.
Teachers who cannot tolerate diversity may be as
unable to enrich the program for especially bright
children as they are unable to cope with especially
slow ones. Even if "your" child is not one who is
excluded, he sees the processes at work and learns
the values and expectations that are communicated.
Schools that punish unfairly teach both the victim
and the observer injustice.
We are aware that some people have doubts that
our schools can effectively foster equality and promote
upward mobility. This report does not address
these complex issues. It rests on the more fundamental
and indisputable premise that total denial of
schooling is an almost certain guarantee of failure
in American society. Even the most skeptical of
9 William Buss, "Procedural Due Process for School Discipline:
Probing the Constitutional Outline," 119 University
of Pennsylvania Law Review (February 1971), p. 577.

critics do not contest the importance of credentials in
this society. Schools confer credentials. Credentials
are inextricably related to job status, and to the
hopes a youngster entertains for ·his future occupation.
While the debate can rage about the difference
a B rather than a C average makes on a child's
success in life, it is clear that children who do not
have any average - who are not in school - are
doomed to occupy the lowest positions in society.
Nobody understands this more than poor parents
who have learned from their own lives what it means
to be uneducated and dependent. They want so
much for their children to have it better "so they
won't be like us." They have few illusions about the
ways schools treat them and their children, but they
are also acutely aware of their lack of options. As
one white mother in Macon, Georgia stated: "[E]ven
the ways the $chools are now ... I don't know if
they're learning anything much, but it's better than
nothing."
We owe our children more than nothing. To
continue to deny our children schooling or to give
them as little as we can is so unfair to the children
denied, and so costly to the rest of us in future
dependency, as to be intolerable. That we single out
some groups of children who are different for special
deprivation of education is downright cruet It
profoundly violates American pretensions to provide
equal opportunity to all within its fold.
We recognize that the problems of children out
of school, or those who are in school but are badly
served, reflect their and their families broader treatment
in society. Reforms inside schools must be
viewed in tandem with reforms outside schools. We
suspect that children's educational attainments are
motivated as much or more by what they feel they
can become and by the job opportunities available to
them after school than by most things that occur
within schools. As one child asked: "Why should
I go to school if I am going to a factory?" The
economic burdens which make many children drop
out of school because they cannot afford to go or
because they have to help support their families
would be substantially alleviated by decent jobs and
a family income support program.
It is imperative that we undertake long-range,
broad change strategies as we chip away now at
more immediate reforms affecting schools. But we
should not let school officials off the hook. While
they cannot solve all the problems of the children
7

described in this report, they can alleviate many,
particularly those that are the direct outgrowth of
their own policies or lack of them.
We hope that we will never again have to write
about children out of school in America. Finding
out about and correcting this problem is and should
be the responsibility of federal, state, and local governments.
But governments are not likely to make
changes until parents, local citizens and students in
every community become more informed about
school and other agency policies and practices which
result in children leaving or being excluded from
school. They must become involved in and commit
themselves to challenging school officials and other
social agencies toward changing those policies and
practices which are failing all of our children.
Some people will probably view this report as a
wholesale indictment of schooling and school officials
in America. It is not. We do not advocate
abolishing schools and we do not mean to imply
that all school administrators and teachers are falling
down on their jobs. Mimy are struggling daily
with genuine concern and commitment to educate
our young. We recognize this. But too many are
8
not. It is clear from what we have learned that
drastic changes in attitudes and in programs must
occur if schools are to serve all children effectively.
Schools must recognize that not all children fit into
a single mold. They must adopt flexible programs
and teaching methods. But it is clear that such
changes in school attitudes and programs will come
only after concerted action by all levels of government,
citizen pressure, sustained advocacy, and
constant monitoring.
We hope that those reading this report will join
with us to ensure every American school-age child
a functionally adequate education.
Recommendations
This report demonstrates that school exclusion is
a major national problem. It shows that certain
groups of children are singled out discriminatorily
because they are different by virtue of their color,
poverty, language or handicap. These groups must
begin to recognize their common plight and mount
common efforts against their exclusion. Parents
and citizens must begin to challenge the monopoly
schools now exercise in deciding to serve some children
and not to serve other children. Exclusionary
decisions and processes must be raised from the
hidden recesses of school discretion and made accountable
to all of us who share a stake in all our
children's welfare and development. It is the nation
as a whole which will pay the costs of school failure.
In Chapter 3, Barriers to School Attendance, we
call for reexamination and elimination of the specific
barriers that keep children out of school. School
officials and state legislators should particularly
reconsider the various school charges for essential
educational services and materials which make it
difficult for many poor children to go to school,
learn in school, and feel like a welcome and integral
part of school. Lack of clothing should not be permitted
to rob children of education. If we can
legislate to provide free lunches for hungry children
in schools, we can also legislate to provide children
clothes to enable them to attend school and to stay

warm while they are there. Ad hoc help which
places the burden, and the humiliation, on the child
and the child's family is neither a sufficient nor a
humane response.
Because of the scope and the complexity of special
education problems discussed in Chapter 4, The
Exclusion of Children With Special Needs, we have
detailed specific procedures for individual assessment
and placement of children on pp. 111-114. Wherever
possible, we prefer that children remain in regular
classrooms. We recognize, however, that children
with special needs require a broad continuum of
services. Each child should be placed in a setting
where the most educational progress can take place.
Teachers should be given the supports necessary to
meet the needs of these children.
We also strongly urge that the prevailing exclusion
of parents from information and from testing
and placement decisions end. Parental involvement
is crucial toward alleviating misclassification and
toward ensuring continuity of care for special needs
children. We will be discussing specific guidelines
with OCR for ending racial disproportion in special
education placements and proposing seleoted districts
for on-site review.
Specific recommendations for curbing school discipline
problems and exclusions are set forth on pp.
147-150 in Chapter 5. These include adoption and
enforcement of specific guidelines by OCR for the
elimination of present racial disproportions in suspensions
and other disciplinary exclusions, and their
future prevention.
There are, however, some overriding requirements
that must be ful:filled to combat the problem
of school exclusion. Data collection and reporting
requirements must be improved substantially and
enforcement efforts undertaken at the federal and
state levels.
We therefore recommend that:
Federal Government
1. Appropriate committees of the United States
Congress should immediately conduct oversight
hearings on the problem of school exclusion in
America. They should seek to determine the full
extent of the problem and to examine its causal
factors and consequences. Hearings should be conducted
in selected locations so that educators, parents,
children and outside advocates can be heard
throughout the country. Special attention should be
paid to overt attendance barriers, school discipline
policies, and special education classificatory procedures
and programs.
2. HEW's Office for Civil Rights should immediately
(l) adopt guidelines for determining racial discrimination
and correcting racial disproportion in
the use of suspensions; (2) institute on-site compliance
reviews in selected districts demonstrated in
this report to have a substantial disproportion of
minority children suspended; (3) refine and broaden
data collection and reporting requirements of school
discipline policies and practices; and (4) request additional
personnel as may be required to monitor
local district compliance and enforce tederal nondiscrimination
requirements in the use of discipline.
3. HEW's Office for Civil Rights should immediately
(1) adopt guidelines for determining racial
discrimination and correcting racial disproportions
in special education placement; (2) institute on-site
compliance reviews in selected districts demonstrated
in this report to have a substantial disproportion
of minority children placed in. EMR classes;
(3) refine and broaden data collection and reporting
requirements of special education programs; and (4)
request additional personnel as may be required to
monitor local district compliance and enforce federal
non-discrimination requirements.
4. The Secretary of HEW should immediately
establish and enforce broad and detailed reporting requirements
for HEW-funded programs in order to
insure that children who are the intended beneficiaries
are neither omitted nor misserved. HEW
data collection requirements should be an integral
part of the normal departmental operations and an
essential adjunct to program approval, funding, accounting,
and evaluation. Every division responsible
for a particular program should be able to state the
numbers of children in need of service, those served,
and the type of programs serving them. In cooperation
with State Departments of Education, HEW
should provide the coordination and technical help
9

needed to improve and unify state censuses of
school-age children in and out of school; and provide
standard definitions of terms and classifications
and procedures for maintaining current and accurate
information on children out of school. Specific forms
of school disciplinary exclusions should be classified
and defined as should the classifications of children
with special needs. HEW should also work with
other federal agencies, particularly the United States
Bureau of the Census, to provide technical help to
states in designing and implementing censuses, incidence
estimates and model surveys.
On June 17, 1974 we forwarded a detailed letter
to Congressman Carl D. Perkins, Chairman of the
House Commitee on Education and Labor, setting
out specific gaps in present federal education data
collection and suggesting specific improvements. See
Appendix W. On April 12, 1974 we sent OCR Director
Peter Holmes a second letter detailing changes
needed in Q,CR's discipline and special needs forms.
See Appendix Q for this letter and sample OCR
forms.
Appropriate safeguards to protect children's and
parents' rights to privacy and confidentiality should
be included in all data collection procedures.
State and Local Governments
I. Suspension of students from school should be
stopped. State and local school officials should immediately
examine their school discipline policies
and practices in light of the interests of children and
of good educational sense. T!;Ie use of expulsion,
suspension and other disciplinary exclusions should
be curtailed except where serious danger of harm
to person or property exists. Fair hearings in these
latter emergency cases should be held prior to or
within 24 hours of the exclusion. Exclusion should
last only as long as the danger persists. In-school
alternatives should be devised to keep children with
discipline problems in scqool. Alternative educational
approaches should also be more fully explored
10
and implemented to avoid many of the behavior
problems that now result in exclusion.
2. State educational officials should provide (I)
model discipline codes and (2) technical assistance
to aid local districts revising discipline policies. To
ensure enforcement, states should adopt regular local
district reporting requirements whose results are used
in furtherance of an established state goal for school
attendance by all children.
3. State and local compliance efforts should be
undertaken to ensure that racial discrimination is
eliminated from school discipline and special education
placement processes. Local education officials
should provide leadership in requesting all the help
necessary from their legislatures or elsewhere to
ensure their ability to meet the needs of all children.
4. School officials should undertake specific and
continuing outreach efforts to involve parents in important
school decisions affecting their children.
These include disciplinary and other exclusions and
special education testing and placement.
Parents and Children
1. Parents and children must inform themselves
about and involve themselves in challenging school
policies which exclude children from school. They
should (I) question all school decisions which result
in exclusion; (2) seek to work constructively with
school officials to resolve the problem threatening
exclusion; (3) keep careful records of all conversations
with school officials; and (4) where appropriate,
contact higher school officials, state and federal
governmental agencies and advocates who may
help.
2. Parents and children should seek to work
responsibly with school officials on policies and
practices in districts which keep children from attending
school. Only when we break down the
chasms that separate us one from the other, teacher
from parent, administrator from teacher, children
from adults, will the problems addressed here be
eliminated.

Postscript: On Child Advocacy
Those who care about the children out of school
described in this report may not know what to do
as individuals, parents, children, professionals, parts
of institutions, or as policy makers to seek effective
changes in the policies and practices which result in
children's exclusion from school. Everybody can
always think of the many reasons Why they cannot
do something; there are always many obstacles to
overcome to bring about change.
We must commit ourselves to action. We must
then do our homework on out of school children in
our communities, identify the likely opposition and
excuses for inaction, prepare our responses and
proceed to confront school and other officials about
unreasonable attendance barriers and exclusionary
policies and practices. Along with attention to particular
programs and policies, advocates for children
must work hard to change the attitudes of those who
would deny a basic education to any child.
11

Bureaucratic Excuses for Inaction
You will meet endless excuses by those who do
not want to act. You should consider them as starting
rounds in negotiation and not as final obstacles
that will be permitted to deny services excluded
children need. Among the most common litanies
you will hear to justify inaction are:
1. We're the Experts
"You do not understand the complexities
of the problem. We educators know best."
If they are such experts, the problem should not
exist. Parents must begin to assert themselves more
into the educational lives of their children. Regarding
your child, you are and should be second to none
in expertise. Nothing is more crucial than that parents
gain the confidence to act and understand their
right to hold school officials accountable for minimal
standards of performance and fairness. School officials
are supplements to, not substitutes for, parents.
They should not be permitted to exclude your child
without a valid legal and educational basis for doing
so. Demand that they give you such reasons in
writing. Keep records of all contacts and conversations.
If you have questions about the validity of
the action, seek help to challenge the decision keeping
your child out of school.
2. Agency Denial
"I deny that children are being excluded
from school in my community or that we
are incorrectly labeling them or classifying
them in schools. You prove it."
You should make clear that they are the school
officials who are responsible, and they should know.
The plain fact is, however, that they often do not
know. Most state and local educational officials still
have not made sufficient effort to identify the children
in their states and communities who should be
in school or who have special needs. This burden
has been left up to parents and others in the private
sector to find these children and to bring them in.
Try to find out beforehand or ask school officials
whether state or local law or regulations require
them to conduct a general school census or a census
under a special education law or other provision. If
12
they do, ask them how they went about conducting
their census and what were its results. If they have
not conducted the required school census, ask them
why they have not complied with the law and when
they intend to do so. Query them about their efforts
to enforce compulsory attendance laws and to reach
parents and children who are likely to have attendance
problems. Ask to see the discipline and special
needs data they submit to the U.S. Office for Civil
Rights as well as ESEA Title 1 applications that may
indicate what they are doing on behalf of poor
children. Ask them how much money the district
is losing or how many teachers will be dropped because
of poor average daily attendance.
We should begin to force school and other social
agency officials to assume their rightful burden to
help get and keep children in school. But it means
that an extra amount of homework will be required
at the beginning to have enough facts to show them
they cannot get away with denying the problem.
3. The Exception
"The examples you gave me are exceptions.
You prove to me that these are widespread."

Ask them to prove that they are not. Always try
to keep the burden of proof on them, which is where
it belongs. But also be prepared at the outset to
show them that whatever you are complaining about
is not an isolated incident. We will be happy to
point out the sources you might look to in documenting
the problem, like the Census. You should also
investigate your own specific local school policies
and practices relating to the groups of children we
describe in this report.
4. Priorities
"I admit the facts, but feel you have not
presented a problem that is that important."
We should all feel strongly about the importance
of what we are advocating and be able to tackle this
defense. There can be no doubt that an issue as
fundamental as children out of school demands
redress.
5. Confession and Avoidance
"I admit the facts and feel very concerned,
but there are overriding considerations which
free me from responsibility for acting to
solve the problem."
Listen carefully and do not be too convinced.
Force officials to spell out the specific "overriding
considerations" and scrutinize each one. Know who
is responsible to do what beforehand in order to
counter this argument and make it clear that you
and others will not absolve them from solving the
problem. Then pester.
6. Improper Jurisdiction
"I understand the problem, but I feel it
is not the school's responsibility, it is the
task of the family and other institutions."
All institutions say the same thing! Everybody
denies responsibility. Throw it back at them and be
clear what the school officials' role is or should be.
lt is the job of school officials to educate children.
If they are unwilling to do so, we should insist that
they look for another job.
7. Prematurity of Request
"We have known all along about these
things that were happening, and we have
made plans to correct the situation. Our
efforts must be given a chance."
Ask specifically what their plans are and scrutinize
the "plan" carefully. Make sure you get the
budget, the timetable, and the name of the person
or persons responsible for implementing the "plan"
before deciding if this response is adequate. Then
monitor.
8. Generalized Guilt
"What you say is true, but other school
systems have similar problems of children
out of school; we are no worse than they
are."
This "it's alright for us to do wrong because others
do wrong" attitude is irresponsible. Do not accept
it. Insist that they make a start. The standard for
performance should always be the needs of children
in your community, not how your schools' official
negligence compares with the official negligence of
other schools. Other districts might follow leadership
if it is provided.
9. Improper Forum
"The problem is really in the hands of the
state or the local or the federal government
(depending on which you are talking to) and
there is little we can do."
This response points out the importance of
mounting advocacy at the local level, the state level,
and the federal level. Again, homework is necessary
in order to know what authority each tier of
government has to help with your particular problem.
And you should be as clear as possible beforehand
on what to demand from each.
10. Recrimination
"I admit there are children out of school,
but it is their own fault. It would not happen
if they and their parents really cared."
Maybe. But what can they be made to do as well?
Are they enforcing the truancy laws or counseling
children and parents who have school attendance
problems? Have they established clear disciplinary
policies and procedures? Do they have barriers
which keep children from coming to school? You
should also begin to ask school officials for their
evidence that parents don't care. Ask them the last
time they spoke with parents about their children
being out of school and what kind of outreach they
do on a regular basis to prevent or alleviate the
13

problems. Are teachers encouraged or required to
visit homes? Are parents welcomed into schools?
Is there an active PTA? Think through all of the
steps schools might reasonably be expected or requested
to take in order to encourage children to
come to and remain in school.
II. Further Study
"The problem has been referred to the
proper officials for further study, and we
hope to develop a plan sometime in the
future."
Study can go on forever. Meanwhile children
suffer. There are few problems that we do not know
enough about so that we cannot begin to attend to
remedies. For example, school and textbook fees,
the lack of special education services or discrimination
in classification or school discipline do not need
study - 'they need to be changed. Insist on finding
out what school officials can do now about the
particular problems forcing children out of school
in your community.
14
12. Community Resistance
"The community will not accept it. We
would like to change, but the attitudes and
responses in the community would not let
it work."
This is no excuse to avoid enforcement of legal
rights. It does, however, raise the importance of
advocates beginning to educate the people arourid
them. Ultimately, the key thing that is going to
make programs function, make democracy work,
and a government honest is an informed, enlightened
citizenry, vigilant in overseeing various government
policies. And it is nice to counter this excuse by
referring to individuals and groups who favor what
you are proposing. Who in the community is the
official thinking of? Force specific answers.
13. Funding
"There is no money."
This is a common argument used to discourage
us about everything these days. Of course there is
money. What is really meant is "we do not want to
spend the money for what you want." It is a matter
of what the nation and public officials care about
or are forced to care about. Whoever yells the most,
the loudest, the hardest, and the longest is going to
win. Advocates for children have not yelled as loud
or as long or as hard as people who are advocates
for guns and oil. Worse, child advocates tend to
accept other people's perspectives, other ground
rules and priorities rather than seeking to change
them to meet the needs of children. As long as we
permit ourselves to fight for the same small piece of
the pie - between better public education, child
development programs, welfare reform, health care
reform - we will be beaten. We must begin to
force choices between family and children's needs
and defense and industry's needs.
Some of the problems of children out of school
may require more money for their solutions. But
many do not. A change in attitudes may be the most
crucial factor to the many children who are pushed
out because of school hostility, condescension, and
indifference. It does not cost much money to design
and implement fair discipline policies and procedures,
to establish periodic teacher-pacent-child conferences,
to encourage pregnant girls to stay in

school rather than leave or to inform parents of
special education placement procedures.
Many of the changes that are required are matters
of data collection. Knowing the extent of the
problem will help officials design good outreach
programs. That is the first step. Others involve enforcement
of existing policies, taking the time to ask
the right questions, to insist that reporting requirements
be met, to relate what is reported to policy
implementation. These steps would go a long way
to identify some of the problems that cause children
to be excluded from school.
While more money will be required to provide
better and more diverse educational services, initial
scrutiny should be made of how and for what money
is currently being spent. School budgets are too
much hidden from public view. Educational prior-
ities ought to be debated. In our view, children out
of school and the causes for them being out are far
more important problems than additional or renovated
administrative space or fancy equipment.
Helping children pay for books is more crucial than
expensive audio-visual equipment. Children will
never get a chance to use school facilities if they are
not there.
Fiscal and educational accountability must be
fostered in every school district in America. But
those of us seeking such accountability must be
prepared to accept the equivalent responsibility of
working with school and other officials to ensure a
viable level of community and fiscal support for
those educational measures determined to be necessary
to provide every child with an adequate education.
15

Who Are the Children Out of School?
Chapter 1
Child.een Out of School
And What It Means to Them
There are some children who have never gone to
school. Their parents or guardians do not register
them, and school officials do not try to find out how
many of them there are. To the system, they are the
unknowns, including:
-special needs children, particularly the severely
mentally and physically handicapped
-immigrant children
-migrant children
-Alaskan and other Native American children
who live in remote areas and have no local
schools, and whose parents refuse to send them
to boarding schools far away from home
There are other children who have tried to enroll
at some time but who were not accepted by the school
system. They want to be in school, but are told by
school officials that it is not the place they should be.
These are excluded children, such as:
--children who register too late in the school year
-incontinent children or those with spina bifida 1
1 Spina bifida is one of the most common birth defects
causing disability in infancy and childhood. It is a congenital
condition in which the bony elements of the spine
have not made a complete closure, leaving an opening in
the neural tube. Spina bifida is frequently accompanied
by hydrocephalus which is an increase of cerebrospinal
fluid in the cranial cavity causing pressure and enlargement
of the size of the head. Children with spina bifida who do
not have hydrocephalus do not deviate significantly in intellectual
function from the normal population. They can be
educated in regular classes providing modifications are
--children whom school officials deem "immature"
-older children who try to enroll for the first time
in a new school district
--children on waiting lists for special programs
-special needs children for whom there are no
appropriate programs, particularly the physically,
mentally, and emotionally handicapped,
and non-English-speaking or bilingual children
-children who are beyond normal transportation
routes in remote rural areas
-children in jails 2
Some children have been enrolled in school, but
later are forced to leave because of overt or covert
school policies. These are the pushouis, such as:
-pregnant girls, school-age mothers and married
students
-expelled or suspended children
--dropouts
--dropouts who want to re-enroll and are not permitted
to do so
-older children who are counseled or encouraged
to withdraw. For example, parents are told to
keep children at home on threat of court referral
made for those who have orthopedic and urinary involvement.
See Samuel A. Kirk, Educating Exceptional Children
(Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1972), p. 366.
2 These children are, in fact, totally out of school during the
period of their jail detention. About 38,000 children under
age 16 are in jail on a given day. This figure does not
include city jails and lock-ups. A subsequent CDP study
of children in adult jails will show that the figures used do
not tell the whole story: it is likely that between 250,000
and 400,000 children are jailed annually. There is no education
provided in jail.
17

or told "we'll notify you when child can return,"
with no intention to readmit
--

vary. But while many of them describe situations
one can easily imagine youngsters being in, it is hard
to understand why exclusion from school is the result.
For example, over 10 percent of the children
we surveyed who were out of school did not attend
because of suspension and expulsion. But only a
small proportion of offenses were serious or dangerous
enough to warrant throwing a child out of school.
5.8 percent of the children excluded were pregnant
and an additional 2.4 percent wanted to get married.
Why are these children not entitled to an education?
Most importantly, many of the reasons given for
being out of school reflected a child's or a family's
need for help. Handicaps, retardation, having to stay
home to care for other children, or not speaking
English should be signals to a school that additional
assistance is necessary to enable these children to go
to school. All too often schools closed their eyes to
these signs.
TABLE I
REASONS GIVEN FOR CHILDREN OUT OF
SCHOOL 45 DAYS OR MORE
Did not like school
Habitual truancy
Barriers, such as
Pregnancy
Employment
School would not readmit
Could not afford to attend
Child deemed "too young"
Wanted to marry
Had to help at home
No transportation to school
Difficulty with English
Total
Special needs, such as
Sick or injured
Mentally retarded or slow
learner
Physically handicapped
Multiply handicapped
Emotionally disturbed
Total
Disciplinary actions, such as
Expulsion
Suspension
Total
Others, such as
Child afraid to go to school
or parents afraid to send
Parents moved and thought it
too late to enroll child
Multiple reasons
Family problems
Institutionalized with no
educational program
Parent opposed to busing and
would not send child
Parents did not like school
and withdrew child
Total
5.8%
5.5%
5.0%
4.5%
3.4%
2.4%
1.9%
1.3%
0.8%
8.5%
2.1%
1.6%
1.3%
1.3%
6.1%
4.8%
2.4%
1.6%
0.5%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
27.8%
10.3%
30.6%
14.8%
10.9%
5.7%
19

patience to teach him." When a third teacher teased
Kenny and called him "a fool," his mother took him
out of school. "I asked the principal and the teacher
who had struck Kenny why they didn't have the time
to teach him." No justifiable answer was given.
Kenny's mother took him to the University of Mississippi
Medical Center for tests. But after a year of
examinations, the doctors said that they couldn't do
anything to help him. So his mother then took Kenny
to The Blind Institute. The principal there said that
he would have to put Kenny in a grade with 5 and
6 year olds. But by this time Kenny was 13. Already
embarrassed and behind because of his nearsightedness,
Kenny just couldn't go into a class with
such young children. But the principal remained
firm. This was the last attempt his mother made to
get Kenny enrolled in a school.
Kenny is unhappy not going to school. He liked
to learn and often asks when can he return to school
with his brothers and friends. He's more ashamed
than ever. His mother is angry. No program exists
to deal with Kenny's nearsightedness in the Canton
Public Schools. She took him out because she "realized
that his teachers weren't teaching him and were
hurting him more than helping him." But more than
anything else, "I want the school to prepare a class
or program to meet Kenny's needs without making
him embarrassed. Most of all I want him to have an
education so that he will be able to get a job to support
himself. I don't know what he's going to do
when I'm no longer with him."7
7 "The National Society for Prevention of Blindness estimates
that in 1970 about 21 million youths required eye
care; 45,000 legally blind; and 168,000 partially sighted
youth of whom perhaps 20,000 were legally blind." Mississippi
is servicing only 30.28 percent of its visually impaired
students. Kakalik, et aI., Services for Handicapped
Youth, pp. 115,277.
21

Maxine, 14
Maxine Dolan is 14 and has an eight-month-old
son. While she wants to make certain that the child
receives love and attention, she also wants to return
to the school that suspended her when they learned
she was pregnant and that remains unwilling to let
her return on the grounds that she now represents a
dangerous influence to other girls.
"What do they think I'm going to do in that school
-teach everybody to make babies? They think all
us girls don't want anything but jllst to get pregnant.
They think that's all we're doing, making babies."
In fact, Maxine knows her friends are privately relieved
that it wasn't one of them. She understands
that no one 14 years old really wants a baby. "I can
tell that," she says, "just from looking at their eyes.
They wouldn't change places with me for all the
money in the world. I'm really a good influence-look
at old Dolan, that's how you'll end up if you
ain't careful."
When Maxine learned that she was pregnant, her
grandmother suggested that the family consult the
22
school. "Perhaps they have ideas on what to do.
Maxine couldn't be the first child to have this happen."
A guidance counselor agreed to meet with
Maxine, her mother and her grandmother, but the
interview was short and the advice simple: whatever
the girl did, it had to be done outside of school. Nobody
pregnant could attend class. After the baby
was born or an abortion was performed, they could
meet again and decide what to do.
"But why can't this girl go to school like she's
supposed to until the last days?" her grandmother
wanted to know. "She just can't," was the reply.
"That's the policy and it can't be changed. I'm afraid
that any right she had has just gone out the window.
You all should have thought about this before."
That was the last time any of the three women
entered· the school. They never spoke with the assistant
principal, because they were advised that the
school administration would be even less open to discussion
than the guidance counselor. Maxine Dolan
remains out of school. The time is just about right to
make an application for re-entrance, but Maxine
wonders whether she can face the humiliation that so
many people at the school might cause her to feel.
"I'm his mama and there's nothing I'd rather be,
but I'm still sorry that they made me leave the school,
even if I did make a mistake. My baby would be
better off if they let me go back, but all they can
think about is that there ain't no mama going to
school. "8
Melvin, 18; Jim, 16; Danny, 13; Melanie, 7
When their father became disabled, Melvin and
Jim had to drop out of school in Floyd County, Kentucky
to help support the family. But when Mr.
Johnson started to receive state aid, they tried to return
to school but were not admitted because school
8 Maxine is not alone. As Chapter 3 of this report notes,
pregnant girls and school-age mothers face many altitudinal
and policy barriers to attendance. "One of every ten
school-age girls is a mother ... about 35,000 are less than
16 years old. . . . Pregnancy is the major known cause of
school dropouts among girls in the United States." Address
by Cyril B. Busbee, State Superintendent of Schools, to the
South Carolina State Conference on School-Age Parents,
Columbia, South Carolina, November 20, 1973. See also
"Magnitude and Severity of Early Childbearing," Marion
Howard and Morris Cohen (Washington, D.C.: Consortium
on Early Childbearing and Childrearing), February 18,
1972.

officials said it was too late in the year. They tried
two other schools but were turned down for the same
reason. Melvin then started night classes but had to
hitchhike six miles to get to the school and finaIly
quit. Neither Melvin nor Jim completed high school
and it is unlikely they'll ever go back to school.
"What right does a school official have to turn a
child away because it is too late in the year?" their
mother asked our monitor. "They couldn't care less
if a child is out of school or not."
Thirteen-year-old Danny refused to go to school.
Despite constant punishment by his parents, he continued
to sneak off and go home. He was last in
school in the fourth grade in 1969. His parents have
not heard from school officials in the last five years.
Our monitor, who knew Danny, said, "He needs
some counseling or help from someone. His parents
have tried to make him go to school. They have punished
him every way they know. I reaIly believe he
skipped school to get attention. He's very eager to
do things to please someone. If you don't ask him
to do something for you, he'Il ask you himself."
Seven-year-old Melanie is in a special school for
retarded children in Prestonsburg, Kentucky. Mrs.
Johnson doesn't know much about the program or
whether it helps or not but "half the time the school
doesn't even come to pick Melanie up. They pick
her up when they want to."
The Miller Children
The Millers have six children. The large, urban
high school their eldest daughter went to had a history
of racial problems following desegregation. No
blacks were allowed on the athletic teams or cheerleading
squad; tryouts were held before blacks were
admitted to the school. When blacks tried to organize
their own activities they were not aIlowed by the
principal to have separate clubs; he told them they
had to integrate.
Tensions were high. One day, a white teacher
slapped a black girl in class. Several students rushed
to her aid, and students from other classrooms filled
the hall, surrounding the teacher. One student hit
him. Later that day, the teacher accused Ellie Miller
of hitting him, although she denied the charge, saying
she was in the crowd, but trying to move out of
the way. Ellie was expelled from school, and the
teacher filed assault charges with the police. She was
sent home and a letter was mailed to the parents
notifying them of the expulsion.
When the Millers arrived for a hearing, four lawyers
representing the school were present. No one
had told the Millers they had a right to counsel. Another
hearing was scheduled. This time, Ellie was
represented by a lawyer but nevertheless was pronounced
guilty and denied readmission to high
school. Ellie was also tried in court, since the
teacher had filed a complaint, and was found innocent.
The principal of her high school and two others
in the area, however, refused to readmit her, despite
the court's finding. Ellie was out of school for 3Yz
months until the Millers found another high school
willing to let Ellie attend.
Ellie's brother, John, received a report card indicating
he had failed three subjects. But he had been
transferred from each of those classes at mid-year
because they were overcrowded. How could he fail
classes he transferred out of and not get grades from
classes he attended? The Millers asked the principal
to correct the error, but he said it was impossible
23

until the new school year. Meanwhile, because he
had failing grades on his record, John was dropped
from the football team, which disqualified him from
applying for a football scholarship to college.
John's younger brother, Fred, also has had problems.
One day in school he became sick and hallucinated.
He was taken to the hospital and his stomach
was pumped. Doctors found no traces of drugs,
but Fred was removed from the track team for using
drugs. No hearing or inquiry was held by the school,
and no evidence of drugs was given to justify his
removal.
The Millers have three other children and Mrs.
Miller said that "maybe it would be best for them if
we moved. They have lost friends" she said because
of the stories circulated about the older children, and
she feels "the school officials are out to get them."
Ever since the first incident with Ellie, the Miller
children "have been unjustly persecuted." The resuits:
months out of school, grades failed, reputations
damaged, athletic interests thwarted, and trouble with
the police. 9
Sadao, 15
From the time Sadao Fujimitsu started kindergarten,
he was called Teddy for reasons no one remembers,
and because the school had very few Japanese­
Americans, the name Fujimitsu was also lost somewhere
along the Line. The other children called him
Teddy Fudge, Fudge Cake, Hot Fudge. He was willing
to be called Teddy but insisted on the proper
pronunciation of Fujimitsu.
One day Sadao was speaking to a friend when a
teacher called the class to order. Involved in his conversation,
he failed to hear the teacher, who yelled
at him to shut up, mispronouncing Fujimitsu in the
process. Humiliated and angered, Sadao said nothing.
After class the teacher approached Sadao in the hall
and mocked his inability to be disciplined or admonished.
Sadao remained silent. The teacher knew that
Sadao felt people should not laugh at his name. With
their faces inches apart the teacher challenged
9 Chapter 5 of this report discusses the epidemic proportions
of suspensions by school officials, particularly among minority
children. At the secondary school level, black students
in our survey were suspended more than three times
as often as white students--12.8 percent compared with
4.1 percent, respectively.
24
Sadao's complaint about the mispronunciation of
Fujimitsu. "You don't Like that, huh? You think
your name's that special? All these kids in the school,
but your name is special, more than any of theirs?"
Sadao, though very angry, still didn't speak. "And
suppose," the teacher said, leaning toward him, "that
I mispronounced your name altogether, and just
called you Teddy the Jap?" Instinctively, Sadao
pushed off against the lockers, slamming his palms
against the doors. Then he struck out and shoved
the teacher away from him.
"You chicken shit son-of-a-bitch," Sadao barked
at him.
"You just made your second mistake, pal. I might
have forgotten the first one, but no one here gets
away with that. And there are a lot of witnesses.
You better consider yourself out of school for a long
time, sonny boy. Hitting a teacher and then swearing
at him on top of it? You're going to be gone a long
time, friend. Talk about mispronouncing your name,
there isn't going to be anybody saying your name
around here for a long, long time."
Three days later after long discussions and arguments
involving the faculty counsel, student honor
committee, and Mr. and Mrs. Fujimitsu, Sadao was
suspended for the remaining three months of the
school year. Whether or not the administration
would allow him to make up the lost time or force
him to repeat the entire year would be decided by
the end of the summer. Sadao's side of the story was
taken into consideration, as were the reports of thirteen
students who had witnessed the episode. Every
student saw the teacher as having provoked the incident
and they all felt Sadao's talking in class did
not warrant the teacher's severe and public remonstration.
The teacher sent an official apology to Mr.
and Mrs. Fujimitsu who, throughout the deliberation,
could not decide what hurt them more, the teacher's
use of the word Jap, or their son's actions. In the
end, no amount of argument overturned the suspension.
No student, the principal said, can ever be excused
for pushing a teacher or swearing at him.
Sadao kept busy during his suspension, but no
amount of activity could hide his sadness. "I should
be in school," Sadao said. "I feel terrible watching
my brothers and sisters go to school. I can even
sleep late if I want to, but I see all the kids going to

school. That's where I should be. The school should
have thrown the teacher out too, but they never do
. that. What it comes down to really is words. What
they're saying is swear words are worse than calling
my family Japs. They don't know how bad that word
is because if anybody said it to them they wouldn't
even hear it. They probably look around to see who's
the Japanese guy. "10
B. J., 10
B. J. Harris is a 10-year-old black boy who lives
in New Bedford, Massachusetts with his parents, two
brothers and four sisters. He had always done his
schoolwork as diligently as he could but with average
results. His teachers never complained about his
work, and when the school year finished, B. J.'s parents
were told he had done well enough to pass. In
September, B. J. returned to school, and everything
was all right for a week or two. Then he came home
one day and said he was not going to be in the same
class with his friends any more. "Did you flunk?"
his mother asked. B. J. said no, not exactly: "They
10 "Jap" is to Japanese as "Nigger" is to Negro.
got me in a special class. Just a special class with
different kids, not the fourth grade or the third grade.
It's a special grade."
B. J. had been put in one of the school's classes
for the mentally retarded and children with learning
disabilities. B. J. was disappointed and his mother
felt ashamed. "I thought everyone would think we
were hiding his problem, making believe he could go
to the same school with everyone else. But when I
asked the teachers, they said everything was fine."
After two months in the special class B. J. stopped
going to school. Each day there was less and less for
him to do. He would read with the teacher but then
she would have to attend to the others who needed
more help. B. J. found himself killing time. He sat
in the same comer of the room watching the teacher
and the other children and began to believe that
school was making him act like the really retarded
children in the class. His belief was reinforced by
his friends in the regular classes, who now avoided
him, assuming that if he had been put in a special
class, there must be something wrong with him.
But B. J. seemed as intelligent as any of the children
in his regular class. A psychologist from CDF
was given access to B. J.'s official school folder. The
25

awake until morning when the sounds of boys talking
and laughing startled him. The two boys sharing his
tent had discovered the wetness. They hounded Dale
mercilessly and he wept. The boys told the counselors,
who lectured him. Later, someone cracked a
joke about Dale's accident and all the boys exploded
with laughter. Humiliated, he wanted to run away
and dreaded the thought of returning to school. The
third night he remained dry but the damage had been
done.
Dale never told his parents about the incident. He
refused to go to school for two days and pretended
he was sick. But by the end of the week, his sister
had become the butt of other children's insults about
Dale, and she reported the incident to her parents
who were painfully embarrassed and angry with Dale.
Two weeks after the excursion, the principal of
Dale's school asked his parents to come in for a
meeting. The principal wasted no time outlining the
seriousness of Dale's situation, for the boy as well as
for the school. The problem was not, he explained,
the other children. "They'll probably forget the
whole thing in another week or so. It's Dale's teachers-how
do we know he won't just, you know, pop
off at any time in one of his classes?" Mrs. Mc­
Cutcheon explained that it was only a nighttime
problem but the principal replied, "We can't take
any chances. I can't stop him from going to school.
But I can stop him from going to this school and
that's exactly what I'm doing. The boy's out for a
month, or until a time you can prove to us that he
is able to control himself, night and day."
And so Dale was out of school.
"What do we do?" Mrs. McCutcheon asked over
and over again. "They don't want him and there's
no way of knowing how long he'll be like this. I've
read books on it. Everybody says it disappears. But
when's that going to be? How do we know he might
not be too old for school by the time he's cured?
What's going to be worse for him, being a bedwetter
or a boy without a proper education? You think
people like Dale's principal ever think of that?"
Betty, 10, and Kathy, 1'6
Betty and Kathy live with their parents and two
other siblings in a low-income housing project in
Portland, Maine. Betty, the youngest, has heart
trouble. She is often so sick she has to remain in
bed. She is scheduled to have open heart surgery,
but the Maine Medical Center has so many children
on the waiting list "they don't know when they can
operate." During the 1972-73 school year Betty attended
fourth grade a total of only 22 days. However,
she was promoted to the fifth grade. No school
officials ever visited her mother to inquire about
Betty's high absenteeism, and no tutor was ever provided
by the school, even though Betty is 10 years
old and sometimes bedridden.
Betty's sister, Kathy, met with a totally different
school response to absenteeism from the principal of
her high school. Kathy often had to stay home to
help with Betty when she was ill. She missed quite
a bit of school as a result. In March, the principal
told her to quit. He said to "stay home for the rest
of the year and come back in September" to repeat
the 10th grade.
Kathy plans to return to high school and make up
the year, but her mother worries whether she will be
able to. Along with caring for Betty, there are the
numerous school fees a high school student must pay
which the family cannot afford. Kathy's mother told
us "if they don't pay towel fees, for gymsuits, library
fines and lunch money by the end of the year they
don't get a report card and aren't allowed to pass to
the next grade."
27

Philippe, 12
When Philippe, his three brothers and sisters and
parents arrived in Cambridge, Massachusetts from
Haiti, they spoke no English. Philippe was 10 years
old when he started the local school. His English
vocabulary had grown to the point where he could
go to a store and purchase simple items, but he could
not understand people when they spoke quickly.
"Slow for me, Haiti. I Haiti."
Whenever teachers called on him he said nothing.
Finally, one of his teachers sent him to an assistant
principal, believing him to have a learning problem
or even a neurological impairment. The principal
took out his record and thought of calling his home,
but no telephone number was listed. A policeman
was ordered to take him to a Cambridge hospital for
tests.
By chance, the nurse assigned to interview him at
the hospital was Haitian. When she pronounced his
name in French, Ilis eyes grew large, and he began
to speak without stopping. Philippe explained his
problem at school. The nurse canceled the medical
appointment and telephoned the principal, who reported
that nothing in the records indicated Philippe
was French-speaking. His aunt had avoided listing
it because she was afraid the language problem would
keep the boy from being admitted to school. The
principal was pleased to learn that the problem was
so simple, and he told the nurse to advise Philippe
that a special program would be arranged for him.
The young nurse called on Philippe's family to assure
them that the school would put Philippe and their
other children in a class with French-speaking children
from several Cambridge schools. "Pretty
soon," she told them, "Philippe will be teaching the
rest of you English."
But a special language program was not established
for Philippe. In February, six months into the
school year, he had not been placed in any special
class. He stilI could not read, and at home only
French was spoken. When a teacher recommended
that Philippe watch television and listen to the radio
to learn more English, he did not admit that his family
had neither. Instead, he began to sneak into the
movies in downtown Boston, telling himself that they
would help his English. The downtown adventure
grew more interesting than school, and he began to
28
cut classes.
He was sometimes absent for days at a time, but
no one at the school bothered to question his absences.
It was inconvenient to keep going to visit;
he still had no telephone.
At the end of the school year Philippe still had not
been enrolled in any special class. He felt the year
was wasted. Although his spoken English was adequate,
his reading and writing skills were nonexistent.
Philippe began to hang around with a group of older
boys who, like him, spent a great deal of time out of
school. He got into trouble.
When school reopened in September, Philippe was
administered a series of tests along with an examination
to check his perceptual abilities. His reading
scores were so low that the school decided to put him
back a grade. Now 11 years old, he was assigned to
the fourth grade. He refused to accept the assignment.
He was too big, he said, and too old. He wanted to
go back to Haiti. Since nobody cared about him anyway,
he told his parents, why not let him quit school
and get a job. His parents would have none of it.
Tile most important thing, they replied, was to go to
school.
But Philippe continued to run with the older boys,
some of whom were now engaging in shoplifting and
handbag snatching. He helped them and was soon
caught. He was warned by the police and beaten by
his father. He went back to school.
A month later he was back with his friends, working
the old purse-lifting routines and listening to their
plans to rob restaurants and bars. In March, a yearand-a-half
from the time he arrived in the United
States, with his school reports telling of definite progress,
he and three other boys were caught stealing
money from a bakery store. The money was found
in a paper bag held by Philippe.
The following morning the boys were released in
the custody of their parents and several days later
they went to court. Philippe, after the intervention
of a lawyer and a psychologist, was placed on probation.
The judge demanded that a special class be
found for him. He was advised that the court was
giving him a second chance because of the difficulties
of coming to a new country. "I'm being sympathetic
in this case," the judge said, "because of the boy's
age, but don't let me see him in this court again.

He's had his chances, foreign or not."
Within two weeks Philippe was placed in a special
education class for French-speaking children. In it
were students from several Boston communities. Just
to be able to speak French with children outside his
family made him happy. He insisted that his parents
speak only English and that they read the newspaper
with him for a few minutes every day as his new
teacher suggested. He made friends with four Haitian
families and discovered that several students in his
regular school were also French-speaking.
"The school was bad to do what it did," Philippe
said, as his special class went into its sixth month.
"They should have taught me English. Not just
speaking, but reading and writing, too. They let me
in and didn't help me. They even thought I didn't
speak because there was something wrong with me.
I was too afraid to speak the words I knew because
I knew I had a terrible accent. So I stayed away. "12
Ralph Pina, 13
We met Ralph during a visit to Roslindale, a secure
detention facility in Massachusetts for delinquents.
He was banging crazily against the bars of
his cell and yelling as if he were mad. He was a
child who was failed by everyone.
His trouble began at age 3. He and his father did
not get along well and he was often severely beaten
for misbehaving. At 4\12 he entered a Headstart program.
He was very busy and active, enjoyed the program,
and his teachers liked him. He was evaluated
by a psychologist and a social worker who told his
mother that Ralph was very bright and creative: a
leader.
But he performed poorly in second grade and his
teacher recommended he repeat the grade. His
teacher was not as successful in dealing with him as
some of his earlier ones and he was suspended twice
that year. He was sent to Boston State Hospital by
the school adjustment counselor because of his fighting.
His evaluation process at Boston State lasted
12 Philippe's problems are shared by many. The U.S. Immigration
and Naturalization Service reported that in 1973,
400,063 persons emigrated to the United States, 1,015 of
which were Haitian. In addition to many new immigrants,
it is estimated that there are about 4 million children in the
U.S. whose first language is one other than English and
who may need bilingual services. See Chapter 3 of this
report for more information on children excluded by language.
three years. Some examinations showed him within
normal limits, though indicating "some possibility of
brain damage." Others found he was emotionally
disturbed.
He was sent away twice to a New Hampshire camp
during the summer but he got in trouble or ran away.
He then "fell into the bad company" of two of his
friends who engaged in stealing. His father beat him
and his mother thought he appreciated at least this
fatherly attention. Ralph was now 8 years old.
When he started second grade again, his teacher
announced she would have "no fooling around" and
wanted all students "in their seats and working."
She told Ralph, "he didn't belong in the class; that
he couldn't do the work." His mother says this made
him feel the teacher didn't want him to learn. He
began fighting and eventually "was suspended three
days out of every week." His mother said he was
"hot and mad, getting suspended from school and
beaten at home but ... not stopping his disruptive
behavior." She was exasperated that the school's
only response to an 8-year-old's misbehavior was
suspension. She took him out of school announcing
he would not be back. Doctors at Boston State report
she was fed up responding to the school and
wanted no more aggravation. They placed him in a
"small school adjustment program." He was put on
medication, although an earlier neurological workup
found no need for medication. Three different drugs
were prescribed for him over the next four years:
Melaril, Ritalin and Stelazine. His mother consented
to the drugs three times - not the fourth. Five
months after his mother had withdrawn Ralph from
school, she was informed by school officials that her
son was out of school.
In November 1971, the Division of Special Education
placed Ralph in a special class. He stayed
there until June 1972. Tests that year indicated he
was at grade level in math, but was functionally "illiterate."
He couldn't even form sounds from words
on a page. He was tutored for perceptual problems
but no one was sure if his learning difficulty was perceptual
or emotional.
The summer of 1971 he began seriously stealing.
Warnings, beatings, pleadings, did not stop him. His
mother finally took him to court and brought stubborn
child, runaway and stealing charges against him.
He was 10 years old. He was committed to the
29

Massachusetts Department of Youth Services.
Too young for Roslindale, he was sent to Camp
Halifax. He ran away. In July 1972 he was placed
in Children in Crisis, a residential treatment facility
on the grounds of Boston State Hospital. He went
on and off campus getting in trouble of various kinds.
He returned to the streets, and went back and forth
between Lancaster, Westfield and Roslindale Detention
Centers.
"He has been pushed and pushed" his mother said,
"and I don't know what they're waiting for to help
him. He is striking out. Will they wait for him to kiIl
someone before they try to reach and help him?"
Ralph escaped one final time from custody on July
5, 1974. He was being transported back to Roslindale
from Barnstable, handcuffed to two other boys,
but somehow he got away. The police did not pursue
him, and Mrs. Pina was never notified of his escape.
A day later, Boston police saw a car with
three children in it. When it went through a red
light, they chased it. Speeding through the streets,
the car crashed. The injured youngsters were taken
to the hospital. Mrs. Pina identified Ralph for the
police shortly before he died. He was l3.l3
Bennie, 12
Twelve-year-old Bennie Marcellino has epilepsy.
He has medicine to take daily, but his mother and
nine siblings often find their welfare check so inadequate
that money for Bennie's medicine occasionally
13 Ralph Pina had many prnblems compounding each other,
but no institution helped him or his family deal with them.
His initial trouble at home and in school may have been
caused by behavior which is attributed to a condition called
"hyperactivity." In 1970, NIMH estimated that there were
up to 4 million hyperactive children in the U.S. For a good
discussion of this problem, see Lester Grinspoon and Susan
B. Singer, "Amphetamines in the Treatment of Hyperkinetic
Children," Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 43, No.
4, November, 1973, pp. 516-555.
Without suitable attention from his parents, school or
hospital, Ralph's actions ultimately involved him with the
juvenile justice system. There he was shuffled from one inadequate
service to another, sometimes getting lost in that
shuffle. Like over 2,000 other children in Massachusetts, and
57,239 children in 722 juvenile detention facilities across
the country, Ralph became the responsibility of the state.
It is impossible to estimate how many of these children the
state is failing to help, just as it failed to help Ralph. See
Annual Report 1973, Department of Youth Services, Commonwealth
of Massachusetts, p. 39; also Childrell ill Custody,
A Report on the Iuvenile Detention and Correctional
Facility Census of 1971 (Washington, D.C.: LEAA).
30
runs out. After a seizure in school, the principal decided
it would be impossible for him to remain in
his regular class. The principal and teacher blamed
Bennie for not taking his medicine and his mother
for not providing it.
He was suspended for a week for medical reasons,
but when his mother took him back to school, the
principal refused to readmit him because Mrs. Marcellino
could not guarantee that the seizures would
not recur. "Get the boy a tutor," he told her. "We'll
find you someone." But no one was sent to the Marcellino
home. After two weeks of waiting, a school
official telephoned Mrs. Marcellino to say that a special
class was being arranged for children like Bennie;
it would be for three hours a day. Mrs. Marcellino
was suspicious, for she had heard about these
special classes for the handicapped. Retarded children,
someone had once warned her, are thrown in
with blind and deaf children, and with children who
cannot walk or talk, and children with strange and
serious illnesses.
"He's just like other children when he takes his
medicine. He's not blind or deaf or mentally retarded.
Every doctor who's seen him says there's
nothing wrong with the part of his brain that you
learn with," Mrs. Marcellino replied. When she proposed
the idea of the special class to Bennie, his face
froze. He refused to go. "They'll all call me dumb
behind my back," he told his mother. "Everybody
looks at me like any minute I'm going to be sick.
They don't want to walk near me or sit next to me.
I'm done with school. I'll work."
Bennie and his mother fought back and forth, the
boy in tears. Mrs. Marcellino needed the boy in
school, because she worked. But she also knew that
he needed to be in school if he were ever to get more
from his life than he had at twelve. Whether it was
his tears and his fear, or the shock of her own anger,
Mrs. Marcellino decided to fight the school system.
No class for handicapped children for Benrue. 14
14 One out of every fifty persons Will develop some form of
epilepsy during their lifetime, according to the National
Epilepsy Association and Irving Pruce, Director of Research,
The Samuel Livingston Epilepsy Diagnostic and
Treatment Center. With proper medication, epileptic children
can stay in regular classrooms, doing regular schoolwork.
For a more detailed discussion of epilepsy in children,
see Samuel A. Kirk, Educating Exceptional Children
(Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1972), pp. 364-366.

Theresa, 12
Theresa Engler, a 12-year-old black girl from
one of Boston's poorest neighborhoods, had been
absent from school. No one took much notice of
Theresa's absence of several days in. October. In November,
her teacher reported that she had returned
to school but had been absent quite often for weeks
thereafter. She had never spoken with her about the
absences, or whether the girl was in danger of failing
because of them. "There's no time," her teacher said,
"I've got twenty-six Theresas." .
Of the twenty or so school days in October, Theresa
had missed fifteen. In the first week and a half
of November she attended school once. She was, in
effect, out of school. But she was in good health, and
no particular incident had happened that would have
kept her from attending.
Theresa's grandmother knew what was wrong.
"She won't go because she's ashamed that we ain't
got anything, in the way of material things I mean.
She's afraid that folks will find out just how poor she
is, and she don't want them knowing anything about
this. Girl has only got a couple of dresses and af-
ter she wore them day after day she thought she
shouldn't go to school anymore. People would be
laughing at her, she said, 'cause she always looked
the same. Same goes for her shoes. She says they
look like boys shoes, and the other kids are going
to laugh at them. The children go to the cafeteria
at lunchtime and she never has any money to buy
things. She's always hungry and she doesn't have
the nerve to ask them for money, otherwise like I told
you, they'll see how bad off she is. Then another
thing. She used to like to talk in. class. But then the
teacher started to ask the children about their homes
and their families, and what it was like outside of
school. She knew they'd get around to her and she'd
have to tell them about this house, and the street, and
us too. She must have got scared, or ashamed, like
I said before. She couldn't do it. I think that's when
she stopped going. "]5
Hi U.S. Census data indicate that 14 percent, or more than
10.5 million children in the U.S., are living in poor families.
U.S. Census Bureau Currell/ Population Reports: Consumer
income Characteristics of Low income Population
of 1972, Series P-60, No. 88 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Gov.
ernment Printing Office, 1973).
31

This chapter presents our analysis of the two principal
sources of data on children out of school: (1)
1970 United States Census data on nonenrollment,
and (2) the results from our own household survey
in nine states and the District of Columbia.
u.s. Census Data on Nonenrollment 1
According to the 1970 Census, nearly two million
school-age children 7 to 17 were not enrolled in any
school three consecutive months prior to enumeration
in April, 1970. More than one million of them
were between the ages of 7 and 15. Over threequarters
of a million were elementary school-age
cllildren 7 to 13.
t The 1970 Census asked of persons in a 15 percent sample
whether they had attended "regular" (public or private)
school or college at any time between February I, 1970,
and the time of enumeration. Though the question was
phrased in terms of school attendance, it was interpreted by
the Census Bureau to reflect nonenrollment.
It is impossible to tell exactly how long a child had to
be out of school to be enumerated "not enrolled" by the
Census Bureau. A Census questionnaire was delivered by
postal carriers to every household several days before Census
Day, April I, 1970. In the larger metropolitan areas
and some adjacent counties, altogether containing about
three-fifths of the population of the United States, the
householder was requested to fill out and mail back the
form on Census Day. Approximately 87 percent of the
householders did so. The mailed-back forms were reviewed
by the Census enumerator (or, in some localities, a Census
clerk) and if the form was determined to be incomplete or
inconsistent, a follow-up contact was made. The bulk of
Chapte,.2
Ho,v Many Children
Are Out of School?
There are children out of school all over the nation.
They are white, black and brown, rich and
poor, from families with all kinds of income and
educational levels. There is no statistical grouping
of any size that does not show some of its children
out of school. Some kinds of children, however, are
more likely than others to be out of school. Census
data begin to draw a picture of the child out of
school as one wllo is in some way different - racially,
ethnically or economically. While it is clear
from the figures that being out of school affects all
ages, it is equally clear that the older a child gets,
the more likely he or she will have difficulty staying
in school. For many children, ages 16 and 17 are
years when they finally give up on the school system
and when the school system gives up on them.
these follow-ups were made by telephone, the rest by personal
visit. For the households which did not mail back
their forms, a follow-up contact was also made, in almost
all cases by personal visit and in the remainder by telephone.
For the remaining two-fifths of the population. the
householder was requested to fill out the form and give it
to the enumerator when he visited; approximately 80 percent
did so. Incomplete and unfilled forms were completed
by interview during the enumerator's visit.
Since there was no way of telling where or how many
households completed Census questionnaires at any given
time in April, 1970, CDF assumed for purposes of this
study that the Census nonenrollment figure referred to
three consecutive months out of school (from February I
to April 30, 1970). We know this is an extremely cautious
assumption.
See Appendix A for the methodology used to analyze
Census data.
33

34
Table I
Children Not Enrolled!
By Regions
(Ages 7-17)
Total
School-Age Not % Not
Population Enrolled Enrolled
UNITED STATES
7-15 37,238,424 1,090,829 2.9
16 & 17 7,810,976 808,409 10.3
Total 45,049,400 1,899,238 4.2
NORTHEAST
7-15 8,521,325 203,718 2.4
16 & 17 1,778,950 148,923 8.4
Total 10,300,275 352,641 3.4
NORTH CENTRAL
7-15 10,661,537 255,266 2.4
16 & 17 2,213,899 191,033 8.6
Total 12,875,436 446,299 3.5
SOUTH
7-15 11,666,904 475,871 4.1
16 & 17 2,470,083 357,956 14.5
Total 14,136,987 833,827 5.9
WEST
7-15 6,388,658 155,974 2.4
16 & 17 1,348,044 110,497 8.2
Total 7,736,702 266,471 3.4
SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population:
1970, Detailed Characteristics, Final Report PC (l}o
Series, Tables 146 and 154. See Appendix A for a description
of methodology.
1 Children not enrolled in school, adjusted to count all institutionalized
as enrolled.
Despite compulsory attendance laws in all states
except Mississippi, no state has solved the problem
of children out of school completely. All states had
at least 2.4 percent of their school-age children out
of school; 15 states had 5 percent or/fhore not enrolled;
and 10 states had over 6 percent of their
children out of school.
Several factors seem to make it more likely that
children will be out of school.

Table II
Children Not EnroUed 1
Asa Percent of Population Rankings By State
(Ages 7-17)
% State % State % State % State
7.8 Miss. 5.0 N.H. 4.0 Iowa 3.3 Mieh.
7.6 Ky. 5.0 Va. 4.0 Wyo. 3.3 Neb.
7.2 W.Va. 4.9 D.C. 3.8 N.Y. 3.3 Ohio
7.1 S.C. 4.8 Maine 3.7 Kans. 3.2 Calif.
6.9 Ga. 4.8 N.Mex. 3.7 Mont. 3.1 Wash.
6.9 Tenn. 4.7 Vt. 3.7 N.D. 3.0 N.J.
6.7 Ark. 4.6 Id. 3.7 R. I. 3.0 Ore.
6.4 N.C. 4.6 Mo. 3.7 S. D. 2.8 Mass.
6.2 Ala. 4.6 Ok. 3.6 Del. 2.8 Utah
6.2 La. 4.5 Ak. 3.6 m. 2.6 Wise.
5.3 Tex. 4.5 Nev. 3.6 Md. 2.4 Conn.
5.2 Ariz. 4.2 Ha. 3.5 Penna. 2.4 Minn.
5.0 Fla. 4.1 Ind. 3.3 Colo.
SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population:
1970, Detailed Characteristics, Final Report PC (l)­
D Series, Tables 146 and 154. See Appendix A for a de-
scription of methodology.
1 Children not enrolled in school, adjusted to count alIlnatitutionalized
as enrolled.
35

Proportion of Minority Children 2
Three-quarters of all children not enrolled in
school are white. Proportionately, however, non-
2 This is sometimes difficult to extrapolate from Census data.
For example, CDF found that Portuguese children in New
Bedford are one of the largest out of school groups in that
city (10.4 percent of the school-age population of Census
Tract 6526). Vet in the Census, Portuguese children are
included as white. The questionnaires used in the Census'
15 percent sample contained a question asking for color or
race. The choices included white, Negro or black, Japanese,
Chinese, Filipino, Hawaiian, Korean and Other, but
not Portuguese or Mexican-American, Puerto Rican or
other Spanish-speaking groups-which we found most apt
to be out of school. In fact, the category "white" used in
Table III
Children Not EnroUed 1
U. S. By Regions
White and Non-White Populations
white children are out of school far more than white
children (6.0 percent compared to 3.9 percent not
enrolled, respectively). This problem is especially
severe for older nonwhite children.
the Census includes "persons who did not classify themselves
in one of the specific race categories on the questionnaire
but entered Mexican, Puerto Rican or a response
suggesting Indo-European stock," as well as those who indicated
their race as white. U.S. Bureau of the Census,
Census of Population: 1970, General Population Characteristics,
Final Report PC (l}--Bl, United States Summary,
Appendix B, p. 8. See also CoulI/ing the Forgollen, The
1970 Census Count of Persons of Spanish Speaking Background
in the United States, U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights, April, 1974.
(Ages 7-17)
WHITE NON-WHITE
Not % Not Not % Not
Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled
UNITED STATES
7-15 852,013 2.7 238,816 4.3
16 & 17 652,759 9.7 155,650 14.2
Total 1,504,772 3.9 394,466 6.0
NORTHEAST
7-15 166,213 2.2 37,505 4.0
16 & 17 126,326 7.9 22,597 12.9
Total 292,539 3.2 60,102 5.4
NORTH CENTRAL
7-15 216,273 2.3 38,993 3.6
16& 17 163,065 8.1 27,968 13.5
Total 379,338 3.3 66,961 5.2
SOUTH
7-15 335,679 3.8 140,192 5.0
16 & 17 265,224 14.0 92,732 16.0
Total 600,903 5.6 232,924 6.9
WEST
7-15 133,848 2.3 22,126 3.2
16 & 17 98,144 8.1 12,353 9.3
Total 231,992 3.4 34,479 4.2
SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population:
1970, Detailed Characteristics, Final Report PC (1)­
D Series, Tables 146 and 154. See Appendix A for a de-
36
scription of methodology.
1 Children not enrolled in school, adjusted to count all institutionalized
as enrolled. See Appendix A for methodology.

Proportion of Children in Rural Areas
More rural children (5.3 percent) are out of school
than those living in urban areas (3.8 percent). This
is true in most states, although the presence of a
large inner-city population may reverse the pattern.
Table IV
Children Not Enrolled '
U. S. By Regions
Urban and Rural Populations
(Ages 7-17)
(In New York, 3.9 percent of the urban children
were out of school and 3.4 percent of the rural.)
Of the ten states with the highest nonenrollment
rates, almost all had substantial rural populations.
Some rural states-Kentucky, West Virginia, Mississippi,
South Carolina-have more than 7 percent
of their total school-age population out of school.
URBAN RURAL
Not % Not Not % Not
Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled
UNITED STATES
7-15 678,031 2.6 412,798 3.8
16 & 17 534,582 9.7 273,827 12.1
Total 1,212,613 3.8 686,625 5.3
NORTHEAST
7-15 154,253 2.3 49,465 2.6
16 & 17 116,797 8.3 32,126 8.5
Total 271,050 3.4 81,591 3.6
NORTH CENTRAL
7-15 159,506 2.2 95,760 2.9
16 & 17 133,659 8.8 57,374 8.3
Total 293,165 3.3 153,134 3.8
SOUTH
7-15 249,643 3.4 226,228 5.2
16 & 17 197,943 13.0 160,013 17.0
Total 447,586 5.1 386,241 7.3
WEST
7-15 114,629 2.2 41,345 3.4
16 & 17 86,183 7.9 24,314 9.3
Total 200,812 3.2 65,659 4.4
SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population:
1970, Detailed Characteristcs, Final Report PC (l)­
D Series, Tables 146 and 154. See Appendix A for a description
of methodology,.
I Children not enrolled in school, adjusted to count all institutionalized
as enrolled.
37

Social and Economic Factors
Poor children are much more likely to be out of
school than children from higher-income families.
Children from families with less education are more
likely to be out of school than those from families
Table V
Children Not Enrolled
By Education and Income of Parent
(Ages 7-17)
with more education. If a child's parent earns under
$4,000 annually, he is more than twice as likely to
be out of school than if his parent earns over
$10,000 annually. And if his parent has less than
eight years of schooling, he is four times as likely to
be out of school than if his parent has had some
college education.
Income 0/ Parent TOTAL
Education Under $4,000 (By
0/ Parent $4,000 9,999 $10,000 + Education)
Less than 8 years
Population 1,471,248 2,558,996 1,377,400 5,407,644
Not Enrolled 140,309 195,396 96,538 432,243
Percentage Not Enrolled 9.5 7.6 7.0 8.0
8-11 years
Population 1,894,118 5,571,641 5,786,186 13,251,945
Not Enrolled 122,675 283,550 240,678 646,903
Percentage Not Enrolled 6.5 5.1 4.2 4.9
12 years
Population 984,819 4,670,304 7,787,486 13,442,609
Not Enrolled 43,305 168,619 204,390 416,314
Percentage Not Enrolled 4.4 3.6 2.6 3.1
Some College
Population 352,062 1,694,076 8,319,402 10,365,540
Not Enrolled 12,666 52,945 143,252 208,863
Percentage Not Enrolled 3.6 3.1 1.7 2.0
TOTAL (By Income)
Population 4,702,247 14,495,017 23,270,474 42,467,738
Not Enrolled 318,955 700,510 684,858 1,704,323
Percentage Not Enrolled 6.8 4.8 2.9 4.0
SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population:
1970, Subject Reports, Final Report PC (2)--SA,
School Enrollment, Table 8.
See Appendix A for methodology.
Children whose fathers are farm laborers, laborers
or unemployed are more likely to be out of school
38
than those whose fathers are higher in the occupational
hierarchy.

Children who live with only one parent or by
themselves are more likely to be out of school. Even
in the 7-15 age grouping this pattern is evident.
Children in single-parent families are twice as likely
to be out of school than those living with both parents.
The fact that single-parent families are more
Table VII
Children Not EnroUed
Living With One or Two Parents or By Self
(Ages 7-17)
likely to be headed by women, themselves victims
of educational and occupational discrimination, is
undoubtedly a contributing factor. Adolescents who
leave home also seem more likely to be out of
school.
Total Total Living
Total Living with with One Parent
Persons Both Parents or By Self
Ages 7-15
School-Age Population 37,225,902 30,685,851 6,540,051
Not Enrolled 1,204,901 709,018 495,883
Percentage Not Enrolled 3.2 2.3 7.6
Ages 16 & 17
School-Age Population 7,701,394 4,455,877 3,245,517
Not Enrolled 1,214,787 332,470 882,317
Percentage Not Enrolled 15.8 7.5 27.2
Total Ages 7-17
School-Age Population 44,927,296 35,141,728 9,785,568
Not Enrolled 2,419,688 1,041,488 1,378,200
Percentage Not Enrolled S.4 3.0 14.1
SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Census, Census of Population:
1970, Subject Reports, Final Report PC (2}-5A,
School Enrol/ment, Table 6.
See Appendix A for methodology.
School Financing
States with lower per pupil expenditures tend to
have more children out of school. In 1969-70, 13
of the 15 states with nonenrollment rates of 5 percent
or more had estimated per pupil current expenditures
under $700. Six of the 9 states with estimated
per pupil current expenditures of $600 or less in
1969-70 reported over 6 percent of their school-age
children not enrolled in April 1970. 3
In looking at the regional data (see Tables I, III
40
and IV), it is difficult to avoid jumping to the conclusion
that children out of school is a Southern
problem. It is not. The majority of children not
enrolled in school do not live in the South. What
is more likely true is that the whole range of factors
affecting nonenrollment come together in a way that
makes it more probable that aSouthern child, black
or white, will be out of school.
3 U.S. Deparunent of Health, Education and Welfare, Office
of Education, Digest of Educational Statistics, 1970, Table
76, p. 58.

Limitations of Census Data
Our analysis of Census data begins to trace the
broad outlines of the problem, its size and some of
its dimensions. However, it is only the beginning of
the story. CDF's in-depth survey substantiates what
the Census data tell us and gives us more information
about groups of children out of school and how
the schools deal with their children who are different.
But before we look more closely, it is necessary
to consider some of the limitations of the Census
data.
Census enrollment data are derived from the question:
"Since February I, 1970, has this person at-
tended regular school or college at any timeT' Those
who have not attended in the previous two to three
months are considered not enrolled. Some may, in
fact, have been registered or enrolled, but may not
have attended. Further, the fairly narrow definition
of "regular" school excludes some programs which
might be considered as furthering children's training
or education even though they would not be receiving
a diploma or degree.
On the other hand, this definition results in an
understatement of the attendance problem which is,
after all, the real problem of children out of school.
Those who attend either infrequently or irregularly,
but do not miss long periods of time, are counted
41

CDF Survey of Children Out of School
In our own door-to-door survey we knocked on
more than 8,500 doors and obtained interviews in
over 6,500 households in 30 areas around the country,l1
We visited at least every fourth household in
the areas surveyed, gathering information on all children
between the ages of 6 through 17 living in each
household,12 Information on a sample of 7,483
children was collected, accounting for 21,644 children
ages 6 to 17 in the areas surveyed,
We first analyzed our survey data according to the
Census definition of nonenrollment: three or more
consecutive months out of school. Table VIII shows
the percent of children out of school in our survey
areas based on this definition. But we believed this
definition was too narrow and did not include the
broad range of children we found out of school. We
therefore reanalyzed our data on the basis of children
who had missed 45 or more days (which in
most places is one-quarter of the school year),
whether or not the days were missed consecutively,
but who were out of school less than three consecutive
months. Table IX presents these percentages.
Table X is the sum of Tables VIII and IX, i.e., children
out of school 45 or more days.
Though this is still conservative, it is evident that
there is a severe problem of children out of school.
We found 5.4 percent of children 6 through 17 years
old out of school 45 or more days. We found 19.6
percent of 16 and 17 year olds out of school 45 or
more days. See Table XII for those areas with more
than 25 percent of their 16 and 17 year olds out of
school.
Table XI ranks all 30 areas surveyed by the total
percentage of children found out of school. In 13
of the 30, over 5 percent of all children were out of
school 45 or more days.
11 Specifically, we visited parts of Autauga County and
Montgomery, Alabama; Denver, Colorado; Hancock
County and Macon, Georgia; Davenport, Iowa; Floyd
County, Kentucky; Portland, Maine; Cambridge, Holyoke,
New Bedford, Somerville and Springfield, Massachusetts;
Columbia and Sumter County, South Carolina; and'Wash·
ington, D.C. For a more detailed description of the areas,
the numbers of households, persons and school-age children
surveyed, see Appendix A.
12 The methodology CDP used in its survey is outlined in
Appendix A.
43

We found children out of school in all the areas
we surveyed across the country.
We found both minority group and white children
out of school. Mexican-American (11.4 percent),
Portuguese (8.3 percent) and Puerto Rican (7.8 percent)
children had the highest nonenrollrnent rates.
Among all children surveyed, poverty was as strong
a factor as minority group status in characterizing
families of children out of school. The percentage
of children out of school correlated with the percentage
of children in families receiving Aid to Families
with Dependent Children (AFDC) or other public
assistance as their sole income. i3 The major exceptions
were (1) children from Portuguese immigrant
families in New Bedford, Massachusetts, where all
family members 16 or over worked, usually in lowpaying
factories, and (2) children in states with relatively
low welfare payments like Maine, Alabama,
and South Carolina.
We found children more likely to be out of school
if the head of their household had not completed
the 10th grade. 14 In a New Bedford Census Tract
(6526) where only 17 percent of heads of households
had completed 10th grade, and in Floyd County
(Mud Creek Area) where only 24 percent had done
so, both areas had 9.2 percent of their children
out of school. However: in a Denver Census
Tract (41.01) where 95 percent of heads of households
had completed at least 10th grade, only 2.6
percent of the children were out of school. In Portland,
Maine's Census Tract 19, 96 percent had completed
10th grade and there were no children found
out of school.
There are some interesting findings when areas
are rank ordered by selected characteristics.l 5 For
example, a Census Tract in Denver (41.01) ranked
high on minority enrollment, education of head of
household and income. While we found very few
children out of school in this Census Tract, it had
13 Our questionnaire asked families their source of income
but not amount of income.
14 Head of household is male in two-parent families and
either male or female in single-parent families. See Appendix
H for percentage breakdown for head of household
of families with school-age children completing lOth grade
or more for each· area we visited. We gathered information
on educational attainment of head of household from
68 percent of the families with school-age children interviewed.
44
the highest percentage of secondary school students
suspended at least once of all the areas we surveyed.
In a predominantly Portuguese Census Tract in
New Bedford (6526), we found the lowest percent of
heads of household completing 10th grade or above.
This Tract had the highest percent of 16- and 17year-old
children out of school.
In many areas, nonenrollment problems correlated
with high percentages of minority enrollment.
But in the Riverton Housing Project in Portland,
Maine, which is 96 percent white, we found high
percentages of low-income families and families
whose heads of household had not completed 10th
grade. Riverton had the highest percentage of children
out of school, and it was relatively high in the
percent of secondary school students suspended.
CDF Survey Undercount
Although we tried to gather more detailed information
on children out of school than the U.S. Census,
like the Census, we believe our data understate
the extent of the problem.
First, we found at least one person at home in 77
percent of the households we visited. It is likely that
a substantial number of our "no answers" were
single-parent families with the mother at work. Since
children in female-headed households tend to be out
of school more often than children in non-femaleheaded
families, many of our "no answers" could
have been families with children out of school.
Second, while translators accompanied our monitors
in Holyoke, Somerville, Springfield, and New
Bedford, Massachusetts, the lack of knowledge about
school procedures among those interviewed and the
difficulty in communication probably resulted in an
undercount of non-English-speaking children in those
areas.
Third, people surely withheld information everywhere.
Monitors were asking questions about sensi-
15 See Appendix G for all 30 areas ranked by children out
of school 45 or more days, secondary school-age children
suspended at least once, single-parent families of schoolage
children, families with AFDC or other public assistance
as their sole income, heads of households completing
lOth grade or above, and percent minority children.

tive issues and sometimes about difficult situations
concerning a child's educational experiences. In several
cases, monitors were reluctant to probe very
deeply. In others, family members were reluctant
to discuss their problems. For example, several
AFSC monitors reported that many black people in
the South were particularly hesitant to discuss personal
matters. Many parents were afraid we might
be school officials or others coming to check up on
them. Some felt embarrassed to admit their children
did not go to school.
45

.".
0\
Table VIII
Chlldren Out of School
Three or More Consecutive Months!
(Ages 6-17)
6 Years Old 7-15 Years Old 16-17 Years Old
% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %
States and Areas Surveyed Black MA PR Port Whit.e Total Black MA PR Port White Total Black MA PR Port White
ALABAMA: Autauga County 45.5 - - - 33.3 39.1 1.1 - 0 .4 0 - - - 26.8
Beat 10
Montgomery 0 - - - 50.0 30.0 1.6 - - 2.4 2.0 7.1 - - - 25.0
Census Tract 3
Montgomery-Northgate 0 - - - - 0 3.6 - - 3.6 26.7 - - - -2
Housing Project
COLORADO: Denver - - - 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 100 - - 7.7
Census Tract 1.01
(I)
Denver 0 6.7 - - - 4.5 1.8 3.1 - - 0 2.5 o 38.9 - - 14.3
Census Tract 8
Denver 0 - - - - 0 .8 - 0 .8 23.0 - - o
Census Tract 41.01
GEORGIA: Hancock County 11.1 - - - 0 9.5 .9 - - - 3.1 1.4 12.1 - - 18.2
Militia Districts 102 & 113
Census Tract 127
(2)
lOWA: Davenport 0 100 - - o 25.0 0 0 - - 0 0 0 0 - - 12.5
Census Tract 107 (1) (1)
Davenport - - - 0 0 0 - - - 0 0 - - - 5.6
Census Tract 123
KENTUCKY: Floyd County - - - - 1.4 1.4 - - 3.7 3.7 - - - - 34.5
Mud Creek Area
MAINE: Portland - - - - 0 0 - - - - .7 .7 - - - - 15.2
Census Tract 11
Portland - - - - 0 0 - - - 2.2 2.2 - - - 0
Census Tract 12
Portland - - - - 0 0 - - - 0 0 - - - - 0
Census Tract 19
Portland-Bayside - - - - 0 0 - - - 4.0 4.0 - - 25.0
East Housing Project
Portland-Riverton - - - - 0 0 0 - - - 3.2 3.1 - - - - 21.4
Housing Project
Macon 0 - - - 0 0 .7 - - - 0 .6 12.5 - - - 40.0

.j>.
00
Table IX
Children Out of School
45 Days or More, Consecutive or Nonconsecutive,
But not More Than Three Consecutive Months)
(Ages 6-17)
6 Years Old 7-IS Years Old 16·17 Years Old
% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %
States and Areas Surveyed Black MA PR Port White Total Black MA PR Port White Total Black MA PR Port W
ALABAMA: Autauga County 0 - - - 0 0 0 - - - 0 0 0 - - -
Beat 10
Montgomery 0 - - - 0 0 1.6 - - - 1.2 1.4 0 - - -
Census Tract 3
Montgomery·Northgate 0 - - - 0 0 - - - - 0 0 - - -
Housing Project
COLORADO: Denver - - - - 0 0 - 0 - - 0 0 - 0 - -
Census Tract 1.01
Denver 0 0 - - - 0 1.8 1.9 - - 13.6 2.9 0 2.8 - -
Census Tract 8 (3)
Denver 0 - - - - 0 0 - - - 0 0 0 - - -
Census Tract 41.01
GEORGIA: Hancock County 0 - - - 0 0 .9 - - - 9.2 2.7 3.0 - - -
Militia Districts 102 & 113
Macon 0 - - - 0 0 0 - - - 0 0 0 - - -
Census Tract 127
IOWA: Davenport 0 0 - - 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 0 0 - -
Census Tract 107
Davenport - - - - 0 0 0 - - - 0 0 - - - -
Census Tract 123
KENTUCKY: Floyd County - - - - 0 0 - - - - 1.2 1.2 - - - -
Mud Creek Area
MAINE: Portland - - - 0 0 - - - - 2. I 2.1 - - - -
Census Tract 11
Portland - - - 0 0 - - - - 2.2 2.2 - - - - 7
Census Tract 12
Portland - - - - 0 0 - - - - 0 0 - - - -
Census Tract 19
Portland-Bayside - - - - 0 0 - - - 0 0 - - - -
East Housing Project
Portland-Riverton - - - - 11.1 11.1 33.3 - - - 5.3 6.2 - - - -
Housing Project
(I)

VI
o
Table X
All Children Out uf School
45 Days or Morel
(Sum of Tables VOl lind IX)
(Ages 6-/7)
6 Years Old 7·15 Years Old 16-17 Yenrs Old
% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %
States and Areas Surveyed Black MA PR Pori White Total Black MA PR Pon White TOlal BI3ck MA PR POft White
ALABAMA: Autauga County 45.5 - - - 33.3 39.1 1.1 - - - 0 .4 0 - - - 26.8
Beat 10 -
Montgomery 0 - - 50.0 30.0 3.1 - - - 3.7 3.4 7.1 - - - 25.0
Census Tract 3
Montgomery-Northgate 0 - - - - 0 3.6 - - - - 3.6 26.7 - - - -
Housing Project
COLORADO: Denver - - - 0 0 - 0 - - 0 0 - 100 - - 7.7
Census Tract 1.0 I (I)
Denver 0 6.7 - - - 4.5 3.5 5.0 - - 13.6 5.5 o 41.7 - - 14.3
Census Tract 8 (3)
Denver 0 - - - - 0 .8 - - - 0 .8 23.0 - - - o
Census Tract 41.0 I
GEORGIA: Hancock County I 1.1 - - 0 9.5 1.8 - - - 12.3 4.1 15.2 - - - 18.2
Militia Districts 102 & 113 ._-
Macon 0 - - - 0 0 .7 - - - 0 .6 12.5 - - - 40.0
Census Tract 127
(2)
IOWA: Davenport 0 100 - - o 25.0 0 0 - - 0 0 0 0 - - 12.5
Census Tract 107 ( I ) (I)
Davenport - - - - 0 0 0 - - - 0 0 - - - -11.11
Ce nsus Tract 123
KENTUCKY: Floyd County - - - - 1.4 1.4 - - - - 5.0 5.0 - - - - 37.0
Mud Creek Area -
MAINE: Portland - - - - 0 0 - - - 2.7 2.7 - - - - 21.2
Census Tract 11 -
Portland - - - - 0 0 - - - - 4.3 4.3 - - - - 7.7
Census Tract 12 .
Portland - - - - 0 0 - - - - 0 0 - - - - 0
Census Tract 19
Portland-Bayside - - - - 0 0 - - - - 4.0 4.0 - - - - 25.0
East Housing Project
Portland-Riverton - 11.1 11.1 33.3 - 8.5 9.3 - - - - 21.4
Housing Project
(I)

MASSACHUSETTS: Cambridge 0 - 0 - 0 0 2.4 - 0 0 1.3 1.6 0 - - 100 20.0 1
Census Tract 3524 (I)
Cambridge 0 - - - 0 0 0 - - 0 1.4 .9 0 - - 50.0 o 1
Census Tract 3527 (3)
Holyoke - - 44.4 0 o 19.0 0 - 6.7 0 2.4 4.4 0 - 37.5 o 29.2 2
Census Tract 8114
New Bedford 0 - - 0 0 0 2.3 - 0 0 3.8 2.9 37.5 - 0 o 12.5 1
Census Tract 6510
New Bedford 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 5.0 2.5 4.1 3.1 20.0 - 75.0 72.7 44.4 6
Census Tract 6526
(3)
Somerville 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 .8 .7 - o 60.0 15.6 1
Census Tract 3512
(3)
Springfield 0 - 12.0 o 10.0 3.7 - 1.7 - 0 1.8 0 - 21.6 - 28.6 2
Census Tract 8008
Springfield 0 0 0 1.4 - 4.4 1.9 4.4 - 100 11.1
Census Tract 801.8
(I)
MISSISSIPPI: Canton-Joe Prichard 0 - - 0 2.4 - - 2.4 6.7
Homes Housing Project
SOUTH CAROLINA: Columbia 4.5 - - 0 4.3 1.3 - - - 0 1.2 13.5 - - - o 1
Census Tract 5
Columbia 0 - - - - 0 6.1 - - - 0 3.2 0 - - - 0
Census Tract 22
Sumter County 0 - - 16.7 10.0 0 - - - 1.0 .6 16.7 - - - 11.8 1
Precinct 2
Sumter.County 3.8 - - - 0 3.6 1.0 - - 0 1.0 9.0 - - -
Precincts 1 and 26-B
WASHINGTON, D.C.: 6.1 - - - - 6.1 3.6 - - - 0 3.5 20.8 - - - 2
Census Tract 74.04
TOTAL 5.2 12.5 15.2 0 4.1 5.5 1.9 4.6 3.7 1.5 3.0 2.6 11.6 42.1 28.4 62.2 21.0 1
1 Each number represents the percentage of a specific racial/ethnic
group within a certain age range that is out of
school in the area surveyed. In those areas where an extremely
high percentage of children were out of school but
the absolute number of children out of school was three
or less. we have shown this number in parenthesis beneath
the percentage number.
VI
......

Total % of
Areas Surveyed Children Out of School
1. Portland, Maine
Riverton Housing Project 10.8
2. Denver, Colorado
Census Tract 8 9.6
3. Floyd County, Kentucky
Mud Creek Area 9.2
4. New Bedford, Massachusetts
Census Tract 6526 9.2
5. Holyoke, Massachusetts
Census Tract 8114 8.5
6. Montgomery, Alabama
Census Tract 3
7. Montgomery, Alabama
Northgate Housing Project
8. Washington, D.C.
Census Tract 74.04
9. Portland, Maine
Bayside East Housing Project
10. Hancock County, Georgia
Militia Districts 102 & 113
II. Autauga County, Alabama
Beat 10
12. Springfield, Massachusetts
Census Tract 8008
13. Portland, Maine
Census Tract II
14. New Bedford, Massachusetts
Census Tract 6510
15. Portland, Maine
Census Tract 12
S2
Table XI
All Children Out of School
Rank Order By Area
7.0
6.9
6.3
6.1
5.9
5.7
5.7
5.6
4.8
4.7
Total % of
Areas Surveyed Children Out of School
16. Columbia, South Carolina
Census Tract5· 3.6
17. Sumter County, South Carolina
Precinct 2 3.2
18. Somervine, Massachusetts
Census Tract 3512 3.2
19. Cambridge, Massachusetts
Census Tract 3524 3.1
20. Canton, Mississippi
Joe Prichard Homes Housing Project 3.1
21. Macon, Georgia
Census Tract 127
3.1
22. Cambridge, Massachusetts
Census Tract 3527
2.8
23. Sumter County, South Carolina
Precinct I & 26B
2.8
24. Columbia, South Carolina
Census Tract 22
2.7
25. Denver, Colorado
Census Tract 41.0I
2.6
26. Springfield, Massachusetts
Census Tract 8018
2.5
27. Denver, Colorado
Census Tract 1.0I
2.0
28. Davenport, Iowa
Census Tract 107
1.7
29. Davenport, Iowa
Census Tract 123
1.6
30. Portland, Maine
Census Tract 19
.0

Area Surveyed
Massachusetts
New Bedford
Census Tract 6526
New Bedford
Census Tract 6526
Colorado
Denver
Census Tract 8
Massachusetts
Holyoke
Census Tract 8114
Kentucky
Floyd County
Mud Creek Area
Massachusetts
Holyoke
Census Tract 8114
Alabama
Autauga County
Beat 10
Montgomery
Northgate Housing Project
Maine
Portland
Bayside East Housing Project
Alabama
Montgomery
Census Tract 3
Table XU
Areas Where At Least 2S Percent
Children Out of School By Racial/Ethnic Groups
(Ages 16 & 17)
% Out of School
Ethnic/Racial Group 45 Days or More
Portuguese
Whites
Mexican-Americans
Puerto Ricans
Whites
Whites
Whites
Blacks
Whites
Whites
73%
44%
42%
38%
37%
29%
27%
27%
25%
25%
53

Chapter 3
Barriers to School Attendance
Children are excluded from school by a range of
barriers, overt and subtle. Many school officials and
others seek to blame parents and children for being
out of school. ("[I]t's dumb to lower compulsory
attendance laws because a lot of parents don't have
their children's interests at heart and would let
them drop out.") But we are convinced that most
children out of school are out not by choice, but
because they are excluded by school and societal
policies and omissions which we discuss in this
chapter. These include statutory exemptions from
compulsory attendance laws; school and book fees;
transportation charges; poor enforcement of truancy
laws; inadequate programs for bilingual children;
and lack of clothing for poor children.
Our findings do not support the commonly heard
claim that poor parents, minority parents or "uneducated"
parents do not value education. These
parents overwhelmingly hoped their children would
get an education "... so that they won't be like us."
We asked parents: "Do you think there should be
compulsory attendance? Why?" 93.6 percent of those
who responded favored compulsory attendance. Only
6.4 percent did not. 90 percent of white parents and
86 percent of black parents who had not completed
high school themselves supported compulsory attendance.
A black mother in Georgia said, "without an
education a person is lost. I can't even get a decent
job and I have a high school education. I want my
kids to finish high school, not quit at 16 to go to
work." A white mother who finished 9th grade said:
"I would rather pay for education and health when
children are small than for prisons and reform
schools when they are older." A Floyd County, Kentucky
mother who dropped out in 7th grade says she
supports compulsory education "so children would
never end up like me - can't read or anything.
Makes me nervous and I wish I could read and
write." A Chicano mother in Denver with five schoolage
children believes "there should be compulsory
education through high school. I tell my kids they
need their education ... because I know how it is
when you don't have any education."
Poor parents were not interested in a theoretical
debate about the value of compulsory education.
Neither are we. Although much has changed or been
called into question since the installation of compulsory
attendance into American life, we believe the
importance of education has not diminished.' Reformers
can quarrel about the way education ought
to take place. Critics can debate its organization and
cost. Academics can try to measure its impact on
students relative to other variables. Parents and students
can vaHdly question its quality, its rigidity, its
monopoly. But even the skeptics cannot deny the
importance of formal education in an industrial
society that respects credentials. 2
We do not suggest that lack of education is the
most severe or the only obstacle the children dis-
1 Massachusetts was the first state to pass a compulsory attendance
law in 1852; Mississippi the last, in 1918. Mississippi
and South Carolina repealed their laws leaving 48
states and the District of Columbia with compulsory attendance
laws. See Table I, p. 57, for a chart of the provisions
for compulsory attendance in each state. Also, Appendix
J lists the definitions and penalties provided in state
statutes for truancy. But see footnote 5.
55

cussed in this report suffer. Nor do we suggest that
if their regular attendance were made possible they
would achieve equality. The interdependence of
education with economic, social and political opportunity
is not lost on us, or on the people we interviewed.
We believe that reforms in schools must be
viewed in tandem with reforms outside schools.
Children's achievement levels may be motivated as
much or more by the job opportunities available in
the larger society than by anything we might change
within schools. The economic burdens which make
many children drop out of school because they cannot
afford to go or because they have to help support
their families would be substantially alleviated
by decent jobs and a family-income support program.
a It is imperative that we undertake long-range
strategies to change these conditions.
But schools alone can do much to help these children
have a better chance. We think schools have
an obligation to teach requisite skills to all children,
however long it takes. We think schools can change
those policies and attitudes which exclude children
or encourage them to leave. As a purported childcaring
institution, we also think schools ought to
help ameliorate the effects of society's other injustices
to certain children rather than ignore or
compound them.
But schools as presently arranged do not do this.
Parents may be fined or imprisoned and children
may be institutionalized for failure to comply with
compulsory attendance laws. No sanctions tantamount
to these serious measures may be taken
against the state for its role in the omission of children
from schoo1. 4
2 The reliance on credentials may be altered as the principles
of measurement of job-related competence established
in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971)
are extended through its progeny. For a discussion of the
implications of the decision for employment and education,
see Sheila Huff, "Credentialing by Tests or by Degrees:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and Griggs v. Duke Power
Company," Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 44, No.2,
May, 1974, pp. 246-269. Until changes are made in many
segments of the employment field, however, poor people
especially will continue to need school credentials to get
through the gates of professions and other high stalus jobs.
:I We are one of the few "modern" nations that have failed
to adopt some kind of minimum family income support
plan.
4 See Appendix I.
56
How Compulsory Is Compulsory
Attendance: Exemptions
Compulsory attendance laws exist in 49 of the 50
states and the District of Columbja. 5
States have created some 35 reasons why children
may not be expected to comply with compulsory
attendance laws. 6 States call these "exemptions,"
and use discretion in enforcing them. States can
thus choose not to serve a group of children by
exempting them by statute. No parent or child has
such a right. The purpose and effects of these
statutory exemptions raise important issues in terms
of children's right to an education. 7
5 Mississippi remains the single state without compulsory attendance.
South Carolina has just phased back in its compulsory
attendance law. The law was reenacted in South
Carolina in March 1967 (South Carolina Code §2l-757)
and was implemented at the discretion of individual school
districts until July I, 1974, when it became mandatory.
As of January 15, 1974, just over two-thirds of the 93
school districts in the state had implemented the law on a
voluntary basis. 57 of these 68 districts had done so prior
10 or during the 1967-68 school year. ("Status of Districts
Implementing the Compulsory Attendance Law, January
15, 1974," Received from R. W. Burnette, Director, Office
of Finance, South Carolina State Department of Educalion.)
It is interesting to note lhat these two states, and
others that have many exemptions from compliance with
the law, have high rates of children out of school.
6 For a summary of these state exemptions to compulsory
attendance laws, see Appendix I.
7 Although the enforcement of the compulsory education
laws is primarily the states' responsibility, the claim and
waiver of statutory exemptions is not clearly any particular
party's responsibility. The language of most is that the
school or parent can invoke an exemption and that the
party who does invoke it may use it to defend against efforts
by the other to compel a child's attendance. The student's
ability to invoke an exemption is less clear. With
one exception (Oklahoma), all the employment exemptions
presume that a student's parents or school officials, acting
separately or together, will represent and determine the
student's interest. And all presume that the child who
seeks an employment permit is exercising some choice
about leaving school. This presumption may be unwarranted,
especially in poor and immigrant communities, such
as New Bedford, Massachusetts. However, the competition
between parent and state at least insures that somebody
will occasionally pay attention to the child. The absence of
adequate educational opportunities for institutionalized children,
who are without parents and who are the total responsibility
of the state, testifies to the educational fate of
children who are not even important enough to be somebody's
pawn.

TABLE I
STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS FOR COMPULSORY AND PE
Compulsory Pennissive Compulsory
State Inclusivel
Minimum Maximum5
InclusiveI
Minimum Maximum!5
State Inclusivel
Minimum Maximum5
16
164 174 164 164 17
164 164 164 184 18
7
7
7
6
6
6
7
7
7
6
7
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
5 2
5 (on or before Nov. 2) 20
5 (before Jan. I) 2)4
5 (on or before Oct. I) 21 4
4% (on or before Sept. 1) 2
6" 21
5 2
(I 214
" 2
5 (on or before Jan. 1) 2
6" 194 5 (on or before Dec. 31) 2
153 164 164 16
164 16
16
164 164 16
16
18
7
7
8
7
6
7
7
6
7
7
7
6
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
D.C.
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
184 17
7
8
Oregon
Pennsylvania
6" 21 4
4 21
16
164 7
7
Idaho
IJIinois
Rhode Island 7 16
South Carolina 7 168 South Dakota 7 164 Tennessee 7 163 Texas 7 17 4
Utah 6 184 Vermont 7 164 Virginia 7 16
Washington 8 18
West Virginia 7 16
Wisconsin 7 164 Wyoming 7 16
2 2
5 (on or before Sept. 15) 21 4
5 (on or before Sept. I) 2
4 21
4 2
5 (on or before Oct. 15) 204 5 204 H (;
163 16
16
16
16
17
164 (I
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
u
5 (on or before Dec. I) 2
5 (on or before Sept. I) 21
6" (on or before Jan. 1) 2
5
164 164 7
164 6
7
7
7
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
(I To be determined by state or loca
7 No compulsory education require
• Specified date upon which a pupil
from school year to school year.
N.B.: In approximately one-third o
in administrators discretion to alte
sive age requirements.
Source: Our analysis of state statut
1 Unless otherwise specified. denotes age at which a pupil
may attend Kindergarten provided one is available. An
asterisk next to age denotes ent,·y into Ist grade.
2 Not specified in sources.
3 Inclusive.
4 Ambiguous as 10 whether inclusive or exclusive.
5 Unless otherwise specified by footnote. age indicated is
exclusive.
VI
-J

These exemptions fall roughly into 14 general
areas: 8
I. child presents danger to others
2. official discretion
3. completion of specified grade
4. married, pregnant, or parent
5. equivalent education
6. physical, mental or emotional disabilities 9
7. unable to profit from further schooling
8. family responsibilities
9. conscientious objection
10. employment
I 1. distance from school
12. hazardous conditions
13. in court or legal custody
14. suspension or expulsion
Among the most commonly used exemptions we
found were those of employment, equivalent instruction,
and transportation access.
58
Employment
Some children want to work instead of going to
school, but presumably the statutory exemption
applies to children who must work for their own or
their family's survival. In many cases, parents
struggle with a painful dilemma: they want their
children to finish school, yet they need the extra
income the child's labor brings. One mother said:
"Children should have to go to school until they are
16, but if the state would pay the family support for
the little ones, then the older ones could continue to
go to schooL" A black mother from Montgomery,
Alabama is struggling to keep her children in school
"but the welfare needs to do something because my
kids don't have decent clothes to wear. ... They
only pay $75.00 a month and that can't take care
of everything."
We found only one group of parents who encouraged
and sometimes forced their children to
drop out of school so that they could help support
their families. Many Portuguese families in Massachusetts
who had recently immigrated to America
were trying to get a toehold in their new land and
expected their children to help them by working. to
-Maria is a 15-year-old child of Portuguese immigrant
parents in New Bedford, Massachusetts.
She is presently in school, on the honor roll, and
received a double promotion from 7th to 9th
grade. But she will drop out of school when she
is 16 because "I want to make some money. Why
should I finish school if I'm going to a factory?"
She added, however, that her parents would not
let her complete her high school education even
8 See Appendix J. In addition to the specific statutory exemptions.
state and local school boards and superintendents
are empowered to promulgate regulations concerning the
health and safety of sludents. Inherent in their broad administrative
power has been the historical right to exclude
individual students for the good of either the student or of
the other students. Few standards exist to guide them,
however.
o Before special education statutes were passed in many
states. exclusion of handicapped children was a common
practice. It still is in many states with no laws or poor enforcement
of recently passed laws.
JO Some older Portuguese families severely disapprove of
these practices and worked hard to keep their children in
school. "The new wave is only out for the money." They
believe families who force their children out of school
should pay fines if they do not send their children to
school, as they do in Portugal.

ter the four months because the counselor had
already told her that her records weren't there.
She doesn't want to go to night school because she
needs so many more credits to graduate. Her
mother doesn't want her in night school because
it's not safe to be out,13
-John, 17, lives in Portland, Maine. He is crippled,
possibly with cerebral palsy, and may be slightly
retarded. For six years he was at Pineland, a
Maine institution that served mentally retarded
and emotionally disturbed children. Three years
after that he went to the Cerebral Palsy School in
Portland. A year ago he had an operation on his
legs to increase his mobility. The operation didn't
work and he had been bed-ridden a year at the
time of our visit. A psychiatrist declared him
educable and in need of schooling, but even after
contacting the Portland schools about a tutor, they
never sent one.
-Michael, 14, lives in the Riverton Housing Project
in Portland, Maine. He has always been sickly.
Two years ago, he had an operation in the middle
of October and because of the danger of catching
a cold, the doctor recommended he stay home and
get a home teacher. The home teacher came only
twice a week for two hours each visit. Michael's
mother was unhappy with the arrangement: "As
far as I was concerned, she was useless.... I think
she could have corne more often and done more
when she was here ... she'd hand him books ...
13 In the District of Columbia, many families told us that
any 16-year-old child who is out for a designated number
of days is automatically dropped from the rolls. This policy
can only have the effect of encouraging children to drop
out of school.
14 Problems of pregnant girls will be discussed in more detail
on pp. 68-71. A few of the programs for pregnant girls
in tbe districts we visited provided positive alternatives for
pregnant girls. For example, the Iowa State Department of
Education Division of Special Education staff, upon visiting
Green Acres School in Davenport, Iowa, commented
that "The rather comprehensive approach to meeting the
girls' needs is to be highly recommended." ("Report on
the Davenport Special Education Visitation," Division of
Special Education, Iowa Department of Education, 1972­
73.) Although none of the special programs in the districts
visited had available extensive laboratory or library facilities
which the girls might have had available to them in a
regular high school, most of the courses offered at the "regular"
high schools are duplicated for the girls at Green
Acres, and in addition, health education classes are provided.
There is a counselor assigned to the school, and attempts
are made to coordinate the school schedule with
clinic appointments. The report of the Special Education
Division stated that the creation' of this school in 1971 provided
pregnant girls, who were previously put on homebound
instruction, with more extensive academic opportunities
plus health education and socialization.
60
and say 'read' ... they'd watch TV ... sometimes
they'd go to the library ... Michael is a very
poor reader . . . he needed this kind of help . . .
he got no reading or math help from her."
Other alternative school programs raise similar
questions of adequacy. Many programs for pregnant
girls usually are poor substitutes for regular classwork.
14 Similarly, too many programs for children
with disciplinary problems are overcrowded, with
long waiting lists. 15 Some of these programs are used
15 The Director of PREP said 60 to 70 students a year are
placed on an informal waiting list. Even though PREP was
expanded in 1973-74 to accommodate twice as many students
(50-60 rather than 25-30), the demand for places has
not subsided. On the average, one child a week who is referred
cannot be accepted. (Interview with Dudley Coyne,
Director, PREP, Portland, Maine, 10/25/73.)
The Pilot School is an alternative program funded by
the Cambridge, Massachusetls school district which has
been in existence since the 1969-70 school year. In the
fall of 1973 the Acting Dean of the school said he had 95
applicants for only 60 places, and he considers their present
enrollment of J80 the maximum number they can hold.
(I nterview with Ray Shurtleff, Acting Dean, Pilot School,
Rindge Technical High School, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
10/31/73.)
16 Interview with Dudley Coyne, Director, PREP, Portland,
Maine, 10/25/73.
17 Although until the 1973-74 school year Holyoke public
school officials did not refer students to the Street Academy,
some of its funding was channeled through the public
school system. The Director of the school estimated that
since the school opened in April, 1971, il has handle approximately
100 children, only 8 of whom have graduated.
(Interview with Paula Swenson, Director, Holyoke Street
School, Holyoke, Massachusetts, 12/11/73.) A comment
about the Academy by the principal of one of the dislrict's
two public high schools gives an indication why it might
be difficult for students who have attended the Street
Academy to transfer back to a "regular" high school: "I
don't buy the Street school. For heavens sakes, they have
divans and sofas and couches and crackers on the floor.
Order is the first prerequisite for any intelligent behavior,
for any learning environment." (Interview with Edward
Moriarity, Principal, Holyoke High School, Holyoke, Massachusetts,
12/13/73.)
18 Nineteen students have graduated from Ibe Drop-In Cenler
since il opened in the 1971-72 school year, but only
three Drop-In Center students have graduated from "regular"
high schools. One of the teachers at the Center said
that schools often say to child.ren returning from the Center
"we don't want you here." Even though the schools
must formally readmit students from the Drop-In Center,
most students trying to do so know that often their reputation
will precede them and consequently they will not
remain for long at the regular school. (Interview with
Dennis Koch, Teacher-in-Charge and Sue Hartung, Teacher,
Center for Continuing Education, Drop-In Center, Davenport,
Iowa, 11/9/73.)

as polite transitIOns out of the school system for
problem children. Some programs are not accredited
and most are not respected by other school officials.
Therefore, work a student does while enrolled in
these alternative programs is sometimes not accepted.
Many cannot get a high school diploma or
transfer back to regular classes. The Director of
PREP, the alternative program in Portland, Maine,
estimates that only 4 or 5 of the 200 students who
have come through his program in the six years it
has been in existence have finished high school. 16
Similar reports came from the Street Academy in
Holyoke, Massachusetts,17 and the Drop-In Center 18
in Davenport, Iowa.
Transportation
Thirteen states exempt children who live far from
school bus access routes, or who must travel long
distances to school. But perhaps the most striking
example of a state's omission of children from
school because of transportation problems is the
Native American population in Alaska.
The Alaska constitution and statutes command
that the state provide ". . . public schools open to
all children of the state ..."19 "in the school district
in which he [the child] is a resident."20 However,
the state legislature amended its compulsory attendance
laws so that they do not apply if a child
"resides more than two miles from either a public
school or a route on which transportation is provided
by the school authorities. "21
On its face, these provisions may appear reasonable.
But in the geography of Alaska, they have the
effect of discriminatorily denying education to
Alaskan Natives. Many of them live in a district
called the Alaska State Operated School System
(ASOSS), and there are schools in that district.
The state maintains that its responsibility is therefore
fulfilled. But the district is huge - over 400,000
square miles in Alaska's icy interior. Although
many children are far away from a school or a
viable access route, the state contends it has no
further responsibility to them.
On August 10, 1972, Native Alaskan children and
their parents filed suit 'contending they were being
denied equal educational opportunity.22 They listed
148 predominantly Native villages where no high
school was provided. They claimed that the lack of
high schools near home forced children to discontinue
their education, and that this exclusion was
visited almost exclusively on Natives.
It should be noted that the state does provide
other educational options for Native children who
live far from school. They can go to a BIA boarding
school, a regional dormitory, a boarding home (a
foster family living near a high school), private
boarding schools, or take correspondence courses.
None of these options, however, are satisfactory for
Native Alaskans. The cultural dislocation and
psychological stress of boarding schools and foster
homes undermine whatever educational advantages
are gained by them. Correspondence courses are a
poor equivalent, at best.
The statutory exemption of these children from
transportation to school is used to justify the state's
effective deprivation of their education. When the
Superintendent of ASOSS was questioned about the
extent of nonattendance in his district, he replied:
. . . there are several categories of children who
reside in the ASOSS school district who do not
receive primary or secondary education in schools
operated by the ASOSS.... The ASOSS does not
possess a figure indicating the total number of
students involved in [other programs] nor is it
aware of the age, grade, and race of each of these
children. 23
The outcome of the lawsuit is still in the courts.
Whatever the judicial decision, legislators, school
officials and parents ought to examine this and similar
statutory exemptions and see whether these
omissions serve their children's interests and, in the
long run, the interests of the state.
19 Article VIl, Section I. Alaska Constitution.
20 Section 14.03.080 [aj Alaska Statutes.
21 Section 14.30.010 [bj 7, Alaska Statutes.
22 Molly Hootch et 01. v. A laska State Operated School System
et 01.• No. 72-2450 (Sup. Ct. Ala., 3d Jud. Disl. 1972).
As research has progressed and defendants have filed replies,
some of the figures originally alleged have been altered
slightly.
23 Reply to Interrogatory No.4, by Defendant Stanley
Friese, Molly Hootch et 01. v. Alaska State Operated
School System et 01., supra.
61

Truancy
Laws penalizing children and their parents for
truancy have existed for over a hundred years. Written
when this country was young and unformed,
they represented harsh we3pons to force disparate
people to observe the law. Attitudes against immigrants
or the lower classes often were captured in
the debates of these laws. For example, the Secretary
of the State Board of Education in Connecticut
in 1872 argued:
It is largely through immigration that the number
of ignorant, vagrant and criminal youth has recently
multiplied to an extent truly alarming in
some of our cities. Their depravity is sometimes
defiant and their resistance to moral persuasion is
obstinate. When personal effort and persuasion
and organized benevolence have utterly failed,
let the law take them in hand tirst to the public
school, and if there incorrigible, then to the Reform
School. Those who need education most
and prize it least are fit subjects for coercion....24
And in [909, New York's legislature amended its
compulsory attendance law to include the following
section:
Arrest of Truants - I.. The attendance officer
may arrest without a warrant any child between
seven and sixteen years of age and who is a truant
from instruction upon which he is lawfully required
to attend within the city or district of such
attendance officer. He shall forthwith deliver the
child so arrested to a teacher from whom such
child is then a truant, or, in the case of habitual
and incorrigible truants, shall bring them before
a police magistrate for commitment. ...25
Generations later. the thrust of truancy laws are
the same, although the language may have softened
somewhat over the years. There are still laws
threatening recalcitrant children and parents with
stiff punishment if a child is truant. 26 This has led
to criminal treatment of some parents and children.
We question the effectiveness of these sanctions to
compel school attendance.
First, our survey data show that an overwhelming
24 Bremner et al. (Ed,,) Chi/drell alld Youth ill America
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1971) p. 142l.
"' Bremner. pp, t427-1428,
26 See Appendix J.
62
majority of parents do not need threats to favor compulsory
attendance laws.
The reasons for endorsing the laws are varied.
Parents see schools as access routes to better jobs
and upward mobility, as teaching literacy and enhancing
self-worth, as helping their children fight
discrimination, and as places were children can safely
be kept off the streets. A Portuguese mother who
finished fourth grade in Portugal and who now lives
in Massachusetts says: "[The] law keeps them from
being able to quit to work when kids might want to
and this is good." A father whose parents pulled
him out of school to work said he had felt this "limited
opportunity in the job market." A Chicano
mother of three in Denver said: "If they would have
made me go to school, it would have been better. I
told my kids, 'the day you decide to quit, you'd better
have a job and an apartment of your own.' "
Second, even if means were needed to prod children
and parents into compliance with the law, it
does not at all follow that criminal proceedings or
severe disciplinary actions like suspension or expulsion
serve this purpose well,
Truancy in some cases simply is a child's way of
saying he or she does not like school. The reasons
for such distaste can be many. If schools cared
about effectively teaching all their students, truancy
would be seen as an act which triggered investigation
into why a child was not interested in and benefiting
from his present educational program. Steps then
might be taken to improve the relationship between
school and child.
Truancy can also be the child's way of handling
other personal problems: tattered clothing, dependent
parents or siblings, health problems. The attendance
supervisor in Holyoke, Massachusetts has
found a boy or girl absents himself or herself because
of a serious case of body lice. 27 In these instances,
punishment seems entirely inappropriate.
Rather, the school needs to find out about and alleviate
the conditions which bar children from attending
school.
Our interviews have led us to believe that, like
27 Richard Golden, "Report on Truancies" (Holyoke School
Board. February, 1973),

many other school policies, truancy is a matter of
diverse meaning and haphazard enforcement. School
officials disagree on how to define truancy, how
much of a problem it is, and how best to cope with
it.28 Yet many school officials suspend children for
truancy often without inquiry into its cause. While
school data on truancy are abysmal,29 our survey
shows that, along with tardiness and cutting classes,
truancy is one of the largest. causes of suspension and
other disciplinary action, causing 24.5 percent of all
suspensions. In some tracts we surveyed the percent
of children suspended who were suspended for truancy
or tardiness was astounding:
Springfield, Massachusetts-
Census Tract 8008 50%
Columbia, South Carolina - Census Tract 5 41 %
New Bedford, Massachusetts-
Census Tract 6510 38%
Sumter County, South Carolina - Precinct 2 35%
Denver, Colorado - Census Tract 41.01 31 %
Holyoke, Massachusetts - Census Tract 8112 30%
In Portland there was strong consensus in both
the central administration and among the school
principals of both high schools that students are fre-
28 Definitions of truancy vary censiderably both within and
among school districts. They are often vague or contradictory.
The laws are written in such fashion as to leave the
parent and child uninformed about whether or not they are
in compliance. The Massachusetts statute defines as punishable
an absence for seven days or fourteen half-days
within a six-month period by a child between ages 7 and
16. In Somerville, Massachusetts. the Assistant Superintendent
defined truancy as an absence without permission or
parental knowledge. (Interview with John Joyce. Assistant
Superintendent, Somerville. Massachusetts. 11/5173.) One
of the attendance officers defined it as seven days consecutive
absence from school. (Interview with Gus Barrasso, Attendance
Supervisor, Somerville. Massachuselts, 1117173.)
One of the attendance supervisors in New Bedford. Massachusetts.
defined truancy as a "nonexcused absence" for as
short as a day. but an elementary school principal there
considers truancy a "judgment thing." He does not put a
time definition on truancy but instead says he looks at the
total picture. (Interview with Henry Andrade, Attendance
Supervisor. New Bedford, Massachusetts, 12/5173; Inter..
view with William Keavy, Principal. Donaghy School, New
Bedford, Massachusetts, 1215173.) In Autauga County,
Alabama, the Superintendent told us a child is "truant" depending
on the number of days he/she missed from school.
There is no set number, however, which automatically
qualifies a child as truant. (Interview with Edwin C. Riddle,
Superintendent of Schools, Autauga County, Alabama,
2174.)
64
quently suspended for truancy. "We suspend when
we can't get parents to cooperate with us for continued
absenteeism if they just aren't making an effort
to be in school. After the suspension, we try to
get them to make some kind of commitment. "30 Both
principals said that truancy is the most common
ground for suspension. 31 Davenport, Iowa officials
also say that truancy is one of the three primary reasons
for suspension. 32 In Sumter County No.2, S.C.,
the Student Handbook says that not only will a oneday
suspension be given for each class cut, but that
continued cutting may result in expulsion. 33
A few school officials we interviewed rejected
expulsion or suspension as the proper way to handle
truants. The Chief Attendance Officer in Springfield,
Massachusetts, for example, said he prevailed on
schools not to suspend kids for truancy "because it
serves no useful purpose. "34 An elementary school
principal explained that he never suspends a child
for truancy and has never taken anyone to court on
a truancy charge: "I want them in here," and would
rather find out why a child is not coming to school.35
29 In most districts we surveyed, no precise records were
kept on children with unexplained absences or those found
truant. The only records consistently maintained deal with
average daily attendance. Holyoke had a school by school
study of average daily truancy, but only for the period between
Thanksgiving and Christmas (less than one month)
in 1972. Springfield records 506 truants for 1972-73, but
the Chief Altendance Supervisor said that the number is
"wrong." "There were more truant that the Attendance Supervisors
knew about but the schools may not have." 1973­
74 was the first year truancy records were gathered by race
and ethnic group and reported monthly. (Interview with
Arthur Cagan, Chief Altendance Supervisor, Springfield,
Massachusetts, 12/5173.) In one Massachuselts district,
we located one altendance supervisor at II a.m. in a bar,
with the truancy records in the trunk of his car.
30 Interview with Clyde Bartlelt. Assistant Superintendent,
Portland, Maine, 7119173.
31 Interview with Donald Hale, Principal, Deering High
School, Portland, Maine, 10124173. Interview with Walter
Hansen, Principal, Portland High School, Portland, Maine,
10125173.
32 The other two are smoking and fighting. Interview with
Dr. Daryl Spaans, Director of Secondary Education, Davenport,
Iowa, 11/9173.
33 Ebellezer Illformer, Students Handbook. 1973-1974, p. 12.
34 Interview with Arthur Cagan, Chief Altendance Super.
visor, Springfield, Massachusetts, 1215173.
35 Interview with Fleming Cocchi, Principal, Elias Brookings
School, Springfield. Massachuselts, 11/6173.
36 Interview with Tom Allen, Principal, Horace Mann Junior
High School, Denver, Colorado, 11/6173.

A Denver school official stated: "You haven't solved
anything by suspending for truancy. To me, it's
ridiculous: the crime and the punishment are identical.
"36
Institutionalizing children for truancy seems to us
even more unjustifiable and punitive. For the children
it can be extremely destructive as some of our
young clients illustrate. In Pickens County, South
Carolina, it apparently is common practice in the
school system to refer truants to court for prosecution.
Because there are no youth detention facilities
in the county, the court routinely places these children
in the custody of the County Sheriff, who places
them in the county jail. Two of our clients, Larry
W. and Gerald F., both young white children, after
an adjudication of truancy, were held in the same
cellblock with adult prisoners in the Pickens County
jail. Their cells were left open overnight. As a result,
they were brutally raped and beaten in jail. 37
Surely Pickens County School and law enforcement
officials who resort to such punitive measures could
find other ways to work with children who do not
go to school.
Enforcement of Compulsory Attendance Provisions
When we asked parents in our survey whether the
compulsory attendance laws were being enforced, we
received a mixed response. 41 percent of the total
number of parents who responded thought the laws
were enforced; 42 percent thought they were not enforced;
17 percent did not know. In many places,
parents and other community members perceived
truancy enforcement as lax and haphazard.
"When a child is out of school, no truant officer
ever comes around to find out why the child is not
in school. That's what they're getting paid for so
they should do their job."
37 See Larry W. el al. v. William Leeke et al., Civil Action
No. 74-986 (D.S.C.) filed August 1, 1974, by attorneys for
the Children's Defense Fund to enjoin the incarceration
of children with adult prisoners in adult jails throughout
the State of South Carolina and to seek damages on behalf
of the minor plaintiffs who were physically and emotionally
assaulted.
38 Interview with Father Bill Leonard, Somerville Urban
Ministry, Somerville, Massachusetts, 9/27/73.
"The kids who aren't even present in class get
marked present because the schools get paid
for it."
"Let me tell you things are not like they used to
be. Teachers don't care about kids. Truant officers
don't come around. There's a kid around
the corner who is 12 or 13 years old and in the
sixth grade. He told me the other day he had
dropped out and gotten himself a little job."
"I see a lot of kids that are out of school. I see
kids during the day who aren't in school. My
kids want to skip and when I don't let them, they
say: 'How come those other kids don't go?' "
"I see 12, 13, 14 year olds and they're not in
school. Some never go at all and the ones that
are enrolled only go when they feel like it. Next
door there's a 16-year-old boy who hasn't been
in school for two years. And another one just got
suspended and I don't think she's going at all.
Nobody cares."
"Us mothers enforce it. Denver Public Schools
just expel kids if they mess up. Lots of kids
around this neighborhood don't go to school."
"My daughter cut class for one month and I didn't
know anything about it until she was suspended."
"Any day there are 150 kids out there, hanging
around, not in school."
"I see all kinds of kids walking around; it doesn't
seem like they have a truant officer any more."
"There are kids who miss practically half the year
and are promoted."
"No, there are lots of kids below 16 dropping out.
Kids are not encouraged to stay in school."
Many parents, especially minority group people
and poor whites, believed that truancy provisions
were enforced discriminatorily. Some felt that school
officials did not care about black, Spanish-speaking,
or poor white children, and so let them drop out
without pursuing them. They thought more attention
would be paid to middle-class white children
who exhibited problems and did not stay in school.
A community worker in SomervilJe, Massachusetts,
for example, said the school system overlooked
truancy problems of children they really did not like.
Especially if children were 16 or over, if they were
not liked and stayed out, no one was sent after
them. 38
Some parents, however, held that the enforcement
of attendance laws was an instrument of harassment
that was used against disliked children and their
65

..
families. Rather than handling quietly or overlooking
truancy problems as in middle-class neighborhoods,
penalties are brought to bear heavily on poor
and minority people. A black mother in Macon,
Georgia noted: "I can see ... school officials using
this [compulsory attendance law] to harass black
people. If a person disagreed with his [the Superintendent]
having the police at the school and they
had a child out of school for two weeks, he would
probably have them arrested." A Portuguese mother
in New Bedford said the compulsory attendance
laws "... are enforced for some but not others.
They ignore the kids that aren't from here [low income
area]." A white mother in Portland, Maine
said: "Kids whose mothers get state aid are sent to
court more often if they skip school than kids in
families not on welfare."
The enforcement of compulsory attendance provisions
among non-English-speaking populations presents
even greater problems. Different lifestyles and
needs, plus language barriers, often contribute to
unfound or ignored truants. "Absenteeism is not
looked upon as a bad thing in Puerto Rico."sO
"Many of the parents of the Puerto Rican children
have not gone beyond a third grade education. They
66
generally come from rural areas of Puerto Rico and
did not have the opportunity for education. Once in
the United States, parents often must use their children
as translators, and think nothing of keeping
their children out of school for the day to help them
go shopping, visit the dentist or pick-up a welfare
check. "40 One school official feels it is especially
difficult to keep track of New Bedford children of
immigrant Portuguese families from the AzQfes,
where school attendance was not compulsory. The
same is true of Puerto Rican children. "Changes in
residence, of which schools involved have not been
apprised . . . make the task of home visits and the
location of the student a long and time-consuming
project. Within the past few months, serious fires
have displaced many families. Urban renewal has
also forced families to seek new residences, often
with relatives and in some cases a return to Puerto
Rico....41
At the Lincoln School in Springfield, Massachusetts,
the mobility rate is very high: in the first two
months of the 1973-74 school year there were 247
new enrollments (171 Puerto Ricans, 76 whites)
and 161 dismissals (86 Puerto Ricans, 75 whites).
Apparently a lot of the mobility is due to housing
changes. With the energy crisis and a cold winter,
the principal predicted another migration back to
Puerto Rico. 42
A particular attendance problem exists among
older immigrant children. "Some of these boys who
come from foreign countries are men and they just
don't fit in. "4S
The problem of heavy absenteeism in non-Englishspeaking
and immigrant or migrant communities is
exacerbated by the absence of Spanish and of Portuguese-speaking
truant officers. In Massachusetts,
none of the five districts we visited had attendance
30 Interview with Sister Joyce Smith, Casa Maria, Holyoke,
Massachusetts, 12/11/73.
40 Interview with Sister Anne Marie, Education Coordinator,
Casa Cristo Rey, Springfield, Massachusetts, 12/11/73.
41 Interview with Thomas Ingham, Director of Pupil Personnel,
New Bedford, Massachusetts, 11/26/73, and Richard
S. Golden, Report 011 Truallcies (Holyoke School
Board, Fehruary, 1973).
42 Interview with John O'Malley, Principal, Lincoln School
and Jefferson School, Springfield, Massachusetts, 12/6/73.
43 lnter-:iew with Richard Nixon, Supervisor of Attendance,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, 10/10/73.

officers who spoke Spanish, and only one--New
Bedford-had attendance officers who spoke Portuguese.
The Springfield Director of Attendance says
he has been seeking to hire minority personnel for a
long time but that it is very hard to find someone
"who can articulate in Spanish and think in Eng­
Jish."H
Further, since most school systems have so few
personnel to work on attendance problems, enforcement
must be sporadic and/or selective.
Clearly a substantial reassessment of attendance
problems and of appropriate methods of working
with families and children is required in most of the
school districts we visited. Foremost is examination
of how to make school the kind of place where children
wiJI want to be. This means recognizing the
diversity of children and their learning styles, and
providing varied kinds of programs and personnel
to work with them.
Second, truancy should be decriminalized. It
should be treated as a school problem for which a
variety of school and other social services may be
required, but not as a law enforcement problem.
Incarceration of children, and fine or imprisonment
of their parents, is too harsh a punishment for the
offense. It does not serve the child's best interests and
makes no educational sense. States should amend
their compulsory attendance laws to require investigation
of truants by school or social workers and
remediation of the causes of truancy through supportive
services.
Third, suspension or expulsion for truancy is
ridiculous. If schools are truly concerned with retaining
their populations, they must work with the
children and their parents to overcome the obstacles
which keep children out of school.
Fourth, schools cannot effectively deal with the
problem of truancy until they have agreed on its
definition, found out its incidence, investigated its
causes, and devised sensible and understandable reporting
mechanisms and policies to deal fairly with
all children. This means knowing the law and helping
students and parents to know their responsibilities
under it. It means collecting, organizing, and
reporting truancy information. Extra clerical as-
H Interview with Arthur Cagan, Chief Attendance Supervisor,
Springfield, Massachusetts, 12/5/73.
68
sistance may be required to help already overworked
school personnel or attendance officers. It also
means reaching out to families and communities to
get at the root of truancy, rather than punishing its
manifestation.
Pregnant Girls, Student Parents,
and Married Students
"... [Olne of every ten girls in the United States
wiJI give birth to a baby before reaching age 18.
... One of every ten school-age girls is a mother,
and 17 percent of these have two children. This
totals about 210,000 girls a year. One-sixth of
this 210,OOO--or about 35,OOO-are less than 16
years old .... of the 210,000 school-age girls who
bear a child each year, about 60 percent are married.
Additionally, in assessing the scope of the
problem nationally, we are told that only about
10 percent of the 210,000 ... are served by maternity
homes, and only 15 percent place their
babies for adoption. In other words, more than
85 percent. attempt to mother the child.... Pregnancy
is the major known cause of school dropouts
among girls in the United States."45
Policies affecting pregnant girls, student parents,
and married students are usually left to local regulations.
This results in wide district by district variation.
Recently some states have begun to establish
policy in this area through statutes, educational bylaws,
administrative regulations, and attorneys general
rulings as a result of lawsuits. 46 Despite these
recent moves, and the numbers of students involved,
many school officials continue to operate in a policy
vacuum. Many policies are unwritten, reflecting
what the National School Board Association labels
a fear among districts "that if they develop a
straight-forward policy that it wiJI somehow give the
impression that it is encouraging 'early marriages' or
43 Remarks of Cyril Busbee, South Carolina State Superintendent
of Education at a Conference on School-Age Parents,
Carolina Inn, Columbia, South Carolina, November
20, 1973.
46 See Bernard B. Braen and Patricia Walder, "Educational
Policies Affecting School-Age Parents Within the United
States," National Alliance Concerned with School-Aged
Parents, Washington, D.C., and Marion Howard, A Discussion
of State Laws and State and Local Policies As They
Relate to Education of Pregnant School-Age Girls, Consortium
on Early Childbearing and Childrearing, Washington,
D.C., 1972.

'promiscuous behavior.'''H The result is that thousands
of children needlessly are robbed every year
of their educational future.
-Alabama's Department of Education school leaver
report for 1970-71 states that 14 percent of the
female dropouts cited marriage as the reason; 7
percent cited pregnancy. In 1971-72, 13 percent
cited marriage; 8 percent cited pregnancy. In
Montgomery's school leaver report for 1972-73,
52 percent of the female dropouts cited marriage;
62 percent cited pregnancy.48
-The Superintendent of Schools in South Carolina
stated that "Last year there were 7, 107 dropouts
in our state. Almost 19 percent of those dropouts
-a total of more than 1,30O--cited marriage or
pregnancy as their reason for leaving school."49
The reasons most commonly given by school officials
for excluding pregnant girls are: l) the need
to protect her physical condition (she cannot endure
the "rough and tumble of school," she will "tire
easily," "there are too many stairs to climb," her
condition will result in her being sick in school);
2) the need to protect her mental condition ("she
will be ridiculed, scorned, and embarrassed by her
classmates," "she will be a target for gossip," "she
will be happier in some alternative program"); 3)
the need to protect other students from the "bad influence"
of a pregnant girl and unwillingness to appear
to condone premarital intercourse ("I have to
think of the other children," "we have an obligation
to other children-tbey are here for reading and
writing, not sex education," "we'd get calls from the
other parents and we reflect the feelings of our parents
in the community," "I wonder what my child
would see ... she might wonder if it is the accepted
way of life"); 4) the need to maintain an orderly
environment ("tbe class can't function normally,"
47 National School Board Association, School Board Policies
all Pregllallt alldlor Married Studellts, EPS/NSBA Policy
Information Clearinghouse, 1971, p. 1. As far as we were
able to determine no comprehensive survey of district by
district policies has been conducted.
48 "State-Wide School-Leaver Report, Scholastic Year 1970­
71, and 1971-72" State of Alabama, Department of Educalion,
Pupil Personnel Services Section. "Grand Total
School-Leaver Report 1972-73" Montgomery Public
Schools, City and County, Montgomery, Alabama, June 6,
1973.
49 Remarks of Cyril Busbee, South Carolina State Superintendent
of Education at a Conference on School-Age Parents,
Carolina Inn, Columbia, South Carolina, November
20, 1973.
"when girls are 13 they won't do any work if someone
is showing wedding pictures"); and 5) the
school's lack of facilities for day care and flexible
scheduling.
These exclusionary rationales are more the result
of arcbaic attitudes and fears than reason. Few will
withstand scrutiny. In Ordway v. Hargraves>° the
court accepted expert opinion tbat for the pregnant
plaintiff and her class "the dangers in attending
school are no worse for her than for a non-pregnant
girl." Indeed some experts contend that excluding a
pregnant girl affects her adversely by contributing to
depression, isolation and possible denial of prenatal
medical care and counseling through fear of exposing
her condition. a1 Disruption per se from the presence
of a pregnant gjrl in school is usually more an assumption
than a proven fact. Indeed the American
School Board Journal warns officials to "think twice
about admitting-much less trying to prove-that
one pregnant gjrl can make a shambles out of education
in their school district. "62
One thoughtful policy analyst estimates that onefifth
of pregnant school-age girls can remain successfully
in a regular classroom; that about three-fifths
are "capable of functioning as regular students but
have some special needs that must be met if they are
to remain in regular school during pregnancy and
continue following the birth of a baby"; and the
remaining one-fifth "may indeed be special students
whose circumstances or conditions dictate that they
would be better off in special programs more suitable
to their needs."63
Seldom is the girl given a choice, where it exists,
among programs that may be best suited for her
needs. In a Georgia survey dated January 1, 1974,
18 school boards reported a policy requiring a
pregnant girl to witbdraw from school." In Floyd
County, Kentucky, pregnant girls are eligjble for
homebound instruction for only one bour a week.
60 Ordway v. Hargraves, 323 F.Supp. 1155, 1156 (D.Mass.
1971) .
61 See Perry v. Grellada, 300 F.supp. 748 (N.D.Miss. 1969).
62 Ti,e American School Board Journal, Vol. 160, No.3,
March, 1973, p. 24.
58 Marion Howard, A Discussioll of State Laws and State
alld Local Policies As They Relate to Education of PreglIalll
School-Age Girls, 1972, p. 8.
64 Material Prepared for Council on Maternal Health, State
of Georgia by Susan Kampmeier, 1/1/74.
69

The principal of Lincoln Junior High School in
Portland, Maine said that girls are asked to leave
school when they begin to show. 55 The principal of
Portland High School told us that when pregnant
girls reach the seventh month "... I insist that they
go home."56
In most schools, however, there are no overt
policies excluding pregnant girls. But principal,
teacher, and sometimes school official attitudes are
enough to convince most of them that they are not
wanted. They are either counseled to leave or
"voluntarily" withdraw.
-Pregnant girls can go to the YWCA, get home
tutoring, or go to an unwed mothers' home. Last
year, five or six girls left Holyoke High to have
babies; none lost a year of school however. They
could stay, but are counseled, "Hey, look it, you're
beginning to show now; why don't you stay
home."57
-"Some teachers are pretty negative and make it
difficult for the girls to stay." The gossip system
can be murderous. At a recent teachers meeting
the principal of Holyoke High School harangued
the group and said the YWCA program encouraged
girls to get pregnant. 58
-"I try to deal with it [pregnancy] with compassion.
They should stay home, we find them a home
teacher. After she has tlte baby, well if she wants,
then she can come back. I advise them for their
own sake, the baby's sake, the sake of their classmates,
stay home."59
-They are not required to leave; but "if they show
a great deal, we don't force them out but we kind
of advise them" that it might be difficult for them.
"... It is hard for them to ride the school bus
or to sit in the classroom."60
55 Interview with Dan Murphy, Principal, Lincoln Junior
High School, Portland, Maine, 10/24/73.
56 Interview with Walter Hansen, Principal, Portland High
School, Portland, Maine, 10/25/73.
57 Interview with Edward Moriarity, Principal, Holyoke
High School, Holyoke, Massachusetts, 12113/73.
58 Interview with Charlotte Hartzell, YWCA, Acting Coordinator
of Alternative Program for Pregnant Girls, Holyoke,
Massachusetts, 12112/73.
50 Interview with Edward O'Malley, Principal, Lawrence
Elementary School, Holyoke, Massachusetts, 12112/73.
60 Interview with Forest Curry, Principal, Stumbo Elementary
School, Floi'd County, Kentucky, 1/23/74.
61 Jnterview with Eula Hall, Mud Creek Health Project,
Grethel, Kentucky, 1/23/74.
70
-There is "no way they [pregnant girls] can stay
in school pregnant. . . . They make you feel so
bad you don't want to stay in_"61
Alternative programs or home tutors may be
provided for pregnant girls in some districts, but few
are equivalent in academic quality to regular school
classes.
-The Director of Pupil Personnel in the Floyd
County public schools said that juniors and seniors
in high school can get home instruction for
one hour twice a week if pregnant. But he knew
of only one pregnant girl who has ever received
home instruction. 62
Married students and young parents face a similar
dilemma: few overt exclusionary policies, but attitudes
that are rarely supportive of staying in school.
-Last summer, the Autauga County school system
was sued by a married student who was prohibited
from playing football. He won and they now
allow married students to participate in any extracurricular
activity. "There's no policy on married
students, except the girls have to maintain their
maiden names until they graduate, for our record
keeping. "68
-"We prefer that married students don't attend.
This is a district-wide policy. I don't know why."64
-"Married pupils are required to apply to the principal
of the school in which they wish to enroll.
For continuance after marriage or to enroll, they
must be accompanied by one or both parents or
guardians of pupils involved. Students who are
enrolled and marry during the school year must
notify the principal in writing within seven days
of the date of the marriage."65
-In Prestonsburg, Kentucky there is a local rule
which prohibits married students from participating
in the Neighborhood Youth Corps In-School
Program. 66
62 Interview with Richmond Slone, Director of Pupil Personnel,
Floyd County, Kentucky, 1/22/74.
68 Interview with Edwin C. Riddle, Superintendent of
Schools, Autauga County, Alabama, 2/74.
64 Interview with Tom Allen, Principal, Horace Mann Junior
High School, Denver, Colorado, 11/6/73.
65 "Pupil Responsibilities: A Stalement of Policy, Montgomery
Public Scbools" Adopted by Montgomery Board of Education,
August 24, 1972.
66 Interview with Estill Hall, Director, Neighborhood
Youth Corps In-School Program, Prestonsburg, Kentt:cky,
1/24/74.
67 Interview with Hillard Newman, Principal, Harold Elementary
School, Harold, Kentucky, 1/23/74.

-Marriage does not exclude a child, but usually the
girls drop out. "Married students are exempt from
compulsory attendance laws."eT
These students need to complete their education
as much as other students. If they are forced out,
the consequences to themselves and their children
-two generations of children ill-equipped for full
participation in society-are a tremendous cost to
bear. School officials, teachers and counselors
should re-evaluate their attitudes and practices in
rational, educational terms and develop the options
necessary to enable these children to remain in
regular school if they choose and, in any case, to
finish their education.
Married students, pregnant girls, and school-age
parents may have some special needs. But rather
than using those needs as an excuse for exclusion,
schools should instead see them as guides for responsive
and sensitive supplemental services. Where
possible, and within the regular classroom framework,
flexible scheduling should be offered to enable
these children to adjust to their new roles while
continuing their education. Schools should also prpvide
counseling, prenatal medical care and courses in
child development for pregnant girls. But these supportive
services should supplement, not replace, other
academic instruction. Academically sound alternative
programs should be provided for pregnant
girls who do not choose to remain in regular classes.
Young mothers should also be encouraged by every
means possible to return to school after their children
are born.
For parents and children who are facing exclusion
from school because of pregnancy or marriage, at
least three sources of help may be available: The
Consortium on Early Childbearing and Child Rearing,
1145 19th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.; The
National Alliance Concerned with School-Age Parrents;
and the Interagency Task Force Concerned
with Comprehensive Programs for School-Age Parents,
U.S. Office of Education, Washington, D.C.
They can make available additional information on
state and local support programs.
Children Excluded by Language
-18-year-old Gilbert is Portuguese. He dropped
out of a New Bedford, Massachusetts school in
fifth grade when he was 16. He had come to
America at age 9 but did not start school until he
was 14. 0 one from school ever came to get
him enrolled.
-Fernando is now 19. He came to Springfield,
Massachusetts from Puerto Rico when he was IS.
He could not read or write in Spanish as he had
never been to school in Puerto Rico. He was put
in the fifth grade. He got no bilingual instruction,
so he stayed home because he could not understand
what was going on. A truant officer came
to get him and told him that if he did not go to
school and did not want to be put away, he would
have to go back to Puerto Rico and stay with his
father there. He did. He returned to America
when he was 18. Fernando said that he did not
like school because he "did not know how to read
or write or understand what was happening and
they wanted me to read and write." His mother
used to send him, but he did not want to go-he
used to stay at home.
-A Springfield, Massachusetts school official explaining
why their dropout rate is higher than ever
said: "the clientele is changing.... The population
of Puerto Ricans in our town has been going
71

For example, as of October, 1972, in Somerville,
Massachusetts, about 120 of-355 Portuguese children
of limited English-speaking ability were being
provided bilingual programs. But looking at the
October 1, 1973 Census of Children of Limited English-Speaking
Ability submitted to the Massachusetts
State Department of Education, it is evident that the
school district in Somerville was not in compliance
with the law. Somerville reported that six classes
were provided for Portuguese children. The Census
showed 408 Portuguese children "who are incapable
of performing classwork in English." Two bilingual
classes were offered for Italian-speaking children.
72 Action for Boston Community Development (ABCD)
conducted a study in the summer of 1970. They found
that over 30 percent of the Spanish-speaking children ages
6 through 17 living in the 535 households surveyed did not
attend school the previous year. 26 percent of the 7-15
year-old children were not in school. Almost 75 percent of
the 14-18 year-olds who were in school were behind their
expected grade level. Adriana Gianturco and Norman
Aronin, Boston's Spanish-Speaking Community: Findings of
a Field Survey, (Boston: ABCD, October, 1971, p. 43-45.)
The Boston Task Force on Children Out of School in
The Way We Go To School, The Exclusion of Children
in Boston reported a study done by a consultant in Puerto
Rican affairs for the Boston Mayor's Office of Human
Rights which revealed that 65 percent of the 350 Spanishspeaking
school-age children in a ten block Juea in Boston
had never registered in school. The Boston Task Force on
Children Out of School estimated that at least 2,650 and
possibly 7,800 Spanish-speaking children in Boston were
not in school. (pp. 17-18)
Another study done in Boston the following summer
found that 42.6 percent of the 2,643 Spanish speaking.
school-age children in the families surveyed were not registered
in school, doubtfully registered or were in school
but were three or more years behind the regular grade for
children the same age. (Hispanic Office of Planning and
Evaluation, Children in the Streets, prepared by Dolores
M. Marcucci, Senior Researcher and Planner, 1971, p. 3.)
A report by the New England Regional Council estimated
that 25 percent of the Puerto Rican children in New England
were retained at least three grades in school and that
over half of these children had been held back at least
twice. (New England Regional Council, Overview of the
Problems Encountered by New England's Spanish-Speaking
Population, July 7, 1970 p. 14.)
73 Massachusetts General Laws Ch. 71A (1971). For purposes
of the Transitional Bilingual Education Act, children
of "limited English-speaking ability" are defined as those
"not born in the Uniled States whose native tongue is a language
other than English and who are incapable of performing
ordinary c1asswork in English"; and "... children
who were born in the United States of non-English-speaking
parents and who are incapable of performing ordinary
classwork in English."
The district recorded 141 Italian children of limited
English-speaking ability. For the 155 children listed
with a dominant language other than English, Portuguese,
or Italian, there was one multi-national class
for Spanish-speaking, Haitian, and Greek children.
The teacher of this multi-national class speaks only
English.
In Cambridge, a comparison of the October 1,
1973 Census of Children of Limited English Speaking
Ability with its 1973-74 bilingual program effort
showed the same large gap in services. The Census
recorded a total of 1,556 children of limited Englishspeaking
ability. We were told that 298 children of
74 We know of at least three other states (Illinois, Pennsylvania,
and Texas) which have laws which mandate bilingual
education by a certain date. And there are at least
eight others (Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut,
Louisiana, Maine, New Mexico, and New York) which
have laws which allow the provision of bilingual education
but do not make it mandatory. Only four of these eleven
stales require that a census of children of limited Englishspeaking
ability be conducted in order to determine the
number of children in need of and eligible for, bilingual
services. And in the states which do require a census, as
in California, it is often a census only of those children
enrolled in school, not of all children, as is required in
Massachusetts.
73

limited English-speaking ability are participating in
elementary programs, and that on the high school
level the statistics are unclear because no distinctions
are made between students in bilingual or English
as a 'Second Language (ESL) classes and those
taking a foreign language. 75 However, presuming
that the 348 children of limited English-speaking
ability listed on the Cambridge High and Latin
School Census form were being served, less than 35
percent of the 1,556 children in need of bilingual
education received it.
The most serious problem in the Massachusetts
districts we visited was the lack of services for older,
non-English-speaking children. In Somerville, there
are no bilingual classes in the high school and its
bilingual program director stated that "It's a very
unsatisfactory situation to have a cut-off. The high
school contends that the kids are so proficient that
they don't need it. Things are changing but it takes
time. The Portuguese children have to be educated
to ask for this kind of service at the high school."76
In 1973-74, none of the junior high schools in
Holyoke, Massachusetts, provided any bilingual programs.
Though bilingual classes were conducted at
Holyoke High School, none were given at Holyoke
Trade High School. As a result "[There is] an automatic
dropout pool because'Spanish kids can't go to
Trade."77 A similar situation exists in Cambridge:
Spanish and Portuguese bilingual teachers are provided
at Cambridge High and Latin, but not at
Rindge Technical High School. Secondary level students
whose native language is other than Spanish
75 English as a second language (ESL) and bilingual edu·
cation are not the same. According to the Draft Guidelines
of the Bilingual Education Program, "Bilingual education
is instruction in two languages and the use of those
two languages as mediums of instruction for any part of
or all of the school curriculum. Study of the history and
culture associated with a student's mother tongue is considered
an integral part of bilingual education." Theodore
Andersson and Mildred Boyer, Bilingual Schooling in lite
United States (Austin, Texas: Southwest Educational
Development Laboratory, January, 1970), p. 12.
ESL is "a program designed to teach English language
skills without the presentation of related cultural material.
It is taught for only a limited number of hours each week,
with English presented to Spanish-speaking children in
much the same way that a foreign language is taught to
English-speaking students." The Excluded Student, Mexican-American
Education Study Report III, U.S. Commission
on Civil Rights, May 1972, p. 26.
74
or Portuguese are able to attend two ESL classes
per day but the rest of the time they sit in regular
classes. The director of bilingual programs in
Springfield, Massachusetts, reported that prior to the
1973-74 school year, Spanish-speaking students who
went on to high school almost invariably attended
either Commerce or Trade High Schools where they
worked with an ESL teacher for half a day. 1973-74
is the first year that 18 Puerto Rican students have
moved from Chestnut Jr. High to Commerce High
with a bilingual teacher actually on the staff of the
high school. 78
In the District of Columbia, which has a growing
concentration of Spanish-speaking and other non­
English-speaking children, only two itinerant ESL
teachers are available to provide service to any secondary
student whose dominant language is other
than English. 79 This lack of bilingual program at
the secondary level contributes to a high dropout
rate and astonishingly few high school graduates
among non- and limited English-speaking students.
A former director of bilingual programs in New
Bedford reported that 80 percent of the students in
the district from non-English-speaking backgrounds
fail to receive a high school diploma. 8o One of the
few Spanish-speaking community workers in New
Bedford reported that in 1971-72, only four Puerto
Ricans graduated from high school and in 1972-73
there were only five. In 1973-74, there were seven
to ten Puerto Ricans who might graduate. "I don't
76 Interview with Rita Deleo, Director, Bilingual Programs,
Somerville, Massachusetts, 1/16/74.
77 Interview with George Counter, Supervisor of Elementary
Education, Holyoke, Massachusetts, 12/12/73.
78 Interview with Yolanda Ulloa, Transitional Bilingual Supervisor,
Springfield, Massachusetts, 12/11/73.
70 Memorandum to the Board of Education of the District
of Columbia, "The Bilingual Program of the District of
Columbia Public Schools." Submitted by Barbara A. Sizemore,
Superintendent of Schools, Washington, D.C.,
2/20/74.
80 Interviews with Jack Baptista, Former Director, Bilingual
Programs; Principal, Immaculate Conception School, New
Bedford, Massachusetts, 9110/73 and 11/28/73.
81 Interview with Dorothy Kallevik, Regina Paces Center,
New Bedford, Massachusetts, 11/28/73.
82 Interview with Tobias Paulo, Immigration Assistance
Center, New Bedford, Massachusetts, 11/28/73 and interview
with Mary Barros, Member of City and State Title I
PAC, New Bedford, Massachusetts, 8110/73.
83 Interview with Sister Anne Marie, Education Coordinator,
Casa Cristo Rey, Springfield, Massachusetts, 12/11/73.

think there is enough counseling, especially vocational
counseling. There has never been a Spanishspeaking
student accepted into New Bedford Vocational
High SchooI."81 Others in New Bedford reported
to us that it is very difficult to gain admittance
to the vocational school, especially for students from
non-English-speaking backgrounds. 82
The absence of counseling and other supportive
services was a problem in most of the districts we
visited. This is exacerbated by the lack of personnel
who speak a language other than English. A
Catholic nun who works with non-English-speaking
children in Springfield said that Spanish children in
the area "really need some counseling in Spanish."
She added that because they are usually admitted to
special classes only if they speak some English,
Spanish-speaking handicapped or mentally retarded
children especially suffer. They are generally kept
in regular classes and just keep falling further and
further behind because there is so little help.8s For
example, the Learning Disabilities Center in Springfield
serves few Spanish-speaking children because
it lacks the techniques "to work with them." Consequently,
referrals of these children are discouraged.
Since the Pupil Adjustment Center has no
facilities for counseling in Spanish, Spanish-speaking
children with emotional problems cannot benefit
from the Center's services unless they speak some
English. 84
In Springfield, where ESEA Title I funds an entire
Social and Psychological Services Unit with 20 counselors,
none of them speaks Spanish. 85 At the time
of our visit, there were no bilingual counselors in
Somerville, but "hopefully the school department
will hire one."86
Of the 260 guidance counselors in 1973-74 in the
District of Columbia, none are Spanish-speaking. 87
84 Interview with Katherine Gott, Supervisor and Edward
Burgess, School Psychologist, Learning Disabilities Center,
Homer Street School, Springfield, Massachusetts, 12/10/73.
85 Interview with Dr. William Brady, Director, Social and
Psychological Services Unit, Springfield, Massachusetts,
12/7/73.
86 Interview with Dr. loseph Walsh, Principal, Southern Ir.
High, Somerville, Massachusetts, 1115/73.
87 Interview with Nathaniel Hill, Supervisory Director of
Guidance and Counselling, Washington, D.C., 5/13/74.
88 Interview with George Counter, Supervisor of Elementary
Education, Holyoke, Massachusetts, 12/12/73.
In Holyoke, "a Spanish-speaking kid may have
severe emotional problems or may be mentally retarded,
but we can't place him in a special program
because we don't have a test which could confirm
our suspicions.... We not only don't have the
tests, we don't have a person to interpret the tests,
no Spanish-speaking psychologist. So kids get put
6n a shortened day or get suspended. At the junior
high level they really get in trouble. The bilingual
people tell us to put kids with special problems in
special education; the special education people say
that bilingual education will take care of them. So
kids are falling between 766 [the Special Education
Law], and Bilingual Education, and we know they
are there. "88
New Bedford has one special education class for
bilingual children: an ESL class for eight Portuguese
13 to 16 year olds. For the past three years there
has been a need for three special education classes
for children of limited English-speaking ability.
"Obviously, we need a class for 1Q-13 year olds,"
even though it is difficult to determine genuine re-
75

and there is a growing Spanish-speaking community,
no member of the central school administrationincluding
the recently appointed acting director of
bilingual programs-is either Portuguese or Spanish.
There are no more than two native Spanish teachers
and only one Spanish-speaking counselor. At Immaculate
Conception School, where there are 12
classes for Portuguese children of limited Englishspeaking
ability, the children are receiving "a little
more English than I would like, because of the problem
of having too many ESL teachers."98
It is essential that HEW's Office for Civil Rights
(OCR) make a much greater effort to ensure that
language minority children are not discriminated
against in the provision of services and personnel.
Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bans
discrimination "on the ground of race, color, or national
origin." In May 1970, HEW required school
98 Interview with Jack Baptista, Principal, Immaculate Conception
School, New Bedford, Massachusetts, 11/28/73.
districts to take certain specific steps to ensure that
national origin minority group students were not discriminated
against. A memorandum, which was sent
to all school districts in the country with more than
5 percent national origin minority enrollment, required
school districts to take affirmative action to
rectify language deficiencies which excluded national
origin minority children from effective participation
in an education program. It also addressed the
placement of national origin minority group children
in special education classes or ability groups on the
basis of criteria which measure English language
skills. It prohibited school districts from using language
programs as permanent tracks, and required
school districts to notify parents of school activities
in a language other than English.
Although the issuance of the May 1970 memorandum
was a significant step forward, it is disappointing
to see that relatively little has been done
to date to enforce it. OCR staff have conducted only
77

fees required to take, for example, typing or art
and the charges for textbooks that most higher income
parents pay without questioning, can be insurmountable
hurdles for poor parents and children.
The most usual amenities and pleasantries associated
with going through school-eating lunch, buying
class rings, cheerleading, playing in the band, sports
-can become dreaded symbols of their differentness
and exclusion for poor children who cannot afford
to participate. Some school charges cause many
102 Poor children spend more time sick because they are less
likely to get the care they need. For example, of the low
income children with chronic conditions, only an estimated
40% are receiving treatment. (Joseph Wholey, "The Absence
of Program Evaluation as an Obstacle to Effective
Public Expenditure Policy: A Case Study of Child Health
Care," The Urban Institute, p. 456, 1969.) A government
study of children in AFDC families showed that in two out
of five cases dental care was needed but not provided; the
same was true for medical care in one out of four cases
and for eyeglasses in one out of three. (National Center for
Social Statistics, U.S. Department of Health, Education and
Welfare, 1969. 1967 AFDC Study, Table VI, "Medical
Care Deprivation.") One recent analysis concludes that at
least ten million children, most of them poor, receive no
health care at all. (Charles Lowe and Duane Alexander,
"Health Care of Poor Children," in Children and Decem
People, ed. by Alvin Schorr, New York: Basic Books,
1974.) Poor children spend more time in bed, disabled
(The Health of Children - 1970, U.S. Dept. of Health,
Education and Welfare, Public Health Service, publication
No. 2121, p. 29) and lose more school days because of illness
than do other children. (5.5 days per year for children
in families below $5,000 vs. 4.8 days for children in
families above $5,000.) (Children and Y ollth: Selected
Health Characteristics, U.S. Dept. of Health, Education
and Welfare, Public Health Service publication No. 1000,
er. 10, No. 62, p. 25.)
loa According to January, 1974 U.S. Department of Agriculture
figures only 14,470,000 of the approximately 37,­
000,000 people are eligible for food assistance receive it. An
unknown but high proportion of these are children. (Community
Nutrition Institllte Weekly Report, May 16, 1974.)
The low rate of participation in food programs aimed specifically
at pregnant mothers and young children underscores
their needs. The Citizen's Board of Inquiry into
Hunger and Malnutrition in the United States found that
in 1972 only 20-34% of children eligible for the school
breakfast program received breakfast through the program
(HIII/ger USA - Revisited, 1972). In 1974 funds were
available to serve only 11 % of the pregnant women and
children under age four eligible for supplemental foods.
(Estimates by the Children's Foundation based on 1970
Census figures for numbers in need and 1974 official
USDA figures for participation in the Commodity Supplemental
Food Program and the authorized caseload in the
Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants
and Children.)
poor children to leave school completely.
State and local laws require parents to send children
to school. But state and local laws simultaneously
make it difficult and even impossible for many
parents to do so. Among the most prevalent obstacles
to school attendance we found, particularly
for poor children, are: (I) textbook charges, generally
at the high school level; (2) school fees; and
(3) transportation charges. Other problems such as
lack of decent clothing, which neither schools nor
the social agencies help alleviate, also serve to exclude
poor children from attending school.
These school policies and omissions violate common
sense and add to the frustration of poor parents
struggling to keep children in school. For example,
a white father in Hi Hat, Kentucky regretted that
his son had to drop out before he was 16 because
he could not afford to pay school book charges and
other fees.
79

are expected to purchase their textbooks, as well as
other needed supplies. The cost can be substantial.
One Floyd County school administrator reported
that his daughter, a high school student, has to pay
about fifty dollars for books 106 That this amount
represents an impossibility to the poor families of
the area was readily apparent to our monitors. One
family of nine was attempting to live on an annual
income of $2,200. The three oldest children had all
been forced to drop out of school for financial reasons.
The younger ones faced the same fate. Other
poor families in the County were similarly affected.
-Mr. and Mrs. Berry have three children at Betsy
Layne School. His doctor has ordered him not to
work and he has been unemployed since January
15, 1973. His application for state aid was turned
down and he has appealed. Their three children,
ages 15, 12, and 8, all need books. They report
that the school officials have said the older children
cannot [have books] without the money
which they don't have.
-Carl, 17, dropped out in his third year of high
school. He would not go back because he did not
have any books. He asked for some but was told
[by officials] they had no books to give. He feels
he could do better if he had books to work with.
There are six other school-age children in the
family.
-Charlene, 16, quit two years ago because she
couldn't get the money for lunch and books and
could not do the work given in her classes. Her
sister, Kathleen, 14, quit school this year for the
same reason.
-16-year-old Annie was expelled but went back
this year for one week. She did not have money
for books so after a week with no books at all, she
quit.
lOG Kentucky law (Kentucky Rev. Stat. § 157.100) provides
that "[t]he Superintendent of Public Instruction ... shall
purchase textbooks from the publishers whose books have
been adopted by the state textbook commission and distribute
them without cost to pupils attending grades one to
eight. of the free public schools of the stale, in the manner
and upon the conditions set out in Kentucky Rev. Stats.
§157.IIO to 157.180." Kentucky Rev. Stat. §157.110
grants the state authority to first furnish textbooks to the
first grade and then to the subsequent grades, until the fund
is exhausted. If funds are insufficient to furnish all textbooks
to any grade, the state may distribute the books
selectively for particular subjects. There are 3 other states
which provide free textbooks only to children in grades one
through eight. A detailed analysis of the textbook provisions
in eacb of the 50 states and the District of Columbia
is set forth in Appendix K.
106 Interview with Richmond Slone, Director of Pupil Per-
-Mrs. Clark has a sick husband who cannot work.
"I had to borrow money for my child's books,
but I really want to see her graduate."
A Kentucky statute provides that: "Each board of
education may furnish textbooks and other necessary
school supplies free of charge to indigent children in
its school district, including indigent children in high
schools or lower grades . . . under such rules and
regulations as it may adopt."107 The Floyd County
Board Policies make no mention of such rules or
regulations.'os However, school personnel insisted,
in interviews, that poor children could get books
which they could not otherwise afford by application
to their school principal. The County's director
of pupil personnel maintained that no child could
say that he had dropped out because of a lack of
books. 'OO In fact some principals are said to charge
those who they know can afford it more for their
books so they can help poorer children buy books.u o
This view that books were provided to those children
who could not afford them was supported by
several others. A former teacher said she did not
recall any real problem of children not being able
to buy their books, nor did she believe that tr-uancy
was related to inability to purchase school books.
The few times she could remember, the school paid
for the books and the Mother's League also helped
needy children and families. A community worker
in Floyd County remembered only one case where
a teacher wrote to a child's parents informing them
he could not participate in lessons until he paid for
books. Mr. Patton, a school social worker in the
County, said that children not in school because they
sonnel, Floyd Counry, Kenlllcky. 1/22/74.
1117 Kentucky Rev. Stat. § I60.330.
III Sec. 13 of the Board Policies does say: "Education is the
function of tbe School. School officials have an obligation
to teach pupils to be concerned about the welfare of others
and to want to give to worthy causes according to tbeir
ability. School officials sbould cooperate in the distribution
of suitable educational materials" (p. 32).
100 Kentucky law requires tbat the director of pupil personnel
shall "[a]scertain and report to the superintendent of
schools ... the number and cost of books and school supplies
needed by any child whose parent, guardian or custodian
does not have sufficient income to furnish tbe child
with the necessary books and school supplies... ." Kentucky
Rev. Stat. §159.140. No mention was made to CDF
staff of such a report by either of the directors of pupil
personnel.
110 Interview with Richmond Slone, Director of Pupil Personnel,
Floyd County, Kentucky, 1/22/74.
81

did not have books were not much of a problem.
"We can get the books for them by going to the
principal." But he had not had a single referral in
two years. 1t 1
These claims about making books available were
contradicted, in part, by key school officials. The
Superintendent of Schools and the Assistant Superintendent
said that "[I]f a high school child cannot
afford books, the school will pay if the child is in a
Title I program.""2 And the claims about the availability
of free textbooks were completely contradicted
by the poor families whose children in Floyd
County had dropped out for lack of money to buy
books.
It is clear that whether such a policy exists and
whatever the policy is that makes free texts possible
through specific request, it is ad hoc and not made
public in the parts of the community that need it. It
is equally clear that many poor families in Floyd
County feel they must keep their children out of
school because they cannot afford the costs of textbooks
for their high school age children or other
workbooks and supplemental material for all children.
Even if there is a policy of responding to
individual hardship cases and even if it worked well
for all who needed it, it still leaves the burden and
stigma on poor families to have to ask for help.
111 Interview with Charles Patton, School Social Worker,
Floyd County Board of Education, Floyd County, Kentucky,
1/24/74.
112 Interview with Charles Clark, Superintendent of Schools,
and Ray Brackett, Assistant Superintendent, Floyd County,
Kentucky, 8/29/73. All of the schools in Floyd County
qualify as Title I schools, although only a little over 2,000
students are Title I "eligible" in that they are more than
one grade level behind and are also enrolled in a remedial
reading program. Floyd County's Fall 1973 Report to the
Office of Civil Rights showed 2,565 students in remedial
reading programs, and 375 of these were in the District's
five high schools. Mr. Wallace, the District's Title I Coordinator,
did not talk about making textbooks available
with Title I funds, but did say that other supplementary
services, such as hearing aids and eye glasses could only
go to students enrolled in Title I remedial reading programs.
(Interview with Harry Wallace, Title I Director,
Floyd County, Kentucky, 1/24/74.)
We do know that other districts, like Sumter County
No.2, South Carolina, have used Title I funds for
waivers of school fees. During the 1973-74 school year,
$15,200,000 of the district's Title I grant was set aside for
that purpose, and during the 1972-73 school year book
fees specifically were mentioned in the Title I application.
(Title I Proiect Applications, May 1972 and May 1973.)
82
They and their children cannot but dislike having
to do so.
We think the Kentucky law as presently drawn
and administered discriminates illegally against poor
children and has the effect of excluding them from
school. We hope that state and local officials will
take prompt action to eliminate this barrier. l13
While we did not find children out of school explicitly
because of the lack of provision of free textbooks
in other states, we think this does contribute
to children dropping out elsewhere. Children and
their families call it "financial difficulties."
State officials should reexamine their provisions
for textbooks and reconsider the probable effects on
poor school children of non-free textbooks. It is
not adequate to say individual hardship cases will be
taken care of when brought to the attention of school
officials. The humiliation for the child and family
will often prohibit them from seeking help. And they
are not always aware that they might be able to get
individual help.
Among the states included in this study, only four
(Georgia, Maine, Massachusetts, and Mississippi)
have unambiguous statutory mandates for the provi-
113 A CDF staff member spoke with Representative Brooks
Hinkel, Chairman of the Education Committee in the
Kentucky Legislature, on March 19, 1974, about the history
of legislation in the state regarding free textbooks.
House Bill 55, to provide free textbooks in grades 1-12,
was introduced during the 1974 session of the legislature
but was never reported out of the Education Committee
because of "lack of funds." They did not think the state
had the funds to support such a law. A bill similar to HB
55 is proposed every session, Representative Hinkel explained,
but he said he did not think that any of them had
ever gotten to a vote on the floor.
114 Kentucky Rev. Stat. §160.330.
115 Title 52, Alabama Code §433(13).
IlG A Davenport, Iowa school official explained that all
schools have a book fee which increases according to grade
level, but said he "is sure [the feel is waived in many
cases." The school system has a fund established to loan
money to students who are in need. (Interview with Dr.
Daryl Spaans, Director of Secondary Education, Davenport,
Iowa, 11/9/73.) However, Larry Jackson, former
Assistant Superintendent and D!rector of Educational Programs,
Annie Wittenmyer Horne, said that a lot of parents
and children are hurt as a result of the required book
fees. Parents who do obtain a waiver for their children's
books suffer the consequence of having a stigma attached
to tbe family name. (Interview with Larry Jackson, former
Assistant Superintendent and Director of Educational
Programs, Annie Wittenmyer Horne, Davenport, Iowa,
11/8/73.)

sion of free textbooks. In Kentucky, no school district
is required to provide free textbooks. ll4
In Alabama, textbooks may be provided free by
the city or county, and the state will provide free
textbooks "insofar as available appropriations therefore
permit."115
Colorado requires only that indigent students be
provided textbooks. Indigency is determined by a
classroom teacher's written statement as to need.
Local school districts may vote to furnish free books
to all students, but they are not required to do so.
In Iowa, local school districts have the option of
providing books free or they may rent or sell them
to students. Additionally, a majority of the district's
voters may vote for the free loan of textbooks. H6
South Carolina, which in the past has relied on a
rental system for books, is in the process of changing
to a system whereby textbooks are loaned without
charge by the State Schoolbook Commission. The
change was first ordered by the state legislature as
early as 1952, however, and it has not been completed
yet-more than 20 years later! The most recent
amendment to the law mandated implementation
of the change-over only for children in the first
eight grades.
The following article in The Advertiser, a Laurens,
South Carolina newspaper, on August 5, 1974
illustrates the burden of book rental fees on poor
families:
Students rent books
All students in Ware Shoals School
District 51 will register, rent books and
pay their fees on Friday, August 23, in
order that the first full day of school will
begin on Monday, August 26, according
to an announcement this morning from
the District 5I office.
Buses will begin running on Friday,
Aug. 23 to transport children to and from
school for this purpose.
ALL STUDENTS in grades 1-8 will
have their books issued between the hours
of 8:30 a.m. and 11: 30 a.m. All Ware
Shoals High School bus students will also
rent their books during those hours, and
the buses will leave school at 11: 30 a.m.
Non bus students at Ware Shoals High
School will rent their books the same day,
but between the hours of I p.m. and 4
o'clock.
IN ORDER to prepare for the opening
there will be a principals meeting at 9 a.m.
on Monday, August 19, with teachers'
workshop being held Tuesday, Wednesday
and Thursday, August 20, 21 and 22.
All Ware Shoals Junior High School
students should report to the gym by 8: 30
a.m. and bring $3.50 for workbooks and
materials.
AT WARE Shoals Elementary School,
Camak, each student must bring $8.80 for
books, supplies, test and materials.
At Ware Shoals Primary Physics (two books), $5.31;
School, Darby: fees for work- Chemistry II, $2.90; Biology II,
books and materials will be $2.20; Chemistry I (two books),
announced by the individual $5.14; Biology I, $2.20; Physiteachers
in the Primary School cal Science, $1.84; Gen. Science,
on Aug. 23. $1.79; and Gen. Science lA,
SO THAT students and par- $1.79.
ents may determine the cost of U. S. HISTORY, $2.23; U. S.
books and supplies, a book ren- History IlIA $1.90; Psychologytal
price list and fees are as fol- Sociology, (two books), $4.36;
lows: Civics (two books) $4.66; Civics
Student Council Fee (All high lA, (two books), $3 World
school students) 60 cents; Eng- History, $2.02, World History
lish IV (three books) $4.39; I1A, $2.88; French II (three
Advanced Compo (three books), books), $6.04; French I, (two
$3.90; English IVA (three books), $4.08; Spanish I (two
books) $4.21; English III (three books) $2.87; Spanish III,
books), $4.39; English IlIA $2.63;
three books) $3.89; English II, Basic Home Be. (Home Ec I),
three books), $4.21; English $2.49; Adv. Home Be. (Home
IA (three pooks) $4.74; English Ec II), $2.87; Family Life and
I (three books), $4.16; and Home Furnishings (two books),
EngHsh IA (two items), $3.40. $5.19; Typing I (two books),
ADVANCED Algebra & Trig $3.34; Typing II (two books),
(one book), $2.75; Gen. Math $3.33; Shorthand I, (two books),
III (No text) (furnished mate- $2.74; Shorthand II(two books),
rials) $4.00; Algebra II, $2.53; $2.96; Business Law, (two
Geometry $2.29; Gen. Math II, books), $3.38; Bookkeeping I
$1.69; General Math IIA (no Materials, $6.59; Drivers Edutext),
$3; Algebra I, $2.36; Gen. cation, $1.67; and Health,
Math I, $1.69; and Gen. Math $2.43.
lA, (no text), $3.
83

Consider what this would mean if you had an
income of less than $3,000 a year. For a family of
six, with two children in junior high school and two
in senior high school, over 5 percent of the family's
income would be spent on school books for required
subjects like English, Math, History, Science and
language.
School Fees
In addition to textbook, workbook and other
supplemental learning materials for which schools
charge, there are frequently additional school fees.
Kentucky, like South Carolina, does not prohibit
the levying of school fees. We found at least five
school-age children in Floyd County whose parents
stated that they dropped out of school because of
their inability to pay school fees. (These were in
addition to the children who left school for lack of
books.) Fees are commonly charged in Floyd
84
County for participation in a variety of classes and
activities. School officials readily admit that laboratory,
art, and typing classes often require fees as
a condition of participation. While as with books it
was claimed that special arrangements can be made
for children unable to afford a particular fee, poor
families seemed unaware of such a policy. Richmond
Slone, one of the schools' pupil personnel directors,
admits that these fees, on at least one occasion, were
a signi,ficant factor in a student's withdrawal from
school. 117
The problem of school fees as an attendance barrier
carries over to other states. Of the ten states in
our study, only Alabama specifically prohibits by
statute the charging of school fees and only for children
in grades one to six in city schools. lJ 8 It allows
(by statute and court decision) the charging of
matriculation, lab, shop, and library fees for high
school students. In Georgia, all public school education
is constitutionally mandated to be at the public
expense. Thus, according to the state's supreme
court, matriculation fees may not be levied.
Although summer school frequently may be a
necessary step in a student's educational process,
. Maine permits the charging of tuition for such attendance.
In Iowa, fees may be charged for summer
school unless a discretionary hardship exemption is
awarded by the school board.
Mississippi permits tuition to be charged in the
state's public agricultural high schools.
Only in Georgia and Massachusetts have state
legislatures made the acquisition of an education not
dependent on the ability to pay school fees. We
think the school fee barrier should be removed
everywhere. Free public education should indeed
be free.
117 Interview with Richmond Slone, Director of Pupil Personnel,
Floyd County, Kentucky, 1/22174.
118 Superintendent of Schools Riddle of Autauga County.
Alabama, stated that there were no fees in elementary
schools though some may ask for "contributions." A high
school can charge "any matriculation fee they want-it's
left up to the individual schooL" The fee could cover
science, art, choral, etc. If a student cannot afford to pay
the fees at his school "he doesn't have to pay it" and
nothing is done to punish him. While he approves any fee
schedule established by an individual school, all fees are
"pretty much standardized." (Interview with Edwin C.
Riddle, Superintendent of Schools, Autauga County, Alabama,
2174.)

Children Without Clothing
Though many Floyd County, Kentucky officials
did not view the lack of free books and school fees
as major problems for poor children, almost all of
them recognized lack of clothing as a major problem
that kept children out of school. Mr. Patton, a
school social worker, said that no clothes is a valid
excuse for children being out of school and that they
get quite a few requests for clothing. The school
system may make referrals to an Interagency Clothing
Center in Drift and indicated that the month
before our interview they obtained 600 pairs of new
shoes. However, a form must be filled out and signed
by the parent and the social worker plus a 50¢ charge
paid for clothing for the entire family. Parents must
provide their own transportation to Drift. Mr. Patton
estimated that in December, 1973, there were
75-100 forms filled out. He did not think most of
the children in those families requesting clothing
were out of school. "Parents will see to it that the
children in school have the shoes and the little ones
will go without." He did recall, though, one family
that he visited last year where there were neither
clothes nor shoes. Everyone was barefoot and the
little boys had dresses on. He noted that this family
had school-age children who had not gone to
school for a month or two because they didn't have
shoes. 1l9
We found a number of families in Floyd County
where children had left school for lack of decent
clothes and others who were about to do so because
they felt embarrassed to be so poor. Often parents
simply said they couldn't "afford" to send their children
to school. For example, one mother with two
children, 16 and 13, said we "don't feel we have
enough income" to send the children. As a result,
both children are out of school. Another mother of
seven, three of whom had already quit school and
whose husband is disabled, said they have "hardly
119 Interview with Charles Patton. School Social Worker.
Floyd County Board of Education, Floyd County, Kentucky.
1/24/74.
85

no money to feed and care for all of US." The oldest
child "never did go but a few months." One other
child went to fifth grade and left. Still another family
we met lived totally on food stamps. They had
four school-age children at home. Seven of their
eight older children had dropped out of school
earlier. The parents are now worried that the
younger ones will also leave because "they don't
have decent clothes to wear to school and no money
... they don't like to go under these conditions."
In one other family with seven children at home
(1-14 years of age), the 14 year old stopped school
in 1972 because he did not have clothes to wear to
school and couldn't afford to buy books. His mother
said he "feels bad having to drop out. My older
children dropped out because they couldn't afford
to go." She complained because she had never heard
from any school official. "If the laws were enforced,
schools would check on an underage child being out
of school." The family lives on $251.00 a month in
state aid and food stamps. A Banner, Kentucky
father elaborated this problem: "I'm well aware of
some of our children. that don't have money or
decent clothes to wear. Lots of these children want
to go to school. I think we need some kind of program
to help these children to get clothes and books.
I only wish I had went to school, not so well dressed,
and got my education. Education is something no
one can take away from you."
The lack of clothing among poor children is a
problem we found in other states. While many of
the cases were not as extreme as some of those
described in Floyd County, teenagers particularly
are acutely sensitive to what they lack and what
other children have. 12o In colder climates, like
Holyoke, Massachusetts, insufficient clothing can
keep children out of school in winter months. One
school official noted the chronic absenteeism of
Puerto Rican children in Holyoke's West Street Elementary
School. During February and March, it
runs as high as 50 percent. l2l We found similar
clothing problems referred to in the Riverton Hous-
120 As any parent knows, lack of clothing is not the only
problem. Children, and particularly teenagers, are also
acutely sensitive to the variety and quality of clothes they
have. They want to look as nice as their peers.
121 Interview with Alice Miesel, Director of Title VII,
Ho)yoke, Massachusetts, I2f) 1/73.
86
ing Project in Portland, Maine and in the District
of Columbia.
It has become obvious to us from extensive discussions
with parents, school officials and community
leaders that inadequate clothing is a significant
cause of children staying out of school.
While alleviating poverty may not be a direct responsibility
of schools, since this facet of it directly
affects the ability of children to attend and to learn,
we think schools should provide leadership in ensuring
that their pupils can attend. Since the purpose
of ESEA Title I funds are to enhance educational
resources for poor children, we recommend that a
larger proportion of these funds be made available
for basic clothing needs where required. Floyd
County had a Title I clothing fund which has been
discontinued. That a need remains is evident.
Transportation Barriers
During the 1970-71 school year, the most recent
year for which there is information, the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported
19,191,483 children, or over 43% of all school children,
were transported to school. Only 1.2 to 3.6
percent of these students are bused to achieve racial
integration. 122 The overwhelming majority of them
are transported because they live far from a public
school. Inadequately provided transportation, or
charges for bus fare, have kept many children we
found out of school. 123
In the District of Columbia, we found special
needs children out of school because their parents
had no way to transport them and the school system
had delayed months in providing a ride. A Floyd
County official said there were no special classes for
emotionally disturbed children because these classes
"would also require providing transportation which
would be costly. "124 As a result, these children just
122 Testimony of John C. Sawhill of the Federal Energy
Office before the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee
on January 7, 1973, p. 6.
123 Provision of transportation to school children is usually
a function of state statute, and some slates mandate free
transportation for only some children.
124 Interview with Ray Brackett, Assistant Superintendent,
Floyd County, Kentucky, 8/29/73.

to be transported. Two dollars is a large bite out of
poor families' budget, particularly when a family
has more than one secondary school-age child.
Portland school officials seem to recognize that
the bus charges may create a hardship for some families:
"It has recently come to our attention that a number
of pupils living in a low income housing area
are being deprived of an opportunity to attend
school by reason of the fact that they are unable to
purchase bus tickets ... it is our contention that
this hardship will be eliminated if the authority to
grant bus tickets on a discretionary basis were
granted to this office for the purpose of serving
the needy pupils."126
School officials devised an informal hardship "policy"
during the 1972-73 school year and a written
one during 1973-74. However, this policy has not
been widely publicized or circulated. Assistant Superintendent
Barlett told ns: "I don't think we miss
88
many. 1 think the word gets around.... We haven't
sent out any bulletins.... I feel certain that anyone
out there who doesn't have transportation finds out.
... 1 think the grapevine in the Riverton Project is
really good."127 It is doubtful he is right. Parents of
over 40 percent of the children we surveyed who
were in the 9th grade or above specifically complained
about the $2.00 per week expense. No
Riverton parent ever mentioned the existence of a
waiver policy to us. And school officials received
only 7 requests for waiver of the weekly $2.00 in
1972-73 and 15 in 1973-74.
While it is not clear how many children may be
staying out of school solely because of the transportation
policy, we know some are. Riverton has the
highest percentage of children out of school of all
the areas we surveyed-IO.8 percent out 45 days
or more. 42 percent of children out of school were
habitually truant. 17 percent of children 12 to 15
years old and 21 percent of 16 and 17-year-olds
were out of school. The problems of transportation
were often cited as a contributory cause. Moreover,
the Riverton community considers this policy just
one more burden unnecessarily imposed on poor
families and children.
-"Since the family cannot afford bus tickets, Jeffrey
often must walk."
-A mother complaining about the cost of bus
tickets stated that the school says after the 7th
grade the kids "are old enough to find their own
way."
126 Memorandum from Phil Gerber and John Trevanir to
Clyde Bartlett, Assistant Superintendent, Portland, Maine,
October, 1973.
127 Interview with Clyde Bartlett, Assistant Superintendent
of Schools, Portland, Maine, t t/29173.
128 We are puzzled about the official school stance. Under a
new school financing plan, communities are now eligible
for 100% state reimbursement for transportation expenses
at the 1972 level, with a 711.z % increase yearly without cutting
into reimbursement for other expenditures.
129 It is important that standards be devised so that the
current existing discretion in the Office of Pupil Personnel
to deny transportation be eliminated. Many parents complained
to us of unsympathetic principal response to requests
for free bus tickets. As the current "policy" still
depends on principals to funnel requests for tickets to
Pupil Personnel for action, clear guidelines are crucial if
parents are not to be discouraged from applying for help
at all. People who are informed of their entitlements and
the basis for tbem are more likely to seek them than those
who are not.

Apparently a judgment has been made by Portland
officials that junior and senior high school children
are old enough to get themselves to school. It is
also true, however, that these are the years when
children are most vulnerable to truancy and dropping
out.
We urge the Portland School Board to remove the
transportation burden on the Riverton Community.t 28
The minimal interim step would be to widely cir-
culate and publicize the availability of possible free
transportation with a simplified and objective statement
of eligibility.129 It is not sufficient to leave the
burden on poor families and children to find out
about a policy and to seek help. While school officials
contend that the few requests for free transportation
may be viewed as lack of need, we view it as a
lack of knowledge. It should be the function of the
schools to see that attendance barriers do not exist.
89

Children with special needs is a catch-all phrase
for a wide variety of conditions. Generally, anyone
who does not fit into the normal classroom pattern
and who needs different or supplemental attention
in order to benefit from public instruction is considered
a special needs child.
Traditionally these children have been labeled
handicapped. The handicap can be as severe as extreme
mental retardation or as commonplace as a
speech defect. It can be physically disabling or inhibit
psychological and emotional interaction. It
can be long-term, such as deafness, or a temporary
condition, such as pregnancy.2 It can require medical
attention, or psychological counseling, or a special
curriculum. The diversity of needs which children
exhibit is staggering. More staggering is the scarcity
of knowledge, programs, funds, and commitment to
helping these children and their families.
As we went from door to door, we found children
with a disturbing array of special needs who were
out of school. We found others in school whose
needs were not being adequately met. Despite the
great variations in the reasons for their exclusion
several common threads tied them together.
First: Parental ignorance of and exclusion from
special needs decisions affecting their children. More
than other children, children with special needs require
the continuity of care and program that extends
beyond the six hours of a school day. In no area is
parental education and involvement more needed. In
no area is it less forthcoming. Many of the parents
we interviewed did not know whether their child was
receiving any special attention or whether it was
adequate or appropriate. They did not understand
the labels, the testing procedures, the rationales behind
treatment methods, the goals of instruction,
their role in their child's education, or what they had
a right to demand of the public school system. Communication
between teacher and parent was poor.
Placement techniques used in school were rarely explained.
Rarely was the parent asked permission before
testing or placement decisions were made.
Often there is little definitive information a pro-
2 We were very surprised to see the number of districts that
included pregnant girls witbitt special education divisions'
responsibility for "handicapped" children. We have, however,
included them more appropriately in our previous
chapter on barriers to attendance.
92
fessional can give a parent. For example, little is
known about the origins of hyperactivity, or how
best to teach a dyslexic child, or what method will
best train an emotionally disturbed child. In the
face of insufficient knowledge about the cause of or
remedy for children's disabilities, decisions about
their educational future are more a matter of informed
judgment than hard fact. This means that
the child's history, day to day activity, and the parents'
observations are particularly important. It is
thus striking that parents are almost uniformly left
out of the special education process - having no
power in the decision and no information upon
which it is based.
Second: Public school denial of responsibility for
educating children with special needs. Schools all
too frequently have denied responsibility for meeting
the special needs of children. Some officials have
convinced parents that there are no suitable programs
for their children that could be, or ought to
be, provided at public expense in the public schools.
School officials deny responsibility to care for and
educate these children on the grounds that these
children are different, might hurt others, would not
benefit from regular school and would tax the already
stretched resources and patience of teachers
and administrators. In short, they argue, it is not
the school's responsibility to do anything about special
needs children. This attitude is conveyed in the
statutory exemptions passed by 48 states and the
District of Columbia for children who are physically,
mentally, or emotionally handicapped or who "cannot
profit from an education."3 It is also conveyed
by the interaction between family and school. An
official may not say so directly, but lack of services,
outreach, flexibility and attention get the message
across: children with special needs should not come
to school.
Third: Parents feel overwhelmingly alone. 4 Most
have no alternatives. If they cannot afford to buy
the attention of high priced professional care, few
public agencies will respond to their problems. They
often have two choices: they can send their child to
3 See Appendix I for states with such exemptions.
4 A healthy occurrence is the growing group advocacy of
parents of some special needs children - particularly the
mentally retarded - who have banded together to demand
services for their youngsters.

ecome self-sufficient adults are the least likely to
receive public educational services.
The exclusion of handicapped children has grown
out of the view that they are ineducable. When
diagnostic and remedial methods were primitive, the
vast majority of children with special needs were
lumped together under broad, undifferentiated labels
and were presumed not to function or to grow
cognitively. No purpose therefore was seen in providing
schooling for them.
More recent research has shown, however, that
there are real differences among children with special
needs, 6 and that with appropriate instruction all
such children can improve the extent to which they
are independent. 7 This research was a basis for a
court action in 1972 laying the groundwork for
establishing the legal right to an education for all
children. In upholding the claims of mentally retarded
children to an education, the consent decree
in Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children
(PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania stated
that:
All mentally retarded persons are capable of benefiting
from a program of education and training;
that the greatest number of retarded persons,
given such education and training, are capable of
6 Throughout this chapter we will be using labels for various
handicapping conditions only because the information
reported to us was done so by means of labels. Unfortunately
most of the local school districts and other educational
agencies throughout the country continue to use
such labels rather than the prescriptive approach which
we prefer. When referring to handicapped children generally
we will be using the Bureau of Education for the
Handicapped definition to mean children with certain
impairments which require special education and related
services. The labels which we have come across, and
therefore use throughout this chapter, are the following:
educable mentally retarded (EMR) or educable mentally
handicapped (EMH), trainable mentally retarded (TMR)
or trainable mentally handicapped (TMH), emotionally
disturbed (ED), educationally handicapped (EH), learning
disabilities (LD), hard of hearing (HH), deaf (D),
visually impaired (VI), blind (B), speech impaired (SI),
and physically handicapped (PH). Because we are not
using the labels to describe any child, class or program
which has not been previously labeled, we are not setting
forth definitions for these various handicapping conditions.
We know from experience that such definitions often vary
widely from one school district to another. A discussion
of definitions for various handicapping conditions is set
forth in James D. Kakalik, et aI., Services for Handicapped
Youth: A Program Overview (Washington, D.C.: R-1220­
HEW, May, 1973), pp. 273-282.
94
achieving self-sufficiency and the remammg few
[the profoundly retarded], with such education
and training, are capable of achieving some degree
of self-care; that the earlier such education and
training begins, the more thoroughly and the
more efficiently a mentally retarded person will
benefit from it and, whether begun early or not,
that a mentally retarded person can benefit at any
point in his life and development from a program
of education. s
The PARC decree was followed by Mills v. D.C.
Board of Education 9 which broadened the groups of
special needs children District of Columbia schools
were obligated to serve. Since then, a number of
lawsuits have been brought by parents and local
advocates to ensure all children a right to a public
education in other states. to Some state legislatures
have passed laws promoting special education. But
the movement is slow. Children excluded for so
long are still outside the purview of many school
officials. And there is much confusion still about
how to define special needs children, how to find out
how many there are, how to determine what services
they need, and how to provide them.
Official Ignorance of Need
The PARC decision obligated the state of Pennsylvania
to identify, evaluate, and provide educational
services for all of its mentally retarded chil-
7 "Children who are classified as mildly retarded (frequently
called 'educable mentally retarded' by educators), although
limited in their potentials for advanced academic achievement,
can usually be brought by special educational techniques
to a state of self-sufficiency as adults. Moderately
retarded children show a rate of mental development which
is less than half of that normally expected, but can nevertheless
learn to take care of their personal needs and
perform many useful tasks in the home or in a sheltered
working situation. The severely retarded can learn self·care
but their potential economic productivity is limited.
"The profoundly retarded also respond to training in
basic self-care, and they additionally profit from special
training in such areas as behavior control, self-protection,
language development and physical mobility," National
Association for Retarded Children, Facts on Mental Retardation
4 (1971).
8343 F.Supp. 279, 296 (E.D.Pa. 1972).
9348 F.Supp. 866 (D.D.C. 1972).
to For an analysis of the principles involved in right to education
litigation and a summary of cases in this area, see
Appendix P.

dren. Through outreach efforts, 7,400 excluded
mentally retarded children were found. ll The District
of Columbia similarly identified at least 848
children who had been excluded.'2 Even though
officials professed to have found all those in need of
services, we found mentally retarded children who
had never been to school in the D.C. Census tract
we surveyed.
Outreach efforts highlight all the problems of
identifying special needs children. First, there are
differences among children that require different
programs of treatment. Rarely are these definitions
clear and explicit, either at the federal, state, or
local level. Rarely are they consistent across districts
or states. IS Therefore, trying to estimate incidence
of a particular problem or need for services is an
imprecise and often frustrating exercise. One example
of the confusion that can result happened in
Floyd County, Kentucky. OCR's Annual School
Survey asked for information on children who were
"severely emotionally disturbed, socially maladjusted,
underachievers, and slow learners" without further
definitions. The Floyd County school district included
in their report to OCR over 2,500 students
who were enrolled in Title I remedial reading programs.
Sumter County No.2, in South Carolina, also
seems to have reported students in its Title I remedial
reading and math programs in these special
education categories in their report to OCR. This
error is understandable in view of the lack of precision
at OCR and at the local district level in defining
special needs. Yet it is not trivial. It misleads
officials about how many children in school need
and actually are receiving special services.
11 David Kirp, William Buss, and Peter Kurilotf, "Legal
Reform of Special Education," California Law Review,
Vol. 62 (January, 1974) p. 63.
12 Interview with Merle Van Dyke, Assistant Superintendent,
Special Education, Washington, D.C., 3/7/74.
13 For the purpose of programs funded under the Education
of the Handicapped Act, the Bureau of Education for the
Handicapped, U.S. Department of Health, Education and
Welfare, defines "handicapped children" to mean "mentally
retarded, hard of hearing, deaf, speech impaired, visually
handicapped, seriously emotionally disturbed, crippled, or
other health impaired children who by reason thereof require
special education and related services. The term includes
children with specific learning disabilities to the
extent that such children are health impaired children who
by reason thereof require special education and related
services." 45 C.F.R. §121.2.
We found estimates of need varying greatly. On
a national level, HEW's Bureau of Education for
the Handicapped said that in 1971-72, only 44 percent
of handicapped children ages 0-21 were being
served in public schools or state-supported institutions.
A Rand study for HEW estimated that 59
percent of handicapped children ages 5-17 were being
served in public schools during the 1972-73
school year. 14
On a local level, while most school officials we
visited could tell us what kinds of programs they
had in their districts, they could tell us virtually
nothing about the number of children being served
by these programs or the number of children needing
such programs. Precise data did not exist even
where there was an obligation to conduct a general
school census or a special census of handicapped
children. For example, in South Carolina "each district
is directed to conduct a survey of the educational
needs of all handicapped children" under the
recently enacted South Carolina Mandatory Education
Act for the Handicapped. However, school
districts were given the option to project needs based
on their own intradistrict survey and/or on incidence
figures set forth by the state. Since Sumter County
No.2 chose to rely on state incidence figures, and
did not conduct a survey, officials there had no notion
of the number of children eligible to receive
services under the law. Richland County School
District No. 1 also relied on incidence figures' prepared
by the state and consequently the actual service
needs in this school district remain indeterminate.
Floyd County, Kentucky officials purported to
conduct a general house-to-house census each spring
which included handicapped children. But the counts
are notoriously inaccurate. These censuses are conducted
by teachers on their own time and with no
extra help or compensation. Families living at the
heads of the hollow, or several miles off a creek,
simply are not counted. Unfortunately, it is children
in such remote locations that are likely to be out of
school.
14 See Kakalik, Services for Handicapped Youth: A Program
Overview, pp. 112-118. The discrepancy in these figures
may be caused by the reports including different age
groupings or it may be caused by new services for handicapped
children provided in the last several years.
95

In Cambridee, Massachusetts, an attempted overall
school census on children out of school was conducted
by citizen volunteers at the request of the
central school administration. However, the results
of the census are viewed by school officials as useless.
Though Massachusetts law requires submission
of reports of numbers of children with special needs,
it is readily apparent from our interviews with the
Cambridge Special Education director and other
special education personnel in the state that the data
are not systematically compiled and little affirmative
effort is undertaken to locate children with handicaps.IS
A Springfield research official said that six
censuses are conducted in the school district: three
by the School Department to ascertain pupil enrollment;
one by the police to determine if any children
are not in school; a bilingual census and a handicapped
census. 16 There is a great deal of overlap
and very little cooperation among those conducting
the censuses, so that none of them are done very
well. The Special Class Supervisor reinforced this
picture of confusion by remarking that the census of
the handicapped taken for the state on October I,
1973 is inaccurate. 17
In Davenport, Iowa, where a census of handicapped
children is submitted to the state, we were
informed that there was rio outreach to identify
handicapped children. The school system deals
only with those who come to school. 18
Portland, Maine tried to get federal funding to
conduct a census to determine exact numbers of children
with special needs, but the application was
turned down because the Office of Education said
this was not one of the greater needs of the city.
While the COlorado state code mandates a districtby-district
survey of handicapped children, it is
apparently commonly known that Denver has never
complied with this requirement. The new Handicapped
Children's Educational Act also mandates
such a census, but its requirement is not effective
IS Interview with Dr. Grace Kaczyunski, Director, Office of
Pupil Services, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 10/12/73.
16 Interview with Dr. John Howell, Research Director,
Springfield School Department, Springfield, Massachusetts,
12/6/73.
17 Interview with Dr. Mary C. McLean, Special Class Supervisor,
Springfield, Massachusetts, 12/12/73.
96
until the 1974-75 school year.
And in Alabama, where there are two censuses
that could provide useful information, neither one
has done so. Every four years, each school district
must conduct a census of school-age children. Although
there is a space on the census card used for
information about handicapped children, it is not
transmitted from individual districts to the State
Department of Education nor is it compiled by individual
districts. The Montgomery Superintendent
says it was a "very imperfect census" which is of
"no value at all to the district. "19 It is conducted
only because it is required by law and is the basis
for appropriating certain funds to individual districts.
A survey of exceptional children required by the
Alabama Exceptional Child Education Act was conducted
in 1971. According to an official in the
State Department of Education, the poor results of
their survey are attributed to the hurried manner in
which it was conducted. 20 The results of the survey
were based on teacher referrals--children teachers
felt should be referred-not children who had actually
been tested and found in need of special education
services. Since it was done so quickly, no
checking could be done to determine whether those
referred would in fact qualify as exceptional. Thus
the figures on the number of children in need of
services are very likely distorted.
Parental Ignorance of Exclusion
If school officials are not providing the leadership
in identifying and helping children with special
needs, neither are enough parents supplying the
demand for services. Many do not push for special
placement for their children. Some, in fact, resist
it because they shun the embarrassment they feel
such an admission of handicap entails. Other parents,
minority parents particularly, fear racial discrimination
in the classification and placement process.
But the larger number of parents are silent because
they are ignorant of the possible disabilities their
children may have, ways of assessing them, educational
services that would be beneficial, or what
exactly they are entitled to.
Most parents we interviewed had little idea of the
kinds of special education programs their school

district provided, even if their child was enrolled in
one. Few knew whether or not their children were
tested, and if they had been, what kind of tests were
used, who administered them, or their results. In
our survey only 30 percent of the parents of children
we found in special education classes had given their
permission before testing or placement. Even then,
it was mainly perfunctory. For example, the form
sent to parents of children whom the school planned
to place in special education in a Georgia district
looks like this:
PROGRAM FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN
CLARKE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT
Dear Parent:
Athens, Georgia
____________ will be placed in
child's name
the Special Program
atL for the 1974-75
school's name
School Year.
1£ you have questions concerning this placement
please call Mr. Doug Carmichael, Director
of the Program for Exceptional Children, 546­
772l-ext. 19.
Sincerely,
Doug Carmichael, Director
Program for Exceptional Children 21
We found that parent conferences to discuss the
child's problem in any detail were almost never
arranged.
School official comments confirm this parental
exclusion. One Cambridge school master said, "We
don't push parents too much in terms of involve-
18 Interview with Donald Tupper, Director, Special Education
and Pupil Services, Davenport, Iowa, 1116/73.
,9 Interview with Dr. William S. Garrett, Superintendent of
Schools, Montgomery, Alabama, 1/7/74.
20 Interview with Dr. Clinton R. Owens, Chief Consultant,
Program for Exceptional Children and Youth, Alabama
State Department of Education, Montgomery, Alabama,
1/8/74.
21 Form obtained from a parent in Athens, Georgia by ODF
staff member, August, 1974.
ment" but Hour policy is always to let the parents
know what is happening."22 Involvement, however,
is usually after the fact. In Portland, parental consent
is obtained only when a child is placed in a
self-contained special education program. The Acting
Chairwoman of the Portland School Committee
noted that "parents don't know until it's too late
that their child has a problem."28 The New Bedford
Title I Parent Advisory Council Chairman commented
that H[p]arents are apathetic . . . they take
the attitude of the teacher knows best, 'I can't get involved'
or 'I can't win' with regard to such issues."24
In Montgomery, the special education coordinator
said that most of the objections about special education
placements came after placement of the child in
special education. Their objections usually stem
from a lack of understanding about the program. 25
We think this is because Montgomery asks for permission
to place children at the same time they ask
for permission to test them. Parents therefore never
have an opportunity to discuss the test results or
evaluate the proposed program for their child beforehand.
The problem is particularly acute among people
of limited English-speaking ability. They are seldom
informed in their own language and officials have
hired few special education personnel who are also
bilingual.
We commonly found unmet needs, but we found
parents' perceptions of these unmet needs deceivingly
low. Parents of only 1.9 percent of the children surveyed
recognized any special problem or unmet need
of their children. This lack of parental knowledge
and pressure is a major reason why school officials
in general are failing to meet their responsibility to
most of the children who need supplemental services.
One school official asserted that nothing happens in
the system unless the pressure comes from parent
groupS.26
22 Interview with John O'Keefe, Master, Harrington Elementary
School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 11/2/73.
23 Interview with Mary Sottery, Acting Chairwoman, Portland
School Committee, Portland, Maine, 10/23/73.
24 Interview with Lee Charlton, Chairman, Title I PAC,
New Bedford, Massachusetts, 11/27/73.
25 Interview with Martha White, Special Education Coordinator,
Montgomery, Alabama, 1/10/74 and 1/11/74.
21; Interview with an official in Davenport, Iowa who asked
to remain anonymous.
97

Inadequacy of Special Education Programs
Official and parental ignorance and resistance,
inadequate assessment tools, and lack of resources
are the principal reasons why special education services
for children are inadequate.
Quantity. While many districts have made progress
in expanding the numbers of children served by
special programs in the last several years, need still
badly outstrips service. State incidence figures for
three school districts show the following: 27
-In its 1972 "District Plan for Programs for the
Handicapped," Sumter County No. 2 estimated
that there were 1,705 handicapped children to be
served, and that only 270 were being served as of
1971-72.
-In its "Plan to Provide Adequate Programs for
Pupils with Handicapping Conditions" of March
1, 1972, Richland County No.1, South Carolina,
estimated that there were 5,924 handicapped children
in the district and'that only 31.4 percent
were being served by special programs.
-The Montgomery, Alabama 1971 school district
98
survey estimated 8,378 children as needing special
educational services. Only 1,987 of these were
being served as of the 1971-72 school year.
Autauga County, Alabama, Floyd County, Kentucky,
and Canton, Mississippi all provided even
fewer services.
Of the seventeen school districts we visited, eight
reported providing no special services for deaf or
hearing impaired children (Autauga, Canton, Floyd,
Hancock, Holyoke, Montgomery, Somerville, Sumter)
;28 seven reported no in-school programs for
blind or sight impaired children (Autauga, Bibb,
Canton, Floyd,2° Hancock, Richland, and Sumter) ;ao
five reported no services for children with learning
disabilities (Autauga, Canton, Floyd, Hancock and
Sumter). While three school districts reported no
programs for children labeled trainable mentally retarded
(Canton, Hancock and Sumter), several
school districts made arrangements with outside
agencies to provide some services for these children
(Autauga, Davenport, Denver, Montgomery,al Portland
and Richland). Eight districts reported no pro-

grams for children labeled emotionally disturbed
(Autauga, Bibb, Canton, Davenport, Floyd, Hancock,
Montgomery and Sumter).32 Ten school districts
provided no in-school programs for physically
handicapped children who were not able to participate
in the regular school program (Autauga,
Bibb, Canton, Davenport, Floyd, Hancock, Holyoke,
Montgomery, Portland, and Sumter).88
When services are available, they are usually for
EMR children. Four of the districts (Autauga,
Canton, Hancock and Sumter) reported that EMR
children were the only special needs children (other
than speech impaired) for whom they provided
services in their own schools. But three of these
districts indicated that there were still additional
children waiting to be served by such classes. We
also found EMR children on waiting lists in Washington,
D.C., Denver, Colorado, Holyoke and New
Bedford, Massachusetts, Richland County No.1,
South Carolina, and Montgomery, Alabama. Four
districts (Washington, D.C., Montgomery, Holyoke
lind Sumter) also indicated waiting lists for TMR
classes.
Programs for children who are emotionally disrurbed
and those with specific learning disabilities
seemed to be in greatest demand in the areas we
Visited. Twelve of the 15 districts in which we were
able to get an indication of unmet needs indicated
either waiting lists for existing programs or a need
for additional programs or services for emotionally
disturbed children or those with specific learning
disabilities. 34 Denver does not clearly distinguish
between these two categories, but instead has programs
for "educationally handicapped" children.
According to the Director of Special Education in
Denver, there were over 300 children on waiting lists
for the educationally handicapped programs during
27 We recognize the limitations of state incidence figures.
But since local districts rely on these figures, we use them
here as i1lustrative of unmet needs.
28 Montgomery does send deaf children to the Children's
Center.
29 Floyd County does provide large print textbooks to a
limited number of children who are visually impaired.
30 Davenport has a shared arrangement with neighboring
Bettendorf to provide for special services to blind children;
Somerville sends blind children to Boston Center for the
Blind; Ponland sends children to the Blind Children's Resource
Center; and Montgomery sends its blind pupils to
the Children's Center.
the 1972-73 school year.35
Programs for children with speech impairments
were generally the services provided most widely
throughout the school districts we surveyed. Only
Autauga County reported that it had no speech
therapist or other personnel to provide services to
children with speech impairments. Floyd County
employed its first full-time speech therapist during
1973-74. However, four school districts-Washington,
D.C., Denver, Davenport and Holyoke-reported
the need for additional services in this area
and students on waiting lists for speech programs.
Even fewer services are available for secondary
school children with special needs. The special education
programs that exist are largely for elementary
children. 36 Autauga, Floyd, and Sumter Counties,
and Canton have no special education classes in
either junior or senior high schools. Children enrolled
in special education classes in the elementary
grades simply move into regular classes on the junior
high level. There have never been any classes for
mentally retarded children in the high schools. And
in Floyd County, a community health project worker
told us that children in their teens have been found
"who have never been to school."37 Somerville,
Massachusetts has no high school program for educable
mentally retarded pupils. As a result, there
are many cases in which a "partially integrated student
would end up doing the same things over and
31 Montgomery had two classes for TMR children in its
own schools in 1973-74, but the majority of its TMR
students still attend the McInnis School.
32 Davenport only provided services to children who are so
severely disturbed as to cause them to be hospitalized. The
Children's Center in Montgomery served approximately
six emotionally disturbed children from the public school
district.
33 Portland sent a limited number of students to the Cerebral
Palsy Center, and some physically handicapped students
from Montgomery attended the Children's Center.
34 Because school officials in Bibb County and Hancock
County, Georgia did not consent to interviews, data on unmet
needs could not be obtained. Figures on the types of
special programs provided in these districts were obtained
from the Georgia State Department of Education.
35 Interviews with Ted White, Director, Special Education,
Denver, Colorado, 1112/73 and 11/6/73.
86 For a summary of the special education programs available
in the districts CDF monitored, see Appendix N,
Table II.
37 Interview with Eula Hall, Mud Creek Health Project,
Grethel, Kentucky, 1/23/74.
99

over again for four or five years. u8a In Montgomery,
Alabama, classes for educable mentally retarded
children in junior high were offered for the first time
in 1972-73. It was not until 1973-74 that the first
senior high school special education classes were
instituted. Holyoke has only one class for emotionally
disturbed children ages 10 through 12. It is
located at Highland Elementary School and serves
only that district's more affluent population.
Quality. Many purportedly educational programs
for handicapped children are in fact custodial and/
or recreational.
In Floyd County, one former mental retardation
worker said that the County's classes for educable
retarded children were "purely babysitting. The
teachers are primarily trying to keep the kids busy."
He characterized the two classes for trainable retarded
children in the County as "pretty good" to
"terrible."89 In Somerville, a Neighborhood Youth
Corps worker referred to the special classes in one
school as a "dumping ground for slow learners" and
alleged that children stay in the program three or
four years, learning the same things over and over
with no options open to them. 40
Many of the school districts we surveyed said they
provided home instruction (often referred to as the
Homebound Program) for students who are either
physically handicapped or so emotionally disturbed
that they could not attend regular classes. Many of
the children who actually received these services
had only short-term illnesses. These temporarily
disabled children often filled the workloads of the
few available home teachers. Students with longterm
handicaps which kept them permanently out of
school received fewer home services. When given,
home instruction was, on the average, an hour per
day, two or three times a week. Students who
depend on this form of instruction for their continuing
education are not only deprived of participation
in significant educational activities such as
science laboratories but also may suffer from limited
or no contact with other children. They also must
8a Interview with a school official, Somerville, Massachusetts,
who asked to remain anonymoCs.
89 Interview with a person in Floyd County, Kentucky who
asked to remain anonymous.
40 Interview with Jean Luce. Neighborhood Youth Corps
(Out-of- chool). Somerville. Massachusetts, 1112/73.
100
go to school a much longer period of time to earn
enough credits to qualify for high school graduation.
Contributing to their poor quality is the inferior
status most special education programs occupy in
the eyes of too many school officials, teachers, parents
and children. The principal of Portland High
School sees a role for a new vocational school to
train the EMR students for "simple maintenance
work, sweeping floors."4l In Springfield, the itinerant
learning disabilities program is often restricted to
those schools where there is available space or a
free room or alcove or closet. Since the schools
where Puerto Rican children are concentrated are
extremely overcrowded, there are no itinerant learning
disabilities teachers there.
School officials complained most about a lack of
trained personnel for special education classes. One
school official we interviewed said he phased out
two classes for emotionally disturbed children at the
end of 1972-73 because "we can't find teachers who
can handle these kids. I walked into one of those
classes one day and Twas so discouraged ... if anyone
from the public had seen it. ..."42
In Georgia, 40 percent of the teachers for EMR
classes are not fully certified to teach such classes. 48
Many Sumter County, South Carolina officials said
that hardly any colleges or universities have training
programs for special education. "The legislature
keeps expanding the requirements."" Lack of trained
personnel is a main problem restricting expansion
of special education programs. This complaint was
echoed it] the District of Columbia where one official
said many children in need of special education were
not being served because of the limited number of
good qualified special education teachers.4 S Mont-
4t Interview with Walter Hansen, Principal, Portland High
School, 10/25/73.
42 Interview with an official. Portland, Maine, who asked to
remain anonymous.
48 This figure was confirmed by the Director of the Division
of Special Education in Georgia in an interview with a
CDF staff member, August 1974.
44 Interview with Dr. Hugb Stoddard, Superintendent, of
Schools, R. E. Davis, Direclor of Special Services, and W. T.
Lavender, Assistant Title I Coordinator, Sumter County
No.2, South Carolina, 1121/74.
45 Interview with Julian West, Assistant to the Assistant
Superintendent, Washington, D.C., 5/23/74.
4(' Interview with Martha White, Special Education Coordinator,
Montgomery, Alabama, 11\0/74 and 1/1\/74.

•
gomery, Alabama did not set up learning disabilities
classes until recently. There is a good selection of
teachers for programs for the mentally retarded, but
learning disability teachers are scarcer than "hen's
teeth. "46
Misclassification
For children with special needs to be in poor programs
is educationally unsound; for them to be in
the wrong programs is harmful and cruel. Children
with one problem who are put in classes geared for
a different problem may not learn, may fall further
behind and experience great frustration. Those who
are "normal" like B.J. and his New Bedford friends
described in Chapter I, who have been misdiagnosed
or misplaced for racially discriminatory or for other
reasons, suffer grave doubts about their own abilities
and may lose all motivation to go to school at
all. The damage to their intellectual and emotional
development may be great. As Judge J. Skelly
Wright wrote in his decision in Hobson v. Hansen
about students who had been misclassified:
The unfortunate students, treated as if they were
subnormal, come to accept the fact that they are
subnormal.4 7
Despite these foreseeable harmful consequences,
misclassification in schools is rife. The most striking
data we turned up point to racial discrimination in
the classification process. But we also discovered
three other major causes of error in placing children
in special education.
First, assessment techniques are inadequate. They
often cannot pinpoint the cause of symptoms. They
are costly and facilities and trained personnel may
be in short supply. Less expensive, standardized
tests are crude measures of overall performance and
may be biased against culturally or linguistically different
children.
Second, children are often placed on the basis of
subjective evaluation. Special education classes may
be misused by classroom teachers to remove children
who are disruptive, who do not have a handicap,
and who will not benefit from special educational
47 269 F.Supp. 401, 484 (D.D.C. 1967), af}'d. ell ballc
sub 110m. Smuck v. Hobson, 408 F.2d 175 (D.C. Cir.
1969).
instruction. If a teachei: does not deliberately banish
trouble-makers to special education classes, he or
she may evaluate such students subjectively and
decide they belong there because of their behavior.
Whether willful or unwitting, misclassification commonly
occurs.
Third, many financial aid programs provide additional
funds for serving children with special needs.
The incentive of increased revenues sometimes
tempts school and other officials to be careless about
identification, labeling and segregation of students
into special education classes. Rather than seeking
children with unmet needs who may be difficult to
find, the temptation to label those at hand is appealing.
Each of these problems in the classification of
children is abetted by the virtual monopoly school
officials exercise in making these critical decisions.
Even more than the suspension process which we
discuss in Chapter 5, classification procedures, or
the lack of them, are hidden from public and parental
view.
Racial Discrimination in Classification
-Janice, 16, is in the 10th grade in Macon, Georgia.
She has been suspended several times for refusing
to be placed in a special education class. The
root of this problem extends back to September
1972 when Janice says she was told by her white
advisor that she should be placed in special math
and English classes because of her "attitude."
Janice refused on grounds that these classes are
for "dumb people." Since September, she has been
suspended on an average of once every three
months for refusing to be placed in these classes.
However, she has continued to return to school
in her regular classes and maintains a C average.
Janice feels she needs tutoring in math and English
but does not need to be placed in a special
education class. If she is forced into such a class,
she will drop out. She would be ostracized by
her friends who would tease her about being in a
class with a "bunch of dummies. Teachers in
these classes don't teach, they just try to keep the
dummies quiet."
The threat of being placed in this class has
caused Janice to "study harder in order to show
the white folks that she is not dumb." Thus far,
101

Janice has not been suspended this school term.
However, her white counselor told her that
she should be in a "special school or in reform
school." This caused her to come home crying.
She is building up a "great deal of hostility toward
all white people and often talks of the good days
at the all-black school."
-Willie is an ll-year-old black child placed in an
EMR class in his elementary school in Clarke
County, Georgia. His mother did not know he
was placed in a special class. She had a conference
with the Superintendent of Schools and the
principal who told her that Willie was a behavior
problem, but no one mentioned he was being put
in an EMR class. She does not recall Willie
having any tests, nor did she give permission for
any to be given. She was never asked for and
she never gave permission for Willie's special
placement.
-Terry is a 17-year-old black youngster enrolled in
the workshop program at New Bedford High
School. When he was in fourth or fifth grade,
school officials placed him in a special class without
his mother's written permission because they
said he was "learning slowly." His mother felt that
he was slow at the time because they had moved a
lot and because he was emotionally disturbed
about the break-up of his parents. According to
Terry's mother "he has hated school ever since."
She later learned that she could have prevented
the placement, but the news came too late to help
Terry. "Now he can't do the kind of work high
school kids do because he's been in a special
class . . . his older brother has talked him into
staying in school ... he knows he can't get a job
unless he finishes school."
There is widespread belief and fear among many
black parents and school children that special education
placement is used against minority children
as a means of resegregating them in school districts
where courts have ordered desegregation or as a
means of punishing them for racial reasons.
That minority children are disproportionately
placed in special education classes is plain. 48
Whether this is done with the express purpose of
segregating them from their white peers, or whether
placement procedures have this as an unintended
result, the outcome raises serious implications of
racial discrimination.
Our examination of special education data submitted
to OCR by 613 school districts in Alabama,
Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi and South Carolina 49
102
showed an overwhelming disproportion of minority
children in EMR and EMH classes in the fall of
1973. It is particularly striking to look at the data
in the 505 districts which reported students enrolled
in EMR classes:
-Over 80 percent of the students in EMR classes
in these districts were black, even though less
than 40 percent of the total enrollment in these
districts were black.
--46 percent of these 505 districts reported that 5
percent or more of their black students were in
EMR classes, but only 4 districts (less than 1
percent) reported 5 percent or more of their white
students in EMR classes.
-At least 10 percent of the black students were in
EMR classes in 64 of the districts.
-In 190 of the districts (37.4 percent), the probability
that a black student would be in an EMR
class was five times as great as for a white student.
There were 51 districts in which the probability
of being in an EMR class was ten times greater
for a black student than for a white student.
48 There is also evidence that they are more likely to end
up in certain types of special education programs. Often
classes for retarded children and those for the socially
maladjusted and emotionally disturbed, which carry severe
stigmas, will have predominantly minority enrollments,
while white children tend to be placed in "learning disabilities"
classes.
40 In its Fall 1973 Survey, OCR asked school districts for
the numbers of pupils enrolled for any part of the school
day in educable mentally retarded or educable mentally
handicapped classes, in trainable mentally retarded or
trainable mentally bandicapped classes, in special education
programs for the severely emotionally disturbed, socially
maladjusted, underachievers, and slow learners, and
in programs for physical, health, sensory or related handicaps
(this was to include blindness, deafness, hard of
hearing, speech impaired, visually impaired, crippled and
other health impairments such as epilepsy, diabetes or rheumalic
fever, requiring special programs) and learning
disabilities. The school districts were asked to supply this
information for each school (Item IX.A., Form OSICR
102) and were also asked to total the information for
each of the types of classes or programs on the School
System Summary Report (Form OSICR 101, Items VI.
B. & C.). 2,973 school districts were surveyed by OCR.
These districts account for over 50 percent of the public
school enrollment in the country and over 90 percent of
the minority enrollment.
50 The corresponding figures by state were Alabama 6,500,
Arkansas 2,600, Georgia 10,600, Mississippi 3,700, and
South Carolina 8,600.
51 Appendix M, Tables I-V provide a district-by-district
summary of the total enrollments and enrollment in Educable
Mentally Retarded classes, by race, in the 613 districts
analyzed.

school operated by the school system were black. In
five districts - Autauga County, Alabama, Montgomery,
Alabama, Denver, Colorado, Davenport,
Iowa, and Sumter County No.2, South Carolina-the
probability that minority students would be in EMR
classes was three times greater than the probability
that white students would be in EMR classes. 63
In New Bedford, Massachusetts, in the two Census
tracts we surveyed, 6.3 percent of the black children
were in special education - almost twice as great
as the percentage of Portuguese in special education
(3.2 percent) and over four times greater than the
percentage of white children in these classes (1.5
percent).
In Springfield, Massachusetts, while school officials
claim there is substantially less discrimination
now against minorities in special education, they
admit that in the past a lot of black children were
railroaded into special education classes. 54
We will propose to OCR, upon release of this report,
a statistical test for triggering a compliance
review of racial disproportionality in school special
education placement. We believe the burden should
rest with school officials to explain such results
rather than with parents or federal compliance
officers to prove the existence of discrimination.
104
Bias in Tests
When a child first shows signs of not understanding
or keeping up with classwork, a complete diagnostic
session is in order. Often symptoms like
apathy or hyperactivity can be caused by problems
that may be corrected without special placement.
But such comprehensive diagnoses rarely are made.
The placement decision is a virtually hidden process.
Few of the districts we visited had anywhere near
adequate diagnostic facilities or support personnel.
For example, because of lack of resources in Montgomery,
not all of the children in EMR classes have
had physical examinations. The special education
coordinator told us that although "... it may be our
responsibility to require physicals, we can't require
them because we can't provide them."66 Most districts
have long waiting lists because of the lack of
diagnostic personnel or suitable placement alternatives.
The least expensive way to diagnose a child is to
use group or individually administered standardized
intelligence tests. These instrumeI;lts, however, have
come under increasing attack, especially when they
are the sole criterion on which classification is

ased. 56 They are modeled and normed on a generally
white, middle-class population and are heavily
reliant on verbal ability. Scores on many subtests of
skills are averaged together to get an overall score.
Thus, if a child is uncomfortable in the testing situation,
does not respond exactly to the ways in which
information is asked, has trouble with verbal ability,
or is weak in some areas but not in others,
chances are he will score poorly on standardized
tests. How poorly he scores may determine his special
class placement. Such gross measurement of
children's potential may doom a child to be misclassilled
and thereby not receive the specific attention
to problems he or she needs.
The problem of cultural bias in tests is particularly
acute for children who have difficulty with the English
language. Often their silence, inattentiveness
or inability to fully participate in class is interpreted
as slowness or retardation. One EMR teacher in
Massachusetts described his own experience with
three limited English-speaking children in his program.
One child, Maria, spoke broken English but
had "no problem." She was in a bilingual class and
it is unclear how she ended up in the EMR program.
She has been in the EMR program for four to five
years. Roberto, a Portuguese child, has been in the
program for two years. He is apathetic and will do
the minimum to get by but is probably not retarded.
Earlier in the year (1973-74) a Spanish-speaking
16 year old was placed into the class. The teacher
was enraged because it was immediately evident that
he was very bright. He read beautifully in Spanish.
Poor performance on tests administered in English
may confirm the hypothesis that special education is
needed. The dearth of tests in other languages, or
03 Appendix N, Table I includes a breakdown for the 15
districts reporting to OCR in the fall of 1973 of the number
of children, by race and ethnic group, enrolled in the
various types of special education programs categorized
by OCR.
54 Interview with Charles Brinkman, Director of Special
Education, State Department of Education, Regional Education
Center, Springfield, Massachusetts, 8115/73.
55 Interviews with Martha White, Special Education Coordinator,
Montgomery, Alabama, 1/10/74 and 1/11/74.
56 The literature criticizing the use of IQ and other stand·
ardized tests for labeling students is large. For a good
discussion of cultural factors involved in assessing performance
and competence see Michael Cole, et aI., The Cui­
IUral Context of Learning and Thinking (New York: Basic
Books, 1971).
trained bilingual personnel to administer and interpret
them, compounds the problem. Our Haitian
child Philippe faced just such errors simply because
he spoke French, not English. Puerto Rican and
Mexican-American children are disproportionately
found to be diagnosed and placed in special education
classes for the same reasons. 57
Jane Mercer's work shows that "white students
typically must display both intellectual and behavior
quirks to be considered for special classification while
intellectual difficulties alone are sufficient to render
black or Mexican-American students suspect."58
When retested in their own language, or when other
criteria are added to test scores, a large percentage
of these minority students are not found retarded
and have returned to regular classes. 59
Despite these drawbacks, standardized tests continue
to dominate assessment procedures. A Denver
school board member says that while the
principal, teacher, and social worker jointly make
decisions about special education placement, "IQ is
used as the basis for making the decision."60 Another
Denver official disagrees: "We thought they
were being abused so we make them, optional. A
teacher can order an IQ test with the principal's
approval."61 Because of the high percentage of black
children in special education in Davenport, Iowa,
some school officials have become aware of possible
problems of cultural bias in the tests used. Purportedly
they are less likely to place a black child
with 73 IQ than a white child with 73 IQ in special
education. One school official said, "There's an at-
57 See "A Descriptive Study of Three Legal Challenges for
Placing Mexican-American and Other Linguistically and
Culturally Different Children into Educably Mentally Retarded
Classes," a dissertation presented by Henry I. Casso
to the Graduate School of Education of the University
of Massachusetts, March, 1973.
58 Mercer's work is summarized in an article hy David Kirp,
William Buss, and Peter Kuriloff, "Legal Reform of Special
Education," California Law Review, Vol. 62 (January)
1974, p. 45. For the consequences of such tests for minority
people, particularly the non"English speaking, see
Jane 'Mercer, Labeling the Mentally Retarded (Berkeley,
California: University of California Press, 1973).
59 See results of Hobson v. Hansen, supra at 490-91, and
examples in Mercer.
60 Interview with Mrs. Kay Schomp, Member, Board of
Education, Denver, Colorado, 11/1/73.
61 Interview with Dr. Gerald P. Cavanaugh, Supervisor,
Testing and Pupil Records, Denver, Colorado, 11/5/73.
105

tempt made to find out where the kid fits, but also
a lot of times you hide behind the cultural deprivation
and it's like an incurable disease which explains
why the kid doesn't get XYZ. A lot of times, the
teacher just doesn't know what to do about it."62
The former director of the Taylor School in
Davenport had a different response. She admitted
that a disproportionate number of children at the
special school are black. She said, "disciplinarywise,"
teachers might try to refer "those kids if they
are black, even if a white child is lower academically."
And though she hated to tell us this, "IQ
tests results are the sole criteria for determining
whether a child is EMR or TMR."68 Other school
districts like Sumter County, South Carolina and
Canton, Mississippi completely rejected arguments
of cultural bias and continue to rely mainly on IQ
tests for classification and placement of children.
62 Interview with Karen DeRario, School Psychologist,
Davenport, Iowa, 11 /7/73.
68 Interview with Mrs. Betsy Schellenger, ex-Director, Taylor
School, Davenport, Iowa, 9/14/73.
106
Subjective Evaluation
Classroom teachers evaluate their students continuously
by observing their behavior, and they have
a great deal of discretionary power to have children
removed from their class and placed in special education
classes. Often their assessments of students
are based on subjective judgments and are not
bolstered by other measures and opinions. Misinterpretation
of behavior, equating symptoms with
problems, and unfamiliarity with racially and culturally
different children may result in misclassification.
The head social worker in Cambridge, Massachusetts'
Children's Developmental Clinic reported
that: "Learning disability is a whole new thing.
Many teachers refuse to believe that a bright kid has
anything wrong with him. . . . What happens with
so many of these bright kids with LD problems is
the teachers will get very impatient. . . . They just
label them off as lazy. "64 Another school official in
Cambridge claimed that special education classes
"... consist of kids that don't react normally to
regular classroom situations rather than strictly retarded
and emotionally disturbed kids. "65 A Davenport
official said, "Teachers who feel 'low functioning'
kids are too much trouble wish that special
education would take them all away. Especially at
the junior and senior high school level, the staff has
often made a decision about placing a child in special
education or kicking him out of school."66 In
Davenport, the Director of Special Education said
they have made good progress in keeping special education
from becoming a dumping ground for children
teachers don't want to handle. He added however,
that "a teacher trying to differentiate among the 70+
IQs says 'I can handle the one who says "good
morning," "good bye" and erases the blackboards
but not the hellion.' "67 A former Springfield, Massa-
64 Interview with Mrs. Ruth Young, Head Social Worker,
Children's Developmental Clinic, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
1/17/74.
65 Interview with Howard Hughes, former Coordinator,
Donnie Harding, Coordinator, Roberts Community School,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, 7/30/73.
66 Interview with an official in Davenport, Iowa, who asked
to remain anonymous.
67 Interview with Donald Tupper, Director, Special Education
and Pupil Services, Davenport, Iowa, 11/6/73.

chusetts counselor pointed out that "there is a big
difference between a 'disturbed' child and a 'disturbing'
child. . . . As a result, learning disabilities
classes become another dumping ground."68
In Somerville a principal said: "Many people have
been placed in EMR classes because they were problems."6o
A special education official remarked: "In
the past, many kids were placed in EMR classes who
didn't belong there, particularly emotionally disturbed
children."70 An official in Floyd County said
that "lots of behavior problems are put into these
classes now."71 And another school official recalled:
"When we first started [special education] we got
discipline problems in classes, but we shouldn't keep
people in there just because of that."72
A Portland, Maine community worker complained
that the children placed in classes for emotionally
disturbed children are not those with really severe
problems, that these children either are suspended
or they drop out. She charged school officials with
misclassification of educationally disadvantaged children
as mentally retarded. "The kids grow up thinking
they are mentally retarded when they are very
intelligent."73 The D.C. Assistant Superintendent for
Special Education said, "One out of ten [of the
referrals from teachers for special education evalua­
"tion] are legitimate special education referrals."74 A
retired school teacher in a Georgia county said she
did not think misclassification was a major problem
but commented there are many teachers who are
quick to brand any slow learner retarded and try to
place him in special education. 75
An EMR supervisor in Springfield said she reduced
the number of children in EMR classes from
800 to 400, with the 400 who used to be in special
classes now in the regular flow. Only 2 of all those
who were put back into regular classes have returned
to special classes. 76
68 Interview with James Fitzgerald, former Adjustment
Counselor, Springfield, Massachusetts, 8/15/73.
60 Interview with a principal in Somerville, Massachusetts,
who asked to remain anonymous.
70 Interview with an official, Somerville, Massachusetts, who
asked to remain anonymous.
71 Interview with Roger Marshall, Regional Coordinator for
Division of Developmental Services, Mountain Comprehensive
Care Center, Floyd County, Kentucky, 1/22/74.
72 Interview with Henry Wallace, Director, Title I, Floyd
County, Kentucky, 1/24/74.
Funding
In some instances, the main criterion for classification
seemed to be the kind of funding available
for special education programs. An official of the
Kentucky Infant and Preschool Program (KIPP), a
planning program for the delivery of comprehensive
child development services in 16 Kentucky counties,
circulated a proposal to label children as mentally
retarded using IQ tests in order to tap available
money sources and to ward off a possible program
deficit. 77
We have heard similar complaints that Head Start
programs in the District of Columbia and elsewhere
73 Interview with a member of We Who Care, ,Portland,
Maine, 7/4/73.
74 Interview with Merle Van Dyke, Assistant Superintendent,
Washington, D.C., 3/7/74.
75 Interview with a teacher, Athens, Georgia, who asked to
remain anonymous.
76 Interview with Dr. Mary McLean, Special Class Supervisor,
Springfield, Massachusetts, 12112/73.
107

themselves. Stumbling blocks are put in the way of
teachers who deal with special education."81 The
Assistant Superintendent for Special Education in
the District of Columbia said he felt that special
education was a dumping ground for the students no
one wanted to deal with in the system. 82 School
policies and practices seem to exacerbate the stigma
involved in being called "special" rather than sensitively
reducing its emotional burden to the child.
For example, all of the districts we surveyed (except
Washington, D.C.) placed a large proportion of their
educable mentally retarded children in separate
classrooms, although these students were often able
to join "regular" students at lunch or for some
classes like physical education.
Trainable mentally retarded children went to
separate schools or classes in 13 of the 17 districts
we visited. 8a Davenport, Iowa places both EMR and
TMR children in totally separate facilities. 84 In
most districts, children with learning disabilities or
speech, hearing or sight problems were more apt to
be removed from regular classes for only part of the
day for special instruction.
In at least four of the districts we visited (Cambridge,
Floyd County, Richland and Denver),
schools give special education children different
diplomas and report cards than other students receive.
In Montgomery, Alabama, the Special Education
Coordinator was unhappy with the elementary
report card used for special education classes. She
80 Interview with Helen O'Brien, Reading Consultant, Portland,
Maine, 7/19/73.
81 Interview with Charles Brinkman, Director of Special
Education, Regional Education Center, Massachusetts State
Department of Education, Springfield, Massachusetts,
8/15/73.
82 Interview with Merle Van Dyke, Assistam Superintendent,
Special Education, Washington, D.C., 3/7/74.
83 See Appendix N, Table n, for a description of the types
of special education programs offered in the districts we
visited.
84 Denver, Richland County No. J, Davenport, Portland,
Autauga and Montgomery all had cooperative arrangements
with other agencies or organizations by which they
educated trainable mentally retarded children, at least at
the elementary level, in facilities apart from the regular
school system. Floyd C{)unty had two schools in which
it had only TMR students enrolled. In three of the districts
studied - Canton, Hancock County and Sumter County
No. 2 - the public school system made no services available
for trainable mentally retarded students, not in its
own schools nor through cooperative arrangements.
mentioned that the report card is larger than the card
other students get and that the grading system is
different.85 In some places, the District of Columbia
for example, special needs children are assigned to
private schools which are not accredited. The
quality of services they receive is questionable at
best and destructive at worst.86
Some officials recognize the stigma problem and
are working to alleviate it. A Springfield school
psychologist said that "the Learning Disabilities Center
has been trying to educate people throughout the
system, including the central administration, that
'learning disabilities' is not another name, just less
stigma-ridden for emotional disturbance."87 A Springfield
principal says that many of the children who
are identified as having learning disabilities have
been identified that way to say other things without
stigma. He also says since the inception of Chapter
766 (the new state special education law) many of
the names or labels identifying children have been
changed to reduce the stigma. 88
Once misclassified, children are often segregated
in inferior programs which stigmatize and cut them
off from their peers; once placed, they are trapped
indefinitely, sometimes permanently, with no or negligible
benefit. A Cambridge official said that before
the current special education director came, "children
[placed in special education] could never get
back in regular class. "89 Another Cambridge official
said "once a child is classified as needing special
education courses [he] never get[s] out." He added
'" The report card for secondary special education students
had recently been revised so that it looked like the card
other children get. Imerview with Martha White, Special
Education Coordinator. Montgomery, Alabama, 1/10/74
and 1/11/74.
86 CDF attorneys recently filed suit to stop the practice of the
State of Louisiana "banishing:' certain handicapped children
to various institutions in Texas, many of which are
alleged to provide substandard and sometimes harmful
services. Gary W., el. al. v. Louisiana el. al., Civil Action
No. 74-2412, Section "C", (E.D.La., filed September 3,
1974),
81 lnterview with Katherine Gott, Supervisor, and Edward
Burgess, School Psychologist, Learning Disabilities Center,
Homer Street School, Springfield, Massachusetts, 12/10/73.
88lmerview with John O'Malley, Principal, Lincoln School
and Jefferson School, Springfield, Massachusetts, 12/6/73.
89 Interview with Ruth Young, Head Social Worker, Children's
Developmental Cemer, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
1/17/74.
109

that the city does not experiment with helpful programs
for these children. 90 A Somerville mental
health center psychologist said, "once you get put in
a special class, you're pretty much stuck."91 And in
Somerville we learned from officials of some instances
where they felt children should be promoted
or totally integrated but were told that they could
not do that until they were re-evaluated. But the
rule in Somerville is that re-evaluation can occur
only after ten months in the program. 92
In Montgomery, an official at the Children's Center
said the state reco=ends re-evaluation every
two years and that they try to do that. But, she
noted, "that is up until a certain age, because then
the IQ stabilizes."93 Sumter County's Superintendent
and Director of Special Services said that it is not
too often that a child returns from special education
to the regular program. 94
In Portland there is no regularized retesting
scheme, nor provision for periodic review. Assistant
Superintendent Bartlett says: "I would hope that
110
there is constant review by the teacher."95 He feels
such teacher review is more effective than a formalized
system. If a parent asks for a review, it is
done. But in fact a parent often does not even
know of the child's special placement. The principal
of Portland High School said, however, that the
makeup of the EMR class at his school is largely
determined at the junior high school level. Children
enrolled in Project Pace or special education at King
or Jack Junior High Schools are almost automatically
assigned to EMR classes in senior high
school.96 Even children who are properly classified
suffer the same treatment and are, like their misclassified
counterparts, often provided unsuitable
placement or segregated with slim chance to return
to the mainstream of school life. School officials
made few claims that the children placed in separate
programs were benefiting from them. And parents
we visited were often skeptical about whether these
programs were helping their children, if indeed they
knew anything at all about the program.

What Must Be Done
We favor, wherever possible, retention and integration
of special needs children into regular classrooms
with adequate support services provided. We
recognize that regular classroom placement may be
inappropriate for some profoundly handicapped
children and that the remedy should be fitted to the
child's individual needs. This can be done only after
individual assessment and placement determination.
First: The initial step in ensuring that no child is
denied an appropriate educational opportunity is to
make clear, legally and politically, the entitlement of
all children to schooling. Parents and others should
seek this assurance from state, local and other officials
where such comnlitment does not now exist.
This must be accompanied by continuing parental
pressure to ensure enforcement of this right.
Second: Major outreach must be undertaken by
school officials and parent groups to identify children
with special needs and to work with them. Procedures
must be adopted and enforced that will identify
and place children requiring supplemental educational
services as accurately as possible. Courtmandated
outreach efforts have been helpful. Legislative
action has also resulted in the institution of
outreach programs. In Oregon, for example, "Project
Childfind" was conducted in the Spring of 1974.
House Bill 2444, passed by the 1973 Legislature,
entitles every Oregon child to a free education and
requires each school district in Oregon to conduct a
DO Interview with Howard Hughes, former Coordinator,
Donnie Harding, Coordinator, Roberts Community School,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, 7/30/73.
91 Interview with Dr. Jan Heffron, Chief, Child Services,
Somerville Mental Health Center, Somerville Guidance
Center, Somerville, Massachusetts, 11/1/73.
92 Interview with an official, Somerville, Massachusetts, who
asked to remain anooymous.
93 Interview with Ralphine Harper, Executive Secretary,
Children's Center of Montgomery, Inc., Montgomery, Alabama,
1/10/74.
94 Interview with Dr. Hugh Stoddard, Superintendent of
Schools and E. W. Lucas, Assistant Superintendent, Sumter
County No.2, South Carolina, 1/18/74.
95 Interview with Clyde Bartlett, Assistant Superintendent,
Portland, Maine, 10/25/73.
96 Interview with Walter Hansen, Principal, Portland High
School, Portland, Maine, 10/25/73.
survey of children not attending school. The survey,
which was conducted at the direction of the State
Department of Education, Special Education Division,
was coordinated by the Regional Resource
Center at the University of Oregon with funds from
the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped. Even
though House Bill 2444 was primarily concerned
with the right to education for handicapped children,
the survey identified other children not attending
school as well: those out due to racial or ethnic
conflicts, low English language conceptual development,
disciplinary difficulties or lack of interest in
school work.
The Co-ordinating Council for Handicapped Children
in Chicago, IJ1inois, a coalition of 36 parent and
professional organizations, also conducted a massive
advertising effort to advise persons about the effects
of IJ1inois House Bills 1407 and 323. These two
bills together make aU handicapped children, three
years of age and older, regardless of the severity of
their handicap, eligible for special education through
the public schools in Illinois. Similar efforts should
be made in other states where children are out of
school.
Third: Assessment procedures used to evaluate
children should be improved. 97 Greater accuracy
and care must be demanded. Nothing is more important
than establishing and asserting the rights of
parents and children to information and participation
in decisions on testing and placement. Most current
assessment procedures result in labels and are based
on technical grounds. We prefer the more prescriptive
approach now being tried, for example, in the
State of Massachusetts. Mental retardation is a
statistical diagnosis based on a test score; emotional
disturbance is a psychiatric diagnosis; neurological
handicaps such as brain damage are physical or
medical diagnoses. None of these labels are particularly
helpful in characterizing the behavior of
the child in school or elsewhere. Nor are they very
helpful to teachers and parents who must design and
implement programs for these children.
We think any school assessment plan should have
as its goal the prevention of acadenlic failure and
include at least four components:
97 For an analysis of provisions for special education assessment
and placement in the states COP staff visited, as compared
to a model standard we propose, see Appendix O.
111

1. The use of many kinds of people in assessing
children.
2. The use of many kinds of procedures in assessing
children.
3. A focus on the child's behavior in a variety
of settings.
4. Continuous evaluation.
Priority should be placed on preventing children
from failing rather than on patching them up after
they have experienced chronic failure. Early identification
of potential academic difficulty precludes
more costly, and less effective, attempts to overcome
established problems. Initial emphasis should be to
discover those children who might need special programming
in the future. A major portion of any
assessment plan should be devoted to the screening
and identification of preschool and kindergarten children
who have demonstrable handicapping conditions
(i.e., physical disabilities) and those who
might later experience difficulty in school for other
reasons. Great care should be taken to avoid violations
of privacy and labels that would stigmatize
young children. Screening should be tied to
services which share information with parents to
help them understand their child's condition and enable
them to use appropriate medical or educational
services.
1. The use of many kinds of people in assessing
children.
Children behave differently in different situations.
A valid evaluation of a child's behavior requires information
from as many of the significant and involved
persons in his environment as possible. No
single person or professional group should be in control
of a child's educational assessment. It is equally
important to obtain data from other knowledgeable
people who may come into daily contact with the
child such as parents, school bus drivers, cafeteria
helpers, custodians, clerks, community people and
the child's friends. The parents' role in the assessment
process is crucial. They can provide background
information on their children, become assessors
themselves, and ensure that their children's
behavior has been validly interpreted. .
2. The use of many kinds of procedures.
The evaluation process cannot be limited to only
112
one kind of assessment device. And different procedures
are required for different handicaps. Any
evaluation or screening program which is limited
solely to standardized tests is not a sound program.
Standardized instruments, such as intelligence tests,
may be helpful in telling how a child will do in
school-like exercises using the medium of paper and
pencil, but they fail to give information about how
a child functions in situations other than classroom
conditions. They also do not tap the skills of children
who may be competent, but culturally different.
Many factors contribute to school difficulty and all
these factors need to be considered. Thus, assessment
should include direct observation of the child
in a variety of functioning environments (on the
playground, at home, in the gym, as well as in the
classroom); interviews with important and involved
persons in the child's life; evaluation of classwork
(teacher-made tests, homework, workbooks); evaluation
of work done outside school (part-time employment,
hobbies, child-care responsibilities) as
well as standardized academic and psychological
tests. All tests should be administered in the dominant
language of the child.
3. Focus on behavior in a variety of settings.
Any assessment procedure must observe, describe
and evaluate a range of a child's behaviors, not
merely summarize potential in a test score or a label.
o one can "cure" emotional disturbance or "remediate"
mental retardation, but the things children do
which lead people to call them disturbed or retarded
can be significantly changed. Assessment devices
should be designed to measure discrete behaviors
that are important to a child's development - in
school and later out of it. In order to observe behavior
naturally, tests other than paper and pencil
ones must be used. Traditionally a psychologist removes
a child to an artificial setting and measures
his responses to mass-constructed measures. Relying
only on these tests, important information about a
child's normal responses to his environment is
lost. These other environments may in fact be
causing the child's school difficulties. Although it
is more costly and time-consuming, we think direct
observation in settings in school, at home, or at
work is required to make accurate judgments about
a child suspected of needing special education.

4. Continuous evaluation.
Special education placement should not be a dead
end. Evaluation should be an on-going process.
Most academic measurement occurs only at infrequently
spaced intervals. Such measurement does
not allow the teacher to monitor the effectiveness of
instructional procedures so that they can be redesigned
for individual children. Such measurement
also does not monitor change in a child's performance.
Children may have great difficulty or may
improve dramatically within widely spaced assessments
- and it will go unnoticed. Assessment of
children with special needs is not a one-time practice
to be followed up at two- or three-year intervals (as
is the present practice of many states).98 For children
placed within a special program, provision
should be made for the on-going measurement of
their schoolroom functioning at regular, short-term
intervals, with the option always available to change
programs or move back to a nonspecial class.
Due Process in Special Education Placement
Any assessment that results in a change in the
child's educational program should also require the
fully informed and written consent of the child's
parent or guardian before it may be begun. Under
no circumstances should a child be removed from
the regular educational program until a complete
evaluation, comprising the four essential components
described above, has been performed and the results
of the evaluation presented to an educational placement
committee. This committee should include no
fewer than: 1) the assessment speciaUst most involved
in the evaluation, 2) the child's present
teacher, 3) the child's potential teacher, 4) the
child's parents, and 5) the child, whenever possible.
The parent and child should be permitted counsel
or an advocate of their choosing and have complete
access to the materials upon which the evaluation is
based. In addition, other policies should be incorporated
into special education procedures to become
routine educational practice, such as:
1. All communication concerning assessment
should be in the native language of the parent or
legal guardian.
2. Parents should be notified in writing that
their child has been referred for an assessment.
They should be notified as to who recommended
the referral and the particular purpose of the evaluation
in detail.
3. The assessment devices to be used in the
evaluation should be described, as much as possible,
in non-technical terminology.
4. A tentative schedule for start and completion
of the evaluation should be agreed on.
5. A completion date for the development of
an appropriate educational program also should
be agreed on.
6. The parents should be told of their rights
to reject or accept both the assessment and the
educational program.
7. The parents should then decide if their
child is to be assessed. Such permission should be
in writing.
8. Parents should also have the right to all
records giving rise to and generated by the assessment.
Local districts could provide a trained
assessor to interpret the evaluation to parents.
However, even without such a person, the parents
should have access to raw data, including IQ
scores and teacher judgments.
9. Final or interim written reports should not
be distributed until parents have seen a copy of
the evaluation. The parents should be given the
opportunity to clarify points and to add further
material. If there is a disagreement between the
evaluator and the parents, an opportunity for the
parents to provide a dissenting view (in writing,
if warranted) should be offered.
10. The parents should decide to whom the
written evaluation may be released. The school
should not decide to send out material about any
child without parent permission.
II. The school may decide, in the face of parental
refusal for assessment and/or placement,
that assessment and/or placement is essential. In
such a case, a specific statement of need and
record of parental refusal could then be forwarded
to the superintendent of schools for review in
terms of the attendance, child welfare, or child
98 Appendix N, Table III summarizes present provisions for
special education in the districts we visited.
113

abuse laws of the state. However, the child should
remain in the regular educational program until
such time as his behavior becomes unreasonably
disruptive, or endangers his own life or that of
other children, at which time appropriate procedures
may be initiated. Adequate administrative
and judicial appeal mechanisms should be established
for both school and parent to resolve assessment
and placement disagreements.
The Difficulty of bnplementing Quality
Programs for Special Needs Children
In Regular Public School Classes
No matter how worthy the goal, old attitudes die
slowly, new procedures upset bureaucracies, and new
and improved programs require more money. Much
more than court decrees and laws will be needed to
ensure that the thousands upon thousands of children
with special needs get the educational parity
they deserve. Enforcement of existing court decrees
and state statutes is a first step. Developing good
tests and using the procedu.res we have outlined is
another. But changing attitudes toward special needs
children and preparing teachers and their peers to
deal with them are prerequisite steps if the problems
we have found are to be remedied.
Many people oppose integration of special needs
children into regular schools and classrooms. Already
pressed administrators who are constantly battling
scarce financial resources, limited personnel,
inadequate facilities, teacher resistance, and parental
fears, may not be receptive to taking on still more
children with even greater problems and demands.
For example, the principal of one of the junior high
schools in Portland, Maine feels the new special
education law in Maine will "hurt the public
schools. It's just that we don't have the facility.
We need a special school for mentally retarded kids.
Integration is fine theoretically. But imagine those
people in your class and the teachers spending all
their time with them. "99
Teacher resistance to demands to integrate special
needs children is likely to be particularly acute.
114
They already feel overworked and fear they will
receive little help. They are also reluctant to face
children whose needs they have not been prepared
to understand. One official summed up a pervasive
feeling we got in many districts:
"There has been a significant effort to mainstream
the kids but teachers do not want to be bothered
with having the special education kids in their
classes. "100
Nothing is more important than understanding
and working with teachers. In-service training and
adequate support personnel must be provided. Most
importantly, teachers should be made to understand
more about the kinds of children that are capable
of functioning in a regular school setting, and offered
the appropriate forum for voicing fears and
requesting help. They must be provided adequate
supports to meet these children's needs.
Parents may resist integration of special needs
children. Sometimes parents of special needs children
believe special placement, even separate
schools, may result in more and better education for
their children. They tend to be protective and to
assume "special" means "better." It is interesting
that their children often do not share their views.
Informal discussions with a group of handicapped
children and their parents at a special school in Massachusetts
showed parents liked "special" schools
but the children were more willing, even eager, to
go through the rough and tumble of regular school
instead of being sequestered and stigmatized.
Parents of children who do not have special needs
often do not encourage mixing the two in classes.
They fear educational quality overall will diminish.
They do not want to see school dollars stretched
even thinner for children whose needs may be greater
and costlier and, in their view, for whom educational
benefits are less evident. And they fear exposure of
their child to others with problems. Unfortunately,
people who do not have special needs children often
hold a stereotyped, monolithic image of such children.
They recall the most profoundly mentally retarded
children or those with severe physical de-
09 Interview with Dan Murphy, Principal, Lincoln Junior
High School, Portland, Maine, 10/24/73.
100 Interview with James Ingram, Head Counselor, West
High School, Davenport, Iowa, 11/8/73.

formities to argue against all children with special
needs being placed in regular classes. The fact is,
however, that the great majority of children with
special needs are those who could profit from schooling
and become self-sufficient. A host of children
have mild physical disabilities, such as nearsightedness,
deafness, or physical handicaps which
in no way affect their intellectual and social development.
Parents, teachers and adrr.inistrators need to
be educated to differentiate among special needs
children and to learn what is appropriate, helpful or
harmful in each case. Individual assessment is essential,
as is a range of program options that would
allow children to be integrated according to their
needs and abilities. 'ol
Resistance to integration of programs for special
needs children into regular school programs may
also come from some of those who perceive a stake
in separate facilities and programs and who fear that
their power base will be undercut with integration.
Some advocate associations for handicapped children
prefer to maintain separate funding because of
the small resource pie within which they must compete
against other special needs groups and general
school expenditures. They therefore foster labeling
and segregation. Cohesive pressure among special
needs groups is therefore rendered more difficult.
All these attitudes must be reanalyzed from the
point of view of children who, after all, should be
the focus of those concerned. Children in regular
classes should learn to accept children who have different
kinds of problems. Handicapped children
should not be isolated. Segregated programs usually
lack leverage on central school resources, and they
make it more likely that children (1) will be dumped
aside; (2) will have their handicap emphasized
rather than the similarities all children have in common;
(3) will be stigmatized; (4) will receive little
definable educational benefit; and (5) will have
greater difficulty adjusting to a larger society in which
they must live.
A teacher at the Baxter State School for the Deaf
which is located on an island in Casco Bay near
Portland, Maine, commented:
"The island is beautiful, its great for nature walks
and the like, but completely unrealistic. Kids live
here for 12 years and never deal with the hearing
world. Many of them do get job placements after.
But they only live for eight hours with hearing
people and then withdraw."102
The evidence of educational benefit to children
from separate special classes is unimpressive. For
children with profound problems - autistic children
or those whose IQ is below 25 - separate and special
programs may have substantial benefits. But
"research concerning classes for children with more
ambiguous handicaps - the educable mentally retarded,
mildly emotionally disturbed and perceptually
handicapped - reach quite different conclusions.
Those programs do not tangibly benefit their
students, whose equally handicapped counterparts
placed in regular school classes perform at least as
well and without apparent detriment to their normal
classmates."103
Important steps are now being taken in several
states that bear careful scrutiny. Massachusetts, for
example, has recently passed a new Special Education
law which is a model of flexibility and sensitivity
to labels. Its passage is an example of effective outside
advocacy combined with responsive state legislative
and executive officials. This coalition's strength
will determine bow effectively the law is implemented.
We hope other states will follow Massachusetts'
lead. Those interested in receiving more
information on this state law and its progress should
write to:
David Liederman, Director
State Office for Children
120 Boylston Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02116
or to:
Larry Brown, Director
Massachusetts Advocacy Center
Two Park Square - 7th Floor
Boston, Massachusetts 02116.
----
101 For example, special education officials of the Public
Schools of the District of Columbia, in September, 1972,
devised a "Comprehensive Plan for Special Education" for
ten levels of programming for children with special problems
ranging from regular classroom placement with supportive
educational services to tuition grants to private
school to institutionalization.
102 Interview with a teacher, Baxter School for the Deaf,
Portland. Maine who asked to remain anonymous.
l03 David Kirp, "Student Classification, Public Policy, and
the Courts," Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 44, No.1,
February, 1974, p. 19.
115

116

ChapterS
School Discipline and Its Exclusionary
Impact on Students
This chapter is about misbehaving school children
and misbehaving school officials. Children's infractions
of school rules are a matter of grave concern.
The problem of official violation of basic rules of
fairness should be of equal concern. Not only are
children thrown out of school for a vast array of
offenses, they are frequently thrown out so arbitrarily
and with so little apparent consideration for
their personal and educational interests as to call
into question the underlying validity of expulsion
and suspension as school policies.
While violence in the schools is feared by many
school personnel, parents, and children, the stereotypic
image of hordes of incorrigible children wreaking
havoc on entire schools is not borne out by our
findings. This is not to deny that controling school
violence and maintaining order are matters demanding
great attention. In at least one school in Denver,
Colorado we found a serious violence problem which
resulted in some children being afraid to attend
school. Problems of overcrowding, racial and class
hostilities, rebellious adolescents and inadequate resources
have contributed to genuine concern for
safety within schools.
We favor discipline and order within schools.
But we question the current methods used to achieve
these goals. We do not believe the answer to children's
discipline problems lies in denying them
schooling. Worse is the denial of schooling without
any semblance of fairness, for a wide range of reasons,
some indefensible and others unnecessary. For
"It seems surprising," one principal wrote, "that
we of the public schools, responsible for the education
and development of young people, would
have to be told by the courts that young people
are individuals - individuals with basic human
rights. "I
example, how does suspending a truant child contribute
to order or to the child's welfare? If children
smoke, what is the great burden entailed in setting
aside a smoking area rather than suspending them?
What is the educational rationale for suspending a
child because he cannot control his bladder? How
are others seriously harmed by these "offenses"?
In some districts a principal can put a child out of
school "indefinitely" until a psychiatrist or doctor
sees him, and he apparently has the prerogative to
refuse to take a child back in school. 2 For example:
A fourth grader whose parent refused to agree to
a special education placement was out of school
for over a year after a suspension in February,
1972..There was no hearing "because he didn't
ask for one."8
The school told George in the seventh grade that
he could attend "only if I was under the care of
a doctor and on Mellaril. I said no. I took it once
but I walked around like a vegetable and fell
asleep." He was expelled.
For some groups of children who are minority,
poor and in secondary schools, suspension seems to
have become a commonplace, informal and unquestioned
occurrence hidden from public view and
scrutiny. A black mother in Holyoke, related some
of her experiences with her son whc was the only
1 Richard M. Ritchie, "Due Process and the Principal," Phi
Delta Kappan, Vol. 54, June 1973, p. 698.
2 Interview with Fleming Cocchi, Principal, Elias Brookings
Elementary School, Springfield, Massachusetts, 12/7/73.
117

Many districts still have the power to expel children.
But school officials prefer to use other means
of permanently excluding children. Tantamount to
expulsion is "voluntary withdrawal." Technically
no blight remains on the child's records and the
child (theoretically) may not be precluded from reenrolling
in another school in the district after
a while. But it often results in permanent exclusion.
One Massachusetts student recalled that "the school
told me 'Either get thrown out or withdraw.' I didn't
really care, I was 16." Another student said "the
principal told me I was on the verge of being thrown
out but that it would look better if my parents took
me out instead."
That there is no formal record of "voluntary withdrawals"
as disciplinary actions is a strong school
bargaining tool to force parents to exercise the withdrawal
"option." A Denver school official explained:
"The difference between an expulsion and a
withdrawal is that officials always gain parents' consent
for a withdrawal. Sometimes they just have to
request consent but other times they have to threaten
parents first with the child's expulsion."1 That "this
process is fraught with danger" is recognized in at
least one school district whose superintendent is
"doing away with it."8
Similarly, dropout figures hide the fact that the
triggering device may have been a suspension or
threat of expulsion. "A child with a record of being
a 'problem' child ... is really encouraged to leave
school. . . . I suspect that his life is made so unpleasant
that he wants to leave.... But the line is
hard to draw between being told and actually [being]
made to leave."9 In Davenport, one teacher said
that students at West High School are asked, "Do
you want to drop out or do you want us to kick
you out?"lO
1 Interview with Robert P. Cotwell, Principat, East High
School, Denver, Colorado, t t/6/73. This practice was
corroborated by Wesley Johnson, Principal of West High
School, Denver, Colorado, in an interview on 11/7/73.
8 Dr. Louis J. Kishkunis, Superintendent of Schools, Denver,
Colorado, I t/6/73.
9 Interview with Joseph G. Sateriale, Assistant Superintendent,
Secondary Education, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
10/12/73.
10 Interview with Dennis Koch, Teacher-In-Charge and
Susan Hartung, Teacher, Center for Continuing Education
Drop-In Center, Davenport, Iowa, I t/9/73.
Some school districts, like Davenport, Iowa, use
the formal suspension process very little. Instead, the
school district uses more subtle devices, one of which
is the so-called "drop card." A "drop card" has been
used as a lever to push children out of school in
Davenport, though its proclaimed function is to keep
clerical records of children who drop out. During the
parental conference which is required for a suspended
student to get back into school, parents have been
told that if they do not sign the card, their child will
not be permitted to return to school at all. If he
tries to return, he would be taken immediately to
the school board for expulsion.
If a parent signs the card, school officials may then
use this permission to exclude the child from school
permanentlY without going to the school board in
the event of a subsequent offense. The "drop card"
is used as a contract waiving future recourse to
protest disciplinary action as well as admission of
present guilt of the charge because of the parental
signature,u
11 Interview with a Davenport, Iowa official who asked to
remain anonymous.
119

Arguments (verbal confrontations):
I. Insulting teacher
(and fighting); talking back 28
2. Disrespect of authority figure
(principal or teacher) 3
3. Disagreement with teacher 10
4. Swore at teacher 5
5. Argument between srudents 3
6. Calling other student bad name 1
Other Reasons:
I. Smoking
2. Punishment-related
3. Destruction of Property
4. Dress Codes
5. Drugs and Alcohol
6. Miscellaneous
.1 We have no information on the reasons 35 children, or 5.6
percent, were suspended.
Reasons for Suspension:
From School Officials
50 8.5
33
24
10
3
2
27
16.8
The most frequently stated official rationale for
suspensions was as "a tool to get parents in."14 "To
get the parents in. "15 "Sometimes it's the only way
to get the parents to come to school and deal with
the problem."16 One official said that he uses suspensions
as a way to force a face to face confrontation
with a parent. 17 When temporary, short-term
suspensions are used, one superintendent said, it is
usually done to get parents to come to school for a
conference. 18 "An attempt to get the parent in."'9
Suspension, in one principal's opinion, is a necessary
tool, especially useful to pressure parents. 20
"We use it to precipitate a crisis."21 ',[It'S] a procedure
to get parents involved."22 "When you inconvenience
the parents, they jolly well bring the
kids into line."23
14 Interview with Donald Genera, Principal, Baker Junior
High School, Denver, Colorado, 11/6/73.
15 Interview with Harold Scott, Principal, Smiley Junior
High School, Denver, Colorado, 11/7/73.
99
To communicate with parents is a weak reed to
justify Ihe serious step of throwing a child out of
school. Surely there are other ways to involve parents.
For example, school systems might hire social
or community workers to relate to parents and children
who have discipline problems. It is a sad indictment
of our schools that their leaders' imaginations
do not extend beyond punishing the child to
reach the parents. This suspension rationale is
further weakened by the numerous instances when
no parent conference is ever held following a suspension.
Whatever problem provoked the exclusion
is not discussed in person with parents. Thirty-three
percent of the suspended children we surveyed returned
to school alone without any parent-official
conference. There was little indication that the
parent-child conference, even when conducted, was
designed to di cuss the child's problem and plan for
future prevention as opposed to discussion of the
immediate infraction. One principal was asked about
the purpose of such conferences:
Q. Is it a conference to verify the facts supporting
this suspension, or is it more a conference
to determine future placement?
A. No, because almost always placement is right
back where they are. It is to communicate
with the parent, as part of my responsibility,
the problem that exists and ask for their help.
We inform them and then find out what directions
we can take that will eliminate the need
for further problems. 24
16 Interview with William Mangan, Dean, Achievement
School, Rindge Technical High School, Cambridge, Massachusells,
11/29/73.
17 Interview with Robert L. Jones, Principal, Baldwin Junior
High School. Montgomery, Alabama, 1111/74.
18 Interview with Dr. William S. Garrell, Superintendent of
Schools, Montgomery, Alabama, 1/7/74.
19 Interview witb Thomas C. Pallerson, Principal, Chisholm
Elementary School, Montgomery, Alabama, 1/10/74.
20 Interview with Dan Murphy, Principal, Lincoln Junior
High Scbool, Portland, Maine, 10/24/73.
21 Interview with Donald Hale, Principal, Deering High
School, Portland, Maine, 10/24/73.
22 Interview with Edwin C. Riddle, Superintendent of
Schools, Autauga County, Alabama, 2/74.
23 Interview witb Edward Moriarity, Principal, Holyoke
High School, Holyoke, Massachusells, 12/13/73.
24 Amicus Brief of the Children's Defense Fund filed in
Goss v. Lopez, in the United States Supreme Court, October
Term, 1973, Civil Action No. 73-898, p. II.
121

In contrast to the majority of public school officials
who said they used suspensions to contact
parents, a few principals rejected this approach.
One principal hasn't suspended a child in five years.
"I have never suspended a kid.... Suspension is a
vacation for a kid. It is a means of getting the parents
in here - I just call the parents and put the
kid on the line."26 Another principal who does not
think principals should have suspension powers,
finds it ironic that children are suspended for staying
out of school. His attendance problems have
improved by working with parents. Parent involvement
is key to success of the schools. "We feel accountable
to parents and children."26
A number of other principals either opposed suspension
or recognized that it was not in the best
interests of children. "When we put a child out of
school we are playing into a child's hand. "27 A
Springfield principal has a firm policy of no suspensions
and has not used the power in eight years. If
a child has an outburst of some kind, he is convinced
that there must be some provocation for it,
122
either related to school or something else. "Suspension
is a dirty word around here. It's a simple way
to put a child out, but is doesn't clear up the problem.
"28 New Bedford's Superintendent stated "suspensions,
even for a short time, don't do much for
kids. "29
An elementary principal who uses suspensions
"as a tool to shake kids up" admitted they are not
the final answer to anything. so Another said "I just
don't think we're helping any if we suspend a kid;
we just get the kid out of our hair for a while."si A
somewhat different perception was offered by one
Cambridge, Massachusetts assistant school principal.
The policy to suspend is on the books, but it is not
used in his school. "Some of these students think
we have the power and that's important. If they
took it away, it wouldn't affect me, but they should
have it on the books. "32 A Davenport official, however,
did not know if the power to suspend deterred
children from misbehaving or not. "I suspect we use
suspensions as an attempt to prevent problems from
occurring, but whether it is preventative, I don't
know. "3S A Portland, Maine principal said: "If I
couldn't suspend, I would insist that the school system
provide me with alternatives for children who
can't make it in a regular class. None of us are in
favor of suspension per se. Once we lose a child,
that's it. "34
25 Interview with John Caulfield, Master, Martin Luther
King Elementary School, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
1118/74.
26 Interview with Raymond Shurtleff, Acting Dean, Pilot
School, Rindge Technical High School, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
9/31/73.
27 Interview with Stonewell M. Richburg, Administrative
Assistant to the Superintendent and Dr. William E. Sanders,
Director of Special Services, Richland County No. I, South
Carolina, 9/73.
28 Interview with John O'Malley, Principal, Lincoln School
and Jefferson School, Springfield, Massachusetts, 12/6/73.
29 Dr. Gerard E. Smith, Superintendent of Schools, New
Bedford, Massachusetts, 4/26/73.
30 Interview with William Keavy, Principal, Donaghy Elementary
School, New Bedford, Massachusetts, 12/5/73.
31 Interview with Joseph Silva, Principal, Ingraham Elementary
School, New Bedford, Massachusetts, 12/7/73.
32 Interview with Dan Foley, Submaster, Robert Kennedy
School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1/21/74.
33 Interview with Dr. Daryl Spaans, Director of Secondary
Education, Davenport Public Schools, Davenport, Iowa,
11/9/73.
S4 Interview with Donald Hale, Principal, Deering High
School, Portland, Maine, 10/24/73.

Unfortunately these views were held by a small
fraction of those school officials we interviewed. Most
thought the idea of taking away suspensions as a
discipline tool unthinkable not because of the children
but because of other school constituencies. A
Davenport official believes that a severe morale
problem would develop among the teachers if they
couldn't suspend. "... the teachers couldn't handle
it; they're terrified to reveal themselves as anything
other than a teacher. "35 A Denver principal says
that ending the power to suspend "... would hamstring
us.... We have to live with the teachers, we
must consider their safety and welfare as well."56
The Autauga County Superintendent said, "You'd
have a catastrophe if we couldn't suspend."57
Few, if any, school officials who favor suspension
make any pretentions that suspensions serve the
educational or emotional interests of suspended children.
Many honestly state that they are a means to
achieve other ends: to maintain their own authority,
to force the parents to come to school, or to relieve
teachers of problem children. None gave any evidence
to support expressed fears of impending catastrophe.
Few have adequately attempted less drastic
means to involve parents or to handle the children.
Suspension: A Hidden Weapon
Only a few years ago, school exclusionary devices
such as suspensions were invisible. Neither the federal,
state, nor local governments had any idea how
many children were suspended or why.38 Even
school superintendents were often ignorant of the
extent of this practice in their districts. Suspension
was an administrative process so discretionary and
35 Interview with James Ingram, Head Counselor, West
High School, Davenport, Iowa, 11/18/73.
35 Interview with Donald Genera, Principal, Baker Junior
High School, Denver, Colorado, 11/6/73.
37 Interview with Edwin C. Riddle, Superintendent of
Schools, Autauga County, Alabama, 2/74.
38 The data are still inadequate as we discuss in Appendix
W. Nor do the data in their present form explain the
reasons why suspension is so frequently used or the procedures
by which it is done. See our correspondence with
OCR Director Peter Holmes proposing changes in OCR
survey forms in Appendix Q.
so informal that it was hidden inside the offices of
individual principals, and sometimes inside the
classes of individual teachers, in schools throughout
America. 59 A hidden process out of view of the rest
of the world is subject to great abuse though most
people assumed, and continue to assume, that suspensions
are confined to a few patently unruly troublemakers.
This is' 'plainly untrue. Our preliminary analysis
of data collected in the fall of 1973 by OCR and our
survey show a nationwide pattern of suspensions
from school that is shocking.
39 Recordkeeping by many principals in this area remains
haphazard. Getting a precise grasp of the real numbers involved
is therefore often difficult.
123

The same pattern of secondary suspensions was
found in our analysis of OCR suspension data for
the 15 districts we visited which were surveyed by
OCR in the fall of 1973. 44 We found that in 8
of the 15 survey districts, over 10 percent of the
students enrolled in the districts' secondary schools
were suspended at least once. 30.6 percent of the
students in secondary schools were suspended in
Denver, 22.9 percent in Richland County o. I, and
22.6 percent in New Bedford. 45 In New Bedford,
over one-fourth of the students attending three of
the four secondary schools in the district were suspended
at least once during the 1972-73 school year.
CDF Data on Suspensions
Because we suspected suspensions and expulsions
contributed heavily to the reasons children were out
of school, our survey included questions about the
suspended and expelled student. We were particularly
concerned about the extent to which suspensions
were used. Our findings confirm OCR data on
44 OCR data were not col1eC'ted from either Portland.
Maine, or Somervil1e. Massachusetts, in the Fal1 1973
School Survey.
45 The percentages are also lower than they might be if we
could determine exactly what percentages of the secondary
students were suspended. For purposes of Our analysis,
only those schools serving no grade lower than seventh
were classified as "secondary" schools. Thus secondary
students in middle schools (6-8) and schools serving grade.
1-8 are not included in the percentages.
46 Altbough we feel that our data reflect who is suspended.
we do not believe that it describes the actual extent to
which suspensions are used. There are a number of reasons
for this. I) Parents often didn't know if their child
had been uspended. For example, in Portland, Maine,
one student was told to bring a note from her parents in
order to be readmitted to school. However, she wrote the
note herself and never told her parents. For 16 percent of
tbe suspensions we found in the 30 areas surveyed there
was no official notice of suspension and in 33 percent of
the suspensions a child returned alone after being suspended
without a parent conference. 2) Parents of the
student who was suspended often did not remember the
details of the suspension and when unclear information
was available, we were very conservative in our assumptions.
And 3) when a parent was not home, we interviewed
brothers and si tel's and they too were often unaware
of suspensions other than their own.
126
the wide use of disciplinary exclusions, particularly
suspensions. They also corroborate OCR data that
show the vast majority of suspensions occurring at
the secondary level. Ninety percent of the children
we found suspended at least once were between 12
and 17 years 01d. 46
More than 4 percent of all children we surveyed
ages 6 to 17 enrolled in school had been suspended
at least once. Among secondary school children ages
12 to 17, 7.9 percent had been suspended at least
once.'17
47 We found 33 children ages 6 through II suspended a
total of 54 times:
- two 6 year olds su pended
- three 7 year olds, one of whom was suspended 3 times
- two 8 year olds
- three 9 year olds
- 12 children 10 years old
- II children tl years old
Seventy percent of the children ages 6-11 suspended were
black, though black children were 40 percen' of children
6-11 surveyed.

TABLE IV
SCHOOL·AGE CHILDREN SUSPENDED AT LEAST ONCE'
Children Ages 6-17 Suspended Chil
Number of At Least Once
School-
AREAS SURVEYED Age % of All % % %
(6-17) Number Children Number Female Male Number Ch
Children Sus- Surveyed of Sus- Sus- Sus- Sus- Sur
Surveyed peoded (6-17) pensions pended pended pended (1
370 10 2.7 10 1.6 4.0 9
137 5 3.6 5 1.4 6.3 5
233 5 2.1 5 1.7 2.7 4
187 5 2.7 11 2.2 3.1 4
82 3 3.7 9 2.5 4.8 2
104 2 1.9 2 2.0 1.8 2
1 0 0 0 -* 0 0
102 3 2.9 5 0 5.5 3
101 2 2.0 6 0 4.1 2
lerican 12 0 0 0 0 0 0
89 2 2.2 6 0 4.4 2
313 22 7.0 41 4.0 9.8 16 1
70 10 14.3 12 12.0 15.6 5 1
lerican 210 9 4.3 24 1.9 6.7 8
29 3 10.3 5 5.9 16.7 3 1
Idian 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
153 19 12.4 50 18.1 7.4 16 2
147 18 12.2 49 18.6 6.5 15 2
3 1 33.3 1 -* 33.3 1 5
3 0 0 0 0 0 0
356 0 0 0 0 0 0
277 0 0 0 0 0 0
79 0 0 0 0 0 0
223 7 3.1 8 2.9 3.4 7
185 7 3.8 8 3.7 3.9 7
38 0 0 0 0 0 0
119 7 5.9 10 8.6 3.3 6
76 6 7.9 9 12.8 2.7 5 1
lerican 6 0 0 0 0 0 0
37 1 2.7 1 0 4.5 1
122 1 0.8 2 0 1.6 1
1 0 0 0 0 0 0
121 1 0.8 2

Racial Discrimination in the
Use of Suspensions
It is a sad but true fact that suspensions are sometimes
a mere pretense for punishing a child for
other reasons. This is particularly true for minority
children in many schools throughout America. According
to OCR data, almost 7 percent of the
minority pupils in the five states we analyzed were
suspended at least once during the 1972-73 school
year. Over 50 percent of the students suspended in
these five states were minority, though less than 40
percent of the districts' total enrollment was minority.
Fifty percent of the 402 districts analyzed reported
suspending 5 percent or more of their black
students, but only 23 percent of the districts reported
suspending 5 percent or more of their white students.
At least 10 percent of the black students were suspended
in 100 of the districts surveyed.
OCR Director Peter Holmes' testimony corroborated
this pattern of disproportionate minority
suspensions. "In only one city of the twenty reviewed
was the percentage of minorities suspended
less than the percentage of minorities in the total
enrollment ... suspension or expulsion appears to
weigh most heavily on the minority student."48 For
example, he gave the following figures:
City
New York
Houston
Cleveland
Memphis
Dallas
Percent
Minority
Enrollment
64.4%
56.4%
59.9%
58.0%
49.4%
Percent
Minority
Suspensions
85.9%
71.0%
70.8%
70.2%
68.5%
Although most of the districts we visited had
majority white enrollments, in most of them the
majority of the students suspended were black or
members of other recognized minority groupS.49
Eight of the 15 districts 50 for which we had OCR
suspension data reported suspending 5 percent or
more of their black students. In two of the eight
-Denver and Richland County No. l-approxi-
48 Statement by Peter E. Holmes, Director, Office For Civil
Rights, Department of Health, Education and Welfare
before the Subcommittee on Equal Opportunities, Committee
on Education and Labor, House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C., May 21, 1974, p. 12.
130
mately 15 percent of the black students were suspended.
Only ,five districts reported suspending 5
percent or more of their white students.
At the secondary level the suspension of black
students was more frequent. In 5 districts over 15
percent of the black secondary students were suspended.
In Denver, 31 percent of the black secondary
students were suspended. Only 2 districts suspended
over 15 percent of their white students.
CDF survey data also show that black children
were suspended disproportionately. While 4.4 percent
of all those surveyed were suspended at least
once, 7.3 percent of the black children were suspended.
The next highest rates of suspension occurred
among Hispanic children: 4.5 percent of
Puerto Rican children and 3.9 percent of Mexican­
American children. 51
At the secondary school level, black students in
our survey were suspended more than three times as
often as white students-I2.8 percent compared with
4.1 percent. We also found 9.4 percent of the Puerto
Rican secondary students, 7.1 percent of the Mexican-American
secondary students and 1.2 percent
of the Portuguese secondary students suspended.
Among 6-17 years olds, 5.4 percent of the males
and 3.4 percent of the females were suspended.
Among secondary school suspensions, 9.8 percent
were male and 5.9 percent were female. Black
males were suspended about three times more often
than white males. Black females were suspended
over four times as often as white females.
In eight areas we surveyed, over 15 percent of the
black secondary school students were suspended, and
in six areas over 20 percent of the black secondary
school-age males were suspended. In three areas,
over 30 percent of the black males were suspended:
New Bedford Census Tract 6510 with 36 percent;
Sumter County Precinct 2 with 36 percent; and
Columbia Census Tract 5 with 35 percent. In two
areas, over 30 percent of the black secondary school-
49 Appendix R sets forth the suspension data reported to
OCR by fifteen of these districts.
"0 Two of our districts - Somerville and Portland - were
not surveyed by OCR in the fall of 1973, and thus no
suspension data were available for them.
5\ Of all the children we surveyed between the ages of 6
and 17, 39 percent were black, 45 percent were white, 8
percent were Puerto Rican, 4 percent were Portuguese and
3 percent were Mexican-American.

In Denver, Colorado a 12-year-old black girl was
suspended three times during the 1972-73 school
year from the elementary school to which she was
bused across town: twice for lighting with white
students and once for talking back to a teacher.
Her mother went to the school board after the
second suspension because she claims the white
pnncipal said "we didn't want [any] black children
here anyhow." This school had only one
black teacher but 110 black students out of 647
students in 1972-73.
In Canton, Mississippi, a black parent showed our
monitor a leaflet headed "White Citizens for
EBRP Schools Only." It included "an oath for
white teachers and principals which set the goals
of: 1) 240 suspensions per month of black students,
2) suspension of 15 [black] boys and 10
[black] girls who were seniors-so they couldn't
graduate."
In the wake of southern school desegregation,
"black kids have been in essence told 'You can
come into our White schools but you cannot fully
participate.' "55 When they rebel against unequal
and discriminatory treatment, they are punished by
suspension or expulsion.
"A consequence of [the unequal imposition of
disciplinary measures] is the eventual erosion
of confidence of many thousands of minority
youth in the purposes of education so that the
American school becomes for them less a means
to personal achievement than a symbol of injustice.
These many thousands of young Americans,
who have given up going to school, are
frequently known by the term 'pushouts.' "56
55 Statement by Leon Hall, Southern Regional Council,
before the Subcommittee on Equal Opportunities, Committee
on Education and Labor, House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C., May 21, 1974, p. 469.
56 Statement by Peter E. Holmes, Director, OCR, Department
of Health, Education and Welfare before the Subcommittee
on Equal Opportunities, Committee on Education
and Labor, House of Representatives, Washington,
D.C" May 21, 1974, p. 474. See also The Student Pushout,
a report by the Southern Regional Council and the Robert
F. Kennedy Memorial. 1973.
133

One southern school official admitted that, "In
some cases, teachers were trigger-happy with suspensions
after desegregation."57 It is clear from our
data, however, that the North has not been immune
from racial insensitivity. One northern principal
told stories about a Polish immigrant and a German
immigrant, both of whom achieved very excellently
without bilingual education. "All you really need,"
he said, "is personal drive and to carry a dictionary
in your pocket. "58
A Catholic nun in Holyoke, Massachusetts says
she does not think that teachers there have learned
to be sensitive to Puerto Rican children. Since the
children react very quickly and are fierce fighters
they are often suspended for losing their tempers. 59
A Davenport community worker stated that teachers
receive no in-service training to sensitize them to
the needs of black children and no screening is done
to evaluate a teacher's sensitivity when he or she is
recruited. oo
Class Discrimination in the
Use of Suspensions
In school districts where there are few blacks,
Puerto Ricans or Chicanos, it is the lower-income
children who often bear the disproportionate brunt
of school officials' disciplinary action. 01 It is almost
as if some group of children must be scapegoated
by some officials. Principal Walter Hansen of Portland
High School, for instance, in discussing lowerincome
children in his school said: "Welfare is just
a hereditary thing. Children see their parents just
sitting around and getting checks. It could have
ramifications in the school. Portland High is criticized
for discriminating against the poor because our
57 Interview with Stonewall M. Richburg, Administrative
Assistant to the Superintendent and Dr. William E. Sanders,
Director of Special Services, Richland County No. I,
South Carolina, 9/73.
58 Interview with Henry A. Kelly, Principal, Chestnut Junior
High School, Springfield, Massachusetts, 12110/73.
59 Interview with Sister Joyce Smith, Casa Maria, Holyoke,
Massachusetts, 8/14/73.
60 Interview with Melvin McNeal, East Side Neighborhood
Development Corporation, Davenport, Iowa, 11/6/73.
134
Area Surveyed
Table VII
Children from Female-Headed Families
Suspended at Least Once
Canton, Miss.
Ioe Prichard Homes
Housing Project 63 94
Washington, D.C.
Census Tract 74.04 63 78
Denver, Colorado
Census Tract 8 48 64
Macon, Georgia
Census Tract 127 47 71
Springfield, Mass.
Census Tract 8008 46 63
Holyoke, Mass.
Census Tract 8114 35 44
Davenport, Iowa
Census Tract 107 29 71
New Bedford, Mass.
Census Tract 6526 26 64
New Bedford, Mass.
Census Tract 6510 24 46
Sumter County, S. C.
Precincts 1 & 26B 22 31
Sumter County, S. C.
Precinct 2 7 24
1 Approximation
Percent
School-Age
Children from
Female-Headed
Families t
Percent
School-Age
Children Suspended
At Least Once From
Female·Headed
Families
suspensions are mostly poor kids, and that's true.
Bur they're the ones who break the rules. "62
Another Portland school official told a CDF interviewer
about a report which allegedly showed that
almost every child suspended in a three-month period
from Lincoln Ir. High School in Portland came from
01 This may be a result of many school officials being more
able to identify with and infOrmally counsel middle-class
parents rather than throwing their children out of school.
Officials may also think middle-class parents will have
greater political influence or be more likely to complain.
Poor parents who have to work often do not have equal
access and time to consult informally with school officials
or may be more difficult to reach.
62 Interview with Walter Hansen, Principal, Portland High
School, Portland, Maine. 10/25/73.

turned if he even opened his mouth he got booked
again. "82 A Springfield attorney commented that the
Office of Pupil Services used to label all kids who
were suspended as in need of psychiatric care and
used this as a rationalization for keeping kids out
because the system did not have adequate psychiatric
care. 8S
Not only are children hurt in the present by suspensions,
the permanent record of suspension is a
time bomb that can explode at unexpected times, in
unexpected places. School records are usually available
to the police and they are extremely accessible
to potential employers and admissions officers of
other academic programs. 8 •
Encouragement of Juvenile Delinquency
No one has been able to identify the precise
causes of juvenile delinquency. Most social scientists
agree that the factors contributing to it are many
and interrelated. School problems - whether they
cause delinquency, are cause\i by delinquency, or are
caused by some other factors that also cause delinquency
- are highly correlated with more serious
offenses. Officials in Massachusetts detention and
other youth facilities whom we interviewed said:
"98 percent of [our] children have been involved
in school problems."85
82 Interview with Barbara Jackson, Education Director and
Donna Scholee, Psychologist, Neighborhood Youth Corps,
Springfield, Massachusetts, 12/5/73.
8S Interview with Bill Malloy, Housing Allowance Program.
Springfield, Massachusetts, 8/17/73.
81 We wrote to personnel directors of America's 500 largest
industrial corporations. Of the companies responding to
our query, 51.7 percent stated that they sought access to
a job applicant's public school records. 91.1 percent of
those seeking access reported that they were generally
allowed to see school records. 73.3 percent indicated that
poor grades, high absenteeism, or a history of discipline
problems appearing on the records were likely to count
against the applicant. Companies characterized people
with records of suspension as "poor job prospects," who
would receive "negative consideration."
85 Interview with lim McGuinness, Regional Director. Region
VI, Department of Youth Services, Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, 8/28/73.
138
"Everyone has come in with some particular
school problem."8G
"Nearly all have had trouble in school."87
"You name it, they've had it. Some have been tutored
at home; others are put in special classes or
given social promotions. One girl never spent a
full year in school before coming here."88
The delinquent child can pose special problems
for a school. A teacher who must orchestrate the
learning of 30 or more students does not need extra
discipline responsibilities that interfere with smooth
class functioning. As many administrators see the
public schools as serving the majority of children,
they encourage non-conforming children to go somewhere
else.
Children under the supervision of the Department
of Youth Services in Massachusetts whom we interviewed
revealed that over 80 percent of them had
been expelled or suspended, many of them repeatedly80
Two of them said:
"I forgot how many times I was suspended in the
7th and 8th grades. They'd ask for my story
but they'd always believe the teacher. They'd say,
'take a few days vacation.' "
"The principal said 'don't bring him back, we
don't want him here.' They didn't give any reasons
whatsoever. They said 'we'll say we caught
you with marijuana.' I continuously called the
school asking if I was terminated and if so, requesting
that my records be sent to Worcester.
They kept telling me to call back next week-that
went on until December. They were playing a
game and T lost a year of my life academically as
a result."
A highly placed Department of Youth Services
official remarked:
"The good schools don't like our kids, and the
bad ones we don't like. We find that if we take
our kids and place them in Boston public schools
if we leave them off at 8:00, they're expelled by
8: 30, before school even starts."90
86 Interview with Paul Carlburg, Staff, Anker House,
Worcester, Massachusetts, 9/ t t/73.
87 Interview with Dr. Jerry Cowan, Director, Liherty House,
Danvers, Massachusetts, 9/t7/73.
8d Interview with Tony Teso, Educational Director, Protestant
Youth Center, Baldwinville, Massachusetts. 9/20/73.
80 Of the 46 children interviewed, 37 had been either suspended
or expelled from schoQl at least once. Most had
been suspended repeatedly.

tion of the limitation on numbers or on lengths of
suspensions. And there was no clear provision for
a hearing or conference when a student is suspended.
The state law requires all these things. ,ol
In Davenport, Iowa, one assistant principal reported
that when they are suspended, "I don't tell
kids their rights. Come to think of it, I never thought
about it. "102
It is the principal's responsibility to maintain
safety and order in his building. He sets the tone
for his teachers and is held accountable for problems
that arise. As his school is compared to others, it
is likely that he will want his record to be as clean
as possible. He may want to get rid of students who
will blemish that record. Overcrowded school populations,
small budgets, and limited staff abet this
tendency to exclude troublesome children. But present
methods for maintaining order which deprive
children of education must be scrutinized. If children
are innocent and have no opportunity to prove
it, they will be bewildered, frustrated, and angry. If
they are guilty but punished in an unfair fashion
without a chance to present their side and to learn
from the experience, they will resent and disrespect
the punishing authority. Not only do arbitrary suspensions
fail to serve a disciplinary purpose, they
disserve that purpose. School administrators, therefore,
have an interest in preventing them that runs
parallel to the interest of their students. Unfair or
mistaken suspensions also disserve the overriding
school purpose of educating children.
Schools must maintain environments conducive to
learning, but not at the expense of individuals' rights.
A first step school officials must take to avoid arbitrary
exclusion from school is to establish fair disciplinary
procedures. A second step would be to
eliminate the many offenses like smoking or truancy
that do not seriously threaten or pose harm to
others. Only the most serious conduct should be a
basis for thro.wing a child out of school.
101 See Appendix V.
102 Interview with Randall Deer, Assistant Principal, J.B.
Young Junior High School, Davenport, Iowa, 11/9/73.
There is a special irony in this statement since the first
major students' right case to reach the U.S. Supreme Court
was brought in Iowa. See Tinker v. DesMoines Independent
Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
140

Legal Due Process Requirements:
What the Courts Have Said
Over the years, suspensions have resulted in
many lawsuits. These lawsuits have revealed what
is going on in the public schools: the utter lack
of procedural regularity that permits even encourages,
easy and unjustified resort to the sanction of
suspension. But for years, the courts would not open
their eyes to these facts. Their vision was clouded
by a fog of legal doctrine that shrouded the decisions
of school administrators to throw out their students.
"To support their position, the administrators could
draw on a whole grab-bag of conceptualisms: that
attendance ... was a privilege rather than a right;
that ... [the school] stood in loco parentis to the
student; or that the vague rules ... that a student
could be dismissed whenever the institution thought
this advisable, constituted a contract that the student
had accepted."103
The power of the administrators was absolute, their
abuse of it unreviewable. Few questioned this legal
orthodoxy.
One who did, Professor Warren Seavey, wrote in
1957:
"[O]ur sense of justice should be outraged by denial
to students of the normal safeguards. It is
shocking that the officials of a state educational
institution, which can function properly only if our
freedoms are preserved, should not understand the
elementary principles of fair play. It is equally
shocking to find that a court supports them in
denying to a student the protection given to a
pickpocket."104
In J961, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit held in Dixon v. Alabama State
Board of Education 105 that "due process requires
notice and some opportunity for hearing before a
student . . . is expelled for misconduct." The case
involved the expulsion of a student from a state college.
The court reasoned that a hearing was required
because "a charge of misconduct, as opposed to a
failure to meet the scholastic standards of the college,
depends upon a collection of the facts concerning
the charged misconduct, easily colored by
the point of view of the witnesses." It held that a
hearing must be held before the dismissal and that
it must involve "the rudiments of an adversary
proceeding."106
Slowly other courts generalized the Dixon holding.
It was applied to suspension from a state college,107
to expulsion hom a public high school,108 and
then to suspension from a public high school. 109
Then, in the early 1970s, the courts began to apply
Dixon to suspensions of varying severity. At
first, they required a prior hearing for a suspension
of 40 days,JlO and then for a suspension of 10
days, III but not for a suspension of five daysu2 or of
three days.u3 Yet they seemed to assume that some
kind of hearing should be held even in cases of the
shorter suspensions.'14
Next, the courts recognized that even a suspension
of a' few days could work substantial harm to a
child. IIi; One court required a formal, prior hearing
for a suspension of over two days.u 6 And another
observed that "a suspension of even one hour could
be quite critical to an individual student if that hour
encompassed a final examination that provided for
no 'make-up.' "tI7
Finally, in the last two years, the courts have
103 Charles Alan Wright, "The Constitution on Campus,"
Vallderbilt Law Review, Vol. 22, No.5, October 1969,
p. 1030.
194 Warren A. Seavey, "Dismissal of Students: 'Due Process',"
Harvard Law Review, Vol. 70, 1957, p. 1407.
105 DixOIl v. Alabama State Board at Education, 294 F.2d
150,158 (5th Cir. 1961) cert. dellied, 368 U.S. 930.
10" DixOIl V. A lobama SlOte Board at Educatioll, supra at
158-159.
107 See, for example, Esteban v. Celltral Missouri State College,
277 F.Supp. 649 (W.O.Mo. 1967).
108 See, for example, Vought v. Van Burell Public Schools,
306 F.Supp. 1388 (E.O.Mich. 1969).
109 See, for example, Williams v. Dade Counly School
Boord, 441 F.2d 299 (5th Cir. 1971).
110 Williams \'. Dade Coullty School Board, supra.
Hl Black StudelllS at North Fort Myers Jr.-Sr. High School
v. Williams, 470 F.2d 957 (5th Cir. 1972).
112 Jacksoll v. Hepillstall, 328 F.Supp. 1104, 1106 (N.D.N.Y.
t971) .
113 Tate v. Board of Education, 453 F.2d 975 (8th Cir.
1972).
114 See, for example, Banks v. Board at Public Instructioll,
314 F.Supp. 285, 292 (S.D.Fla. 1970).
U5 See, for example, Shallley v. Northeast Independellt
School District, 462 F.2d 960 (5th CiT. 1972).
U6 Mills v. Board at Educatioll, 348 F .Supp. 866, 878
(D.D.C. 1972).
117 Shanley v. Northeast Independent School District, sllpra
at 967 n. 4.
141

hold hearings, the reaction was shock and dismay
-anarchy seemed just around the corner. But now
that schools have had increasing experience with
suspension hearings, some officials have found that
fair procedures actually increase respect for authority.
One principal has predicted that "[a]dministrators
and teachers will come to learn that due
process will strengthen, not weaken, their positions
within their school and community.""s Another has
written that "when due process is followed ... [t]he
operation of the school can be greatly enhanced
rather than disrupted or impeded. "12·'
123 James E. Ferguson, "Due Process-Is Now," National
Associatioll of Secondary School Principals Bulletill, Vol.
57, February 1973, p. 99.
, 24 Hendrick C. DeBruin, "Education and Due Process,"
Education, Vol. 90, November 1969, p. 182.
"5 Donald V. Johnson, "Student Disciplinary Codes-What
Makes Them Tick," Speech delivered to the Annual Conference
of the Natiooal Association of Secondary School
Principals, (Dallas, Texas) February 2-7, 1973, p. 4.
It may be that the requirement of a hearing will
cause principals to suspend fewer children. Certainly,
it will screen out suspensions that are demonstrably
unfair or mistaken. But that will be a gain, not a
loss, for the public schools. A hearing may also require
principals to think twice about using suspensions
in the more marginal cases. One principal
told a conference of secondary school principals that
he re-examined the use of suspensions in his school
and determined that they were necessary in only a
minority of cases. "In some cases," he said "we
realized that out-of-school suspensions would be
needed, for example, in situations where hot tempers
as a result of a fight required cool-off time away
from school." But, for most other cases, he set up
an in-school suspension center where students could
continue their studies. "Students respect it," he concluded,
"and it has cut down on many kinds of disciplinary
problems in the school. "1'5
c) Hearings Will Create An Adversary Atmo-
143

sphere. School officials allege they act in loco
parentis and argue that suspension hearings-setting
accusers on one side and students on the othermay
break down the "family" relationship between
school officials and students.
The plain fact is the public school is not a family.
"In the modem school setting," with hundreds or
thousands of students, administrators and teachers
do "not and perhaps cannot have an individual,
parent-like concern for [a] child's welfare."126 It
is particularly inappropriate to speak of a family
relationship when officials act so often to throw a
child out of school. Few real parents would take
any such action.
School officials may argue that suspension sometimes
is in the best interests of the child. But the
child, and his parents, have every right to disagree.
A hearing does not cause the parties to stand at arms
length. It does not provoke a conflict of interests.
It merely allows both sides of the argument to be
heard.
A relationship of mutual respect and trust, of
course, is important in the public schools. But a
hearing requirement can build such a relationship,
not destroy it. Neither respect nor trust is fostered
by one-sided decisionmaking so crucial to the child.
One school administrator has written, "[suspensions]
do not need to become wellsprings of discord or bitterness.
By ensuring that [they] take place in accordance
with due process and for specific serious
acts, school [officials] will earn trust as they perform
thi important quasi-judicial function."127
d) Hearings Take Too Much Time. The final
argument frequently offered to oppose suspension
hearings is that they will take time away from the
educational functions of administrators and teachers.
Hearings, of course, will take some time. But they
need not take inordinate time. And what time they
126 William G. Buss, "Procedural Due Process for School
Discipline," University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol.
I J9, 1971, p. 560.
127 Sheldon Winston, "Exputsions and Due Process," Phi
Delta Kappan, Vol. 54, June 1973, p. 699.
128 Arguments of cost also are injected. into the argument
against hearings. But large llIJ10unts of money are lost
annually from school days lost due to suspensions. In
Richland County No.1, South Carolina, it was estimated
that at least $25,000 was lost from days missed through
short-term suspensions in the 1972-73 school year.
144
do take will be well spent.
Suspension hearings need not follow formal trialtype
procedures. They may be quite informal and
still be fair. They may be held late in the afternoon,
after class hours, to avoid interference with the
normal school day and to enable parents to attend.
The principal may appoint a special assistant to
preside at the hearings and thereby free himself
of the burden. He may opt for less drastic alternatives
to suspensions in some cases to reduce the
number of hearings necessary.
The hearing process might seem inefficient if the
test of efficiency is removing as many children as
quickly as possible from the school building. But
public school efficiency should not be measured only
in time and numbers, but also in fairness, good will
and tru t. And efficiency is hardly served by countless
mistaken suspensions. An investment in hearings
is an investment in reliable decisionmaking.
Inevitably, a hearing takes a principal or teacher
from other tasks. But if they have the time to deprive
a child of schooling, they must take the time to do
it fairly and carefully. Moreover, the time taken for
hearings will not be taken from an educational function.
It will be taken for an educational function.
School officials would not "suspend" a student if they
did not think it would serve a school purpose; thus,
resources expended on sllspensions are not unconnected
to the school's "education."128
Beyond Due Process
We believe school suspensions should be ended as
a matter of educational policy. Further, we believe
that school officials should adopt due process into
their administrative practices immediately. But we
need to go beyond such procedures to solve the
problem of suspensions and other disciplinary exclusions.
First, it is clear that some school officials will find
ways to avoid due process procedures even when
established. Some may not inform parents or children
of their rights. In Floyd County, Kentucky, we
found no evidence of dissemination of disciplinary
policies even though the Board of Education has
published a summary of its policies which include
discipline provisions in pamphlet form. In Sumter
County No.2, South Carolina, the information that

or programs that operate as alternatives for children
who do not respond to traditional schools' methods
or materials, who have been suspended, or who are
potential drop-outs. Some. schools provide vocational
programs, in some instances including a work
component, which allow students to earn money
while they finish their high school education. Generally,
all these alternative programs are small and
more personal than the traditional school setting.
These schools or programs can be a source of
controversy. Some school officials and teachers use
them as a way of relieving regular classes of problem
children. If this happens, they can be seen as dumping
grounds by the community. On the other hand,
teachers and counselors working in these alternative
programs generally are dedicated and sympathetic
to their students, and often this brings rewarding
results.
Springfield has established a junior high level pro-gram
to work with students who are considered
serious discipline problems. The Pupil Adjustment
Center (formerly called the Suspendee School)
serves approximately 35 teenagers who have been
given long-term suspensions. Denver, Colorado has
eight extension centers for junior high school chil-
146
dren with personal and social adjustment problems.
Denver also has been operating the Metropolitan
Youth Education Center (Metro), a large alternative
program for senior high school students since 1964.
Classes are run year round, both day and evenings.
The curriculum is varied and students can attend
the school on flexible schedules. To be eligible for
Metro a youngster must be at least 16 years old and
have stopped attending school. PREP, a small, nongraded
junior high school for problem children unable
to function in traditional classrooms, is Portland's
effort to work with selected problem students,
especially habitual truants. The program includes a
shortened day with emphasis on physical activity.
The director of the program is also one of its
teachers.
Some of the alternative schools in our survey
areas are for many kinds of students, not only
discipline problems. Most of these alternatives are
on the high school level. Richland County No. I,
South Carolina, has operated the Walk-In School
since September 1972. This program has small, informal
classes and gives its 70 students discrete
responsibilities. There are no bells and no failures.
Despite the fears of some school board members
T

Unless the school can demonstrate (to a parent or
a court) that it has seriously tried a range of other
remedies, it should not be allowed to exclude a child.
5. Diversified curriculum and modes of teaching
must be adopted. Schools must recognize that not
all children fit into a single mold. They must attempt
to provide interesting and flexible curricula
and teaching approaches to meet the human variations
among their charges. Particular attention
should be given to the transition pressures for children
entering junior high school. Alternatives should
not be used in lieu of exclusion to segregate children
and provide them inferior services and education.
Indeed, these children need more services and their
programs may therefore need more resources than
average students. State departments of education
and the federal government should recognize these
needs and alter their funding patterns appropriately
to make funds available for the design, demonstration,
evaluation, and technical assistance to local
school districts to implement more alternative programs
in public schools.
6. Parents should pay close attention to and exert
their influence in the selection of school principals.
148
We have found that principals not only set the tone
and provide the leadership in a school, but they are
also specifically responsible for policies and practices
on school discipline. Their role in seeing that reforms
in this area are acted on is not to be underestimated.
We urge parents to pay much more attention
to the principal selection process and seek to
exercise some voice therein. Examination of attitudes
toward discipline, flexible curriculum, and racial and
class minorities should be commonplace in judging
suitability for the job.
7. Schools of education and professional associations
should teach teachers - both pre- and inservice
- to handle children with discipline problems.
It has been said too many times before that
beginning teachers do not get enough practical experience
in classrooms early in their training to know
whether they can operate successfully in a classroom
or what the real, daily problems are. In addition,
preparation for teaching children with learning,
emotional or other problems, which can turn into or
aggravate discipline problems, is rarely given to a
beginning teacher. Too few courses, even after
graduation, are geared to enlightening attitudes and
to teaching alternative techniques of dealing with
troubled children. But every class will have several
discipline problems. It is a gross disservice to teachers
and children not to offer knowledge and guidance
in this area. If research is needed to improve teaching
these children, it should be undertaken at universities
cooperating with public schools. Courses,
workshops, summer sessions, and literature should
be offered through universities and professional organizations
to help teachers help children in trouble.
8. Racial discrimination in the disciplinary process
must be investigated and attacked with great
urgency. Schools and administrators should examine
the patterns of suspensions in their own districts
and investigate individual schools where the number
of suspensions involve serious deviation from racial
populations in those schools. Parents of minority
children should forcefully complain to the local
school officials, insist on their right to a hearing, and
insist on meeting with the teachers, principals, and
administrators in charge if they feel that racial discrimination
is involved. If this does not work satisfactorily,
minority parents and children should write

complaints to the federal Office for Civil Rights.
(Office for Civil Rights Compliance, Department of
HEW, Washington, D.C. 20202.)
Because we feel the problem of racial discrimination
in the suspension process is so serious and because,
to date, no effective enforcement program has
been established at the federal level to eliminate
such discrimination, we will set forth detailed proposals
for a discussion with HEW's Office for Civil
Rights' officials immediately upon release of this
report.
Section 60I of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title
VI hereafter) bans racial discrimination in any program
financed with federal funds. It also mandates
every agency expending funds for aid to education
to establish regulations, standards and procedures
which will guarantee the cessation of discrimination.
Such standards are to be enforced either through
suits filed by the Justice Department or by the termination
of federal funds following appropriate administrative
hearings.
OCR has established the following Regulation:
(d) Discrimination against children.
No educational agency shall be eligible for
assistance under the Act if, ... it has had or
maintains in effect any practice, policy, or
procedure which results or have resulted
in ...
(4) Imposing disciplinary sanctions, including
expulsions, suspensions, or corporal
or other punishment, in a manner which
discriminates against minority group
children on the basis of race, color, or
national origin. 13G
Although the Regulation is clear, OCR has not
enforced it or Section 601 vigorously, with the re-
136 Regulation, 45 C.F.R. 185.43 (d) (4) (Emergency
School Aid Act).
137 The Supreme Court did so most recently in Turner v.
FOllche, 396 U.S. 346 (1970). While it is true that the Court
rejected statistical evidence as establishing a prima lacie
case of racial discrimination in JeDersoll v. Hackney, 406
U.S. 535 (1972), JeDerson concerned basic decisions by
the state as to the allocation of welfare funds, and plaintiffs
did not offer sufficient proof tbat the classifications
established resled on racially-linked criteria. Where blackwhite
differentials are alleged to rest on "subjective judgment"
or otherwise racially-linked criteria, tben a prima
lacie case is established, "and tbe burden [falls) on the
appelees to overcome it." Turner v. Fouche, supra at 360.
suIts depicted earlier in this chapter. We believe that
discrimination and racial disproportion in school discipline
will end only if school systems are made
aware that real consequences, including the termination
of federal funds, will follow from their illegal
practices. At an absolute minimum, a strong monitoring
program of disciplinary practices and, in tum,
a set of guidelines with which OCR can establish an
internal set of priorities for further investigation and
for bringing legal action against recalcitrant school
systems, must be adopted forthwith. These or similar
guidelines might also be employed voluntarily by
school systems interested in ensuring an end to discrimination.
OCR has argued that effective enforcement of
Title VI, and particularly the holding of compliance
hearings prior to termination of federal funds, is
stymied by extraordinarily high judicial demands in
relation to the burden of proof OCR must maintain.
But courts have been willing to use statistical evidence
of racial discrimination to require the shifting
of the burden of proof so that it becomes the duty
of state officials (or in many cases private employers)
to explain how the statistics could have arisen
in the absence of such discrimination. The Supreme
Court has upheld such a shift of burden. 137
OCR should use its authority to establish guidelines
within which certain statistical distributions will
be presumed to show discrimination and shift the
burden to the school district to demonstrate that
discrimination does not exist.
138 See Chance v. Board 01 Examiners and Board 01 Edllcacalion
01 Ihe Cily 0/ New York, 330 F. Supp. 203
(S.D.N.Y. 1971), aD'd, 458 F.2d 1167 (2d Cir. 1972), and
Hawkins v. Coleman, 376 F.Supp. 1330 (N.D. Texas,
1974). Allhough there are certain problems with chi
square methodology, including the necessity to have relatively
large numbers in one's data base, OCR could establish
this or a imilar test which would be admissible before
courts and administrative officers.
139 A statistician has compared the chi-square methodology
10 the process of studying coin flips. Taken by itself, a
2 percent excess would not be a powerful indicator of
racial bias. On tbe other band, if 15 out of 20 schools
reported such an excess, we would be as curious about the
neutrality of the disciplinary process as we would if a coin
turned up "heads" 15 out of 20 times. If no racial bias is
present, one would expect whites to outnumber blacks,
adjusted for their percentages in the population, at least
as often as the reverse.
149

For example, courts have accepted the use of a
chi-square test, a statistical method by which discrimination
is implied whenever the difference in any
given sample is greater than that which would be
expected on the basis of mere chance. 138 When
there is less than a one in twenty probability that a
given distribution would result by chance, the finding
is deemed significant,139
In addition to adopting specific tests relying on
minority-nonminority percentage comparisons as an
indicator of discrimination, OCR should also devise
adequate methods for uncovering more sophisticated
modes of discrimination. For example, it may be
that black or other minority students are brought
within the disciplinary process more readily than
white students, so that a behavior that would earn
a white student a verbal rebuke would result in a
black student being sent to the principal. Similar
proportions of black and white students disciplined
could hide the fact that black students are being
disciplined for more trivial offenses than those committed
by white students. An upper-middle class
white child who steals is likely to be viewed as suffering
from certain psychological problems and
150
therefore merits a psychiatrist; a lower-class black
student who steals is more likely to be labeled a
juvenile delinquent and suspended.
Even if the threshold for entry into the disciplinary
process is equal for all students, it is still altogether
possible that the punishment for similar offenses
is racially discriminatory so that minority
students are suspended for ten days instead of the
three days typically allotted more privileged students.
Such a disparity could itself constitute prima facie
evidence of discrimination. But such evidence does
not readily emerge from data limited to gross rates
of discipline. Thus, at the very least, suspension
data must be broken down by length of suspension
before one can rely solely on racially similar rates.
In light of the glaring racial disproportion in
suspension rates we have set forth from OCR data
for five states and the districts in the CDF study, we
recommend immediate action to conduct on-site
reviews in a selected number of them which we
will discuss with OCR immediately. We urge that
the Congress provide sufficient funds to enable OCR
to maintain an effective investigative staff to vindicate
the promise of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

APPENDICES

certificate, high school diploma, or a college, university
or professional degree.. Persons in custodial
day care centers (with little or no instructional programs),
in specialized vocational, trade or business
school, in on-the-job training, or in correspondence
courses (unless credits are transferable to "regular"
school) are not counted as enrolled even though
they may be considered to be furthering their education.
As a result the Census data may overstate the
number of children not "enrolled" to some extent.
At the same time, it understates the "attendance"
problem. Those who either attend infrequently but
regularly (l or 2 days a week, every other week, etc.)
or those who attend but whose "special" needs are
so unmet by programs that attendance is virtually
meaningless are not counted. These children should
be considered out of school even though they may
have "attended" during the previous two or three
months.
The Census data, within its limitations, is helpful
in quantifying the extent of the problem and in identifying
some of the characteristics of children out of
school.
Children Not Enrolled By State
(Appendix E, Tables I, II and III)
All data are derived from State Summary volumes
of the U.S. Census of Population, 1970, four volumes
per state, lettered A through D, with tables
numbered consecutively through the volumes. We
will refer to the table number, not to the particular
volume in which it is contained.
person toward an elementary school certificate or high
school diploma, or a college, university, or professional
degree. Schooling that was not obtained in a regular
school and schooling from a tutor or through corre·
spondence courses were counted .only if the credits ob·
tained were regarded as transferable to a school in the
regular school system. Persons were included as enrolled
in nursery school only if the school included instruction
as an important and integral phase of its program. Chil·
dren enrolled in "Head Start" programs, or similar programs
sponsored by local agencies to provide preschool
education to young children, are inclUded as enrolled in
schools. Persons who had been enrolled in a regular school
since February 1, 1970, but who had not actually attended,
for example because of illness, were counted as enrolled
in school.
Persons were excluded from the enrollment figures if
the only schools they had been attending at any time since
February 1, 1970, were IlOt "regular" (unless courses taken
Children Not Enrolled
Source. Table 146--Year of School in Which
Enrolled for Persons 3-34 Years Old by Race, Type
of School, Sex and Age.
Procedure. Data given include the number and
percentage of children enrolled by sex and age. To
derive the number out of school, we first calculated
the total number of children for each age:
T I
Number enrolled
ota = -------­
Percentage enrolled
and then determined the grand total for the age
groupings (66 , 7-15, 16 & 17). Enrollment data
were then totaled for the age groupings and subtracted
from total population figures to determine
the number of children not enrolled in each age
grouping.
Note: Although Table 19 does show the total
population by age, that is a total enumeration. The
data in Table 146 came from a 15 percent sample
of households. The total implied by the sample is
not usually the same as that which we know to be
the correct total, but it was the one used to calculate
the percentages and to project the number enrolled.
Therefore, the obvious procedure of subtracting the
number in school (Table 146) from the population
(Table 19) would have been inconsistent.
Not Enrolled (Adjusted)
Source. Table 154-Persons in Group Quarters
by Type of Quarters, Sex, Race and Age.
Procedure. Data is given separately for males
and females, and by age categories: 5-13 years, 14
and 15, and 16 and 17 years. "Inmates of Institutions"
(for each sex) constitute six columns of
the table: "Mental Hospital," "Home for the Aged,"
and "Other Inmate."
Children living in institutions are counted as enrolled
or not enrolled according to Census definition.
However, these breakdowns are only published nationally
and are not available by state. Because
at such 3Chools could have been counted for credit at a
regular school). Schooling which is generally regarded as
/lot "regular" includes that given in nursery schools which
simply provide custodial day care; in specialized vocational,
trade, or ·business schools; in on-the-job training; and
through correspondence courses.
6 Data is shown on 6 year olds for target area states, but
it is not counted in state or grand totals.
153

•
most children who are institutionalized are receiving
at least some training or schooling (whether or not
it meets the Census definition), we count all institutionalized
children as enrolled. Yet we know that
institutional schooling is often woefully inadequate
and that some institutions provide no educational
programs. 7 We have estimated the number assumed
to be institutionalized, but not enrolled, for each
state and have reduced the number not enrolled by
this amount.
Therefore, we added, for the 5-13 age group, the
males and females in the three categories of institutions,
and took 7/9ths of this figure to account for
ages 5 and 6. The 14 and 15 year olds were totaled
and added to the 7-13 group. We then took 39 percentS
of the 7-15 total institutionalized to estimate
the number institutionalized but not enrolled. This
procedure was then repeated for 16 and 17 year olds
using 45.6 percent and for 6 years olds in target
area states using 58.7 percent. Next, the institutional
not enrolled were deducted from the total not enrolled
to determine the number "Not Enrolled (Adjusted)."
Finally, totals for ages 7-17 were computed
for each state.
White and Nonwhite
Procedure. Table 146 is given for the state by
racial breakdown. We calculated the white children
in and out of school, and subtracted them from the
total to give the nonwhite figures. The institutional
adjustment was computed from data in Table 154
as it was for total population.
Urban and Rural
Procedure. Data are given for three types of
7 In 1970 the School of Social Service Administration at the
the University of Chicago published a study of children in
residential institutions which showed that over 7 percent of
the 2,318 institutions surveyed in 1966 had no children attending
school, and that of the institutions which provided
schools facilities on their grounds, 20 percent did not
provide services for all grade levels attained by the children
in residence. 30.4 percent of the institutions surveyed
reported that they wanted to expand or develop formal
school facilities on their grounds, and over 50 percent of
the institutions indicated that they wanted to expand or
develop tutoring, remedial or other individualized educational
programs.
S The U.S. percent of inmates of institutions not enrolled
in school; 1970 Census of Population, Persons in Institutions
and Other Group Quarters, P.C. (2)-4E, Table 20.
154
places: urban, rural farm and rural non-farm. Although
racial breakdowns are given within each type
of place, we did not make calculations by race within
urban or rural areas, nor separate rural into farm
and non-farm. We calculated the number of children
in and out of school for urban areas, and subtracted
these figures from the totals.
Urban-rural institutional data were only given for
age groupings "under 14 years" (rather than for "5
to 13" as it was for the total population), "14 and
15 years," and "16 and 17 years." We had no actual
data for determining the percentage of the total
population institutionalized for ages 7 to 13. Because
it was expected that institutionalization would
vary from the average during the early years, an
alternative means of estimating the urban institutionalized
was used. That is, children in institutions
were allocated between urban and rural on the basis
of the ratio of urban and rural in the total population
for that age group. This will reduce the reliability
of the estimate.
Children Not Enrolled By Regions
(Chapter 2, Tables I, III and IV)
State data for Tables I, III and IV were rearranged
and summarized by regions from standard Census
regional designations.
Children Not Enrolled, By Education and Income
of Parent (Chapter 2, Table V)
Source. School Enrollment Supplement, Table 8
-Enrollment Status and Relative Progress in School
of Persons 3 to 17 Years Old Living With One or
Both Parents by Education of Parent, Family Income,
Control of School, Age on October 1, 1969,
Race, Spanish Language, and Sex: 1970.
Procedure. Data are given by year for ages 3 to
7, as an age grouping for 8 to 15 year olds, and
separately for male and female 16 and 17 year olds.
Population and enrollment data are given for each
age group by education of parent and family income
as follows:
-Less than 8 years of school: Under $4,000;
$4,000 to 9,999; $10,000 or more.
-8 to 11 years of school: Under $4,000; $4,999
to 6,999; $7,000 to 9,999; $10,000 or more.
-12 years of school: Under $4,000; $4,000 to
6,999; $7,000 to 9,999; $10,000 or more.

levels. We asked for recommendations from individuals
familiar with state and local situations in
various places. We inquired of local organizations
whether they could supply supportive resources
-facilities and/or people power-to assist us. And
we entered into a formal arrangement with the
Southeastern Public Education Program (SEPEP)
staff of the American Friends Service Committee
under which they agreed to conduct the survey in
four southern states where they have extensive activities.
As a result of our study of Census data and
consultation, we selected counties, towns and cities
in nine states and the District of Columbia in which
to conduct our survey.
After deciding on general areas to visit, we drew
up lists of local people who had extensive knowledge
of persons and relevant issues in neighborhoods in
the areas selected. They recommended specific
Census tracts in urban areas (after we had identified
a larger target group of Census tracts based on various
characteristics in the Census data) or subdivisions
in rural areas to survey. We also asked them
to provide us with background information about the
educational, economic, governmental, political, and
sociological environment of the area.
As a result of these inquiries, we chose 30 areas
to survey:
Alabama
Autauga County
Beat 10
Montgomery
Census Tract 3
Northgate Housing Project
Colorado
Denver
Georgia
156
Census Tract 1.01
Census Tract 8
Census Tract 41.01
Hancock County
Georgia Militia Districts 102 and 113
Macon
Census Tract 127
Iowa
Davenport
Census Tract 107
Census Tract 123
Kentucky
Floyd County
Mud Creek Area
Maine
Portland
Census Tract 11
Census Tract 12
Census Tract 19
Bayside East Housing Project
Riverton Housing Project
Massachusetts
Cambridge
Census Tract 3524
Census Tract 3527
Holyoke
Census Tract 8114
New Bedford
Census Tract 6510
Census Tract 6526
Somerville
Census Tract 3512
Springfield
Census Tract 8008
Census Tract 8018
Mississippi
Canton
Joe Prichard Homes Housing Project
South Carolina
Columbia
Census Tract 5
Census Tract 22
Sumter County
Precinct 2
Precincts 1 and 26B
Washington, D.C.
Census Tract 74.04
Monitors visited at least every fourth household.
The decision on whether to survey every household

as opposed to every second, third, or fourth, was
based on the total number of households in the area
selected. Sampling was done consistently within
Census tracts and political subdivisions, but differently
among them. Households where there was
no answer or 'a refusal to answer were noted and
tabulated. When a monitor found no one home at
the designated household, the monitor visited the
preceding household in the count. (In a few areas,
the next household was visited.) The count always
resumed from the original household whether or not
an interview was obtained at the preceding (or next)
household. If there was no answer at the designated
household and the household preceding it, the monitor
noted this and continued on with the original
count from the designated household. Monitors did
not go back (or forward) more than one household
before the designated household.
All interviewing was done between July 1973 and
March 1974. In analyzing the data we collected, the
school year 1972-1973 (both semesters) always was
examined. However, in some places interviewing
was done a month or more after the 1973-1974
school year had begun. In those places, the analysis
covered up to a three semester time period. We
calculated children out of school by IWO different
measures: I) children who missed three or more
consecutive months of school, and 2) children who
missed 45 days of school, whether or not it was
consecutive. The survey analysis period for these
two measures included 1972-73 and that portion of
the first semester that had passed. Our calculations
on suspension were done on this same two- and
sometimes three-semester basis.
Below is a brief description of each specific place
we monitored.
ALABAMA
1. Autauga County-Beat 10
While parts of Autauga County are developing
into a "bedroom community" suburb of Montgomery,
other parts are sparsely populated and
isolated. APSC staff selected such a rural portion of
Autauga County, political Beat 10, to survey. Beat
10 consists of tiny communities, some all white and
others all black, plus individual black and white
families scattered randomly throughout hills and
hollows. Just as randomly situated are well-to-do
and poor families. APSC staff members monitored
every household during the three-week period following
July 23, 1973.
2. Montgomery
a. Census Tract 3
In Montgomery we wanted to survey a Census
tract with low-income families, both black and white.
Census Tract 3, according to 1970 Census data, is
65 percent black, has a high percentage (39 percent)
of families below the poverty level, and contains
over 1,000 persons under 18. Most black families
in Census Tract 3 live in New Town, the most
delapidated neighborhood in Montgomery, with open
ditches, abandoned cars, and condemned and
burned-out houses lining its streets. Most white families
live in Chisholm, a "blue collar" enclave north
of New Town. Some streets house retired couples
next to poor, young families, and others house upwardly
mobile and middle-income families. Construction
of an interstate highway through the area
has resulted in the abandonment of many shanties
since 1970. Monitoring was done by the APSC
staff from the middle to the end of January 1974.
Every second household was interviewed.
b. Northgate Housing Project
Many black families who have left New Town in
Census Tract 3, especially since 1970, have moved
into the federally subsidized Northgate Housing
Project in adjacent Census Tract 4. All of its residents
in 100 units are black. Though constructed
less than five years ago, the exteriors of its twostory
units are run-down, there is no landscaping,
virtually no grass, and no playground equipment.
Here again, monitoring was handled by the APSC
staff during the latter part of January 1974. Every
second household was included in the survey.
COLORADO
Denver
a. Census Tract 1.01
CDF wanted to survey white children living in a
"blue collar" lower middle income area in a large
western city. Census Tract 1.01 in north central
Denver is such an area. The 1970 Census shows
Census Tract 1.01 to be one-tenth of a percent
black, with fewer than 400 "persons of Spanish
language" (Mexican-Americans are presently begin-
157

ning to move there). The median family income is
$5,620, and a low percentage (6.8 percent) of families
have incomes below the poverty level. There
are less than 1,000 persons under 18. There are
single and multi-family homes on tree-lined streets.
Every third household was surveyed during two
weeks in August 1973 by staff and interns of the
Juvenile Justice Division of the Family Law Center.
b. Census Tract 8
Census Tract 8 was selected because its population
has a majority of Mexican-Americans and lowincome
families. While the 1970 Census shows only
33 percent of the Census Tract 8 inhabitants as
"persons of Spanish language," after very careful
monitoring, CDF found 69 percent of the people are
Mexican-American (although many speak English
rather than Spanish). Census Tract 8 has the lowest
median family income, $3,690, of any place surveyed
(and the third lowest of Census tracts in Denver).
Almost two-thirds (1,809) of its inhabitants
are persons under 18. Virtually the entire Census
tract is comprised of the old, two-story unit housing
project, Las Casitas, without any recreation or play
areas for children or adults. CDF staff monitored
every third household during the week of November
5, 1973.
c. Census Tract 41.01
CDF wanted to survey a middle-income, black
area as well as a black neighborhood in the north
whose children attended desegregated schools. Census
Tract 41.01 in the Park Hill area of Denver met
both these criteria. Census data indicated a median
family income of $9,355, 14 percent of the families
with incomes below the poverty level, 1,807 persons
under 18 as well as an 88 percent black population.
Children living there have been bused to various
schools in heavily white areas for four years. Homes
in Census Tract 41.01 are new, one-level, singlefamily
or duplex houses or new, one-level, fourapartment
units. Interviewing was also done in
Census Tract 41.01 by CDF staff during the week
of November 5, 1973. Every fourth household was
surveyed.
GEORGIA
1. Hancock County-Georgia Militia
Districts 102 and 113
158
Georgia Militia Districts (GMD) 102 and 113
cover the whole town. of Sparta, the county seat,
and a large out-lying rural population. While the
county is 74 percent black, a majority of the whites
live in Sparta which is only 58 percent black. Most
whites in Sparta are prosperous while blacks in
Sparta, and blacks and whites in outlying rural areas,
tend to be poor. Most employed people in the rural
areas work in a local factory. The county has a dual
school system of education: black children are in
public schools and most white children are in John
Hancock Academy. The county school system and
political posts are controlled by blacks. AFSC staff
surveyed every household during September 1973.
2. Macon--Census Tract 127
CDF selected a IO\ll

. Census Tract 123
Census Tract 123 is a lower-middle income, virtually
all white "blue collar" area. The median
family income is $9,550, and 4.4 percent of the
families have incomes below the poverty level. There
are slightly fewer than 1,000 persons under 18. Almost
all the homes are modest, single-family bungalows
and many are found in a new subdivision.
Local citizens monitored every fourth household in
September 1973.
KENTUCKY
Floyd County-Mud Creek Area
CDF wanted to survey a white area in rural Appalachia
and chose a part of Floyd County. In the
rolling hills and isolated hollows of Mud Creek,
Magisterial District #4, there are many low-income
families. Most families live in old houses or shanties,
but some live in new homes. Some homes are found
along main highways and paved roads, but others
are located up long dirt roads in sparsely populated
hollows. The large numbers of men receiving federally-funded
black lung benefits as well as the substantial
number of unemployed young people are
reminders of the realities of a coal-mining enconomy.
A group of local citizens surveyed every second
household during September 1973.
MAINE
Portland
a. Census Tract 11
This is one of the two, low-income Census tracts
selected in Portland. The population of Census
Tract I I is virtually all white, bas a median family
income of $5,941 and 29 percent of the families
have incomes below poverty level. There are fewer
than 1,000 persons under 18. The area is comprised
chiefly of double and triple decker houses, mostly in
bad condition, and long since divided into multiple
family units. There has been considerable urban
renewal. In the center of the Census tract is the
"Danforth Street area" where inhabited houses are
so dilapidated they are serious hazards-floors and
roofs fall in, water pipes burst, furnaces break down
during cold winters. All Portland monitoring was
done by CDF staff during mid-July 1973 (except
the Riverton Housing Project which was done in
November 1973). In Census Tract 11, every household
was surveyed.
b. Census Tract 12
Census Tract 12, contiguous with Census Tract
11, is also low-income, with a median family income
of $6,739 and 21 percent of the families with incomes
below poverty level. There are fewer than
1,000 persons under 18. It is composed of large,
sub-divided double and triple decker houses, generally
in better condition than those in Census Tract
I I. While there has been a lot of housing destruction
for urban renewal in this Census tract too, some
Model Cities money has been given directly to homeowners
to "fix-up" or even partially renovate their
homes. CDF staff monitored every third household
in Census Tract 12.
c. Census Tract 19
Census Tract 19 encompasses a middle-income
area and was monitored for comparative purposes
with the low-income areas surveyed in Portland.
The median family income is $9,791 with only 3
percent of the families with incomes below the poverty
level. It has over 1,000 persons under 18. This
less dense area is located two or three miles from
downtown Portland. Its tree-lined streets are made
up of 35- to 50-year-old, large and small, singlefamily
houses and two-to-four family double and
triple decker houses, with new homes in one part of
the tract. Every fourth household in Census Tract
19 was surveyed.
d. Bayside East Housing Project
Bayside East Housing Project was the first area
we surveyed. We selected it because it was a lowincome
area recommended as a good place to initiate
our monitoring efforts. This 100 unit project, completed
in March 1972, is located next to two other
housing projects. While the area overlooks the
scenic Back Cove of the Casco Bay, the immediate
surroundings are bleak. CDF surveyed every household
in this housing project.
e. Riverton Housing Project
Many of the families, especially large ones, displaced
by urban renewal in Census Tracts 11 and 12
have moved to the Riverton Housing Project which
opened August 1972 with 150 units. Riverton is
five or six miles from the center of Portland. While
159

located in a middle-income, suburban-like part of
Portland, it is completely isolated from surrounding
neighborhoods by an encircling 8-foot-high chain
fence and buffer zone of vacant land. The nearest
schools and the nearest supermarkets are over two
miles away. The Riverton population is 94 percent
white. Every third household in Riverton was surveyed
during the week of November 26, 1973 by
CDF staff members.
MASSACHUSETTS
1. Cambridge
a. Census Tract 3524
Census Tract 3524 in Cambridge-a suburb of
Boston composed of a substantial academic community
side-by-side with a multi-racial and multiethnic
"blue collar" community-is the poorest Census
tract in Cambridge. The median family income
is $6,702 and 27 percent of the families have incomes
below the poverty level. It is also one of four
Census tracts (out of 30) with an over 20 percent
black population. It has almost 1,000 persons under
18. Houses in the area are chiefly large, multifamily
double and triple deckers. There are also
two low-rise housing projects, Newtowne Court and
Washington Elms, with heavy concentrations of
black families. CDF staff monitored in August 1973
when every third household was visited.
b. Census Tract 3527
This Census tract is characterized by a multiethnic,
but especially Italian, "blue-collar" population.
It also has a large and growing Portuguese
community. Most homes are multi-family, double
and triple deckers. In addition, Roosevelt Towers, a
heavily white high-rise with surrounding low rise
units housing project, is located there. Youngsters
from Roosevelt Towers and Washington Elms (in
Census Tract 3524) are known for their racial conflicts.
The median family income in Census Tract
3527 is $7,733 and 18 percent of the families have
incomes below the poverty level. There are fewer
than 1,000 persons under 18. Every third household
was surveyed by CDF staff during August 1973.
2. Holyoke-Census Tract 8114
Census Tract 8114 has the highest concentration
of Spanish-speaking persons (Puerto Ricans) of any
of the 8 Census tracts in Holyoke. It ranks second
160
in terms of median family income ($6,878) and
percentage of families with incomes below the poverty
level (22 percent). Block after block of attached
five- and six-story walk-up tenements, built
originally for textile mill workers, house mostly
Puerto Rican families, and some low-income black
and white families. Here monitoring was conducted
by CDF staff along with interpreters associated with
or identified by South City Congress Urban Ministries,
and New England Farmworkers Council.
Every fourth household was visited during August
1973.
3. New Bedford
a. Census Tract 65 10
CDF wanted to survey a middle-income Census
tract in New Bedford. We realized that such a tract
would include a housing project since in recent years
new public housing has been scattered throughout
New Bedford. Census Tract 6510 had the highest
median family income of any tract in the CDF survey,
$10,276. However, this and other Census measures
reflect the 100 unit, 23-year-old Parkdale Housing
Project but not the newer, larger and attractive
Shawmut Village Project opened in 1972 with 170
units. This area, aside from the housing project, has
single-family dwellings.. There are over 1,000 persons
under 18. CDF staff and people associated
with On Board, Inc., a community action agency,
surveyed in New Bedford during September 1973.
Every fourth household was monitored in Census
Tract 6510.
b. Census Tract 6526
Census Tract 6526 is the lowest-income Census
tract in New Bedford with a median family income
of $5,419 and 26 percent of the families with incomes
below the poverty level. This area has a
heavy concentration of non-English-speaking immigrant
Portuguese with large families who have
left impoverished conditions in the Azores and mainland
of Portugal to seek jobs in the fish, textile, and
electronics component industries of New Bedford.
Also in this area are less recent immigrants from the
Cape Verde Islands off West Africa and a substantial
Puerto Rican population. Housing is multi-family
double and triple deckers, most in fair condition.
Some blocks have been cleared through urban re-

newal. Every third household was monitored in
Census Tract 6526.
4. Somerville-Census Tract 3512
Somerville is a largely white, "blue-collar" suburb
of Boston located next to Cambridge. CDF wanted
to survey such an area and selected Census Tract
3512, with 3,000 persons under 18. Median family
income is $9,205 and 7 percent of the families have
incomes below the poverty level. This extremely
dense area has single and double family houses.
Monitoring was done by CDF staff and people identified
through Somerville Youth Program. Every
fourth household was visited during September and
October 1973 and February 1974.
5. Springfield
a. Census Tract 8008
According to the Census, Census Tract 8008 has
the highest percentage of persons of Spanish language,
50 percent, in Springfield. CDF found that
the Puerto Rican population is still growing. This
Census Tract has the lowest median family income
($5,119) and the highest percentage of families with
incomes below the poverty level (37 percent) in
Springfield. Housing in the areas is varied. Puerto
Rican families live chiefly in large tenement-like
apartment buildings, all in bad condition and many
condemned. In other sections there are single and
double family homes on tree-lined streets. CDF staff
monitored along with interpreters identified through
the Memorial Square Neighborhood Council and the
Springfield Urban League. Interviews were conducted
during August 1973 and a small number
during December 1973. Every third household was
visited.
b. Census Tract 8018
Census Tract 8018 has the highest percentage of
blacks (7 I percent) and the second lowest median
family income ($5,759) and percentage of families
with incomes below the poverty level (27 percent).
This heavily black area has one new, small, housing
project, but is made up largely of 20- to 30-year-old
single and double family, two-story, detached homes
plus occassional large subdivided old homes. Monitoring
was done by CDF staff along with Springfield
Urban League Cadets during August and December
1973. Every fourth household was visited.
MISSISSIPPI
Canton-Joe Prichard Homes Housing Project
Canton is a town of 10,503 people with black
and white populations of about equal size. The town
has extensive poverty: a median family income of
$3,918. Canton has two segregated housing projects;
CDF surveyed the black project: Joe Prichard
Homes. It has 26 brick buildings with 130 units.
Because housing conditions in Canton are very bad,
the housing project is not considered undesirable
given the housing which is available to the poor.
AFSC staff surveyed every household in the project
in December 1973.
SOUTH CAROLINA
I. Columbia
a. Census Tract 5
CDF wanted to survey a lower-middle-income urban
black area in the South. Census Tract 5 is 78
percent black with a median family income of $5,445
and 35 percent of the families with incomes below
the poverty level. It has over 1,000 persons under
18. Though there are some streets with bad housing,
housing in the area is chiefly comfortable, modest,
single-family brick homes built between 1930 and
1940 on tree-lined streets. The area, once white and
now heavily black, has some stable, integrated neighborhoods.
AFSC staff monitored in both Columbia
Census tracts in August 1973. Interviews were conducted
in every fourth household.
b. Census Tract 22
Census Tract 22 is a very small, middle-income
Census tract with less than 400 persons under 18.
This integrated but increasingly black area is characterized
by single family homes housing lowermiddle
to upper-midd1e-income people. AFSC staff
monitored every fourth household in August 1973.
2. Sumter County
a. Precinct 2
Precinct 2 was surveyed because of its heterogenous
population: racially mixed in both low-income,
rural areas and suburban-like, middle-income
neighborhoods. Although the Shaw Air Force Base
is located there, Shaw officials refused to let AFSC
monitors survey on-base housing. Off-base housing
includes a new housing development with $20,000
161

to $40,000 homes as well as more temporary residences
such as shabby, crowded trailer parks. There
is also a section of inexpensive cinder block houses,
each with a standing heater. AFSC staff monitored
during December 1973 and January 1974. Every
fourth household was visited.
b. Precincts I and 26B
Precincts I and 26B are non-continguous areas
with a homogenous, black, low-income population.
(Because of their similar socio-economic characteristics,
these two areas were combined for the purpose
of data analysis.) There are many small farms which
are worked by their owners and a few areas of new
government subsidized homes. People appear to
live off the land and those who are employed do
housework or construction work or are professional
people. Many residents receive some sort of financial
assistance-AFDC, social security retirement or
disability, pensions, etc. Every fourth household was
monitored by AFSC staff during September 1973.
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Census Tract 74.04
CDF wanted to survey a low-income black population
in a large, non-southern urban area. We
chose this 99 percent black Census tract in Washington,
D.C. Located in far southeast Washington, D.C.
with a majority of the homes public housing projects,
Census Tract 74.04 has a median family income of
$5,963 and 34 percent of the families with incomes
below the poverty level. There are over 2,000 persons
under 18. Aside from the grassless two-story
housing projects, some of which have been renovated,
there are lower-middle- to middle-income
apartment complexes with young families and a few
single family homes. CDF staff monitored every
third household during late February and early
March 1974.
Out of School Data
Source: CDF Survey Questionnaire; Children in
Household Chart, Questionnaire on Child Not Enrolled
in School (Appendix B, Tables I-III), and
Family/Household Questionnaire (Appendix G).
Procedures: Survey questionnaires were first reviewed
and edited to determine if the child out of
school met our definitional criteria in terms of age,
162
length of time out and so on.
All data were summarized by area initially; areas
were combined to find the survey totals. The numbers
of school-age children in the survey were computed
from the Household Chart, and children out
of school were totaled first, for the three-consecutive
month period, and secondly, for those out 45 or
more days. Then detailed information on the outof-school
children was summarized and rates computed.
Children out of school
----------- = % out of school
Total school-age children
Detailed data summarized for out-of-school children
included information on:
-the reasons given for children out of school
(Chapter 1, Table I)
-racial and ethnic characteristics by age groupings
(Chapter 2, Tables VIII, IX and X) and
by sex (Appendix F, Tables, I, II, and III)
-family characteristics such as educational attainment
of head of household, poverty status
as indicated by AFDC and other public assistance
as sole or partial support, femaleheaded
households. (Appendix G and H).
Suspension Data
Source: CDF Survey Questionnaire; School Expulsions,
Suspensions and Disciplinary Transfers
(Appendix E, Tables 1 and 2), and Family/Household
Questionnaire (Appendix G).
Procedures: We were also interested in gathering
data on absences due to disciplinary actions. We
found some children suspended who also met the
criteria for being counted in our out-of-school data.
These were counted in both summaries.
Data on children who had been suspended during
the survey analysis period was collected and summarized
from our survey following procedures similar
to those used in studying children out of school.
Detailed data was computed on children suspended
including:
-reasons for suspension (Chapter 5, Table I)
-social and ethnic characteristics by sex for all
children and for secondary children (Appendix
T, Table I and Table II)

-secondary school children by sex and race;
frequency and duration (Appendix T, Table III
and Table IV)
-family characteristics such as poverty indicated
by AFDC and other public assistance as sole or
partial support, educational attainment of head
of household, and female-headed households
(Chapter 5, Table VII).
III. OCR Data
COF Staff extracted from the OCR Reports raw
figures on the number of students, by race and
ethnic group, enrolled in schools, the number enrolled
in various types of special education classes
and the number of students suspended during the
1972-1973 school year. No information was included
in the reports on file in the OCR office (at
4th Street and Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington,
D.C. 20202) on the percentages of students,
by race and ethnic group enrolled in the school districts,
enrolled in various types of special education
programs or suspended at least once. These computations
were performed by COF from the raw
figures extracted from the OCR reports.
OCR data on special needs (EMR) was analyzed
for Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi and
South Carolina, (Chapter 4, Table I and Appendix
M, Tables I-V). School discipline data was analyzed
for Arkansas, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio and
South Carolina, (Chapter 5, Tables II, III and V and
Appendix R, Tables I-V). In addition, we analyzed
suspension (Appendix S, Appendix T, Tables I and
II) and special education OCR data (Appendix N,
Table I) on 15 of the 17 districts where we surveyed.
IV. Other Information (Chapter 3, Table II; Appendix
N, Tables II and III; and Appendix U).
COF staff also collected information on school
programs, policies and practices in 17 school districts
where the children in our survey went to
school. We interviewed teachers, counselors and
officials, asking primarily about special education,
discipline and other policies which could exclude
children from school.
V. Sample Questionnaire
All monitors used an identical questionnaire prepared
by CDF. They also received an accompany-
ing packet of materials which included an instruction
sheet, a memorandum explaining the basis for the
report, a set of definitions of terms, and a guide to
reasons why children might be out of school, in
special schools, or in special programs. All monitors
participated in workshops conducted by CDF staff
members before beginning the survey.
All school official interviews were conducted by
CDF and AFSC staff working from much more
detailed material.
In many cases, monitors recorded surnames of
persons interviewed. Most often they recorded just
the family relationship of the person interviewed if
an adult ("mother," "father," etc.) or the first name
if a child was interviewed. Addresses were almost
always recorded. On the "children in household
chart" as well as the individual sheets for children
with problems, first names of children were recorded
so that we would not confuse each child referred to
when we later analyzed the questionnaries. Because
of this identifying information, individual questionnaires
will not be released to any group or individual
outside the·Children's Oefense Fund.
Following are the list of definitions and the questionnaire.
They are included in their original form
with only the empty spaces for monitors to write in
omitted. If we were to do this study again, we would
clarify and revise the questionnaire. For example,
we would probably delete references to "exclusion"
and "non-enrollment" which are somewhat misleading
terms and substitute the term "out of schooL"
We also would change the first page of the questionnaire
labeled "Monitor Sheet H" to reflect changes
and instructions discussed with all monitors in the
workshops:
--change "H" to "A"
--change title to reflect that the survey covered children
with special needs in school as well as children
out of school
-add "and ethnicity" after "Race"
-

enrolling students in grades 1-12; a school for
the general normal student population in
which a student may advance toward an elementary
school certificate or a high school
diploma; a school for which there are no special
requirements for enrollment such as having
a severe learning or physical disability,
wanting specialized training, or being detained
for problems with law enforcement officials.
b. Non-regular special school-a public or private
school enrolJing students in grades 1-12;
a school for which there are special requirements
for enrollment such as having a learning
or physical disability, wanting specialized
training, or being detained for problems with
law enforcement officials.
2. Public School-a school which is controlled and
supported chiefly by a local, state, or federal
government agency.
3. Parochial school-a school which is controlled
or supported chiefly by a religious organization
which the child attends instead of a public school.
4. Other Private School-a school which is controIJed
or supported chiefly by private groups
other than religious organizations.
5. Enrollment/Enrolled-for the purposes of this
survey, a student is enroIJed in a school if he is
registered at a school and has attended some
days of the school year. In other words, a student
is enrolled if a regular or non-regular, special
school (public or private) has him on a list
of children enrolled and expects him to attend
school there.
6. Special Program-the term "special program" is
used in reference to both regular school and nonregular,
special school. However, any given type
of special program might exist in a regular but
not a non-regular school or vice versa.
(a) "Special programs" in regular school are for
children who have learning or physical disabilities
which school officials have determined
are serious enough to remove the
children from regular classrooms for the
whole or part of the school day but not
serious enough to prohibit them from enrolling
in the school. The Monitor's Guide
spells out types of problems for which stu-
164
dents might be placed in special progr.ams.
Common types of special programs in regular
schools included educable mentally
retarded (EMR) classes, English as a Second
Language (ESL) classes, special reading
classes, speech therapy, classes for
emotionally disturbed, special classes for
gifted and talented children, vocational and
occupational trainjng classes.
(b) "Special programs" in non-regular special
schools are programs to meet the specific
needs of the children who are enrolled in
that school because they have some general
problem in common. Here are a few examples:
( I) A school for physically handicapped
could have the same type of special
programs as found in a regular school
-EMR, ESL, speech therapy, etc.as
well as special programs for children
who are deaf, blind, legs paralyzed,
arms missing, etc.
(2) A school for delinquent children might
have the same types of special programs
found in regular schools.
(3) A school for mentally retarded children
might have special programs for Educable
(EMR) as well as Trainable
Mentally Retarded (TMR), for emotionally
disturbed, Spanish speaking,
etc.
7. Suspensions. Suspensions are one of the most
common disciplinary measures used in schools.
Due process is often denied, hearings, and appeals
are not held, and often no statistical records
are kept to indicate average duration of suspensions
or frequency. A suspension for purposes
of tills study is any temporary exclusion of a
child from school by school officials. Temporary
means anything from one to thirty days.
8. Expulsions. Expulsions are long-term (thirty
days or over, or permanent) exclusion of a child
from school by school officials. The child is
usually not allowed to return to school for the
remainder of the semester or school year. Sometimes
expulsions are labeled "indefinite suspensions."
In such cases a child is allegedly sus-

10. Are his special problems/needs being met now
by any other institution?
(a) Describe the institution and the education
program, if any, it provides.
(b) Did you have any choice about putting
child in this institution?
11. Are you aware of a school in your area which
provides a program suitable for the child?
Explain.
12. Have you tried to get the child into regular
school? If not, why not?
(a) Did you attempt to enroll him? On what
basis did they refuse? Explain.
13. Describe the problems getting the child into
regular or special school.
14. Who or what has been the greatest problem in
getting the child into school?
15. How long have you been attempting to get the
child back in school?
Sheet B-3
16. Has there ever been a communication (report
card, letter, etc.) from the school officials or
teachers? Describe the communication. Was it
informative about the child's progress or problems?
Did you attempt to get more information?
Explain.
17. What was your last contact with school officials
about getting child back in school?
18. Has a school official or any other official contacted
you about your child's non-enrollment in
school? Explain. When?
19. Since being out of school has the child been in
any trouble with law enforcement officials?
Explain.
20. How has being out of school affected your
child? Explain.
21. How has your child's being out of school affected
your family? Explain.
22. What would you like to happen now regarding
your child's school problems?
23. How does the child feel about himself/herself
because he/she is not in school? (Ask child if
possible).
166
Sheet B-4
24. How does he/she spend his/her time while
he/she is not enrolled in school? (Ask child if
possible).
25. Do you know of other school age children in
your neighborhood who are not enrolled in
school? How many?
(a) Do you know the reasons they are not enrolled
in school?
Sheet C-I
CHILD WITH SPECIAL PROBLEMS
ENROLLED IN REGULAR SCHOOL
1. (a) Name
(b) Age (c) Birthday (d) Sex
(e) Race
2. What grade was child enrolled in last year?
3. Name of school
Public or private?
If private: Parochial school?
Religious affiliation?
Does child board at school?
Other type of private school?
(Explain)
4. Where is school located?
5. How long has child been enrolled at this school?
6. How did child come to be enrolled at this
school?
7. Is child enrolled in any special programs?
If Yes:
(a) What type of special program is child in?
( I) Did any special problem or need or
condition affect the child's enrollment
in this program? Explain.
(2) When did you realize he/she had this
special problem/need?
(3) How did you realize he/she had this
special problem/need? Explain.
(b) How was the decision made to put the
child in this program?
(1) Was the child given any tests before
the child was placed in this program?
(2) Do you know what kind of tests they
were? (10, Achievement, sight and
hearing)

child's problems or progress at school? Explain.
11. Have you ever attempted to talk with any school
representative about your child's special placement
or need?
Teacher, principal, or other? Explain.
(d) Sex
Sheet 0-1
CHILD ENROLLED IN NON REGULAR,
SPECIAL SCHOOL
1. (a) Name
(b) Age (c) Birthday
(e) Race
2. What grade was child last enrolled in?
3. Name of school?
4. Public or Private?
If Private: Parochial school?
Religious affiliation?
Other type of private school? Explain.
5. Where is school located?
6. Does the child live at the school? Why?
7. How long has child been enrolled at this school?
8. Did any special need or condition cause the
child's enrollment at the school? What?
9. When did you first realize he/she had this special
need?
10. When did school officials realize it?
11. Did they bring it to your attention?
12. Was the child given any tests before the child
was put in this program?
(a) Do you know what kind of tests they were?
(IQ, achievement, sight and hearing)
(b) Were you told about the test?
If yes, before or after they were given?
13. Have you ever seen the child's records or been
denied access to them?
14. Whose decision was it to put the child in this
school?
Parent!Adult
School Officials
Private or public agencies (name and explain)
Child
Independent evaluator/doctor psychologist
Other
168
Sheet 0-2
15. How much information did you have about the
school before the child was enrolled in it? Did
you have any choice about where to send your
child?
16. Do you think the program the child is receiving
is suitable for him?
17. Do you think it has helped him? Explain.
18. Is your child on a waiting list for any special
program at this school or another school?
Explain.
(a) If yes, how long has he been on list?
19. In the past has the child ever been enrolled in
a special program at this school or another
school?
(a) If yes, what? Explain.
20. Do you know how many other children are enrolled
in the special class or program? What is
the racial and ethnic composition of the class,
if you know it?
21. Does the school provide extracurricular activities?
What kind?
(a) Does the child participate in them?
22. Have any of the child's teachers or other school
authorities suggested that the child should be
given drugs or pills, prescribed by a doctor, for
some problem at school?
(a) If so, what kind of drugs or pills?
(b) Why did the school official say such treatment
might be needed?
(c) Did the school official suggest alternatives
to the drugs or pills?
(d) Did the school official say the child might
have to go i.nto a special class, another
school, or be dismissed from school if he
did not take the drugs or pills?
(e) What did you do then? Did you take child
to a doctor? What did the doctor say? Did
he prescribe the drugs? What were they
called? How often and how long did your
child take them? Did you notice any effect
of the drugs? Did the teacher or the other
school official tell you what effect the drug
had?
23. Who pays for your child attending the school?

Sheet E-l
SCHOOL EXPULSIONS, SUSPENSIONS,
AND DISCIPLINARY TRANSFERS·
1. (a) Name
(b) Age
(c) Birthday
(d) Sex
(e) Race
2. Was child ever expelled from school?
(a) If yes, how many times?
(b) For each time explain:
(1) When?
(2) For how long? Why?
(3) Reason given by school officials.
(4) Parent!guardian and child's version?
3. Was child ever suspended from school?
(a) If yes, how many times?
(b) For each time explain:
(1) When?
(2) For how long? Why?
(3) Reason given by school officials.
(4) Parent/guardian and child's version?
---
'Fill out for each child ever expelled or suspended even if
child is in regular program in regular school.
Sheet E-2
4. Has child ever been transferred for disciplinary
reasons from school to school?
(a) If yes, how many times?
(b) For each time explain:
(J) When?
(2) For how long? Why?
(3) Reason given by school officials.
(4) Parent/guardian and child's version?
5. Procedure:
(a) How and by whom was he notified?
(b) Race/national origin of group or individuaJ
who expelled him/her?
(c) Was a hearing held with school officials?
If yes, who was present?
(d) If no, were you informed of a right to a
hearing? By whom?
(e) Did you request a hearing? Explain.
(f) Was child allowed, and did child have, assistance
from a lawyer or other independent
third party?
(g) How did child get back in school?
(h) What did child do when he/she was out of
school?
6. Following expulsion or suspension was the child
enrolled in any institution or special school?
Explain.
Sheet F
FINAL QUESTIONS FOR PARENTS/ADULTS
1. Were any of your older children (over 18) ever
out of school? Why?
2. Now looking back, what effect did that have on
you, and your family/household?
3. Were you ever out of school?
(a) Why?
(b) What effect did this have on you?
4. Are the compulsory attendance laws enforced
in the school district and schools in which the
children in your household attend?
5. Do you think there should be compulsory attendance?
Why?
Sheet G
FAMILY/HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE
1. Number of people who live in this house?
(a) Number of adults (18 years and over)
(b) Number of children.
2. Are children living with parents?
(a) If not, who are they living with?
3. Are there children in this family who are not
living at home?
Where are they living? (Be as specific as possible)
4. Language spoken in home?
5. Last year of school completed by parents or
adults responsible for child.
6. What is the source of income for household?
7. Who has a job who lives in this house?
(a) What kinds of jobs do they have?
169

Appe..dlx B
COF SURVEY
Table I
HOUSEHOLDS, PERSONS AND SCHOOI.rAGE CHILDREN
(Age 6-17)
.....
-l
o
Non-Responses Responses
Households
Total Households
With
House- No With
Number of
Total
hold Refusals Answers Number of
People
Households Total
Survey No to (Number People Not
Recorded
With Househo
Area Surveyed Ratio' Answer2 Answer &%)3 Recorded HouseholdsIPeople In terviews4 Surveyed
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Alabama
Autauga County
Beat 10 1:1 83 8 91 161 158 816 319 410
(22%)
Montgomery
Census Tract 3 1:2 90 9 99 1 268 870 269 368
(27%)
Montgomery
Northgate Housing Projec 1:2 11 1 12 0 37 205 37 49
(24%)
Colorado
Denver
Census Tract 1.01 1:3 136 5 141 205 55 257 260 401
(35%)
Denver
Census Tract 8 1:3 34 7 41 1 181 717 182 223
(18%)
Denver
Census Tract 41.01 1:4 102 5 107 3 186 557 189 296
(36%)
Georgia
Hancock County
Militia Districts
102 and 113 1:1 175 0 175 210 148 721 358 533
Macon
Census Tract 127 1:3 74 0 74 104 96 414 200 274
(27%)
Iowa
Davenport
Census Tract 107 1:4 2 1 3 0 152 464 152 155
(2%)
Davenport
Census Tract 123 1:4 19 I 20 0 166 498 166 186
(11%)
Kentucky
Floyd County
Mud Creek Area 1:2 0 0 0 0 424 2,084 424 424

Maine
Portland
Census Tract 11 I 1:1 154 1 155 16 I 215 795 231 386
(40%)
Portland
Census Tract 12 1:3 33 0 33 3 f 81 282 84 117
(28%)
Portland
Census Tract 19 1:4 71 7 78 4 f 223 789 227 305
(26%)
Portland
Bayside East
Housing Project 1:1 8 1 9 0 f 37 175 37 46
(20%)
Portland
Riverton Housing Project 1:3 6 1 7 0 f 45 264 45 52
(13%)
Massachusetts
Cambridge
Census Tract 3524 1:3 96 1 97 I I 189 542 190 287
(34%)
Cambridge
Census Tract 3527 1:3 98 3 101 0 I 179 556 179 280
(36%)
Holyoke
Census Tract 8114 1:4 61 6 67 4 I 232 961 236 303
(22%)
New Bedford
Census Tract 6510 1:3 133 13 146 21 I 337 1,055 358 504
(29%)
New Bedford
Census Tract 6526 1:3 44 3 47 13 I 302 1,092 315 362
(13%)
Somerville
Census Tract 3512 1:4 82 22 104 36 I 549 1,631 585 689
(15%)
Springfield
Census Tract 8008 1:3 70 2 72 0 I 206 915 206 278
(26%)
Springfield
Census Tract 8018 1:4 91 3 94 19 I 247 977 266 360
(26%)
Mississippi
Canton
Joe Prichard Homes
Housing Project 1:1 5 2 7 4 I 119 434 123 130
(5%)
South Carolina
Columbia
Estimate
7
7 Estimate 7 I Estimate 7
Estima
Census Tract 5 1:4 7 50 133 75 423 208 258
.... (19%)
-..l ....
... ..,

Portland
Census Tract 12 5 46
13 I
Portland
Census Tract 19 12 167 I
44 I
Portland
Bayside East
Housing Project I 8 I 50 I 8 I
Portland
Riverton
Housing Project I 9 I 3 94 I 14 I 3
Massachusetts
Cambridge
Census Tract
3524 I 8 1 9 I 42 4 2 77 I 8 1 10 I 58
Cambridge
Census Tract
3527 I 2 5 I 15 27 71 I 2 6 14 I 19
Holyoke
Census Tract
8114 I 9 2 10 I 10 135 5 125 I 4 16 I 24 I 14
New Bedford
Census Tract
6510 I 3 3 19 I 43 4 24 133 I 8 1 2 32 I 54
New Bedford
Census Tract
6526 I 1 7 13 6 I 20 40 158 74 I 5 4 22 9 I 26
Somerville
Census Tract
3512 I 2 7 20 I 1 3 48245 1 I 1 5 45 I 3
Springfield
Census Tract
Springfield
Census Tract
8018 131 4 1211 45 14 I 45 1 9 I 287
Mississippi
Canton
Joe Prichard
Homes
Housing Project I 5 I 126 I 30 I 161
South Carolina
Columbia
Census Tract 5 22 1 159 5 37 1 218
Columbia
Census Tract 22 1 33 30 5 6 39
Sumter County
Precinct 2 4 6 74 103 18 17 96
Sumter County
Precincts
and 26B 126 2 I 287 5 I 78 I 391
8008 I 3 25 2 I 27 229 17 I 5 51 7 I 35
1 -....:I ....:I

ALABAMA
State Officials
Mr. William H. Kimbrough, Director, Division of Administration
and Finance, Alabama State Department of Education
Mr. Oifton Nash, Coordinator, Pupil Personnel Services Section,
Division of Instruction, Alabama State Department of
Education
Dr. Clinton R. Owens, Chief Consultant, Program for Exceptional
Children and Youth, Division of Instruction, Alabama State
Department of Education
Autauga County School Officials
Mr. Edwin C. Riddle, Superintendent, Autauga County Board of
Education
Montgomery School Officials
Dr. William S. Garrett, Superintendent, Montgomery Public
Schools
Mr. Clinton Carter, Principal, Robert E. Lee High School
Mr. Lionel L. Garnier, Assistant Superintendent for Pupil
Personnel, Montgomery Public Schools
Mr. Robert L. Jones, Principal, Baldwin Junior High School
Mr. TIlOmas C. Patterson, Principal, Chisholm Elementary School
Mr. Henry Studstill, Administrator, Mcinnis School
Ms. Martha J. White, Special Education Coordinator, Mon tgomery
Public Schools
Montgomery Community People
Mrs. Eunice Bayer, Office Manager, Father Purcell Memorial
Center for Retarded Children
Ms. Betty Cole, Coordinator of School Programs, Montgomery
Mental Health Center
Ms. Andrea Dean, Administrative Assistant, Perry Hill Child
Development Center
Mr. Ronald M. Frambach, Executive Director, Montgomery
Mental Health Center
Mrs. Ralphine Harper, Executive Secretary, Children's Center of
Montgomery, Inc.
Mr. WiWe James Harris, Director, Newtown Community Center
Mr. Hiebel, Administrator, Pineview Manor
Mrs. Christine Jones, Director, Neighborhood Youth Corps
Mrs. Ann Riddle, Montgomery County Association for Retarded
Children
Mr. Douglas F. Sanford, Executive Director, Alabama Association
for Retarded Citizens
Mrs. Geraldene H. Saiz, Director, NeWe Burge Center
Mr. James Jerry Wood, Esq., President, Montgomery County
Association for Children with Learning Disabilities
Mrs. Audrey Wright, Assistant Administrator, Father Walter
Memorial Child Care Cen ter
COLORADO
State Officials
Mr. William Bailey, Consultant, Community Services Unit,
Colorado Department of Education
Mrs. Robin Johnston, Member, Colorado State Board of
Education
Denver School Officials
Dr. Louis J. Kishkunis, Superintendent, Denver Public Schools
Mr. Tom Allen, Principal, Horace Mann Junior High School
Mrs. Lena L. Archuleta, Supervisor, Primary Bilingual Education
Program, Del Pueblo Elementary School
Mr. Barry Beal, Supervisor, Planning, Research & Budgeting
Department, Denver Public Schools
Appendix C
FEDERAL, STATE AND SCHOOL OFFICIALS AND
COMMUNITY PERSONS INTERVIEWED BY CDF STAFF
Dr. Darold T. Bobier, Director, Guidance Services, Denver Public
Schools
Dr. Joseph E. Brzeinski, Assistant Superintendent for Administrative
Services, Denver Public Schools
Mr. Gerald P. Cavanaugh, Supervisor, Testing & Pupil Records,
Denver Public Schools
Mr. Robert P. Colwell, Principal, East High School
Mr. John Doyle, Contract Teacher, Baker Junior High School
Mr. Donald Genera, Principal, Baker Junior High School
Mr. Eugene Graham, Principal, Charles Boettcher School
Mr. Robert W. Hirsch, Director, Federal Projects, Denver Public
Schools
Dr. Wesley Johnson, Principal, West High School
Dr. John M. Lampe, Executive Director, Health Services, Denver
Public Schools
Mr. Arthur O. Milman, Teacher on Special Assignment, Pupil
Attendance Office, Denver Public Schools
Mr. George Morrison, Jr., Assistant Executive Director, Department
of Secondary Education, Denver Public Schools
Dr. James M. O'Hara, Executive Director, Department of Pupil
Services, Denver Public Schools
Dr. Walter B. Oliver, Executive Director, Department of Elementary
Education, Denver Public Schools
Mr. Robert Pena, Social Workcr (On Leave of Absence), Denver
Public Schools
Mrs. Kay Schomp, Member, Denver Board of Education
Mr. Harold Scott, Principal, Smiley Junior High School
Mr. Tom Stevens, Contract Teacher, Baker Junior High School
Mr. Ladell M. Thomas, Executive Director, Department of
Secondary Education, Denver Public Schools
Mr. Theodore R. White, Director, Special Education, Denver
Public Schools
Denver Community People
Mr. Paul Baca, Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education
Fund, Inc.
Mr. Craig Barnes, Attorney, Jensen, Miles, Miller, Davis &
Moorhead
Mrs. Bea Branscombe, Educational Director, Greater Park Hill
CommunitY,lnc.
Senator George Brown, Executive Director, Metro Denver Urban
Coalition
Mr. Martin Buckley, Colorado Legal Services
Mr. Ramiro Cruz-Aedo, Minister, Denver Inner City Parish
Mr. John P. Doner, Executive Director, Advocacy for Children
and Youth, Colorado Coalition
Mr. Michael Enwall, North Denver Legal Services
Mrs. Anna Flores, Advocates Program, Metro Denver Urban
Coalition
Mr. Gordon Greiner, Attorney, Holland and Hart
Mr. Ron Heath, Director, Denver Youth Services Bureau School
Program
Mrs. Fran Le Duke, Greater Park Hill Community, Inc.
Mrs. Toni McCann, East Side Denver Legal Aid
Mr. Robert Mohar, Director, Metro Youth Education Center
Mr. Fred Pena, Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education
Fund, Inc.
Mrs. Martha Radetsky, Advocates Program, Metro Denver Urban
Coalition
Paul Sandoval, Director, Northwest Denver Youth Services
Bureau
179

WASHINGTON, D.C.
School Officials
Dr. Barbara Sizemore, Superintendent, District of Columbia
Public Schools
Mr. Robert Burch, Coordinator, Mills Hearing, Distric! of
Columbia Public Schools
Ms. Geraldine Coleman, Principal, Turner Elementary School
Dr. Mildred Cooper, Assistant Superintendent for Research &
Evaluation, District of Columbia Public Schools
Mr. John Elder, Principal, Johnsen Junior High School
Mr. Marcello Fernandez, Special Assistlnt Superintendent, District
of Columbia Public Schools
Mr. Nathaniel E. Hill, Supervisory Director, Guidance and
Counseling, District of Columbia Public Schools
Ms. Jacobeth P. Novak, Director, School Attendance and Work
Permits, District of Columbia Public Schools
Mr. William Rice, Assistant Superintendent, Anacostia Schools
Project
Mr. Merle Van Dyke, Assistant Superintendent, Special Education,
District of Columbia Public Schools
Mr. Julian West, Assistant to the Assistant Superintendent,
Anacostia Schools Project
Ms. Jacqueline S. Williams, Principal, Malcom X Elementary
School
District ofColumbia Community People
Ms. Pat Nagle, Research Associate, District of Columbia Citizens
for Better Education
GEORGIA
State Officials
Mr. Wesley Boyd, Coordinator of Visiting Teacher Services,
Georgia State Department of Education
Mr. Eikert, Special Education Division, Georgia State Department
of Education
Mr. Jerry Dale Rosenberry, Education Program Consultant,
Georgia State Department of Education
Mr. Gene Wallace, Director of Stltistical Services, Georgia State
Department of Education
Mr. Michael Weinreth, Special Education Division, Georgia
Stlte Department of Education
Bibb County School Officials
Mr. William Eargle, Director of Testing
Mrs. Mary Ellen Holbrook, Director of Truancy
Hancock County - Anonymous by Request
DAVENPORT, IOWA
School Officials
Dr. Lee G. Grebner, Superintendent, Davenport Community
Schools
Mr. Mike Becker, Head Counselor, Frank L. Smart Junior High
School
Ms. Sally Beckman, Counselor, Frank L. Smart Junior High
School
Mr. William Brusnighan, Visiting Counselor, Davenport Community
Schools
Mr. Randall Deer, Assistlnt Principal, J.B. Young Junior Higll
School
Mrs. Karen DeRario, School Psychologist, Davenport Community
Schools
Mr. Charles Funk,Principal,Hayes&Roosevelt Elementary Schools
Ms. Suzanne Hartung, Center for Continuing Education
Mr. James Ingram, Head Counselor, West High School
Mr. Dennis Koch, Center For Continuing Education
Mr. Joseph L. Kussatz, Principal, Jefferson Elementary School
Ms. Delores Lopez, Counselor, J.B. Young Junior High School
Mr. Tim Quarton, Director, ESEA Title I, Davenport Community
Schools
Mrs. Becky Schellenger, Ex-Principal, Taylor Elementary School
180
Mr. Delmer Sly, Assistant Principal, Frank L. Smart Junior High
School
Dr. Daryl Spaans, Director of Secondary Education, Davenport
Communi ty Schools
Mr. Douglas Stiteler, Coordinator of Guidance, Davenport
Community Schools
Mr. Donald Tupper, Director of Special Education and Pupil
Services, Davenport Community Schools
Davenport Community People
Mrs. Catherine Alter, League of Women Voters
Mrs. Bonnie Beecham, Iowa East Central TRAIN
Ms. Mary Lee Dixon, Iowa East Central TRAIN
Mr. Larry Jackson, Director of Education, Annie Wittenmyer
Home
Mr. Mike Liebbe, Attorney, Legal Services
Dr. Joseph McCaffrey, St. Ambrose College, Ex-School Board
Member
Mr. Melvin McNeal, East Side Neighborhood Development
Corporation
Steve SchUlte, Central & Western Neighborhood Development
Corporation
Rachel Sierra, Central & Western Neighborhood Development
Corporation
Sister Mary Barbara Younger, Education Director, East Side
Neighborhood Development Corporation
KENTUCKY
State Officials
Mr. Bronelle Skaggs, Assistant Director, ROPES - Region 11,
Kentucky State Department of Education
Floyd County School Officials
Mr. Charles Clark, Superintendent, Floyd County Board of
Education
Mr. Ray Brackett, Assistant Superintendent, Floyd County
Board of Education
Mr. Forest Curry, Principal, John M. Stumbo Elementary School
Mr. Carl Hall, Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor, Floyd
County Board of Education
Mr. Estill Hall, Director, Neighborhood Youth Corps, Floyd
County Board of Education
Mr. Hillard Newman, Principal, Harold Elementary School
Mr. Charles Patton, School Social Worker, Floyd County Board
of Education
Mr. Herbert Prater, Director of Pupil Personnel, Floyd County
Board of Education
Mr. Richmond Slone, Director of Pupil Personnel, Floyd County
Board of Education
Mrs. Anna Sue Stumbo, General Supervisor, Floyd County Board
of Education
Mrs. Anna Jean Tackett, Adult Education Program, Floyd County
Board of Education
Mr. Harry Wallace, Title I Director, Floyd County Board of
Education
Floyd County Community People
Mr. Tim Atkinson, Mountain Comprehensive Care Center
Mr. Floyd Davis, Developmental Disabilities Services, Mountain
Comprehensive Care Center
Mrs. Maria Fitzpatrick, Mountain Comprehensive Care Center
Ms. Betty Gayheart, Neigllborhood Youth Corps, Floyd County
Community Action Program
Mr. Danny Green, Director, The David School
Mrs. Eula Hall, Mud Creek Health Project
Mrs. Eva Hom, Family Service Coordinator, Department of
Human Resources, Bureau for Social Insurance
Mr. Roger Marshall, Mountain Comprehensive Care Center

Mr. Milton Ogle, Associate Director, Appalachian Research &
Defense Fund, Inc. (Charleston, W.Va.)
Mr. John M. Rosenberg, Esq., Director, Appalachian Research &
Defense Fund of Kentucky
PORTLAND, MAINE
School Officials
Mr. Alan M. Argondizza, Area Elementary Principal, West
Elementary School
Mr. Clyde Bartlett, Assistant Superintendent, Portland Public
Schools
Mrs. Selma Black, Federal Programs Director, Portland Public
Schools
Mr. Dudley Coyne, Director, PREP
Ms. Carole Curran, Social Worker, Portland Public Schools
Mr. Donald Hale, Principal, Deering High School
Mr. Walter Hansen, Principal, Portland High School
Mr. Richard H. McGarvey, Area Elementary Principal, Butler
Elementary School
Mr. Dan Murphy, Principal, Lincoln Junior High School
Ms. Helen O'Brien, Reading Consultant, Portland Public Schools
Ms. Mary So tlery, Acting Chairwoman, Portland School Committee
Mr. Robert Sterns, Principal, King Junior High School
Portland Community People
Mr. Robert AlIanach, Little Brothers Association
Ms. Barbara Brann, Social Worker, Huckleberry House
Mr. Larry Connelly, State Representative
Mr. John Dexter, Jr., Executive Director, Portland Housing
Authority
Mr. Angus Ferguson, Director, ACLU - Maine Afftliate
Ms. Christine Hastaelt, Pine Tree Legal Assistance, Inc.
Mr. Hejduck, Director, Opportunity Farm
Mrs. Mildred Morill, Director, Woodford School for the Trainable
Mentally Retarded
Mr. Bob Mittel, Attorney, Pine Tree Legal Assistance, Inc.
Mr. James Oliver
Mr. Michael Petit, United Way
Mr. Robert Philbrook, University of Maine, Research Center
Mr. Gerald Talbot, Stale Representative
Mr. Joe Young, Director, Baxter School for the Deaf
BOSTON,MASSACHUSETTS
Ms. Alice Casey, Assistant Superintendent, Boston Public Schools
Mr. William Carmichael, Director, Industrial School for Crippled
Children
Mrs. Kay Enos, North Shore Parents and Friends of the
Hanclicapped
Ms. MaIY Gulick, Director, Dimock School
Ms. Donna M. Makin, Director, Program Development and
Coordination, Office for Children
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS
School Officials
Dr. A1f1orence Cheatham, Superintendent, Cambridge School
Department
Mr. Laurence N. Aiello, Master, Roberts Community School
Ms. Grace Canniff, Home Teacher, YWCA
Mr. John Caulfield, Master, Martin Luther King School
Mr. Raymond D'Arcy,Consultant,Cambridge School Department,
Former Master, Cambridge High & Latin
Mr. Jose Fernandez, Assistant Director of Bilingual Education,
Cambridge School DepaItment
Mr. Dan Foley, Submaster, Robert Kennedy School
Detective Herbert Halliday, Chief Liaison Officer, Cambridge
School DepaItment
Dr. Grace KaczyunskI, Director, Department of Pupil Services,
Cambridge School Department
Ms. Winifred Linnehan, Director of Primary Education, Cambridge
School DepaItment
Mr. Paul Mahoney, Principal, Fitzgerald School
Mr. William Mangan, Dean,Achievement School, RindgeTechnical
High School
Ms. Carolyn Mieth, Parent Coordinator, Cambridge Alternative
School
Mr. EdwaId Murphy, Master, Tobin Elementary School
Mr. RichaId Nixon, Supervisor of Attendance, Cambridge School
DepaItment
Mr. John O'Keefe, Master, HaIrington Community School
Ms. Mary O'Reilly, Psychologist, Cambridge Bureau of Pupil
Services
Mr. RichaId Phelps, Director of Language Arts, Cambridge School
Department
Dr. James Powers, Director of Modern Languages & Bilingual
Education, Cambridge School Department
Mr. Joseph Sateriale, Assistant Superintendent, Secondary Education,
Cambridge School Department
Mr. John P. Sennott, Director, Title I, Cambridge School
Department
Mr. Ray Shurtleff, Acting Dean, Pilot School, Rindge Technical
High School
Mr. Robert Sweeney, Headmaster, Rindge Technical High School
Mr. Richard Woodward, Assistant Superintendent, Elementary
Education, Cambridge School Department
Cambridge Community People
Ms. Betsy Anderson, Member, Board of Directors, Mass. Spina
Bifida Associa tion
Dr. Sam Braun, Child Psychiatrist, Director of Pre-school Unit,
Cambridge Guidance Center
Mr. Tom Culhane, Director, Farr Academy
Mr. Neil Didriksen, Director, The Group School
Mr. Bill DiGregorio, Probation Aide, Mr. Ross Miller, Probation
Aide, Ms. Cindy Rego, Probation Aide, Cambridge Court
Intake Program, Cambridge Juvenile Court
Ms. Pat English, Ms. Marie Jackson, Esq., Cambridge Legal
Services
Ms. Sandra Graham, City Councilwoman
Ms. Nancy Gray, Director, Education Warehouse
Mr. SkIp Griffm, Director, Ms. Bernice LochaIt, C.LT.Y. School
Mr. Howard Hughes, Former Coorc\inator, Mr. Donnie Harcling,
Coorclinator, Roberts Community School
Mr. John McGonigle, Probation Officer, Mr. Gil Sakakeeny,
Probation Officer, Juvenile Court, 3rd District Courthouse
Ms. Joarme Pelham, Counselor, Neighborhood Youth Corps
Mr. Roberto Santiago, Director, Spanish Council of Cambridge
Ms. Angelica Sawyer, Community Liaison.(;oordinator, Court
Intake Program, Cambridge Juvenile Court
Mr. Ron Silva, Associate Director, Mr. Joe Tyree, Outreach
Supervisor, Mr. Livvy Jones, Youth Advocate, Youth Resources
Bureau
Mr. Aurelio Torres, Director, Mr. Ruben Cabral, COPA
Mrs. Ruth Young, Head Social Worker, Children's Developmental
Center
HOLYOKE, MASSACHUSETTS
School Officials
Dr. Clrarles Carpenter, Superintendent, Holyoke Public Schools
Mr. George Counter, Supervisor of Elementary Education,
Holyoke Public Schools
Mr. Richard Golden, Attendance Officer, Holyoke Public Schools
Mr. John Mahoney, Federal Programs Director, Holyoke Public
Schools
Ms. Alice Miesel, Director, Title VII, Holyoke Public Schools
Mr. Edward Moriarty, Principal, Holyoke High School
Mr. Edward O'Malley, Principal, Lawrence Elementary School
Mr. Herbert Schmidt, Director, Holyoke Trade School
181

Ms. Paula Swenson, Director, Clare Kurtz, Steve Kurtz, Holyoke
Street School
Mr. Richard Tyburski, Supervisor, Special Services, Holyoke
Public Schools
Holyoke Community People
Ms. Dale Averill, South City Congress
Mr. Joe Counter, Model Ci ties
Ms. Elba Cruz, Urban Ministries
Mr. Bill Fitzgerald,Director, Western Massachusetts Legal Services
Mr. Herb Flores
Ms. Charlotte Hartzell, Acting Coordinator of Alternative
Programs, YWCA
Mr. Jerry Hayes, Director, Holyoke Model Cities
Mrs. Ruth Jackson, South City Congress
Sister Joyce Smith, Casa Maria
Mr. Bobby Little, Upward Bound
Mr. Andy Phillips, Area Program Director for State Mental Health
Mr. Steve Ransford, Western Massachusetts Legal Services
Ms. Fran Welson, Urban Ministries
NEW BEDFORD, MASSACHUSETfS
School Officials
Dr. Gerard E. Smith, Superintendent, New Bedford Public
Schools
Mr. Manuel Aguiar, ESL Teacher, New Bedford High School
Mr. Henry Andrade, Attendance Supervisor, New Bedford Public
Schools
Mr. Joaquim Baptista, Principal, Immaculate Conception School
Mr. Richard Burke, Director of Special Education, New Bedford
Public Schools
Mr. Edwardo CarabaUo, School Adjustment Counselor, New
Bedford Public Schools
Ms. LuciUe R. Caron, Assistant Superintendent of Special
Services, New Bedford Public Schools
Mr. John Cosgrave, Director, Title IV, New Bedford Public
Schools
Mr. Abel Fidalgo, Director, Title VII, New Bedford Public
Schools
Dr. James Francis, Deputy Superintendent, New Bedford Public
Schools
Mr. Louis Gomes, Elementary Adjustment Counselor, New
Bedford Public Schools
Mr. Alwyn Griffith, Jr., Principal, Roosevelt Junior High School
Mr. Thomas Ingham, Director of Pupil Personnel, New Bedford
Public Schools
Mr. William Keavy, Principal, Donaghy Elementary School
Mr. Harry Kummer, Guidance Counselor, New Bedford High
School
Mr. James Leach, Principal, Hannigan Elementary School
Mr. William Norris, Principal, Mt. Pleasant School
Sister Rosellen GaUogaly, Supervisor, Title I Non-English Programs,
New Bedford Public Schools
Mr. James Sheerin, Principal, Elizabeth C. Brooks Elementary
School
Mr. Joseph S. Silva, Principal, Ingraham School
Mr. Herbert Waters, Principal, Carney Memorial Academy
New Bedford Community People
Mr. Murph Archibald, Mr. Mike Habib, Mr. George Napolitano,
On Board Legal Services
Mr. George O. Arguian, Director, Ms. Toni Ardoni, Supervisor,
Mr. Len Lamberti, Supervisor, Youth Resources Agency
Ms. Mary Barros, Member of City & State Title I PAC
Mrs. Hope Bean, North End On Board Center
Mr. Lee Charlton, Chairman, Title I PAC
Ms. Sandra Chin, On Board, Inc.
Ms. Tryna Costa, Aid Center
182
Mr. Joaquim Custodio, Minority Action Council
Mrs. Dorothy Kallevik, Regina Paces Center
Mr. John McManus, Executive Director, Ms. Arlene Aroda,
Program Manager of Services to Vouth, New Bedford Child
and Family Service
Mr. Tobias Paulo, Mr. Heldo Braga, Immigration Assistance Center
Ms. Emily Perry
Dr. Helen Pia tt, Clinical Director, New Bedford Area Men tal
Health ainic
Mrs. Joanne Ross, Director, University Vear of Action, University
of Massachusetts
Ms. Lillian Wedge, Welfare Advocate, On Board Legal Services
SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETfS
School Officials
Mr. John Joyce, Assistant Superintendent, Somerville School
Department
Mr. Gus Barrasso, Attendance Supervisor, Somerville School
Department
Ms. Judy Brooks, Group Worker, Mr. Louis Graceffa, Supervisor,
Pilot Program in Alternative Education, Southern Junior High
School, Somerville Youth Program
Ms. Rita Deleo, Director, Bilingual Programs, Somerville School
Department
Mr. William Fasciano, Headmaster, Somerville High School
Dr. James Fiorello, Principal, Somerville Trade School
Dr. Annette French, Psychologist, Member of the Somerville
Evaluation ainic, The Burns School
Mr. Ken Lonnergan, Special Education Teacher, Southern Junior
High School
Mr. Edward McCarty, Director of Special Education Services, The
Burns School
Mr. John McSweeney, Principal, Knapp-Perry Elementary School
Mr. James Noonan, Director of Guidance and Testing, Somerville
School Department
Dr. Joseph Walsh, Principal, Southern Junior High School
Somerville Community People
Mr. Rich Ardizonni, President, Citizens to Support the Schools,
Somerville Community Office
Mr. Bob Bloom, Juvenile Lawyer, Somerville Legal Assistance
Ms. Mary Cahill, Early Childhood Coordinator, Somerville City
HaU
Mrs. Fran Carusso, Action Referral Center
Mrs. Jean COllins
Ms. Barbara DeMarco, Probation Officer, Somerville District
Court
Mr. Ed Domit, Director, Elizabeth Peabody House, Association
Corporation
Ms. Mary Grace Duffey, You th Program
Rev. Paul Duhamel, Community Developer, Somcrville Community
Office
Sister Eleanor, Mystic Housing Project
Dr. Jan Heffron, Chief, Child Services, Somerville Mental Health
Center
Mr. David Hirshberg, Co-director, Full Circle School
Ms. Pat Jealen, Editor, Somerville Community Newsletter
Ms. Carla Johnston, Funding .and Development Coordinator,
Somerville Ci ty Hall
Rev. Bill Leonard, Somerville Urban Ministry
Ms. Jean Luce, Director, Out-of-School G.E.D. Class, Neighborhood
Vou th Corps
Ms. Mary McFarling, Cambridge & Somerville Area Drug Coordinator,
Somerville City Hall
Ms. Linda McGill, Director, Somerville Lead Control Program,
Somerville City Hall
Mr. JohnF. Russell, Executive Director,Somerville Youth Program

Sumter County #2 School Officials
Dr. Hugh Stoddard, Superintendent, Sumter County, School
District #2
Mr. R.E. Davis, Director of Special Services, Sumter County,
School District #2
Mr. Carl Larimore, Principal, Hillcrest High School
Mr. W.T. Lavender, Assistant Title I Coordinator, Sumter County,
School District #2
Mr. E.W. Lucas, Assistant Superintendent, Sumter County,
School District #2
Ms. Jean Reams, Attendance Supervisor for Sumter County
Schools
Mr. William Sanders, Principal, Ebenezer Middle School
Dr. Rebecca Wood, School Psychologist, Sumter County, School
District #2
Sumter County #2 Community People
Ms. Margaret Crackel, Chairwoman, Sumter County Chapter of
the Association for Retarded Children
FEDERAL PEOPLE INTERVIEWED
Mr. Homero Acevado, RegionaJ Zone Chief, Division of Program
Operations, Office of EquaJ Educational Opportunity Programs,
U.S. Office of Education
Dr. Willie Alire, Coordinator, Division of BilinguaJ Education,
Office of Compensatory Educational Programs, U.S. Office of
Education
Mr. Wallace K. Babbington, Coordinator, Office of Mental
Retardation Coordination, U.S. Department of Health, Education
and Welfare
Mr. Joseph P. Bertoglio, Education Program Specialist, Migrant
Programs Branch, Division of Education for the Disadvantaged,
Office of Compensatory Education, U.S. Office of Education
Mr. Leroy Carnelson, Director of Planning, Bureau of OccupationaJ
and Adult Education, U.S. Office of Education
Mr. Harold F. Duis, Program Specialist, Reports and Data (State
Plans), Division of Vocational and Technical Education,
Office of Adult, VocationaJ;Technical and Manpower Education,
U.S. Office of Education
Dr. Lois L. Elliott, Former SpeciaJ Assistant to the Associate
Commissioner, Bureau of Education for the Handicapped,
U.S. Office of Education
Ms. Janet Forbush, Director, Washington Office, National Alliance
Concerned with School-Age Parents
Mr. Campbell Gibson, Chief, National Estimates and Projections
Branch, Population Division, Bureau of the Census
Mr. Yeuell Y. Hams, Chief, Survey, Design and Implementation
Branch, Division of IntergovernmentaJ Statistics, NationaJ
Center for EducationaJ Statistics
Dr. Lloyd R. Henderson, Director, Elementary and Secondary
Education Division, Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department
of HeaJth, Education and Welfare
Mrs. Alioe Hildebrand, Education Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
U.S. Department of the Interior
Mr. Peter E. Holmes, Director, Office for Civil Rights, U.S.
Department of HeaJth, Education and Welfare
Dr. Sam Kavruck, Dropout Prevention Program, Division of
State Assistance, Office of State and Local Educational Programs,
U.S. Office of Education
Mr. W. Stanley Kruger, Director, Interagency Task Foroe on
Comprehensive Programs for School-Age Parents, Bureau of
School Systems, U.S. Office of Education
Ms. Bertha Lego, Education Statistician, Division of Supplementary
Centers and Services, Office of State and Local
Educational Programs, U.S. Office of Education
184
'Titles listed here refer to positions at the time of interview.
Ms. Linda McConnell, Aid to States Branch, Division of
Educational Services, Office of Programs for the Handicapped,
U.S. Office of Education
Mr. James Meroer, Special Assistant to the Director, Division of
Bilingual Education, Office of Compensatory EducationaJ
Programs, U.S. Office of Education
Dr. John Putnam, National Center for EducationaJ Statistics,
Division of Intergovernmental Statistics, Education Data
Standards Branch
Ms. Rendely, Statistician, Division of Bilingual Education, Office
of Compensatory Educational Programs, U.S. Office of
Education
Mr. Herman Saettler, Chief, Communication Disorders, Division
of Personnel Preparation, Office of Programs for the Handicapped,
U.S. Offioe of Education
Ms. Lila Shapiro, Education Program Specialist, Migrant Programs
Branch, Division of Education for the Disadvantaged, Office
of Compensatory Educational Programs, U.S. Office of
Education
Mr. Absolom Simms, Director, Intergovernmental Statistics
Division, National Center for Educational Statistics, U.S.
Office of Education
Mr. Larry E. Suter, Chief, Education and SociaJ Stratification
Branch, Population Division, Bureau of the Census
Mr. R. Paul Thompson, State Plan Officer, Aid to States Branch,
Division of Educational Services, Office of Programs for the
Handicapped, U.S. Office of Education
Ms. Anita V. Turner, Education Statistician, Survey, Design and
Implementation Branch, Division of Intergovernmental Statistics,
National Center for EducationaJ Statistics
Mr. Joseph J. Vopelak, Education Program Specialist, Division of
Education for the Disadvantaged, Office of Compensatory
EducationaJ Programs, U.S. Office of Education
Mr. EdWilson, Education Statistician, Division of Supplementary
Centers and Servioes, Office of State and Local EducationaJ
Programs, U.S. Office of Education

State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of
Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Jllinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Letter Response
From State
Department of
Education 1
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
KEY; D - Dropout Data
SP - Special Education Data
on Non-Enrollment of
Special Needs Children
A.ppendix n
STATE SCHOOL OFFICIALS' RESPONSES TO REQUEST
FOR INFORMATION ON CHILDREN OUT OF SCHOOL
State School-Age
Census Mandated
or Permitted By
State Statute
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
State
School-Age
Census
Conducted
YES
Every 4
years
NO
YES
Annually
YES
Every 2
years
NO
NO
YES
Annually
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
Every 2
years
NO
YES
Annually
State Data
on Children
Not
Enrolled
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
Other Information Provided
By State Department of Education
"... aware of no data in Alabama which pertains to
children excluded from educational services."
D - Statewide School Leaver Reports 1965-66 through
1971-1972.
"The Department of Education does no t collect any
of the data you are requesting."
D - % Dropout from 1st Grade/% Dropout 5th Grade.
D - Dropout rate
SP - Number of children known to be waiting
placement ...
"the Colorado Dept. of Ed. does not have the information
you request."
"do not have the data you requested on dropouts."
"data does not deal with excluded children. It itemizes
children who ... are not receiving appropriate
services."
".. _ this office has no knowledge of children not
attending school or not being provided educational
services by institutions."
"The Dept. of Ed. does not collect data of this
description."
SP - 202 handicapped children not enrolled by Dept.
of Health and Rehabilitation Services.
D - "... only maintain data reflecting the specific
number of dropouts and reasons for dropping out."
"We do not have any data or know of any children
their ages not enrolled in school."
D - Dropout rate at 2% of 178,000 school population.
"It seems that the Indiana State Dept. of Ed. will not
be able to provide you 'vith the information you
requested."
D - "The Dropout" Iowa Guidance Survey, Fiscal
197!.
"It is the school district superintendent's responsibility
of each district to report any students not attending
school to the county court. There is no additional
information available."
SP - Census of Exceptional Children by handicap
(1973).
D - State totals of nonenroUment by reason (1973).
185

AppendixD
STATE SCHOOL OFFlCIALS' RESPONSES TO REQUEST
FOR INFORMATION ON CHILDREN our OF SCHOOL
Letter Response State School-Age State State Data
From State Census Mandated School-Age on Children Other Information Provided
Department of or Permitted By Census Not By State Department of Education
State Education I State Statute Conducted Enrolled
Louisiana YES YES NO NO "The Bureau ofStudent Services does not have data on
children, ages 3-15, who are not attending public or
private elementary or secondary schools or are not
being provided educational services by institutions,"
Maine
Maryland
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
SP - "Estimate ... 21% [handicapped children] in
Maine receiving the needed appropriate services. Our
special education staff is small and little information is
available." Limited (21 districts) non-enrollment data
available.
Massachusetts YES YES YES
Annually
NO "There is a census of school aged children required by
law ... but it is rarely conducted with any accuracy."
Michigan YES YES N03 NO o -Public High School Dropouts 1970-7/.
SP - Astudyofhandicapped children and youth (1971).
"The Michigan Dept. of Ed, does not collect data on
the children who are not attending public or private
school."
Minnesota YES YES YES
Annually
NO
Mississippi YES YES N03 NO "commend you for attempting research in this area but
regret to inform you that absolutely no records exist
in this state on children so classified ..."
Missouri YES YES YES
Annually
NO SP - "Missouri Law presently requires a census of all
handicapped children between ages 0-21 , .. presently
in the process of tabulating the results ... at this time
cannot identify those children not being provided
educational services."
Montana
Nebraska
YES
N0
NO NO NO SP - First phase of plan to identify handicapped
children in need of educational services has been completed:
screening in public schools. But"... we still
lack in knowing who and where children are if they
are not attending the public schools."
2 YES N03 NO
Nevada YES NO NO NO "No data is collected which pertains to children not
receiving educational services.
New Hampshire YES YES YES
Annually
NO
New Jersey YES YES NO NO attempt made last year to collect statistics on number
school-age children not in school. ", .. responses not
accurate enough to warrant publication."
New Mexico YES YES NO NO "... do not have any data on children who are not
attending school or children excluded from educational
services ... There might be some Navajo children way
out on the back trails of the reservation who are not
attending school, but if the local educa tional agency
found them, the local agency would make them start
attending school."
New York YES YES YES
Annually
NO
North Carolina YES YES NO NO SP - statistics, derived from principals' annual reports,
on number of children who were excluded from the
public schools because of affliction by severe mental,
emotional or physical incapacities during 72-73 school
year. Total for state was 565 children.
186

ApperadixD
STATE SCHOOL OFFICIALS' RESPONSES TO REQUEST
FOR INFORMATION ON CHILDREN OUT OF SCHOOL
Letter Response State School-Age State State Data
From State Census Mandated School-Age on Children Other Information Provided
Department of or Permitted By Census Not By State Department of Education
State Education l State Statute Conducted Enrolled
North Carolina o - Statistics on students "not enrolled in any school
(Continued) but eligible for enrollment (includes dropouts only)"
submitted for Annual Title I ESEA Application -
1973-74: state total 28,208.
North Dakota N0 2 YES YES NO
Each
Odd Year
Ohio YES NO NO NO SP - Has Comprehensive Plan for the Education of
the Handicapped, which, using incidence figures, has
estimates of special needs children not being serviced.
Oklahoma YES NO NO NO
Oregon YES NO NO YES For 1973-74 identified 7,032 children out of school
through "Operation Childfind". "Project was state mandated
survey to locate all out of school children and
to determine the educational and other needs of the
children not attending school."
Pennsylvania YES NO YES NO SP - annual enumeration of children 0-21 with special
Annually needs; partial data for 73-74 available on children not
assigned to education agency, but project not complete
at this time.
o - "... Non-enrollment data available in Pennsylvania
is of a very limited nature. The data that is available
is withdrawal data." Withdrawal data in two categories,
derived from Annual Summary of Attendance Reports:
(1) number of children who have reached required
attendance age (17 years) and have dropped
out of school and (2) number of 16 and 17 year olds
who have been issued general employment certificates
or domestic service permits.
Rhode Island YES YES YES YES Handwritten chart on number of children by ages, by
Annually communities, derived from 72-73 census, not attending
day schools.'
South Carolina YES YES N03 NO 1970 U.S. Census Data on non-enrollment: 315 children,
ages 3-15 not attending public or private schools.
South Dakota YES YES YES NO D - Compulsory attendance I-8th grades in South
Annually Dakota; each local school district is req uired to have
truancy officer. "... with this type of monitoring
we feel that few, if any, students of school age are not
in attendance."
SP - Special Education Office has figures identifying
children enrolled in school, but on waiting lists.
Identified in 73-74 school year 30 children who were
inappropriately placed in educational programs. "...
at any given time, we have identified 15-30 students
who are mentally or emotionally handicapped who
are not being served with appropriate educational
offerings." Provided Educational Statistics Digest
1972-73.
Tennessee N02 YES YES NO State-wide census on handicapped children conducted
Every 5 twice a year.
years
Mandatory education of all handicapped children.
Texas YES YES YES NO D - Provided "Basic Statistics on School Leavers"
Every 5 1972-73 school years. Statistics on "school leavers"
years ("School leaver is a pupil who left school during the
period of September 1, 1972 through June 30, 1973,
187

Los Angeles Unified School District, Los Angeles, California
Madison Public Schools, Madison, Wisconsin
Memphis City Schools, Memphis, Tennessee
Special School District No. 1 (Minneapolis Public Schools),
Minneapolis, Minnesota
New Orleans Public Schools, New Orleans, Louisiana
Norfolk City Schools, Norfolk, Virginia
Oakland Unified School District, Oakland, California
Ector County Independent School District, Odessa, Texas
Pasadena Independent School District, Pasadena, Texas
The School District of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Phoenix Union High School System, Phoenix, Arizona
Unified School District No. I, Racine, Wisconsin
Roanoke City Public Schools, Roanoke, Virginia
Sacramento City Unified School District, Sacramento, California
San Diego City Schools, San Diego, California
Santa Barbara School Di trict, Santa Barbara, California
Seattle Public Schools, Seattle, Washington
Highline Public Schools (School District #40l), Seattle,
Washington
Trenton Public Schools, Trenton, New Jersey
Warren Consolidated Schools, Warren, Michigan
Wilmington Public Schools, Wilmington, Delaware
Several educational associations were written to requesting
their policies on exclusion and suspension, the following sent
information of particular relevance:
Or. Paul Salmon
Executive Secretary
American Association of School Administrators
Or. Harold V. Webb, Director
National School Boards Association
I The following offices in each state department of education (or as many of these as existed) were written to: Bureau for Education
of the Handicapped, Office of Dropout Prevention, Office of Student Affairs, Office of Attendance and Pupil Personnel, Truancy
Department, and Office of Compensatory Education, for the following information:
"We are trying to gather data on children, ages 6-17, who are not enrolled in and/or not attending public or private
elementary or secondary schools or not being provided educational services by institutions in which they may be
residing. We would appreciate your making available to us any data used or collected by your office which pertains
to children not receiving educational services. If the state conducts a school census we would appreciate information
abouthow often it is conducted and the questions it asks. Are there other sources outside your specific office which
have developed relevant surveys or data?"
In an effort to be helpful, many respondants offered us enrollment data, as did many individuals spoken to over the phone.
zNo letter response received from state department of education; called by CDF staff.
3School-age census is conducted by local school districts only; data is not aggregated at the state level.
189

AppendlxE
u.s. CENSUS DATA
Table I
CHILDREN NOT ENROLLED BY STATE
(Age 7-17)
Institutional
School-Age Population Not Enrolled Percent Not
State AJ(es Population Enrolled Not Enrolled Not Enrolled (Adjusted) Enrolled
Alabama 6 1 7-15
16 & 17
TOTAL
69,892
662,065
139,229
49,462
630,277
120,016
20,430
31,788
19,213
72
611
383
20,358
31,177
18,830
29.1
4.7
13.5
1 801,294 750,293 51,001 994 50,007 6.2
Alaska 7-15
16 & 17
TOTAL
62,595
10,422
73,017
60,541
9,067
69,608
2,054
1,355
3,409
62
32
94
1,992
1,323
3,315
3.2
12.7
4.5
Arizona 7-15
16 & 17
TOTAL
346,617
70,890
417,507
333,613
61,637
395,250
13,004
9,253
22,257
418
334
752
12,586
8,919
21,505
3.6
12.6
5.2
Arkansas 7-15
16 & 17
TOTAL
353,446
76,163
429,609
335,659
64,312
399,971
17,787
11,851
29,638
637
327
964
17,150
11,524
28,674
4.9
15.1
6.7
California 7-15
16 & 17
TOTAL
3,533,523
744,073
4,277,596
3,449,607
682,011
4,131,618
83,916
62,062
145,978
4,393
3,403
7,796
79,523
58,659
138,182
2.3
7.9
3.2
Colorado 6 1 7-15
16 & 17
TOTAL
44,107
420,460
86,905
41,967
410,817
78,951
2,140
9,643
7,954
82
593
313
2,058
9,050
7,641
4.7
2.2
8.8
1 507,365 489,768 17,597 906 16,691 3.3
Connecticut 7-15
16 & 17
TOTAL
544,640
109,660
654,300
535,381
101,893
637,274
9,259
7,767
17,026
796
404
1,200
8,463
7,363
15,826
1.6
6.7
2.4
Delaware 7-15
16 & 17
TOTAL
105,791
21,169
126,960
102,864
19,275
122,139
2,927
1,894
4,821
157
115
272
2,770
1,779
4,549
2.6
8.4
3.6
Washington,D.C. 6 1 7-15
16 & 17
TOTAL'
13,024
116,437
23,668
140,105
12,235
112,337
20,611
132,948
789
4,100
3,057
7,157
26
208
121
329
763
3,892
2,936
6,828
5.9
3.3
12.4
4.9
Florida 7-15
16 & 17
TOTAL
1,148,074
235,508
1,383,582
1,107,167
204,079
1,311,246
40,907
31,429
72,336
1,983
1,116
3,099
38,924
30,313
69,237
3.4
12.9
5.0
Georgia 6 1 7-15
16 & 17
TOTAL'
95,915
863,654
180,695
1,044,349
78,123
823,092
147,409
970,501
17,792
40,562
33,286
73,848
153
1,239
642
1,881
17,639
39,323
32,644
71,967
18.4
4.6
18.1
6.9
Hawaii 7-15
16 & 17
TOTAL
143,960
28,978
172,938
139,166
26,362
165,528
4,794
2,616
7,410
83
67
150
4,711
2,549
7,260
3.3
8.8
4.2
Idaho 7-15
16 & 17
TOTAL
141,676
32,187
173,863
136,564
29,062
165,626
5,112
3,125
8,237
130
127
257
4,982
2,998
7,980
3.5
9.3
4.6
Illinois 7-15
16 & 17
TOTAL
2,032,070
414,167
2,446,237
1,981,256
372,992
2,354,248
50,814
41,175
91,989
2,661
1,470
4,131
48,153
39,705
87,858
2.4
9.6
3.6
Indiana 7-15
16 & 17
TOTAL
980,325
205,181
1,185,506
954,111
180,758
1,134,869
26,214
24,423
50,637
1,286
839
2,125
24,928
23,584
48,512
2.5
1l.5
4.1
Iowa 61 7-15
16 & 17
TOTAL'
55,350
524,869
111,421
636,290
52,666
508,131
102,221
610,352
2,684
16,738
9,200
25,938
55
493
311
804
2,629
16,245
8,889
25,134
4.7
3.1
8.0
4.0
190
'Dala is shown on 6-year-olds for largeI area stales, but it is not counted in Slate or grand totals.

AppendlxE
u.s. CENSUS DATA
Table I
CHILDREN NOT ENROLLED BY STATE
(Age 7-17)
Institutional
School-Age Population Not Enrolled Percent Not
State Al1.l's Population Enrolled Not Enrolled Not Enrolled (Adjusted) Enrolled
Kansas 7-15 407,065 395,533 11,532 593 10,939 2.7
16 & 17 85,595 77,767 7,828 387 7,441 8.7
TOTAL 492,660 473,300 19,360 980 18,380 3.7
Kentucky 6 1 64,582 49,854 14,728 75 14,653 22.7
7-15 596,470 566,731 29,739 616 29,123 4.9
16 & 17 128,081 101,721 26,360 382 25,978 20.3
TOTAL' 724,551 668,452 56,099 998 55,101 7.6
Louisiana 7-15 738,583 705,003 33,580 1,079 32,501 4.4
16 & 17 153,081 130,006 23,075 595 22,480 14.7
TOTAL 891,664 835,009 56,655 1,674 54,981 6.2
Maine 6'
7-15
16 & 17
TOTAL 1
20,458
183,485
38,977
222,462
18,733
176,357
35,108
211,465
1,725
7,128
3,869
10,997
22
215
162
377
1,703
6,913
3,707
10,620
8.3
3.8
9.5
4.8
Maryland 7-15
16 & 17
TOTAL 1
735,769
147,587
883,356
717,627
131,685
849,312
18,142
15,902
34,044
1,261
760
2,021
16,881
15,142
32,023
2.3
10.3
3.6
Massachusetts 6 1
7-15
16 & 17
TOTAL 1
108,835
997,936
206,337
1,204,273
100,335
979,603
189,101
1,168,704
8,500
18,333
17,236
35,569
164
1,347
611
1,958
8,336
16,986
16,625
33,611
7.7
1.7
8.1
2.8
Michigan 7-15
16 & 17
TOTAL
1,739,805
360,529
2,100,334
1,700,080
327,708
2,027,788
39,725
32,821
72,546
2,424
1,180
3,604
37,301
31,641
68,942
2.1
8.8
3.3
Minnesota 7-15
16 & 17
TOTAL
746,164
156,703
902,867
731,788
147,939
879,727
14,376
8,764
23,140
864
609
1,473
13,512
8,155
21,667
1.8
5.2
2.4
Mississippi 6 1 7-15
16 & 17
TOTAL 1
48,197
451,486
95,335
546,821
39,323
424,568
79,389
503,957
8,874
26,918
15,946
42,864
38
296
171
467
8,836
26,622
15,775
42,397
18.3
5.9
16.5
7.8
Missouri 7-15
16 & 17
TOTAL
841,257
174,870
1,016,127
814,390
152,941
967,331
26,867
21,929
48,796
1,136
673
1,809
25,731
21,256
46,987
3.1
12.2
4.6
Montana 7-15
16 & 17
TOTAL
139,608
30,344
169,952
135,467
27,882
163,349
4,141
2,462
6,603
202
159
361
3,939
2,303
6,242
2.8
7.6
3.7
Nebraska 7-15
16 & 17
TOTAL
273,495
58,206
331,701
266,005
53,856
319,861
7,490
4,350
11,840
547
401
948
6,943
3,949
10,892
2.5
6.8
3.3
Nevada 7-15 90,417 87,341 3,076 145 2,931 3.2
16 & 17 17,096 15,048 2,048 94 1,954 11.4
TOTAL 107,513 102,389 5,124 239 4,885 4.5
New Hampshire 7-15 133,045 128,047 4,998 271 4,727 3.6
16 & 17 26,344 23,083 3,261 83 3,178 12.1
TOTAL 159,389 151,130 8,259 354 7,905 5.0
New Jersey 7-15 1,272,498 1,245,570 26,928 1,153 25,775 2.0
16 & 17 257,848 237,681 20,167 591 19,576 7.6
TOTAL 1,530,346 1,483,251 47,095 1,744 45,351 3.0
New Mexico 7-15 220,994 212,658 8,336 323 8,013 3.6
16 & 17 44,623 39,841 4,782 160 4,622 10.4
TOTAL 265,617 252,499 13,1l8 483 12,635 4.8
I Data is shown on 6-year-olds for target area states, but it is not counted in state or grand totals.
191

.4ppendbE
u.s. CENSUS DATA
Table I
CHILDREN NOT ENROLLED BY STATE
(Age 7-17)
Institutional
School-Age Population Not Enrolled Percent Not
State Ages Population Enrolled Not Enrolled Not Enrolled (Adjusted) Enrolled
New York 7-15 3,082,672 2,991,575 91,097 5,768 85,329 2.8
16 & 17 642,135 584,289 57,846 2,583 55,263 8.6
TOTAL 3,724,807 3,575,864 148,943 8,351 140,592 3.8
North Carolina 7-15 933,733 892,065 41,668 2,119 39,549 4.2
16 & 17 206,564 172,355 34,209 908 33,301 16.1
TOTAL 1,140,297 1,064,420 75,877 3,027 72,850 6.4
North Dakota 7-15 124,511 120,499 4,012 157 3,855 3.1
16 & 17 26,946 25,009 1,937 122 1,815 6.7
TOTAL 151,457 145,508 5,949 279 5,670 3.7
Ohio 7-15 2,003,266 1,953,244 50,022 3,081 46,941 2.3
16 & 17 414,941 380,603 34,338 1,616 32,722 7.9
TOTAL 2,418,207 2,333,847 84,360 4,697 79,663 3.3
Oklahoma 7-15 454,343 438,091 16,252 1,073 15,179 3.3
16 & 17 99,206 88,524 10,682 603 10,079 10.2
TOTAL 553,549 526,615 26,934 1,676 25,258 4.6
Oregon 7-15 377,824 368,817 9,007 557 8,450 2.2
16 & 17 85,599 79,734 5,865 336 5,529 6.5
TOTAL 463,423 448,551 14,872 893 13,979 3.0
Pennsylvania 7-15 2,065,970 2,013,166 52,804 3,409 49,395 2.4
16 & 17 447,493 408,230 39,263 1,744 37,519 8,4
TOTAL 2,513,463 2,421,396 92,067 5,153 86,914 3.5
Rhode Island 7-15 158,386 154,978 3,408 194 3,214 2.0
16 & 17 32,872 28,868 4,004 87 3,917 11.9
TOTAL 191,258 183,846 7,412 281 7,131 3.7
South Carolina 6' 56,154 41,972 14,182 95 14,087 25.1
7-15 507,967 482,200 25,767 759 25,008 4.9
16 & 17 113,513 93,711 19,802 466 19,336 17.0
TOTAL l 621,480 575,911 45,569 1,225 44,344 7.1
South Dakota 7-15 133,429 129,129 4,300 257 4,043 3.0
16 & 17 29,514 27,235 2,279 236 2,043 6.9
TOTAL 162,943 156,364 6,579 493 6,086 3.7
Tennessee 7-15 707,656 672,373 35,283 1,218 34,065 4.8
16 & 17 151,944 126,116 25,828 726 25,102 16.5
TOTAL 859,600 798,489 61,111 1,944 59,167 6.9
Texas 7-15 2,127,759 2,046,326 81,433 3,364 78,069 3.7
16 & 17 448,985 388,153 60,832 1,909 58,923 13.1
TOTAL 2,576,744 2,434,479 142,265 5,273 136,992 5.3
Utah 7-15 220,928 216,188 4,740 183 4,557 2.1
16 & 17 48,606 45,593 3,013 140 2,873 5.9
TOTAL 269,534 261,781 7,753 323 7,430 2.8
Vermont 7-15 82,693 79,598 3,095 179 2,916 3.5
16 & 17 17,284 15,416 1,868 93 1,775 10.3
TOTAL 99,977 95,014 4,963 272 4,691 4.7
Virginia 7-15 850,520 820,204 30,316 1,293 29,023 3.4
16 & 17 177,747 154,318 23,429 860 22,569 12.7
TOTAL 1,028,267 974,522 53,745 2,153 51,592 5.0
Washington 7-15 625,302 611,161 14,141 804 13,337 2.1
16 & 17 134,621 124,071 10,550 629 9,921 7.4
TOTAL 759,923 735,232 24,691 1,433 23,258 3.1
West Virginia 7-15 313,151 296,200 16,951 336 16,615 5.3
16 & 17 71,608 60,118 11,490 245 11,245 15.7
TOTAL 384,759 356,318 28,441 581 27,860 7.2
192
IData is shown on 6-year-olds for target area states, but it is not counted in state or grand totals.

State
Wisconsin
Wyoming
GRANO TOTAL
AppendixE
u.s. CENSUS DATA
Table I
CHILDREN NOT ENROLLED BY STATE
(Age 7-17)
Institutional
School-Age Population Not EnroUed Percent Not
Ages Population EnroUed Not EnroUed Not EnroUed (Adjusted) EnroUed
7-15 855,281 837,608 17,673 998 16,675 1.9
16 & 17 175,826 165,294 10,532 699 9,833 5.6
TOTAL 1,031,107 1,002,902 28,205 1,697 26,508 2.6
7-15 64,754 62,723 2,031 128 1,903 2.9
16 & 17 13,700 12,423 1,277 71 1,206 8.8
TOTAL 78,454 75,146 3,308 199 3,109 4.0
45,049,400 43,064,968 1,984,432 85,194 1,899,238 4.2
SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population: 1970,Detailed Characteristics, Final Report PC (1)-0 Series, Tables 146
and 154. See Appendix A for a description of methodology.
193

Idaho I 7-15 70,555 2,761 65 2,696 3.8 71,121 2,351
16 & 17 15,652 1,677 62 1,615 10.3 16,535 1,448
TOTAL 86,207 4,438 127 4,311 5.0 87,656 3,799
lllinois I 7-15 1,662,165 39,723 2,174 37,549 2.3 369,905 11,091
16 & 17 337,432 34,184 1,198 32,986 9.8 76,735 6,991
TOTAL 1,999,597 73,907 3,372 70,535 3.5 446,640 18,082
Indiana I 7-17 613,046 14,947 804 14,143 2.3 367,279 11,267
16 & 17 128,463 15,873 525 15,348 11.9 76,718 8,550
TOTAL 741,509 30,820 1,329 29,491 4.0 443,997 19,817
Iowa I 6' 30,909 1,314 31 1,283 4.2 24,441 1,370
7-15 282,439 9,374 265 9,109 3.2 242,430 7,364
16 & 17 58,927 5,656 164 5,492 9.3 52,494 3,544
TOTAL' 341,366 15,030 429 14,601 4.3 294,924 10,908
Kansas I 7-15 261,966 6,947 381 6,566 2.5 145,099 4,585
16 & 17 53,866 5,354 243 5,111 9.5 31,729 2,474
TOTAL 315,832 12,301 624 11,677 3.7 176,828 7,059
Kentucky I 6' 32,347 5,599 38 5,561 17.2 32,235 9,129
7-15 295,938 10,398 306 1O,D92 3.4 300,532 19,341
16 & 17 62,305 10,203 186 10,017 16.1 65,776 16,157
TOTAL' 358,243 20,601 492 20,109 5.6 366,308 35,498
Louisiana I 7-15 467,072 18,367 682 17,685 3.8 271,511 15,213
16 & 17 98,130 13,699 381 13,318 13.6 54,951 9,376
TOTAL 565,202 32,066 1,063 31,003 5.5 326,462 24,589
Maine I 6' 10,036 689 11 678 6.8 10,422 1,036
7-15 87,596 3,267 103 3,164 3.6 95,889 3,861
16 & 17 19,219 2,116 80 2,036 10.6 19,758 1,753
TOTAL' 106,815 5,383 183 5,200 4.9 115,647 5,614
Maryland I 7-15 550,041 11,510 942 10,568 1.9 185,728 6,632
16 & 17 110,623 11,183 570 10,613 9.6 36,964 4,719
TOTAL 660,664 22,693 1,512 21,181 3.2 222,692 11,351
Massachusetts I 6' 88,479 6,644 133 6,511 7.4 20,356 1,856
7-15 819,176 15,057 1,105 13,952 1.7 178,760 3,276
16 & 17 171,657 15,068 508 14,560 8.5 34,680 2,168
TOTAL' 990,833 30,125 1,613 28,512 2.9 213,440 5,444
Michigan I 7-15 1,244,985 25,446 1,733 23,713 1.9 494,820 14,279
16 & 17 260,483 23,815 853 22,962 8.8 100,046 9,006
TOTAL 1,505,468 49,261 2,586 46,675 3.1 594,866 23,285
Minnesota I 7-15 468,740 7,496 543 6,953 1.5 277,424 6,88"0
16 & 17 96,905 5,324 376 4,948 5.1 59,798 3,440
TOTAL 565,645 12,820 919 11,901 2.1 337,222 10,320
Mississippi I 6' 20,447 3,096 16 3,080 15.1 27,750 5,778
7-15 189,393 9,520 124 9,396 5.0 262,093 17,398
16 & 17 39,186 6,076 70 6,006 15.3 56,149 9,870
TOTAL' 228,579 15,596 194 15,402 6.7 318,242 27,268
Missouri I 7-15 576,123 15,941 777 15,164 2.6 265,134 10,926
16 & 17 120,040 14,880 462 14,418 12.0 54,830 7,049
TOTAL 696,163 30,821 1,239 29,582 4.2 319,964 17,975
Montana I 7-15 71,390 1,858 103 1,755 2.5 68,218 2,283
16 & 17 15,157 1,106 80 1,026 6.8 15,187 1,356
-
TOTAL 86,547 2,964 183 2,781 3.2 83,405 3,639
Nebraska j 7-15 162,833 3,890 325 3,565 2.2 110,662 3,600
16 & 17 33,312 2,705
\0
229 2,476 7.4 24,894 1,645
VI TOTAL 196,145 6,595 554 6,041 3.1 135,556 5,245
'Data is shown on 6-year-olds for target area states, but it is not counted in state or grand totals.

AppendixE
U.s. CENSUS DATA
Table II
CHILDREN NOT ENROLLED BY STATE AND BY URBAN/RURAL
(Age 7-17)
>-
IC
0\
Urban R
Institutional Not Percent Inst
School-Age Not Population Enrolled Not School-Age Not Pop
State Ages Population Enrolled Not Enrolled (Adjusted) Enrolled Population Enrolled Not
Nevada 1-15 72,229 2,484 116 2,368 3.3 18,188 592
16 & 17 13,432 1,725 74 1,651 12.3 3,664 323
TOTAL 85,661 4,209 190 4,019 4.7 21,852 915
New Hampshire 7-15 71,644 2,762 146 '2,616 3.7 61,401 2,236
16 & 17 15,006 2,012 47 1,965 13.1 11,338 1,249
TOTAL 86,650 4,774 193 4,581 5.3 72,739 3,485
New Jersey 7-15 1,118,994 24,365 1,013 23,352 2.1 153,504 2,563
16 & 17 229,026 17,795 525 17,270 7.5 28,822 2,372
TOTAL 1,348,020 42,160 1,538 40,622 3.0 182,326 4,935
New Mexico 7-15 149,268 4,972 218 4,754 3.2 71,726 3,364
16 & 17 30,027 2,996 108 2,888 9.6 14,596 1,786
TOTAL 179,295 7,968 326 7,642 4.3 86,322 5,150
New York 7-15 2,545,482 76,643 4,759 71,884 2.8 537,190 14,454
16 & 17 539,376 49,356 2,170 47,186 8.7 102,759 8,490
TOTAL 3,084,858 125,999 6,929 119,070 3.9 639,949 22,944
North Carolina 7-15 392,140 16,033 888 15,145 3.9 541,593 25,635
16 & 17 86,370 14,201 380 13,821 16.0 120,194 20,008
TOTAL 478,510 30,234 1,268 28,966 6.1 661,787 45,643
North Dakota 7-15 50,455 1,696 64 1,632 3.2 74,056 2,316
16 & 17 10,168 881 46 835 8.2 16,778 1,056
TOTAL 60,623 2,577 110 2,467 4.1 90,834 3,372
Ohio 7-15 1,453,535 33,482 2,234 31,248 2.1 549,731 16,540
16 & 17 301,269 24,293 1,173 23,120 7.7 113,672 10,045
TOTAL 1,754,804 57,775 3,407 54,368 3.1 663,403 26,585
Oklahoma 7-15 298,463 8,583 704 7,879 2.6 155,880 7,669
16 & 17 64,230 6,659 390 6,269 9.8 34,976 4,023
TOTAL 362,693 15,242 1,094 14,148 3.9 190,856 11,692
Oregon 7-15 235,066 5,202 346 4,856 2.1 142,758 3,805
16 & 17 53,496 3,475 210 3,265 6.1 32,103 2,390
TOTAL 288,562 8,677 556 8,121 2.8 174,861 6,195
Pennsylvania 7-1.5 1,418,808 31,759 2,339 29,420 2.1 647,162 21,045
16 & 17 311,597 25,318 1,214 24,104 7.7 135,896 13,945
TOTAL 1,730,405 57,077 3,553 53,524 3.1 783,058 34,990
Rhode Island 7-15 137,486 2,876 168 2,708 2.0 20,900 532
16 & 17 28,830 3,552 76 3,476 12.1 4,042 452
TOTAL 166,316 6,428 244 6,184 3.7 24,942 984
South Carolina 6 1 24,209 5,241 41 5,200 21.5 31,945 8,941
7-15 223,650 11,039 334 10,705 4.8 284,317 14,728
16 & 17 49,972 9,152 205 8,947 17.9 63,541 10,650
TOTAL) 273,622 20,191 539 19,652 7.2 347,858 25,378

South Dakota I 7-15 55,642 1,564 107 1,457 2.6 77,787 2,736 150
16 & 17 11,887 789 95 694 5.8 17,627 1,490 141
TOTAL 67,529 2,353 202 2,151 3.2 95,414 4,226 291
Tennessee I 7-15 406,643 17,039 699 16,340 4.0 301,013 18,244 519
16 & 17 88,D19 12,298 420 11,878 13.6 63,925 13,530 306
TOTAL 494,662 29,337 1,119 28,218 5.7 364,938 31,774 825
Texas I 7-15 1,689,551 59,634 2,671 56,963 3.4 438,208 21,799 693
16 & 17 349,405 46,274 1,485 44,789 12.8 99,580 14,558 424
TOTAL 2,038,956 105,908 4,156 101,752 5.0 537,788 36,357 1,117
Utah I 7-15 173,564 3,172 144 3,028 1.7 47,364 1,568 39
16 & 17 38,130 2,269 110 2,159 5.7 10,476 744 30
TOTAL 211,694 5,441 254 5,187 2.5 57,840 2,312 69
Vermont I 7-15 24,623 703 53 650 2.6 58,070 2,392 126
16 & 17 5,446 556 29 527 9.7 11,838 1,312 64
TOTAL 30,069 1,259 82 1,177 3.9 69,908 3,704 190
Virginia I 7-15 516,639 14,428 785 13,643 2.6 333,881 15,888 508
16 & 17 106,636 11,896 516 11,380 10.7 71,111 11,533 344
TOTAL 623,275 26,324 1,301 25,023 4.0 404,992 27,421 852
Washington I 7-15 432,718 9,025 556 8,469 2.0 192,584 . 5,116 248
16 & 17 93,702 7,341 438 6,903 7.4 40,919 3,209 191
TOTAL 526,420 16,366 994 15,372 2.9 233,503 8,325 439
West Virginia I 7-15 107,454 4,857 115 4,742 4.4 205,697 12,094 221
16 & 17 24,917 2,919 85 2,834 11.4 46,691 8,571 160
TOTAL 132,371 7,776 200 7,576 5.7 252,388 20,665 381
Wisconsin I 7-15 536,773 9,033 626 8,407 1.6 318,508 8,640 372
16 & 17 110,314 5,707 438 5,269 4.8 65,512 4,825 261
TOTAL 647,087 14,740 1,064 13,676 2.1 384,020 13,465 633
Wyoming I 7-15 37,349 1,233 74 1,159 3.1 27,405 798 54
16 & 17 8,009 791 42 749 9.4 5,691 486 29
TOTAL 45,358 2,024 116 1,908 4.2 33,096 1,284 83
GRAND TOTALI 31,971,327 1,272,894 60,281 1,212,613 3.8 13,078,073 711,538 24,913
SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population: 1970, Detailed Characteristics, Final Report PC (1)-0. Series, Tables 146 an
a description of methodology.
I Data is shown on 6-year-olds for target area states, but it is not counted in state or grand totals.
­10
--:a

....
\C
00
AppelldixE
U.S. CENSUS DATA
Table ill
CHILDREN NOT ENROLLED BY STATE AND BY WHITE/NONWHITE
(Age 7-17)
White Non-W
Institutional Not Percent Institut
School-Age Not Population Enrolled Not School-Age Not Popula
State Ages Population Enrolled Not Enrolled (Adjusted) Enrolled Population Enrolled Not Enr
Alabama 6' 46,968 13,574 56 13,518 28.8 22,924 6,856
7-15 447,152 19,962 425 19,537 4.4 214,913 11,826 1
16&17 95,495 14,669 199 14,470 15.2 43,734 4,544 1
TOTAL 1 542,647 34,631 624 34,007 6.3 258,647 16,370 3
Alaska 7-15 46,659 1,403 18 1,385 3.0 15,936 651 4
16&17 7,812 934 15 919 11.8 2,610 421
TOTAL 54,471 2,337 33 2,304 4.2 18,546 1,072
Arizona 7-15 307,424 10,330 299 10,031 3.3 39,193 2,674 1
16&17 63,278 7,862 257 7,605 12.0 7,612 1,391
TOTAL 370,702 18,192 556 17,636 4.8 46,805 4,065 1
Arkansas 7-15 267,043 12,961 487 12,474 4.7 86,403 4,826 1
16&17 57,907 9,049 213 8,836 15.3 18,256 2,802 1
TOTAL 324,950 22,010 700 21,310 6.6 104,659 7,628 2
California 7-15 3,106,699 71,016 3,574 67,442 2.2 426,824 12,900 8
16&17 663,180 54,821 2,626 52,195 7.9 80,893 7,241 7
TOTAL 3,769,879 125,837 6,200 119,637 3.2 507,717 20,141 1,5
Colorado 6 1 42,003 1,995 31 1,943 4.6 2,104 145
7-15 401,679 9,214 544 8,670 2.2 18,781 429
16&17 83,531 7,621 275 7,346 8.8 3,374 333
TOTAL 1 485,210 16,835 819 16,016 3.3 22,155 762
Connecticut 7-15 503,679 7,807 661 7,146 1.4 40,961 1,452 13
16&17 102,539 6,632 340 6,292 6.1 7,121 1,135 6
TOTAL 606,218 14,439 1,001 13,438 2.2 48,082 2,587 1
Delaware 7-15 87,194 1,916 104 1,812 2.1 18,597 1,011 5
16&17 17,522 1,507 54 1,453 8.3 3,647 387 6
TOTAL 104,716 3,423 158 3,265 3.1 22,244 1,398 1
Washington, D.C. 6 1 1,404 83 5 78 5.6 11,620 706 2
7-15 12,707 341 49 292 2.3 103,730 3,759 1
16&17 3,037 308 22 286 9.4 20,631 2,749 9
TOTAL 1 15,744 649 71 578 3.7 124,361 6,508 25
Florida 7-15 897,910 29,072 1,374 27,698 3.1 250,164 11,835 60
16&17 188,864 23,337 701 22,636 12.0 46,644 8,092 41
TOTAL 1,086,774 52,409 2,075 50,334 4.6 296,808 19,927 1,0
Georgia 6 1 65,996 11,681 105 11,576 17.5 29,919 6,111 4
7-15 590,197 24,714 798 23,916 4.1 273,457 15,848 44
16&17 123,873 21,522 352 21,170 17.1 56,822 11,764 2
TOTAL1 714,070 46,236 1,150 45,086 6.3 330,279 27,612 73
Hawaii 7-15 54,349 1,576 61 1,515 2.8 89,611 3,218 2
16&17 9,653 1,075 21 1,054 10.9 '19,325 1,541 4
TOTAL 64,002 2,651 82 2,569 4.0 108,936 4,759 6

Idaho I 7-15 138,891 5,011 113 4,898 3.5 2,785
16&17 31,463 3,041 112 2,929 9.3 724
TOTAL 170,354 8,052 225 7,827 4.6 3,509
Illinois I 7-15 1,696,751 37,076 1,947 35,129 2.1 335,319 1
16&17 353,408 32,439 1,063 31,376 8.9 60,759
TOTAL 2,050,159 69,515 3,010 66,505 3.2 396,078 2
Indiana I 7-15 897,058 23,401 1,097 22,304 2.5 83,267
16&17 187,709 21,169 664 20,505 10.9 17,472
TOTAL 1,084,767 44,570 1,761 42,809 3.9 100,739
Iowa I 6 1 54,201 2,600 52 2,548 4.7 1,149
7-15 516,338 16,295 465 15,830 3.1 8,531
16&17 109,853 8,746 294 8,452 7.7 1,568
TOTAL! 626,191 25,041 759 24,282 3.9 10,099
Kansas I 7-15 381,323 10,540 528 10,012 2.6 25,742
16&17 80,973 7,160 346 6,814 8.4 4,622
TOTAL 462,296 17,700 874 16,826 3.6 30,364
Kentucky I 61 59,079 13,886 70 13,816 23.4 5,503
7-15 546,978 27,350 544 26,806 4.9 49,492
16&17 117,119 23,721 326 23,395 20.0 10,962
TOTAL 1 664,097 51,071 870 50,201 7.6 60,454
Louisiana I 7-15 479,501 19,315 709 18,606 3.9 259,082 1
16&17 99,990 13,811 326 13,485 13.5 53,091
TOTAL 579,491 33,126 1,035 32,091 5.5 312,173 2
Maine I 61 20,347 1,715 21 1,694 8.3 111
7-15 182,444 7,045 209 6,836 3.7 1,041
16&17 38,769 3,839 162 3,677 9.5 208
TOTAL 1 221,213 10,884 371 10,513 4.8 1,249
Maryland I 7-15 575,078 11,641 667 10,974 1.9 160,691
16&17 117,187 11,060 340 10,720 9.1 30,400 4
TOTAL 692,265 22,701 1,007 21,694 3.1 191,091 1
Massachusetts I 61 103,386 8,022 149 7,873 7.6 5,449
7-15 958,131 16,968 1,215 15,753 1.6 39,805
16&l'i 199,060 16,233 562 15,671 7.9 7,277
TOTAL' 1,157,191 33,201 1,777 31,424 2.7 47,082
Michigan I 7-15 1,519,067 31,386 1,924 29,462 1.9 220,738
16&17 316,015 26,027 848 25,179 8.0 44,514
TOTAL 1,835,082 57,413 2,772 54,641 3.0 265,252 1
Minnesota I 7-15 731,099 13,924 800 13,124 1.8 15,065
16&17 154,051 8,425 549 7,876 5.1 2,652
TOTAL 885,150 22,349 1,349 21,000 2.4 17,717
Mississippi I 6' 26,388 5,287 28 5,259 19.9 21,809
7-15 244,935 14,066 231 13,835 5.6 206,551 1
16&17 52,425 8,149 108 8,041 15.3 42,910 7
TOTAL' 297,360 22,215 339 21,876 7.4 249,461 2
Missouri I 7-15 729,964 22,276 851 21,425 2.9 111,293 4
16&17 153,737 18,569 472 18,097 11.8 21,133 3
TOTAL 883,701 40,845 1,323 39,522 4.5 132,426 7
Montana I 7-15 131,731 3,794 145 3,649 2.8 7,877
16&17 28,912 2,165 121 2,044 7.1 1,432
TOTAL 160,643 5,959 266 5,693 3.5 9,309
.... Nebraska I 7-15
261,722 7,067 450 6,617 2.5 11,773
\0 16&17 56,215 4,020 311 3,709 6.6 1,991
\0 TOTAL 317,937 11,087 761 10,326 3.2 13,764
I Dala is shown on 6-year-olds for target area states, but it is not counted in state or grand totals.

AppendixE
u.s. CENSUS DATA
Table III
CHILDREN NOT ENROLLED BY STATE AND BY WHITE/NONWHITE
(Age 7-17)
8
White Non-W
Institutional Not Percent Instituti
School-Age Not Population EnroUed Not School-Age Not Popula
State Ages Population EnroUed Not EnroUed (Adjusted) EnroUed Population EnroUed Not Enro
Nevada 7-15 81,697 2,715 110 2,605 3.2 8,720 361 3
16&17 15,600 1,846 63 1,783 1l.4 1,496 202 3
TOTAL 97,297 4,561 173 4,388 4.5 10,216 563 6
New Hampshire 7-15 132,272 4,929 268 4,661 3.5 773 69
16&17 26,247 3,248 83 3,165 12.1 97 13
TOTAL 158,519 8,177 351 7,826 4.9 870 82
New Jersey 7-15 1,100,549 20,014 785 19,229 1.7 171,949 6,914 36
16&17 226,977 16,717 363 16,354 7.2 30,871 3,450 22
TOTAL 1,327,526 36,731 1,148 35,583 2.7 202,820 10,364 59
New Mexico 7-15 196,954 7,158 263 6,895 3.5 24,040 1,178 6
16&17 40,147 4,209 123 4,086 10.2 4,476 573 3
TOTAL 237,101 1l,367 386 10,981 4.6 28,516 1,751 9
New York 7-15 2,622,880 68,476 4,029 64,447 2.5 459,792 22,621 1,73
16&17 556,339 45,242 1,653 43,589 7.8 85,796 12,604 93
TOTAL 3,179,219 113,718 5,682 108,036 3.4 545,588 35,225 2,66
North Carolina 7-15 664,316 27,200 1,340 25,860 3.9 269,417 14,468 77
16&17 146,180 23,341 487 22,854 15.6 60,384 10,868 42
TOTAL 810,496 50,541 1,827 48,714 6.0 329,801 25,336 1,20
North Dakota 7-15 119,691 3,779 145 3,634 3.0 4,820 233 1
16&17 26,182 1,799 111 1,688 6.4 764 138 1
TOTAL 145,873 5,578 256 5,322 3.6 5,584 371 2
Ohio 7-15 1,784,896 42,181 2,356 39,825 2.2 218,370 7,841 72
16&17 372,054 29,682 1,148 28,534 7.7 42,887 4,656 46
TOTAL 2,156,950 71,863 3,504 68,359 3.2 261,257 12,497 1,19
Oklahoma 7-15 392,356 13,607 809 12,798 3.3 61,987 2,645 26
16&17 86,723 9,049 376 8,673 10.0 12,483 1,633 22
TOTAL 479,079 22,656 1,185 21,471 4.5 74,470 4,278 49
Oregon 7-15 366,103 8,606 518 8,088 2.2 1l,721 401 3
16&17 82,911 5,310 305 5,005 6.0 2,688 555 3
TOTAL 449,014 13,916 823 13,093 2.9 14,409 956 7
Pennsylvania 7-15 1,851,288 44,935 2,755 42,180 2.3 214,682 7,869 65
16&17 404,550 33,310 1,233 32,077 7.9 42,943 5,953 51
TOTAL 2,255,838 78,245 3,988 74,257 3.3 257,625 13,822 1,16
Rhode Island 7-15 152,060 3,200 152 3,048 2.0 6,326 208 4
16&17 31,741 3,798 69 3,729 11.7 1,131 206 1
TOTAL 183,801 6,998 221 6,777 3.7 7,457 414 6
Sou lh Carolina 6! 34,679 7,895 77 7,818 22.5 21,475 6,287 1
7-15 314,429 14,889 563 14,326 4.6 193,538 10,878 19
16&17 70,367 12,549 283 12,266 17.4 43,146 7,253 18
TOTAL! 384,796 27,438 846 26,592 6.9 236,684 18,131 37

South Dakota I 7-15 124,767 3,930 194 3,736 3.0 8,662 370
16&17 27,697 1,927 100 1,827 6.6 1,817 352
TOTAL 152,464 5,857 294 5,563 3.6 10,479 722
Tennessee I 7-15 566,237 28,334 908 27,426 4.8 141,419 6,949
16&17 122,806 21,520 492 21,028 17.1 29,138 4,308
TOTAL 689,043 49,854 1,400 48,454 7.0 170,557 11,257
Texas I 7-15 1,812,015 66,549 2,812 63,737 3.5 315,744 14,884
16&17 385,125 50,424 1,494 48,930 12.8 63,860 10,408
TOTAL 2,197,140 116,973 4,306 112,667 5.1 379,604 25,292
Utah I 7-15 214,935 4,447 167 4,280 2.0 5,993 293
16&17 46,943 2,763 122 2,641 5.6 1,663 250
TOTAL 261,878 7,210 289 6,921 2.6 7,656 543
Vermont I 7-15 82,505 3,088 175 2,913 3.5 188 7
16&17 17,259 1,865 93 1,772 10.3 25 3
TOTAL 99,764 4,953 268 4,685 4.7 213 10
Virginia I 7-15 657,186 20,610 867 19,743 3.0 193,334 9,706
16&17 137,279 16,617 531 16,086 11.7 40,468 6,812
TOTAL 794,465 37,227 1,398 35,829 4.5 233,802 16,518
Washington I 7-15 593,661 13,262 724 12,538 2.1 31,641 879
16&17 128,471 9,942 553 9,389 7.3 6,150 608
TOTAL 722,132 23,204 1,277 21,927 3.0 37,791 1,487
West Virginia I 7-15 298,869 16,146 307 15,839 5.3 14,282 805
16&17 68,043 11,123 228 10,895 16.0 3,565 367
TOTAL 366,912 27,269 535 26,734 7.3 17,847 1,172
Wisconsin I 7-15 817,490 16,037 862 15,175 1.9 37,791 1,636
16&17 168,717 9,568 560 9,008 5.3 7,109 964
TOTAL 986,207 25,605 1,422 24,183 2.5 44,900 2,600
Wyoming I 7-15 63,083 1,952 100 1,852 2.9 1,671 79
16&17 13,406 1,214 66 1,148 8.6 294 63
TOTAL 76,489 3,166 166 3,000 3.9 1,965 142
GRAND TOTAL I 38,439,283 1,568,485 63,713 1,504,772 3.9 6,610,117 415,947
SOURCE: U.S. BUIeau of the Census, Census of Population: 1970, Detailed Characteristics. Final Report PC (1)-0 Series, Table
a description of methodology.
10ata is shown on 6-year-olds for target area states, but it is not counted in state or grand totals.
N o....

Appendix 6
RANK ORDERS OF AREAS IN COY SURVEY
BY CHILDREN OUT OF SCHOOL, EDUCATION, INCOME,
SINGLE·PARENT FAMILY, SECONDARY STUDENT SUSPENSIONS,
AND M.INORITY CHILDREN
tv
tv
o
Children
Out of Educalion of Secondary Minority
% Minor
School Head of Single-ParenI Student School-Age
Area Surveyed 45 Daysl Household 2 Income 3
Families4 Suspensionss Children 6 Black Mexican·Am
Portland, Maine
Riverton Housing Project I 8 3-4 10-11 II 24 3%
Denver, Colorado
Census Tract 8 2 10 2 3-4· 9-10 9 16% 71%
Floyd County, Kentucky
Mud Creek Area 3-4 2-3 5 27-28 28-29 26-30
New Bedford, Massachusetts
Census Tract 6526 3-4 I 15 20 18-19 12 5%
Holyoke, Massachusetts
Census Tract 8114 5 4 3-4 12 15-16 14 4%
Montgomery, Alabama
Census Tract 3 6 13-14 22-24 9 24 16 39%
Montgomery, Alabama
Northgate Housing Project 7 6 6-8 5 20 1-3 100%
Washington, D.C.
Census Tract 74.04 8 21 6-8 2 9-10 1-3 99%
Portland, Maine
Bayside East Housing Project 9 13-14 9 3-4 15-16 26-30 3%
Hancock County, Georgia
GMD 102 and 113 10 7 18-19 15-16 30 11 71%
Autauga County, Alabama
Beat 10 11-12 12 22-24 27-28 21 19-20 30%
Springfield, Massachusetts
Census Tract 8008 11-12 2-3 I 8 13 8 9%
Portland, Maine
Census Tract II 13 17 20 14 8 26-30
New Bedford, Massachusetts
Census Tract 6510 14 18 16 22-23 14 21 17%
Portland, Maine
Census Tract 12 15 II 25 17 5 26-30
Columbia, South Carolina
Census Tract 5 16 27 6-8 12 2 6 96%
Somerville, Massachusetts
Census Tract 3512 17-18 20 27-28 29-30 28-29 22 1%
Sumter County, South Carolina
Precinct 2 17-18 26 26 26 6 17 36%
Macon, Georgia
Census Tract 127 19-21 19 II 6-7 18-19 10 78%
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Census Tract 3524 19-21 25 14 6-7
22 18 36%

Canton, Mississippi
Joe Prichard Homes
Housing Project I 19-21 4 10 1 4 1-3 100%
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Census Tract 3527 22-23 16 18-19 10-11 27 19-20 11%
Sumter County, South Carolina
Precincts 1 and 268 22-23 8 12-13 24 3 4-5 98%
Columbia, South Carolina
Census Tract 22 24 28 27-28 22-23 17 15 50%
Denver, Colorado
Census Tract 1.01 25 22-23 29 29-30 23 23 11%
Springfield, Massachusetts
Census Tract 8018 26 22-23 12-13 9 7 7 82%
Denver, Colorado
Census Tract 41.01 27 29 22-24 18 1 4-5 92% 3%
Davenport, Iowa
Census Tract 107 28 15 17 15-16 12 13 65% 5%
Davenport, Iowa
Census Tract 123 29 24 21 21 25 25 2%
Portland, Maine
Census Tract 19 30 30 30 25 26 26-30
1Number I is Area with highest percentage of children out of school; 30. Area with lowest percentage of children out of school.
2Number I is Area with the lowest percentage of families whose head of household completed 10th grade or above; 30, Arc.1 with high
head of household completed 10th grade or above. See Appendix H for percentages of heads of households of families with scho
grade or more.
3Number 1 is Area wi th highest percen tage of families receiving AFDC or other public assistance as sole income; 30, Area wi th the low
ing AFDC or other public assistance as sole income.
4Number 1 is Area with highest percentage of single parent families; 30, Area with the lowest percentage of single·parenl families.
sNumber I is Area with highest percentage of secondary school-aged children suspended at least once; 30, Area with the lowest perc
children suspended at least once.
6Number 1 is Area with highest percentage of minority children; 30, Area witll the lowest percentage of minority children.
N N.....

AppendbH
PERCENT OF HEADS OF HOUSEHOLDS' COMPLETING 10TH GRADE
OR ABOVE IN FAMILIES WITH SCHOOL·AGE CHILDREN
Area Surveyed Families Surveyed
Families Surveyed With
School-Age Children For
Whom There Is Information
On Educational Attainment
With School·Age
Children Number
% Heads Of Households I Completing .10th Grade Or Above
South Carolina
Columbia
Census Tract 5
Census Tract 22
Sumter County
73
34
18
24
89%
92%
Precinct 2
Precincts I and 26 B
Washington, D.C.
116
128
86
36
85%
53%
Census Tract 74.04 194 136 79%
TOTAL 3004 2036 59%
1Head of household is male in two-parent families and either male or female in single-parent families.
223

Kansas I Failure to None Child No Yes None None
enroll, Or
inexcusably
absent 3
consecutive
days or 5
or more
days in any
semester
Kentucky I Absent for Being Both Yes Yes Notice None
3 days or reported as
tardy on a truant
more than more than
3 days 3 times
(tardy is
being absent
for less than
half a day)
Louisiana I None None Both Yes Yes None Informal
Adjustment
Maine I None Absent for Both Yes Yes None None
5 days or
10 half-day
sessions in
any 6-month
period
Maryland I None None Both Yes No None Informal
adjustment
Massachusetts None None Both No Yes None Conference
Michigan I None None Both Yes Yes Conference, Informal
written notice Adjustment
Minnesota
None None Both No Yes None None
Mississippi I None None Child No Yes None Informal
Adjustment
Missouri None None Both No Yes Written notice None
Montana None None Both Yes Yes Written notice Informal
Adjustment
Nebraska None None Both Yes Yes Written notice None
Nevada Absent with- Deemed Both No Yes Written notice None
out valid truant 3 or
excuse for more times
any part of within a
a day school year
New Hampshirel None None Both No Yes None None
New Jersey None None Both No Yes Written notice Informal
adjustment
New Mexico None None Both No Yes Written notice Conference
New York None None Both No Yes Notice to None
parent
to.) North Carolina None None Parents Yes Yes Written notice Follow-up,
to.) Community
-..l level services

State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
OkJahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
A ppelltlix II
STATUTORY PROVISIONS FOR FREE TEXTBOOKS
Free Textbook Provision J
Required to extent of state appropriation, starting
with grade one
No provision2 Required for kindergarten K-8
Required for 1-12
Required for 1-8
No provision
Required for 1-12
Required for 1-12
Required for 1-12
Required for 1-12
Required for 1-12
No provision
"Provided" for 1-12
LocaJ referendum may require for 1-12
LocaJ petition may require for 1-12
LocaJ referendum may require for 1-12
May be provided for 1-12
Must be provided for indigents 1-12
Required to extent of state appropriation for 1-8,
starting with grade one
Required for 1-12
Required for 1-12
"Submitted" to 1-12
Required for 1-12
LocaJ referendum may require for 1-12
Require

230
State
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Sources: State statutes and constitutions
I Where statute authorized free textbooks for public schools it was interpreted as applying to
grades 1-12 only.
2 Not specified in the sources.
AppendixK
STATUTORY PROVISIONS FOR FREE TEXTBOOKS
Free Textbook Provision I
"Provided' K-12
Required for K-12
No provision
Required for 1-12
Required for indigents 1-12
Required for 1-12, when the best interest of district
Permitted 1-12
Permitted for indigents 1-12
Required 1-12

State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
D.C.
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Sou th Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
AppendixL
STATUTORY PROVISIONS FOR CORPORAL PUNISHMENT
Corporal Punishment Provision
No provision
No provision
No provision
No provision
Same rights as parent
No provision
No provision
Corporal punishment allowed
No provision
Corporal punishment allowed
Corporal punishment allowed
Corporal punishment prohibited
No provision
No provision
No provision
No provision
No provision
No provision
No provision
No provision
Corporal punishmen t allowed in
19 counties
Corporal punishment prohibited
"PhysIcal force" for discipline allowed
No provision
No provision
No provision
Corporal punishment allowed
No provision
Corporal punishment allowed
No provision
Corporal punishment prohibited
No provision
No provision
"Reasonable force" for correction allowed
No provision
Corporal punishment allowed
Corporal punishment allowed
No provision
Sanle rights as parent
No provision
Corporal punishment allowed
Corporal punishment allowed
No provision
Corporal punishment allowed
231

232
State
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
A ppelldi.l: L
STATUTORY PROVISIONS FOR CORPORAL PUNISHMENT
Sources: State statutes and constitutions
Corporal Punishment Provision
No provision
Corporal punishment allowed
Corporal punishment allowed
Physical force for correction allowed
No provision
No provision
No provision
I Not specified; can be construed to mean corporal punishment is not illegal, Le., allowed
under state law.

AppendixM
STUDENTS ENROLLED IN EDUCABLE MENTALLY RETARDED
(EMR) CLASSES BY RACE, FALL 1973'
Table I
ALABAMA
tv
w
.j>.
1973-1974 1973-1974
Student EnroOment Enrollment in "EMR" Classes 3
School District 2 (Percent of Total Enrollment) (percent of "EMR" Enrollment)
Total I White I Black I Others Total T White T Black I Other
Alexander City 3,577 2,385 1,192 112 39 73
(66.7) (33.3) (34.8) (65.2)
Andalusia City 2,439 1,825 611 3 123 41 82
(74.8) (25.1) (0.1) (33.3) (66.7)
Anniston City 5,502 2,520 2,975 7 88 27 61
(45.8) (54.1) (0.1) (30.7) (69.3)
Arab City 2,546 2,546 53 53
(100.0) (100.0)
Athens City 3,063 2,375 688 116 27 89
(77.5) (22.5) (23.3) (76.7)
Attalla City 1,932 1,604 328 74 32 42
(83.0) (17.0) (43.2) (56.8)
Auburn City 3,140 1,998 1,121 21 95 2 93
(63.6) (35.7) (0.7) (2.1) (97.9)
Autauga 7,278 5,003 2,262 13 104 37 67
(68.7) (31.1) (0.2) (35.6) (64.4)
Baldwin 14,653 11,024 3,557 72 262 138 123 1
(75.2) (24.3) (0.5) (52.7) (46.9) (1.4)
Barbour 2,977 686 2,291 84 12 72
(23.0) (77.0) (14.3) (85.7)
Bessemer City 6,966 2,059 4,905 2 146 31 115
(29.6) (70.4) (0.02) (21.2) (78.8)
Bibb 3,159 2,006 1,153 123 39 84
(63.5) (36.5) (31.7) (68.3)
Birmingham Ci ty 54,512 21,010 33,451 51 750 217 533
(38.5) (61.4) (0.1) (28.9) (71.1 )
Blount 5,703 5,640 56 7 118 114 4
(98.9) (1.0) (0.1) (96.6) (3.4)
Brewton City 1,499 1,009 490 68 6 62
(67.3) (32.7) (8.8) (91.2)
Bullock 2,619 48 2,571 113 3 110
(1.8) (98.2) (2.7) (97.3)
Butler 4,323 1,681 2,642 211 36 175
(38.9) (61.1) (17.1 ) (82.9)
Calhoun 10,841 9,756 1,077 8 264 176 88
(90.0) (9.9) (0.1) (66.7) (33.3)
Carbon HiD 976 901 75 21 18 3
(92.3) (7.7) (85.7) (14.3)
Chambers 5,913 2,643 3,270 153 32 121
(44.7) (55.3) (20.9) (79.1)

A.ppendix M
STUDENTS ENROLLED IN EDUCABLE MENTALLY RETARDED
(EMR) CLASSES BY RACE, FALL 1973'
Table I
ALABAMA
l0
"'" 0\
1973-1974
1973-1974
Student Enrollment
Enrollment in "EMR" Oasses 3
School District 2
(Percent of Total Enrollment) (percent of "EMR" Enrollment)
Total I White I Black I OtherS Total I White I Black I Other
Fairfield City 2,231 898 1,333 74 1 73
(40.3) (59.7) (1.4) (98.6)
Fayette 3,285 2,613 672 105 56 49
(79.5) (20.5) (53.3) (46.7)
Florala Gty 362 263 99 14 4 10
(72.7) (27.3) (28.6) (71.4)
Florence City 6,999 5,526 1,472 1 201 75 126
(79.0) (21.0) (0.01) (37.3) (62.7)
Fort Payne 1,711 1,626 85 50 32 18
(95.0) (5.0) (64.0) (36.0)
Franklin 3,395 3,360 34 1 69 64 5
(99.0) (1.0) (0.02) (92.8) (7.2)
Gadsden 9,311 6,305 2,999 7 290 106 184
(67.7) (32.2) (0.1) (36.6) (63.4)
Geneva 3,531 2,865 663 3 95 49 46
(81.1) (18.8) (0.1) (51.6) (48.4)
Greene 2,901 29 2,871 1
(1.0) (99.0) (0.03)
Gun tersville City 2,420 2,210 210 55 39 16
(91.3) (8.7) (70.9) (29.1 )
Haleyville Gty 1,841 1,825 13 3 54 54
(99.1) (0.8) (0.2) (100.0>
Henry 2,927 1,259 1,666 2 102 21 81
(43.0) (56.9) (0.1) (20.6) (79.4)
Homewood City 2,897 2,594 284 19 50 9 41
(89.5) (9.8) (0.7) (18.0) (82.0)
Houston 5,780 4,291 1,489 209 52 157
(74.2) (25.8) (24.9) (75.1)
Huntsville Gty 34,162 28,236 5,676 250 604 252 352
(82.7) (16.6) (0.7) (41.7) (58.3)
Jackson 6,580 6,298 282 172 157 15
(95.7) (4.3) (91.3) (8.7)
Jacksonville Gty 1,792 1,613 162 17 56 46 10
(90.0) (9.0) (0.9) (82.1) (17.9)
Jasper City 2,857 2,321 536 54 28 26
(81.2) (18.8) (51.9) (48.1)
Jefferson 52,954 40,383 12,511 60 690 314 375 1
(76.3) (23.6) (0.1) (45.5) (54.3) (0.1)
Lauderdale 8,858 8,253 603 2 121 89 32
(93.2) (6.8) (0.02) (73.6) (26.4)
I

Lee I 4,925 2,663 2,260 2 83 18 65
(54.1) (45.9) (0.04) (21.7) (78.3)
Limestone I 6,714 5,495 1,219 197 122 75
(81.8) (18.2) (61.9) (38.1)
Linden City
1,050 261 789 40 5 35
(24.9) (75.1) (12.5) (87.5)
Lowndes I 3,949 379 3,570 102 2 100
(9.6) (90.4) (2.0) (98.0)
Macon I 4,980 300 4,680 116 3 113
(6.0) (94.0) (2.6) (97.4)
Madison 10,653 7,929 2,715 9 236 125 III
(74.4) (25.5) (0.1) (53.0) (47.0)
Marengo 3,521 837 2,683 I
(23.8) (76.2) (0.02)
Marion 4,885 4,743 142 63 50 13
(97.1) (2.9) (79.4) (20.6)
Marshall I 8,508 8,437 66 5 248 245 3
(99.2) (0.8) (0.1) (98.8) (1.2)
Midfield City I 2,091 1,374 717 30 10 20
(65.7) (34.3) (33.3) (66.7)
Mobile I 65,184 35,222 29,887 75 1,414 517 897
(54.0) (45.9) (0.1) (36.6) (63.4)
Montgomery 36,293 19,217 17,030 46 1,0026 191 809 2
(52.9) (46.9) (0.1) (19.1) (80.7) (0.2)
Morgan 10,201 9,489 712 328 253 75
(93.0) (7.0) (77.1) (22.9)
Mountain Brook City 4,184 4,162 22
(99.5) (0.5)
Muscle Shoals City 2,071 1,961 110 33 26 7
(94.7) (5.3) (78.8) (21.2)
Opp City 1,742 1,438 304 56 33 23
(82.5) (17.5) (58.9) (41.1)
Oxford City 2,131 1,782 349 80 24 56
(83.6) (16.4) (30.0) (70.0)
Ozark City 4,121 3,216 868 37 116 25 91
(78.0) (21.1) (0.9) (21.6) (78.4)
Perry 2,617 301 2,316
(11.5) (88.5)
Phenix City 5,595 2,984 2,609 2 166 71 95
(53.3) (46.6) (0.03) (42.8) (57.2)
Pickens 5,119 2,086 3,033 162 35 127
(40.8) (59.2) (21.6) (78.4)
Piedmont City
1,409 1,119 175 115 60 39 21
(79.4) (12.4) (8.2) (65.0) (35.0)
Pike I 2,958 1,142 1,816 128 33 95
(38.6) (61.4) (25.8) (74.2)
N
w
Randolph
2,493 1,713 780 71 17 54
-..l I
(68.7) (31.3) (23.9) (76.1)

AppeltdixM
STUDENTS ENROLLED IN EDUCABLE MENTALLY RETARDED
(EMR) CLASSES BY RACE, FALL 1973'
Table I
ALABAMA
N
w
00
1973-1974 1973-1974
Studen t EruoUmen t EnroUment in "EMR" Oasses 3
School District 2
(percent of Total EruoUment) (percent of "EMR" EruoUment)
Total I White I Black I OtherS Total I White I Black I Othe
Roanoke City 1,394 980 414 44 3 41
(70.3) (29.7) (6.8) (93.2)
RusseU 3,984 1,117 2,867 150 62 88
(28.0) (72.0) (41.3) (58.7)
RusseUviUe City 2,152 1,872 278 2 57 40 17
(87.0) (12.9) (0.1) (70.2) (29.8)
St. Clair 7,524 6,343 1,159 22 218 112 106
(84.3) (15.4) (0.3) (51.4) (48.6)
Selma City 6,219 2,605 3,614 138 35 103
(41.9) (58.1) (25.4) (74.6)
Sheffield City 2,672 1,965 707 74 38 36
(73.5) (26.5) (51.4) (48.6)
Shelby 9,864 7,838 2,022 4 315 99 216
(79.5) (20.5) (0.04) (31.4) (68.6)
Sumter 3,845 56 3,789 168 168
(J.5) (98.5) (100.0)
Sylacauga City 2,702 1,835 865 2 55 18 37
(67.9) (32.0) (0.1) (32.7) (67.3)
TaUadega 8,827 4,923 3,902 2 216 56 160
(55.8) (44.2) (0.02) (25.9) (74.1)
TaUadega City 4,020 2,440 1,578 2 131 58 73
(60.7) (39.3) (0.04) (44.3) (55.7)
Tallassee City 1,637 1,288 348 1 42 29 13
(78.7) (21.3) (0.1) (69.0) (31.0)
Tarran t City 1,392 1,310 81 I 46 30 16
(94.1) (5.8) (0.1) (65.2) (34.8)
TaUapoosa 3,691 2,092 1,599 97 21 76
(56.7) (43.3) (21.6) (78.4)
Thomasville City 1,338 771 567 59 18 41
(57.6) (42.4) (30.5) (69.5)
Troy City 2,409 1,577 832 117 47 70
(65.5) (34.5) (40.2) (59.8)
Tuscaloosa 12,547 9,435 3,103 9 318 156 162
(75.2) (24.7) (0.1) (49.1) (50.9)
Tuscaloosa City IJ ,678 6,021 5,657 282 69 213
(51.6) (48.4) (24.5) (75.5)
Vestavia Hills 3,038 2,941 97 23 11 12
(96.8) (3.2) (47.8) (52.2)
Tuscumbia City 1,989 1,504 485 65 26 39
(75.6) (24.4) (40.0) (60.0)

Walker I 9,671 8,924 745 2 230 164 66 I
(92.3) (7.7) (0.02) (71.3) (28.7)
Wilcox I 3,885 107 3,777 1 101 101 I
(2.8) (97.2) (0.02) (l00.0)
Winfield I 1,364 1,295 69 33 25 8 I
(94.9) (5.1) (75.8) (24.2)
Winston I 2,714 2,714 86 86 I
(l00.0) (l00.0)
TOTAL I 725,365 478,568 245,588 1,209 16,799 6,985 9,807 7 I
(66.0) (33.9) (0.2) (41.6) (58.4) (0.04)
...., tv
\0

Walker I 9,671 8,924 745 2 230 164 (,6 I
(92.3) (7.7) (0.02) (71.3) (28..7)
'Vilcox I 3,885 107 3.777 1 101 101 t
(2.S) (97.2} (0.02) (100.0)
Winfield I 1,364 1,295 69 33 25 8 I
(94.9) (5.1) OS.S) (24.2
Winston I 2,714 2,714 86 86 I
(100.0) (100.0
TOTAL I 725,365 478,56R 245,588 1,209 16,799 6,9R5 9,807 7 I
66.0) (33.9) (0.2) (41.6) (58.4) (0.04)
l')

Collins I 35 29 6
(82.4) (17.1 )
Conway I 3.712 3,088 577 47 56 24 32
(83.2) (15.5) (1.3) I (42.9) (57.1)
Corning
1 1.460
1 '460
(100.0)
Cotton Plant 533 40 493
(7.5) (92.5)
Crawfordsville I 1,029 101 928 28 2 26
(9.8) (90.2) (7.1) (92.9)
Cross I 1,126 970 156 19 II 8
(86.1) (13.9) (57.9) (42.1 )
Crossett I 3,307 2,443 860 4 102 17 85
(73.9) (26.0) (0.1 ) ( 16.7) (83.3)
De Valls Bluff I 603 410 193
(68.0) (32.0)
De Witt I 1,609 1,350 259
54 36 18
(83.9) (16.1 ) I (66.7) (33.3)
Delta Special
436 378
I 814 (53.6) (46.4)
Dermott 1,504 407 1,080 17 27 3 24
(27.1) (71.8) (1.1) (ll.l ) (88.9)
Desha County I 89 13 76 I I
(14.6) (85.4) (100.0)
Desha-Drew I 411 82 329 9 2 7
(20.0) (80.0) (22.2) (77.8)
Dollarway I 2,697 .1,179 1,5.1 7 I 89 14 75
(43.7) (56.2) (0.04) ( 15.7) (84.3)
Drew-Central I 805 577 228
(71.7) (28.3)
Dumas I 2,516 1,047 1,469 27 3 24
(4l.6) (58.4) (1 J.l) (88.9)
Earle I 1,403 376 1.022 5 45 8 37
(26.8) (72.8) (0.4) (.I 7.H) (82.2)
EI Dorado I 5,845 3,511 2,333 I 54 22 32
(60.0) (39.9) (0.01) (40.7) (59.3)
Emerson I 444 215 228 I
(48.4) (5 I.4) (0.2)
Emmet I 177 .124 53 8 I 7
(70.1) (29.9) (12.5) (87.5)
England 1'1,264 726 538 72 21 51
(57.4) (42.6) (29.2) (70.8)
Eudora I 1,675 503 1,152 20 39 3 36
(30.0) (68.8) ( 1.2) (7.7) (92.3)
Fairview I 2,037 1,476 561 49 24 25
(72 .5) (27.5) (49.0) (51.0)
N
Foreman
787 542 245
"'" (68.9) (31.1 )
I
......

Appendix M
STUDENTS ENROLLED IN EDUCABLE MENTALLY RETARDED
(EMR) CLASSES BY RACE, FALL 1973'
Table II
ARKANSAS
t
1973-1974 1973-1974
Student EnroUment Enrollment in "EMR" Classes 3
School District 2 (percent of Total EnroUment) (percent of "EMR" Ernollment)
Total I White I Black I OtherS Total I White I Black I Other
Forrest City 5,576 2,192 3,363 21
(39.3) (60.3) (0.4)
Fort Smith 13,563 12,181 1,255 127 205 147 56 2
(89.8) (9.3) (0.9) (71.7) (27.3) (0.1)
Gillett 430 355 75 23 13 10
(82.6) (17.4) (56.5) (43.5)
Glendale 296 185 111
(62.5) (37.5)
Gould 508 107 401 13 4 9
(21.1) (78.9) (30.8) (69.2)
Grady 690 174 516
(25.2) (74.8)
Gurdon 1,075 727 348 39 10 29
(67.6) (32.4) (25.6) (74.4)
Guy Perkins 318 196 122
(61.6) (38.4)
Hamburg 1,503 1,071 430 2
(71.3) (28.6) (0.1)
Hampton 960 601 359 45 9 36
(62.6) (37.4) (20.0) (80.0)
Harmony Grove 700 474 220 6
(67.7) (31.4) (0.9)
Hazen 687 544 143 32 9 23
(79.2) (20.8) (28.1) (71.9)
Helena-West Helena 5,753 2,026 3,697 30 106 14 92
(35.2) (64.3) (0.5) (13.2) (86.8)
Hermitage 716 421 295
(58.8) (41.2)
HoUy Grove 868 191 677 30 30
(22.0) (78.0) (l00.0)
Hope 2,994 1,863 I,J J4 J7 53 J3 40
(62.2) (37.2) (0.6) (24.5) (75.5)
Hot Springs 5,777 4,322 1,427 28 1.28 65 63
(74.8) (24.7) (0.5) (50.8) (49.2)
Humnoke 375 J96 J79
(52.3) (47.7)
Humphrey 373 212 161
(56.8) (43.2)
Huttig 314 180 134
(57.3) (42.7)

Junction City 1,003 584 419
(58.2) (41.8)
Kingsland 238 163 72 3
(68.5) (30.3) (1.3)
Lake Village 1,774 587 1,167 20 38 5 33
(33.1) (65.8) (1.1 ) (13.2) (86.8)
Lakeside 1,890 1,880 10 24 24
(99.5) (0.5) (100.0)
Lawson I 29 13 16
(44.8) (55.2)
Lepanto
776 652 114 10 43 29 14
(84.0) (14.7) (1.3) (67.4) (32.6)
Lewisville I 814 372 442 31 10 21
(45.7) (54.3) (31.3) (67.7)
Linwood I 329 l4 3J5
(4.3) (95.7)
Little Rock I 22,672 11,562 11,071. 39 1 1 ,077 130 946 J
(51.0) (48.8) (0.2) (12.1) (87.8) (0.1)
Lockesburg
491 406 85
(82.7) (17.3)
Lonoke I 1,870 1,257 611 2 20 6 14
(67.2) (32.7) (0.1 ) I (30.0) (70.0)
Luxora I 767 385 372 10
(50.2) (48.5) (1.3)
Magnolia I 3,019 1,946 1,070 3 66 14 52
(64.5) (35.4) (0.1) (21.2) (78.8)
Malvern 3,128 2,366 762 26 12 14
(75.6) (24.4) (46.2) (53.8)
Marianna I 4,807 1,141 3,650 16 47 7 39 I
(23.7) (75.9) (0.3) (14.9) (83.0) (2.1 )
Marion I 2,048 1,183 861 4 73 12 61
(57.8) (42.0) (0.2) (16.4) (83.6)
Marked Tree I 1,354 1,057 297 30 20 10
(78.1) (21.9) (66.7) (33.3)
Marvell I 1,714 336 1,378 41 2 39
(19.6) (80.4) (4.9) (95.1)
McCrory I 991 787 204 52 22 30
(79.4) (20.6) (42.3) (57.7)
McGehee I 1,424 713 711 39 3 36
(50.1) (49.9) (7.7) (92.3)
McNeil I 408 136 272
(33.3) (66.7)
Monticello I 2,019 1,339 680 13 3 10
(66.3) (33.7) (23.1) (76.9)
Morrilton I 2,392 2,063 320 9 82 60 22
(86.2) (13.4) (0.4) (73.2) (26.8)
tv
Mount Holly
338 163 175
-l>- I (48.2)
w
(51.8)

AppendixM
STUDENTS ENROLLED IN EDUCABLE MENTALLY RETARDED
(EMR) CLASSES BY RACE, FALL 1973'
Table n
ARKANSAS
tv
t
1973-1974 1973-1974
Student Enrollment Enrollment in "EMR" C1asses 3
(percent of Total Enrollment) (Percent of "EMR" Enrollment)
Total I White I Black I Oiliers Total T White T Black I Other
School District 2
Nashville 1,517 1,167 349 1 42 4 38
(76.9) (33.0) (0.1) (9.5) (90.5)
New Edinburg 266 168 98
(63.2) (36.8)
Newport 2,957 2,221 736 89 46 43
(75.1) (24.9) (51.7) (48.3)
Norphlet 645 452 193
(70.1) (29.9)
North Little Rock 11,610 8,748 2,820 42 453 142 310 I
(75.3) (24.3) (0.4) (31.3) (6804) (0.2)
Okolona 182 IS 167
(8.2) (91.8)
Osceola 2,255 1,154 1.096 5 43 8 35
(51.2) (48.6) (0.2) (18.6) (81 A)
Palestine 729 421 308
(578) (42.2)
Parkdale 193 9 184
(4.7) (95.3)
Parkers Chapel 314 282 32
(89.8) (10.2)
Parkin 1,080 388 684 8 13 2 II
(35.9) (63.3) (0.7) (IS A) (84.6)
Patmos 47 34 13
(72.3) (27.7)
Philtips Coun ty 502 502
(100.0)
Pine Bluff 8,454 4,452 3,987 15 162 22 140
(52.7) (47.2) (0.2) 03.6) (8604)
Plum Bayou-Tucker 242 21 221
(8.7) (91.3)
Portland 303 39 264
(12.9) (87.1)
Prescott 1,302 770 526 6 17 7 10
(59.1) (4004) (0.5) (41.2) (58.8)
Rison 686 490 196
(71.4) (28.6)
Ross Van Ness 90 73 17
(81.1 ) (18.9)
Russellville 3,960 3,819 125 16 87 71 15 I
(96.4) (3.2) (004) (81.6) (17.2) (1.1)

SI. Charles I 245 149 96
(60.8) (39.2)
Saratoga
339 III 228
(32.7) (67.3)
SherriU I 270 44 226
(16.3) (83.7)
Smackover I 917 593 324
(64.7) (35.3)
SOli th Mississippi I 2,377 1,421 956 56 23 33
(59.8) (40.2) (4Ll) (58.9)
Stamps
1,029 492 534 3 37 I 36
(47.8) (51.9) (0.3) (2.7) (97.3)
Star I 1,320 1,024 296 28 13 15
(77.6) (22.4) (46.4) (53.6)
Stephens 609 214 395
(35.1) (64.9)
Strong 742 221 521
(29.8) (70.2)
Stuttgart 2,705 1,707 998
48 12 36
(63.1) (36.9) I (25.0) (75.0)
Taylor 445 299 146
(67.2) (32.8)
Texarkana 6,522 4,395 2,113 14 60 30 30
(67.4) (32.4) (0.2) (50.0) (50.0)
Thornton I 404 184 220 14 2 12
(45.5) (54.5) (14.3) (85.7)
Tuckerman I 839 737 102
(87.8) (12.2)
TurreU I 914 276 634 4 29 2 27
(30.2) (69.4) (0.4) I (6.9) (93.1)
Tyronza 319 242 76 I
(75.9) (23.8) (0.3)
Union County 245 171 74
(69.8) (30.2)
Urbana 71 3 68
(4.2) (95.8)
Village
191 lOl 90
(52.9) (47.6)
Wabbaseka I 454 1I 437 6
(2.4) (96.3) (1.3)
Waldo I 715 284 431 24 5 19
(39.7) (60.3) (20.8) (79.2)
Warren I 2,003 1,179 824 38 7 31
(58.9) (41.1) (18.4) (81.6)
Washington 313 313
(100.0)
Wa tson Chapel 3,298 1,697 1,601
N
25 4 21
.". (51.5) (48.5) (16.0) (84.0)
I
Ul

tv ... 0\
Appendix LJI
STUDENTS ENROLLED IN EDUCABLE MENTALLY RETARDED
(EMR) CLASSES BY RACE, FALL 1973'
Table II
ARKANSAS
1973-1974 1973-1974
Student Enrollment Enrollment in "EMR" Classes 3
Total I White I Black latherS Total I White I Black lather
School District 2 (Percent of Total Enrollment) (percent of "EMR" Enrollment)
West Memphis 6,766 3,J99 3,567 50 16 34
(47.3) (52.7) (32.0) (68.0)
Wheatley 430 187 243
(43.5) (56.5)
Williford 303 303
(100.0)
WilJisviUe 72 69 3
(95.8) (4.2)
Wilmar 360 113 247
(31.4) (68.6)
Wilmot 505 113 392
(22.4) (77 .6)
Wonderview 373 293 80
(78.6) (21.4)
Wynne 2,967 1,958 1,009 60 18 42
(66.0) (34.0) (30.0) (70.0)
TOTAL 238,208 142,704 94,889 615 4,830 1,381 3,443 6
(59.9) (39.8) (0.3) (28.6) (71.3) (0.1)

AppendlxM
STUDENTS ENROLLED IN EDUCABLE MENTALLY RETARDED
(EMR) CLASSES BY RACE, FALL 1973'
Table III
GEORGIA
tv
+>­
00
1973-1974 1973-1974
Student Enrollment Enrollment in "EMR" Classes 3
School Dislrict 2
(percent of Total Enrollment) (percent of "EMR" Enrollment)
Total I White I Black I OtherS Total I White I Black I Other
Americus City 3,233 1,258 1,970 5 89 8 81
(38.9) (60.9) (0.2) (9.0) (91.0)
Appling 3,627 2,692 934 1 61 32 29
(74.2) (25.8) (0.02) (52.5) (47.5)
Atkinson 1,57 J 941 630 46 11 35
(59.9) (40.1) (23.9) (76.1)
Atlanta City 88,125 15,997 71 ,786 342 4,598 584 3,991 23
(18.2) (81.5) (0.4) (12.7) (86.8) (0.5)
Bacon 2,091 1,691 400 118 53 65
(80.9) (19.1) (44.9) (55.1)
Baker 846 221 625 27 27
(26.1) (73.9) (l00.0)
Baldwin 6,367 3,168 3,173 26 191 60 131
(49.8) (49.8) (0.4) (31.4) (68.6)
Banks 1,251 1,146 104 1 19 8 11
(91.6) (8.3) (0.1) (42.1 ) (57.9)
Barrow 4,215 3,340 868 7 93 40 53
(79.2) (20.6) (0.2) (43.0) (57.0)
Bartow 6,294 5,459 823 12 80 55 25
(86.7) (13.1) (0.2) (68.8) (31.3)
Ben Hill 791 613 178 8 6 2
(77.5) (22.5) (75.0) (25.0)
Berrien 2,996 2,425 562 9 89 47 42
(80.9) (18.8) (0.3) (52.8) (47.2)
Bibb 29,840 14,576 J5,244 20 678 192 486
(48.8) (51.1) (0.1) (28.3) (71.7)
B1eckley 833 700 129 4 52 17 35
(84.0) (15.5) (0.5) (32.7) (67.3)
Brooks 3,034 1,067 1,967 94 20 74
(35.2) (64.8) (21.3) (78.7)
Bryan 2,125 1,390 735 16 4 12
(65.4) (34.6) (25.0) (75.0)
Buford City 1,168 823 345 22 7 15
(70.5) (29.5) (31.8) (68.2)
Burke 4,478 835 3,639 4
(18.6) (81.3) (0.1)
Butts 2,599 1,187 1,412 41 6 35
(45.7) (54.3) (14.6) (85.4)
Calhoun 1,586 414 1,172 60 7 53
(26.1) (73.9) (11.7) (88.3)

3,051 1,767 1,284 102 29 73
Camden I (57.9) (42.1) (28.4) (71.6)
1,570 852 718 61 IS 46
Candler I (54.3) (45.7) (24.6) (75.4)
8,433 6,602 1,830 I 155 66 89
Carroll I (78.3) (21.7) (0.01) (42.6) (57.4)
2,838 1,901 927 10 83 8 75
Carrollton City I (67.0) (32.7) (0.4) (9.6) (90.4)
2,219 1,692 526 1 83 20 63
Cartersville City I (76.3) (23.7) (0.04) (24.1) (75.9)
7,412 7,319 83 10
Catoosa I (98.7) (1.1) (0.1)
1,875 1,148 727 77 21 56
Charlton I (612) (38.8) (27.3) (72.7)
33,767 15,785 17,907 75 861 164 697
Chatham I (46.7) (53.0) (0.2) (19.0) (81.0)
488 217 269 2 30 7 23
Chattahoochee I (44.5) (55.1) (0.4) (23.3) (76.7)
3,722 3,220 494 8 37 29 8
Chattooga
(86.5) (13.3) (0.2) (78.4) (2J .6)
I 8,445 8,111 301 33 86 75 11
Cherokee (96.0) (3.6) (0.4) (87.2) (12.8)
31,152 29,660 1,363 129 365 295 70
Clayton I (95.2) (4.4) (0.4) (80.8) (J 9.2)
10,498 6,609 3,800 89 352 65 287
Clarke I (63.0) (36.2) (0.8) (18.5) (81.5)
1,573 952 619 2 109 37 72
Clinch I (60.5) (39.4) (0.1) (33.9) (66.1)
48,680 47,235 1,247 198 407 318 88 1
Cobb I (97.0) (2.6) (0.4) (78.1) (21.6) (0.2)
1,474 938 536 36 2 34
Cocluan City I (63.6) (36.4) (5.6) (94.4)
5,687 3,647 2,024 16 170 50 120
Coffee I (64.1) (35.6) (0.3) (29.4) (70.6)
7,946 5,405 2,526 15 256 55 201
Colquitt
(68.0) (31.8) (0.2) (21.5) (78.5)
I 6,853 5,237 1,477 139 76 36 39 1
Columbia (76.4) (21.6) (2.0) (47.4) (51.3) (1.3)
1,520 1,295 225 23 13 10
Commerce City
(85.2) (J 4.8) (56.5) (43.5)
I 2,925 1,685 1,237 3 116 38 77 1
Cook (57.6) (42.3) (0.1) (32.8) (66.4) (0.9)
8,352 5,137 3,209 6 191 52 139
Cowela I (61.5) (38.4) (0.1) (27.2) (72.8)
1,718 635 1,083 126 6 120
Crawford
(37.0) (63.0) (4.8) (95.2)
IV I 4,623 2,114 2,508 1 122 23 99
.j>.
\0
Crisp (45.7) (54.3) (0.02) (18.9) (81.1)

Appendix M
STUDENTS ENROLLED IN EDUCABLE MENTALLY RETARDED
(EMR) CLASSES BY RACE, FALL 1973'
Table III
GEORGIA
IV
VI
o
1973-1974 1973-1974
Student Enrollment Enrollment in "EMR" Classes 3
(percent of Total Enrollment) (Percent of "EMR" Enrollment)
School Districe
Total I White I Black I OtherS Total I White I Black I Othe
Dalton City 4,160 3,638 515 7 77 51 26
(87.5) (12.4) (0.2) (66.2) (33.8)
Decatur 5,327 2,538 2,787 2 110 29 81
(47.6) (52.3) (0.03) (26.4) (73.6)
Decatur City 3,780 1,007 2,765 8 95 3 92
(26.6) (73.1) (0.2) (3.2) (96.8)
Dekalb 87,497 75,936 11,076 485 1,024 558 462 4
(86.8) (12.7) (0.6) (54.5) (45.1) (0.4)
Dodge 4,175 2,659 1,514 2 121 36 85
(63.7) (36.3) (0.04) (29.8) (70.2)
Dooly 2,311 559 1,749 3 73 15 58
(24.2) (75.7) (0.1) (20.5) (79.5)
Dougherty 22,037 12,057 9,914 66 317 117 200
(54.7) (55.0) (0.3) (36.9) (63.1)
Early 2,925 1,091 1,834 161 19 142
(37.3) (62.7) (11.8) (88.2)
Echols 516 365 151 45 16 29
(70.7) (29.3) (35.6) (64.4)
Effingham 3,681 2,641 1,040 18 10 8
(71.7) (28.3) (55.6) (44.4)
Elbert 3,880 2,169 1,711 76 11 65
(55.9) (44.1) (14.5) (85.5)
Emanuel 4,861 2,879 1,981 1 104 23 81
(59.2) (40.8) (0.02) (22.1) (77.9)
Evans 1,932 1,027 905 62 7 55
(53.2) (46.8) (11.3) (88.7)
Fayette 3,790 3,287 503 64 23 41
(86.7) (13.3) (35.9) (64.1)
Fitzgerald City 2,207 1,172 1,035 77 29 48
(53.1) (46.9) (37.7) (62.3)
Franklin 3,169 2,594 571 4 69 23 46
(81.9) (18.0) (0.1) (33.3) (66.7)
Fulton 34,198 30,170 3,838 190 510 297 212 1
(88.2) (11.2) (0.6) (58.2) (41.6) (0.2)
Glascock 591 452 137 2 14 5 9
(76.5) (23.2) (0.3) (35.7) (64.3)
Glynn 11,604 8,100 3,410 94 314 84 227 3
(69.8) (29.4) (0.8) (26.8) (72.3) (1.0)
Grady 4,231 2,280 1,941 10 176 36 140
(53.9) (45.9) (0.2) (20.5) (79.5)

Greene I 2,385 545 1,838 2 63 6 57
(22.9) (77.1) (0.1) (9.5) (90.5)
Griffin City I 9,444 6,255 3,180 9 207 73 134
(66.2) (33.7) (O.l) (35.3) (64.7)
Gwinnetl I 23,253 22,425 769 59 330 225 104 1
(96.4) (3.3) (0.3) (68.2) (31.5) (0.3)
Hancock I 2,510 45 2,465 30 2 28
(1.8) (98.2) (6.7) (93.3)
Haralson I 2,596 2,389 200 7 50 44 6
(92.0) (7.7) (0.3) (88.0) (12.0)
Harris I 2,639 1,115 1,522 2 "79 6 72 1
(42.3) (57.7) (0.1) (7.6) (91.1 ) (1.3)
Hart I 3,703 2,560 1,143 80 31 49
(69.1) (30.9) (38.8) (61.3)
Heard I 1,333 918 415 34 4 30
(68.9) (31.1) (11.8) (88.2)
Henry I 6,432 3,996 2,430 6 165 25 140
(62.1) (37.8) (O.l) (15.2) (84.8)
Hogansville City I 1,137 643 494 48 9 39
(56.6) (43.4) (18.8) (81.3)
Houston I 16,321 12,318 3,822 181 399 126 273
(75.5) (23.4) (1.1) (31.6) (68.4)
Irwin I 1,854 917 937 54 12 42
(49.5) (50.5) (22.2) (77.8)
Jackson I 1,881 1,733 147 1 39 26 13
(92.1 ) (7.8) (O.l) (66.7) (33.3)
Jasper I 1,389 504 881 4
(36.3) (63.4) (0.3)
Jeff Davis I 2,585 2,091 494 59 22 37
(80.9) (19.1) (37.3) (62.7)
Jefferson I 4,118 985 3,131 2 61 10 51
(23.9) (76.0) (0.04) (16.4) (83.6)
Jefferson City I 1,654 1,271 383 69 13 56
(76.8) (23.2) (18.8) (81.2)
Jenkins I 2,118 848 1,270 56 15 41
(40.0) (60.0) (26.8) (73.2)
Johnson I 1,617 834 783 40 40
(51.6) (48.4) (100.0)
Jones I 3,121 1,763 1,351 7 53 10 43
(56.5) (43.3) (0.2) (18.9) (81.1)
Lagrange City
5,160 2,748 2,412 157 27 130
(53.3) (46.7) (17.2) (82.8)
Lamar I 2,244 971 1,273 46 9 37
(43.3) (56.7) (19.6) (80.4)
Lan;er I 1,376 853 515 8 54 14 40
(62.0) (37.4) (0.6) (25.9) (74.1)
Laurens
N
4,442 2,450 1,991 1 136 27 109
VI (55.2) (44.8) (0.01) (19.9) (80.1)
I
....

App@ndblfl
STUDENTS ENROLLED IN EDUCA8LE MENTALLY RETARDED
(EMR) CLASSES BY RACE, FALL 1973'
Table III
GEORGIA
tv
Vl
tv
1973-1974 1973-1974 3
Student Enrollment Enrollment in "EMR" Classes
(percent of Total Enrollment) (percent of "EMR" Enrollment)
Total I White I Black I Others Total I White I Black I Other
School District 2
Lee 2,135 1,196 939 64 7 57
(56.0) (44.0) (l0.9) (89.1)
Uberty 3,597 1,753 1,811 33 94 15 79
(48.7) (50.3) (0.9) (16.0) (84.0)
Lincoln 1,474 595 879 58 4 54
(40.4) (59.6) (6.9) (93.1)
Madison 3,645 2,992 647 6 103 45 58
(82.1) (17.8) (0.2) (43.7) (56.3)
Marietta Ci ty 4,965 3,774 1,191 104 44 60
(76.0) (24.0) (42.3) (57.7)
Marion 1,352 565 787 79 5 74
(41.8) (58.2) (6.3) (93.7)
McDuffie 3,818 1,930 1,885 3 56 7 49
(50.6) (49.4) (0.1) (12.5) (87.5)
Mcintosh 2,073 825 1,248 53 13 40
(39.8) (60.2) (24.5) (75.5)
Meriwether 4,558 1,814 2,739 5 191 26 165
(39.8) (60.1) (OJ) (13.6) (86.4)
Miller 1,519 926 593 70 6 64
(61.0) (39.0) (8.6) (91.4)
Mitchell 2,484 523 l,958 3 55 5 50
(21.1) (78.8) (0.1) (9.1) (90.9)
Monroe 2,454 1,003 1,451 55 3 52
(40.9) (59.1) (5.5) (94.5)
Montgomery 1,525 822 703 46 11 35
(53.9) (46.1) (23.9) (76.1)
Morgan 2,685 1,150 1,535 61 11 50
(42.8) (57.2) (18.0) (82.0)
Muscogee 37,719 24,218 13,280 221 SI6 204 312
(64.2) (35.2) (0.6) (39.5) (60.5)
Newton 7,171 4,577 2,584 10 90 32 58
(63.8) (36.0) (0.1) (35.6) (64.4)
Oconee 1,986 1,591 393 2 98 27 71
(80.1) (19.8) (0.1) (27.6) (72.4)
Oglethorpe 2,065 1,049 1,016 61 I 60
(50.8) (49.2) (1.6) (98.4)
Paulding 5,039 4,598 440 1 102 70 32
(91.2) (8.7) (0.2) (68.6) (31.4)
Peach 3,725 1,345 2,380 91 4 87
(36.1) (63.9) (4.4) (95.6)

Claiborne I 2,380 109 2,271 64 2 62
(4.6) (95.4) (3.1) (96.9)
Clarksdale Mun. Sep. I 3,971 696 3,269 6 61 6 55
(17.5) (82.3) (0.2) (9.8) (90.2)
Clay I 778 220 558 25 25
(28.3) (71.7) (100.0)
Clinton Mun. Sep. I 3,688 3,079 607 2 45 26 19
(83.5) (16.5) (0.1) (57.8) (42.2)
Coahoma I 4,016 345 3,651 20 n 2 70
(8.6) (90.9) (0.5) 12.8) (97.2)
Coffeeville Cons. I 1,269 392 877
(30.9) (69.1)
Columbia Mun. Sep. I 2,061 1,255 806 120 20 100
(60.9) (39.1) (16.7) (83.3)
Columbus M1.ItI. Sep. I 7,99J 4,163 3,815 13 183 33 150
(52.1) (47.7) (0.2) (18.0) (82.0)
Copiah I 3,140 1,101 2.039 110 3 107
(35.1) (64.9) (2.7) (97.3)
Corintil MUll. Sep. I 2.229 1.651 577 I 60 22 38
(74.1) (25.9) (0.04) (36.7) (63.3)
Drew Mun. Scpo I 1,268 186 1.082 127 2 125
(14.7) (85.3) ( 1.6) (98.4)
Durant Mun. Sep. I 731 361 370
(49.4) (50.6)
East J aspcr COilS. I 1.599 29 1,570
(1.8) (98.2)
East TalJahatehie COilS.
2.460 895 1,565
(36.4) (63.6)
Forest MUll. Sep. I 1.647 940 706 1 24 11 13
(57.J) (42.9) (0.1 ) (45.8) (54.2)
George I 3.595 3,071 524 33 15 18
(85.4) ( 14.6) (45.5) (54.5)
Greenville Mun. Scpo I 10,283 3,239 7.020 24 189 44 145
(31.5) (68.3) (02) 123.3) (76.7)
Grenada MUll. Scpo I 3.968 j .215 2,751 2 23 3 20
(30.6) (69.3) (0.1) (13.0) (87.0)
Gulfport MUll. Scpo I 8.035 5,757 2,239 39 171 67 104
171.6) (27.9) (0.5) (39.2) (60.8)
Hancock I 1.688 1.488 173 27 9 7 2
(88.2) (10.2) !l.6) (77.8) (22.2)
Harrison I 9,595 7.040 2.509 46 127 87 40
(73.4) (261) 10.5) (68.5) (31.5)
Hattiesburg Mun. $ep. I 6.693 3.186 3.507 150 18 132
(476) (52.4) ( 12.0) (880)
Hazcllllllsl MUll. Scpo I 2,278 390 1,888
(17.1 ) (82.9)
tv Hinds
VI
1 10.472 4.143 6,320 9 302 28 274
-.l
(39.6) 160.4) (0.1 ) 19.3) (90.7
I

Appendix M
STUDENTS ENROLLED IN EDUCABLE'MENTALLY RETARDED
(EMR) CLASSES BY RACE, FALL 1973'
Table IV
MISSISSIPPI
N
VI
00
1973-1974 1973-1974
Student Enrollment Enrollment in "EMR" Oasses 3
School District 2
(Percent of Total Enrollment) (Percent of "EMR" Enrollment)
Total I White I Black I OtherS Total T While I Black I Olller
Holly Bluff Cons. 369 93 276 8 8
(25.2) (74.8) (100.0)
Holly Springs Mun. Sep. 2,108 373 t,734 I 43 9 34
(17.7) (82.3) (0.04) (20.9) (79.1)
Holmes 4,877 12 4,865 94 94
(0.2) (99.8) (100.0)
Houston Mun. Sep. 1,840 1,139 700 1 55 30 25
(61.9) (38.0) (0.1) (54.5) (45.5)
Humphreys 3,526 309 3217 37 9 28
(8.8) (91.2) (24.3) (75.7)
Indianola Mun. Sep. 3,445 270 3,174 1
(7.8) (92.1) (0.02)
luka Mun. Sep. 1,060 991 69
(93.5) (6.5)
Jackson 6,656 6,184 472 151 7
(92.9) (7.1)
Jackson Mun. Sep. 28,830 9,378 19,429 23 709 99 610
(32.5) (67.4) (0.1) (14.0) (86.0)
Jefferson 2,368 12 2,356 30 1 29
(0.5) (99.5) (3.3) (96.7)
Jefferson Davis 3,196 988 2,208
(30.9) (69.1)
Jones 7,892 6,492 1,375 25 128 57 68 3
(82.3) (17.4) (0.3) (44.5) (53.1) (2.3)
Kemper 2,090 319 1,767 4
(15.3) (84.5) (0.2)
Kosciusko Mun. Sep. 2,193 1,177 1,011 5 34 5 29
(53.7) (46,1) (0.2) (14.7) (85.3)
Lafayette 2,058 1,022 1,036 33 6 27
(49.7) (50.3) (18.2) (81.8)
Lauderdale 5,457 3,704 1,704 49 94 17 77
(67.9) (31.2) (0.9) (18.1) (81.9)
Laurel Mun. Sep. 5,006 2,543 2,459 4 31 17 14
(50.8) (49.1) (0.1) (54.8) (45.2)
Lawrence 2,903 1,817 1,084 2 42 10 32
(62.6) (37.3) (0.1) (23.8) (76.2)
Leake 3,526 1,650 1,857 19 52 9 43
(46.8) (52.7) (0.5) (17.3) (82.7)
Lee 5,233 3,706 1,527 151 44 107
(70.8) (29.2) (29.1) (70.9)

Leflore 1 5,127 644 4,476 7 37 37 I
(l2.6) (83.3) (0.3) (100.0)
Leland Cons. I 2,642 528 2,111 3 55 20 35 I
(20.0) (79.9) (O.I) (36.4) (63.6)
Lincoln I 2,250 1,519 731 31 10 21 I
(67.5) (32.5) (32.3) (67.7)
LouisviUc Mun. Sep. I 4,367 2,154 2,207 6 71 26 45 I
(49.3) (50.5) (O.!) (36.6) (63.4)
Lowndes I 3,987 2,052 1,929 6 66 10 56 I
(51.5) (48.4) (0.2) (l5.2) (84.8)
Madison I 3,989 700 3,289 134 11 123 I
(17.5) (82.5) (8.2) (91.8)
Marion I 2,786 J,590 1,192 4 68 2J 47 I
(57. J) (42.8) (0.1) (30.9) (69.1)
MarshaU I 4,675 1,632 3,(l43 J5 7 8 I
(34.9) (65.1) (46.7) (53.3)
McComb Mun. Sep. I 3,486 1,506 1,979 t 114 17 97 I
(43.2) (56.8) (0.02) (14.9) (85.1 )
Monroe I 2,388 1,895 493
(79.4) (20.6)
Montgomery
1,569 498 1,071
(31.7) (68.3)
Moss Point Mun. Sep. I 6,897 3,603 3,290 4 13 1 J2
(52.2) (47.7) (0.1) (7.7) (92.3)
Natchez Spec. Mun.
8,108 2,600 5,506 2 245 22 223 I
(32.1) (67.9) (0.02) (9.0) (91.0)
Neshoba I 2,598 1,888 686 24 22 15 7 I
(72.7) (26.4) (0.9) (68.2) (31.8)
Nettleton Line Cons. I 1,379 936 443 30 10 20 I
(67.9) (32.1 ) (33.3) (66.7)
New Albany Mun. Sep.
2,137 , ,588 549 15 7 8 I
(74.3) (25.7) (46.7) (53.3)
Newton I 1,682 1,092 575 15
(64.9) (34.2) (0.9)
Newton Spec. Mun.
1,506 637 867 2 16 I 15 I
(42.3) (57.6) (0 ,) I
(6.3) (93.8)
North Panola Cons. I 2,787 410 2,377
( 14.7) (85.3)
North Pike Cons. I 1,122 628 494
(56.0) (44.0)
North Tippah Cons.
1,386 1,167 219 66 32 34 I
(84.2) (l5.8) (48.5) (51.5)
Noxubee I 3,034 19 3,008 7 96 96 I
(O.6) (99.1) (0.2) OOO.O}
Ocean Springs Mun. Sep. I 3,940 3,658 255 27 64 43 21 I
(92.8) (6.5) (0.7) (67.2) (32.8)
Okolona Mun. Scpo
1,409 604 805 30 2 28 I
(42.9) (57.1) (6.7) (93.3)
I
N
Ul
\Q

South Pike Cons. I 2,575 893 1,677 5 72 13 59
(34.7) (65.1) (0.2) (18.1) (81.9)
South Tippah Cons.
2,495 1,960 535 64 28 36
(78.6) (21.4) (43.8) (56.3)
Starkville Mun. Sep. I 3,530 1,818 1,688 24 102 15 87
(51.5) (47.8) (0.7) (14.7) (85.3)
Stone I 2,051 1,436 611 4
(70.0) (29.8) (0.2)
Sunflower I 3,243 193 3,050 133 3 130
(6.0) (94.0) (2.3) (97.7)
Tate I 3,519 1,367 2,152 122 6 116
(38.8) (61.2) (4.9) (95.1)
Union I 2,439 2,182 257
(89.5) (10.5)
Union Spec. Mun. I 845 628 217 5 2 3
(74.3) (25.7) (40.0) (60.0)
Vicksburg Mun. Sep. I 4,471 1,155 3,302 14 104 9 95
(25.8) (73.9) (0.3) (8.7) (91.3)
Walthall I 2,729 1,031 1,698 22 22
(37.8) (62.2) (100.0)
Water Valley Cons. I 1,442 818 624
(56.7) (43.3)
Wayne I 4,100 2,356 1,744
(57.5) (42.5)
Webster I 2,336 1,701 635 43 12 31
(72.8) (27.2) (27.9) (72.1)
West Jasper Cons. I 1,935 1,060 875 30 5 25
(54.8) (45.1) (16.7) (83.3)
West Tallahatchie Cons. I 2,370 281 2,089 70 2 68
(11.9) (88.1) (2.9) (97.1)
Western Line Cons. I 2,194 611 1,579 4 41 10 31
(27.8) (72.0) (0.2) (24.4) (75.6)
Wilkinson I 2,261 54 2,207 20 20
(2.4) (97.6) (100.0)
Winona I 1,399 676 723
(48.3) (51.7)
Yazoo I 2,266 311 1,949 6 59 1 58
(13.7) (86.0) (0.3) (1.7) (98.3)
Yazoo City Mun. Sep. I 3,770 1,336 2,434 46 11 35
(35.4) (64.6) (23.9) (76.1)
TOTAL I 436,172 210,352 224,952 868 7,694 7
1,740 5,798 5
(48.2) (51.6) (0.2) (23.1) (76.9) (0.1)
t-l
Q\-

AppendixM
STUDENTS ENROLLED IN EDUCABLE MENTALLY RETARDED
(EMR) CLASSES BY RACE, FALL 1973'
Table V
SOUTH CAROUNA
tv
Rj
1973-1974 1973-1974
Student EnroUment EnroUment in "EMR" C1asses 3
School Dislrict 2 (percent of Total EnroUment) (percent of "EMR" EnroUment)
Total I White I Black I Others Total I White I Black I Other
Aiken 23,979 16,284 7,633 62 520 151 369
(67.9) (31.8) (0.3) (29.0) (71.0)
Allendale 2,505 567 1,938 129 12 117
(22.6) (77.4) (9.3) (90.7)
Anderson #1 4,514 3,909 600 5 116 60 56
(86.6) (13.3) (0.1) (51.7) (48.3)
Anderson #2 3,809 2,879 930 289 166 123
(75.6) (24.4) (57.4) (42.6)
Anderson #3 2,325 1,686 636 3 50 24 26
(72.5) (27.4) (0.1) (48.0) (52.0)
Anderson #4 2,324 1,571 752 1 73 44 29
(67.6) (32.4) (0.04) (60.3) (39.7)
Bamberg #1 2,203 891 1,311 1 121 11 110
(40.4) (59.5) (0.04) (9.1) (90.9)
Bamberg #2 1,678 257 1,416 5 45 2 43
(15.3) (84.4) (0.3) (4.4) (95.6)
BarnweU #19 1,339 522 816 1
(39.0) (60.9) (0.1 )
BarnweU #29 1,053 482 571 61 61
(45.8) (54.2) (100.0)
BarnweU #45 2,172 1,246 926 70 36 34
(57.4) (42.6) (51.4) (48.6)
Beaufort 9,802 3,936 5,799 67 246 17 229
(40.2) (59.2) (0.7) (6.9) (93.1)
Berkeley 18,868 11,549 7,122 197 748 223 522 3
(61.2) (37.7) (1.0) (29.8) (69.8) (0.4)
Calhoun #1 1,751 253 1,496 2 71 8 63
(14.4) (85.4) (1.1) (11.3) (88.7)
Calhoun #2 736 4 732
(0.5) (99.5)
Charleston 54,835 27,666 26,790 379 609 156 449 4
(50.5) (48.9) (0.7) (25.6) (73.7) (0.7)
Cherokee 8,598 6,223 2,370 5 230 117 113
(72.4) (27.6) (0.1) (50.9) (49.1)
Chester 7,560 3,641 3,915 4 337 57 280
(48.2) (51.8) (0.1) (16.9) (83.1)
Chesterfield 8,893 5,251 3,640 2 234 57 177
(59.0) (40.9) (0.02) (24.4) (75.6)
Clarendon #1 1,903 1,903 122 122
(100.0) (100.0)

Clarendon #2 I 3,246 784 2,462 54 8 46
(24.2) (75.8) (14.8) (85.2)
Clarendon #3 I 1,247 530 717 57 5 52
(42.5) (57.5) (8.8) (91.2)
Darlington I 13,403 6,136 7,262 5 638 110 528
(45.8) (54.2) (0.03) (17.2) (82.8)
Dillon #1 I 1,377 584 785 8 54 10 42 2
(42.4) (57.0) (0.6) (18.5) (77.8) (3.7)
Dillon #2 I 4,642 2,232 2,312 98 158 27 121 10
(48.1) (49.8) (2.1) (17.1) (76.6) (6.3)
Dillon #3 I 2,075 1,000 1,075 46 11 35
(48.2) (51.8) (23.9) (76.1)
Dorchester #1 I 1,654 410 1,243 1 31 2 29
(24.8) (75.2) (0.1) (6,5) (93.5)
Dorchester #2 I 6,917 5,364 1,509 44 155 50 105
(77.5) (21.8) (0.6) (32.3) (67.7)
Dorchester #3 I 1,429 428 1,001
(30.0) (70.0)
Edgefield I 3,605 969 2,636 57 3 54
(26.9) (73.1) (5.3) (94.7)
Fairfield I 4,920 1,136 3,784 116 8 108
(23.1) (76.9) (6.9) (93.1)
Florence #1 I 14,354 8,372 5,977 5 256 59 197
(58.3) (41.6) (0.03) (23.0) (77.0)
Florence #2 I 1,578 786 792 70 11 59
(49.8) (50.2) (15.7) (84.3)
Florence #4 I 1,489 198 1,291 112 2 110
(13.3) (86.7) (1.8) (98.2)
Florence #5 I 1,324 940 384 64 13 51
(71.0) (29.0) (20.3) (79.7)
Georgetown I 9,208 3,536 5,662 10 225 30 195
(38.4) (61.5) (0.1) (13.3) (86.7)
Greenville I 56,598 43,835 12,635 128 1,452 578 874
(77.4) (22.3) (0.2) (39.8) (60.2)
Greenwood #50 I 9,931 6,239 3,675 17 72 15 57
(62.8) (37.0) (0.2) (20.8) (79.2)
Greenwood #51 I 1,329 1,027 302 19 5 14
(77.3) (22.7) (26.3) (73.7)
Greenwood #52 I 362 227 134 1 10 1 9
(62.7) (37.0) (0.3) (10.0) (90.0)
Hampton #1 I 2,566 1,218 1,348 134 18 116
(47.5) (52.5) (13.4) (86.6)
Hampton #2 I 1,703 275 1,428 148 2 146
(16.1) (83.9) (1.4) (98.6)
Jasper I 3,113 677 2,436 83 9 74
(21.7) (78.3) (10.8) (89.2)
t-) Kershaw
8,932 5,259 3,668 5 594 105 489
C7\ ..., I (58.9) (41.1) (0.1) (17.7) (82.3)

Appendix M
STUDENTS ENROLLED IN EDUCABLE MENTALLY RETARDED
(EMR) CLASSES BY RACE, FALL 1973'
Table V
SOUTH CAROLINA
N
0\
"""
1973-1974 1973-1974
Student Enrollment Enrollment in "EMR" Oasses 3
School District 2
(percent of Total Enrollment) (percent of "EMR" Enrollment)
Total I White I Black I Others Total I White I Black I Othe
Lee #1 4,453 661 3,792 258 27 231
(14.8) (85.2) (10.5) (89.5)
Lexington #1 6,039 5,498 537 4 63 44 19
(91.0) (8.9) (0.1) (69.8) (30.2)
Lexington #2 11,505 10,241 1,241 23 160 78 82
(89.0) (10.8) (0.2) (48.8) (51.3)
Lexington #3 2,543 1,580 962 1 41 17 24
(62.1) (37.8) (0.03) (41.5) (58.5)
Lexington #4 1,396 913 481 2 41 19 22
(65.4) (34.5) (0.1 ) (46.3) (53.7)
Lexington #5 6,603 6,001 588 14 137 39 98
(90.9) (8.9) (0.2) (28.5) (71.5)
Marion #1 3,262 J,380 1,882 233 25 208
(42.3) (57.7) (10.7) (89.3)
Marion #2 3,188 1,202 1,986 114 13 101
(37.7) (62.3) (11.4) (88.6)
Marion #3 938 131 807 52 1 51
(14.0) (86.0) (1.9) (98.1)
Marion #4 563 152 411
(27.0) (73.0)
Marlboro 7,785 3,496 4,285 4 261 56 205
(44.9) (55.0) (0.1 ) (21.5) (78.5)
McCormick 2,305 445 1,860 62 2 60
(19.3) (80.7) (3.2) (96.8)
Newberry 6,621 3,683 2,938
(55.6) (44.4)
Oconee 9,905 8,761 1,130 14 361 244 117
(88.5) (11.4) (0.1) (67.6) (32.4)
Orangeburg #1 1,352 469 881 2 100 10 90
(34.7) (65.2) (0.1) (10.0) (90.0)
Orangeburg #2 1,137 164 973 26 26
(14.4) (85.6) (100.0)
Orangeburg #3 4,199 647 3,552 125 5 120
(15.4) (84.6) (4.0) (96.0)
Orangeburg #4 1,635 758 877 36 8 28
(46.4) (53.6) (22.2) (77.8)
Orangeburg #5 6,590 1,877 4,713 169 15 154
(28.5) (71.5) (8.9) (91.1)
Orangeburg #6 1,397 558 839
(39.9) (60.1)

Orangeburg #7 1,112 158 954 9 9
(14.2) (85.8) (100.0)
Orangeburg #8 600 280 320 23 23
(46.7) (53.3) (100.0)
Pickens 13,748 12,200 1,510 38 287 189 98
(88.7) (11.0) (0.3) (65.9) (34.1)
Richland #1 I 34,194 14,028 20,112 54 721 168 553
(41.0) (58.8) (0.2) (23.3) (76.7)
Richland #2 I 10,125 8,146 1,738 241
(80.5) (17.2) (2.4)
Saluda I 2,511 1,443 1,068 130 9 121
(57.5) (42.5) (6.9) (93.1)
Spartanburg #1 4,226 3,389 829 8 154 82 72
(80.2) (19.6) (0.2) (53.2) (46.8)
Spartanburg #2 5,868 4,973 894 1 102 51 51
(84.7) (15.2) (0.01) (50.0) (50.0)
Spartanburg #3 3,372 2,612 757 3 55 25 30
(77.5) (22.4) (0.1) (45.5) (54.5)
Spartanburg #4 2,633 1,925 706 2 14 6 8
(73.1) (26.8) (0.1) (42.9) (57.1)
Spartanburg #5 4,089 2,930 1,157 2 130 43 87
(71.7) (28.3) (0.04) (33.1) (66.9)
Spartanburg #6 7,279 6,157 1,108 14 190 110 80
(84.6) (15.2) (0.2) (57.9) (42.1)
Spartanburg #7 12,073 7,288 4,754 31 857 170 687
(60.4) (39.4) (0.3) (19.8) (80.2)
Sumter #2 10,183 4,097 5,997 89 190 19 171
(40.2) (58.9) (0.9) (10.0) (90.0)
Sumter #17 I 10,472 5,017 5,443 12 925 141 783 1
(47.9) (52.0) (0.1) (15.2) (84.6) (0.1)
Williamsburg
9,444 1,859 7,585 553 20 533
(19.7) (80.3) (3.6) (96.4)
York #1 I 3,794 2,388 1,404 2 99 26 73
(62.9) (37.0) (0.1) (26.3) (73.7)
York #2 I 2,770 2,009 760 1 132 40 92
(72.5) (27.4) (0.03) (30.3) (69.7)
York #4 I 2,515 2,156 357 2 69 39 30
(85.7) (14.2) (0.1) (56.5) (43.5)
TOTAL I 542,273 312,651 228,002 1,620 15,555 3,964 11,571 20
(57.7) (42.0) (0.3) (25.5) (74.4) (0.1)
tv
8:

APPENDIX M
FOOTNOTES
11973-74 student enrollment figures were taken from the School System Summary Reports (Form OS/CR 101, Item VI. A.) submitted
to the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare in the fall of 1973. Over 70 percent of the school districts
in these five states were surveyed by OCR in the fall of 1973, and the reports submitted by over 90 percent of the 679 districts
swveyed were analyzed by CDF staff.
2The majority of the school districts in four of these five states are county school districts. Therefore, in Alabama, GeOIgia, Mississippi
and South Carolina, we did not include ·County" in the names of the county school districts. In Arkansas, where there are few county
school districts, the ·County" notation was used but the particular organizational structure of the other districts was not indicated.
3The enrollment in educable mentally retarded classes were taken from the School System Summary Reports (Form OS/CR 101,
Item VI. B.) submitted to the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare in the fall of 1973. OCR asked
each school district to record on Form OS/CR 101 the sum of pupils reported by the individual schools as being in educable mentally retarded
(EMR) or educable mentally handicapped (EMH) classes for any part of the school day. We recorded the figures as they were
totaled by the individual districts. In a few instances where the sum of the students by race and ethnic group did not equal the total recorded,
the total was adjusted accordingly.
4This percentage was calculated by dividing the number of students in EMR classes by the total enrollment.
sThe ·other" category includes students recorded on Form OS/CR 101 as being American Indian, Asian American or Spanish Surnamed
American.
6 Since Wl!. noted a discrepancy between the enrollments in EMR classes reported on Form OS/CR 101 and on Form OS/CR 102, we
used those reported on Form OS/CR 102.
7The Jackson County, Mississippi School District did not report racial breakdowns for its students in EMR classes. Consequently, the
total enrollment in EMR classes differs from the sum of the racial breakdowns.
266

A. ppendi.'\: N
SPECIAL EDUCATION IN CDF SURVEY D1STRlCfS
Table I
OCR DATA' ON ENROLLMENTS
Enrollments in Gasses for Educable
Mentally Retarded (EMR) and
Educable Mentally Handicapped (EMH)
1973-1974 School Enrollments (percent of Total
(percent of Total Enrollment) EMR/EMH Enrollment)
Spanish Spanish
School Surnamed American Asian Surnamed
State District 2 Total White Black American Indian American Total White Black American Other
Alabama Au tauga County 7,278 5,003 2,262 4 7 2 104 37 67
(68.7) (31.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.0) (35.6) (64.4)
Montgomery 36,293 19,217 17,030 19 4 23 1,002 191 809 2
(52.9) (46.9) (0.1) (0.0) (0.1) (19.1) (80.7) (0.2)
Colorado Denver 87,620 49,892 15,584 21,104 371 669 1,631 453 545 624 9
(56.9) (17.8) (24.1) (0.4) (0.8) (27.8) (33.4) (38.3) (0.5)
District 135,079 4,333 129,248 837 20 641 87 3
of Columbia (3.2) (95.7) (0.6) (0.0) (0.5)
87
Georgia Bibb County 29,840 14,576 15,244
(48.8) (51.1)
7
(0.0)
3
(0.0)
10
(0.0)
678 192 486
(28.3) (71.7)
Hancock County 2,510 45
(1.8)
2,465
(98.2)
30 2 28
(6.7) (93.3)
Iowa Davenport 23,341 21,143
(90.6)
1,606
(6.9)
486
(2.1 )
74
(0.3)
32
(0.1 )
333 251 76
(75.4) (22.8)
6
(J .8)
Kentucky Floyd County 9,196 9,163
(99.6)
29
(0.3)
4
(0.0)
101 101
(100.0)
Massachusetts Cambridge 9,884 7,640 1,590 460 13 181 73 51 19 3
(77.3) (16.1) (4.7) (0.1) (1.8) (69.9) (26.0) (4.1)
Holyoke 9,023 7,443 393 1,173 2 12 53 41 8 4
(82.5) (4.4) (13.0) (0.0) (0.1) (77.4) (15.1) (7.5)
New Bedford 16,658 14,022 2,127 473 6 30 263 181 72 10
(84.2) (12.8) (2.8) (0.0) (0.2) (68.8) (27.4) (3.8)
Springfield 29,628 19,218 7,521 2,805 19 65 340 138 128 74
(64.9) (25.4) (9.5) (0.1) (0.2) (40.6) (37.6) (21.8)
Mississippi Canlon 3,837 209 3,628 55 5 50
(5.4) (94.6) (9.1) (90.9)
South Carolina Richland County 34,194 14,028 20,112 26 4 24 721 5 168 553
No.1 (41.0) (58.8) (0.1) (0.0) (0.1) (23.3) (76.7)
Sumler County 10,183 4,097 5,997 37 17 35 190 19 171
No.2 (40.2) (58.9) (0.4) (0.2) (0.3) (10.0) (90.0)
268

EnroUments in Qasses
for Trainable MentaUy
Percent of Total Retarded (TMR) and Severely Emotionally PhysicaUy Handicapped or
Schoo.l Emollmen I Trainable Men tally Disturbed, and Socially Specific Learning
in EMR/EMH Classes Handicapped (TMH) Maladjusted Disability
Spanish
Surnamed
Total While Black American Total While Black Other Total White Black Other Tolal White Black Other
1.4 0.7 3.0
2.8 1.0 4.8 26 26
1.9 .9 3.5 2.9 6 5 347 225 55 67
3
779 25 751 3 2,282 3
38 2,240 4 923 32 883 8
2.3 1.3 3.2 74 28 46 27 16 11 146 83 63
1.2 4.4 1.1
1.4 1.2 4.7 1.2 114 104 7 3 73 71 1 109 106 3
1.1 1.1 13 13 2,565 4 2,565 20 20
0.7 0.7 1.2 0.7 37 27 7 3 1.34 106 25 3 328 291 26 11
0.6 0.6 2.0 0.3 16 16 129 96 11 22 108 81 6 21
1.6 1.3 3.4 2.1 55 42 11 2 56 35 17 4 314 272 34 8
1.1 0.7 1.7 2.6 71 51 16 4 296 92 67 137 388 273 69 46
1.4 2.4 1.4 17 1 16 34 33 64 3 61
2.1 1.2 2.7 170 5
86 82 2 855 5
1.9 0.5 2.9 1,818 6
135 720 142 5
85 57
338 1,479 1 98 23 75
269

Learning Deaf!Hard Blind! Speech Physically Home!
Disability of Hearing Visually Impaired Impaired Handicapped Hospital
Elementary E1ementary - Self Elementary - Self Elementary Elementary Some Program
Secondary - Resource Contained and Contained and Secondary - Itinerant Secondary - Self Available
Room Resource Room Resource Room Teacher Contained
Secondary - Resource Secondary - Resource
Room Room and
Itinerant Teacher
Not Applicable Elementary -Itinerant Elementary - Itinerant Elementary Elementary Some Program
Teacher Teacher Secondary - Itinerant Secondary - Self Available
Secondary - Itinerant Secondary - Itinerant Teacher Contained
Teacher and Teacher and
Vocational Vocational
Training Training
Elementary - Resource Cooperative Cooperative Elementary Cooperative Some Program
Room and Arrangement Arrangement Secondary - Itinerant Arrangement Available
Cooperative Teacher
Arrangement
Elementary Self Contained No Information Elementary Elementary No Wormation
Secondary - Resource Secondary - Itinerant Secondary -
Room Teacher Cooperative
Arrangement
Some Program Some Program No Information Some Program No Information ' Some Prcgram
Available Available Available Available
Elementary - Self Elementary Elementary Elementary - Itinerant Elementary - Self Some Program
Con tained and Secondary - Itinerant Secondary - Teacher Contained Available
Itinerant Teacher Teacher Itinerant
Secondary - Itinerant Teacher
Teacher
Elementary Elementary - Self Elementary Elementary No Information Some Program
Secondary - Resource Contained and Secondary - Secondary - Itinerant Available
Room Resource Room Cooperative Teacher
Secondary - Itinerant Arrangement
Teacher
Elementary - Self Elementary - Self Elementary - Self Elementary - Itinerant Elementary - Self Some Program
Contained and Contained Contained and Teacher Contained Available
Resource Room Itinerant Teacher
and Itinerant
Teacher
Elementary - Self Cooperative Cooperative Elementary - Itinerant Elementary - Self Some Program
Contained and Arrangement Arrangement Teacher Contained Available
Itinerant Teacher
Elementary - Resource Elementary - Self Cooperative Itinerant Teacher Elementary Some Program
Room Contained and Arrangement Secondary - Coopera- Available
Cooperative tive Arrangement
Arrangement
Secondary - Cooperative
Arrangement
No Information No Information No Information Itinerant Teacher No Information Some Program
Available
Self Contained and Elementary Resource Room Itinerant Teacher Self Contained Some Program
Itinerant Teacher Secondary - Itinerant Available
Teacher
273

I. Exclusion-Right to Education
I. Every child, regardless of handicap is guaranteed
a right to a free and equal educational opportunity.
Federal Decisions:
Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia,
348 F.Supp. 866 (D.D.C. 1972), (Class action
on behalf of all exceptional children excluded
from school. Right based on equal protection
aspects of the due process clause of the Fifth
Amendment, U.S. Constitution, and District of
Columbia statutes and regulations. Public programs
suitable to special needs to be provided or tuition
to private school paid by D.C.)
State Decisions:
In re Reid, No. 8742 (N.Y. State Commr. of
Ed., Nov. 26, 1973) (Clearinghouse No. 9376),
(Class action on behalf of all handicapped children
in New York City not receiving appropriate
educational services. Commissioner, relying on
state law, ordered all diagnosed handicapped children
immediately placed in appropriate public
school classes.)
Maryland Association for Retarded Children v.
Maryland, No. 77676 (Md. Cir. Ct., Baltimore
County, April 9, 1974) (Clearinghouse No.
12,451) (Class action on behalf of all retarded
children. Maryland statutes held to require that a
free education be provided all children with handicaps,
including mentally retarded children. Education
defined very broadly as including every type
of training for mentally retarded children.)
In the Interest of G. H., Civil No. 8930 (Supreme
Court of North Dakota, April 30, 1974) (The
United States and North Dakota Constitutions
guarantee a public school education to all handicapped
children.)
Doe v. Board of School Directors of Milwaukee,
No. 377-770 (Wis. Cir. Ct., Milwaukee County,
April 13, 1970) (Clearinghouse No. 3390)
(Class action on behalf of all mentally retarded
280
AppelldlxP
RIGHT TO EDUCATION: PRINCIPLES AND CASES
children determined to be in need of SPED placement
and on a waiting list for special programs.
Placement had to be provided immediately.)
Wolf v. Legislature of State of Utah, No. 182646
(Utah Dist. Ct., Salt Lake County, Jan. 8, 1969)
(Plaintiffs were two mentally retarded children
excluded from schooi. State Constitution and
statutes require free public education for all children.)
Kivell v. Nemoitin, No. 143913 (Conn. Super.
Ct., Fairfield County, July 18,1972) (State had
obligation to provide program appropriate to
perceptually handicapped child's needs.)
Federal Court Consent Agreements:
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children
v. Pennsylvania, 334 F.Supp. 1257 (E.D.Pa.
1971), 343 F.Supp. 279 (1972). (Class action
on behalf of retarded children.)
LeBanks v. Spears, No. 71-2897 (E.D.La. April
24, 1973)
Federal Cases Pending In Which the Right to
Education Has Been Raised as a Matter of
Federal or State Law:
Colorado Association for Retarded Children v.
Colorado, No. C-4620 (D.Colo., filed Dec. 22,
1972) (Clearinghouse No. 9504) (Class action
-all handicapped children.)
Rhode Island Society for Autistic Children v.
Rhode Island, No. 5081 (D.R.I., filed Jan. 22,
1973) (Class action-all exceptional children.)
Association for Mentally III Children v. Greenblatt,
No. 71-3074-J (D.Mass., filed Dec. 30,
1971) (Clearinghouse No. 7426) (Case name
changed to Barnett v. Goldman-class action on
behalf of emotionally disturbed children.)
Panitch v. Wisconsin, No. 72-C-461 (E.D.Wis.,
filed Aug. 14, 1972) (Class action-all handicapped
children denied local public program.)
North Carolina Association for Retarded Children
v. North Carolina, No. 3050 (E.D.N.C., filed

Rhode Island Society for Autistic Children v.
Rhode Island, No. 5081 (DR!., filed Jan. 22,
1973)
Association for Mentally III Children v. Greenblatt,
No. 71-3074-J (D.Mass., filed Dec. 30,
1971) (Clearinghouse No. 7426) (Case name
changed to Barnett v. Goldman.)
Panitch v. Wisconsin, No. 72-C-461 (B.D.Wis.,
filed Aug. 14, 1972)
North Carolina Association for Retarded Children
v. North Carolina, No. 3050 (B.D.N.C., filed
May 19, 1972)
North Dakota Association for Retarded Children
v. Peterson, No. 1196 (D.N.D., filed Nov. 28,
1972)
Florida Association for Retarded Children v. State
Board of Education, No. 73-250 Civ. NCR (S.D.
Fla., filed Feb. 14, 1973)
Brandt v. Nevada, No. R-2779 (D.Nev., filed Dec.
22, 1972)
Maryland Association for Retarded Children v.
Maryland, No. 72-733-K (D.Md., filed July 19,
1972) (Class action on behalf of all handicapped
children.)
State Cases Pending That Seek Due Process:
David P. v. State Department of Education, No.
658-826 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco County,
filed Aug. 9, 1973) (Clearinghouse No. 10139)
Abella v. Riverside Unified School District, No.
107531 (Cal. Super. Ct., Riverside County, filed
Jan. 10, 1974) (Clearinghouse No. 11,915)
3. In addition to seeking provision of appropriate
SPBD programs, plaintiffs in the following
federal cases seek compensatory education for the
learning opportunities they missed while excluded
from school or inappropriately placed.
North Carolina Association for Retarded Children
v. North Carolina, No. 3050 (B.D.N.C., filed
May 19, 1972)
North Dakota Association for Retarded Children
v. Peterson, No. 1196 (D.N.D., filed Nov. 28,
1972)
Kekahuna v. Burns, No. 73-3799 (D.Hawaii,
filed April 12, 1973) (Case renamed Silva v.
Board of Education.)
Brandt v. Nevada, No. R-2779 (D.Nev., filed Dec.
22, 1972)
282
4. Failure to supply a publicly-supported educa-
tion for children with special needs cannot be excused
by a claim of insufficient funds.
Federal Decisions:
Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia,
348 F.Supp. 866 (D.D.C. 1972)
State Decisions:
Maryland Association for Retarded Children v.
Maryland, No. 77676 (Md. Cir. Ct., Baltimore
County, April 9, 1974) (Clearinghouse No.
I 2,451)
5. The notion that certain children are uneducable
or untrainable is without basis. All children
are capable of benefiting from a program of education
and training.
Federal Decisions:
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children
v. Pennsylvania, 343 F.Supp. 279 (E.D.Pa. 1972)
(Bxpert testimony cited by the Court en route to
finding of subject matter jurisdiction.)
State Decisions:
Maryland Association for Retarded Children v.
Maryland, No. 77676 (Md. Cir. Ct., Baltimore
County, April 9, 1974) (Clearinghouse No.
12,451 )
Rainey v. Tennessee Department of Education,
No. A-3100 (Tenn. Chancery Ct., Davidson
County, Dec. 10, 1973) (Clearinghouse No.
] 1,585)
6. Two procedural principles that will be of more
use to lawyers: .
a. Several of the federal cases have been filed on
behalf of plaintiff classes against the defendant class
of all school districts in the state. Two federal decisions
have upheld the use of the defendant class in
this right to education situation, none have ruled
against it.
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children
v. Pennsylvania, 343 F.Supp. 279 (B.D.Pa. 1972)
Panitch v. Wisconsin, No. 72-C-461 (B.D.Wis.,
filed Aug. 14, 1972) (Decision allowing plaintiff
and defendant classes, Nov. 16, 1972)
b. The passage of new state SPBD laws has sometimes
led courts to dismiss pending cases for mootness.
In addition, some courts have exercised their
discretionary power to abstain on federal constitutional
claims. This should be done only when the

existing state law is unclear and when there is a
construction of that law that will fully vindicate
plaintiffs' rights. Dismissal for mootness has been
rejected when full implementation of new laws has
been slow in coming or the law incomplete in rights
for all children. The following SPED decisions reject
dismissal or abstention.
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children
v. Pennsylvania, 343 F.Supp. 279 (E.D.Pa. 1972)
(Denial of abstention.)
LeBanks v. Spears, No. 71-2897 (E.D.La. April,
1973) (Motion to dismiss or abstain denied, February
12, 1973.)
Stewart v. Phillips, No. 70-119-F (D.Mass., filed
Sept. 14, 1970) (Clearinghouse No. 4130) (Motions
for summary judgment and to dismiss for
mootness denied, Jan. 13, 1973.)
Colorado Association for Retarded Children v.
Colorado, No. C-4620 (D.Colo., filed Dec. 22,
1972) (Motion to dismiss for mootness denied,
June 14, 1974, "The mere enactment of legislation
without actual implementation does not
render substantial legal questions moot.")
Panitch v. Wisconsin, No. 72-C-461 (E.D.Wis.,
filed Aug. 14, 1972) (Motion to dismiss denied,
Feb. 19, 1974.)
Maryland Association for Retarded Children v.
Maryland, No. 72-733-K (D.Md., filed July 19,
1972) (Motion to abstain denied as to federal due
process and statutory claims, Nov. 1, 1973.)
7. In several states suits have been filed seeking
full implementation of new or existing SPED laws.
State Decisions:
In re Reid, No. 8742 (N.Y. State Commr. of Ed.,
Nov. 26, 1973) (Clearinghouse No. 9376) (Discussed
above.)
Maryland Association for Retarded Children v.
Maryland, No. 77676 (Md. Cir. Ct., Baltimore
County, April 9, 1974) (Discussed above.)
Rainey v. Tennessee Department of Education,
No.. A-3100 (Tenn. Chancery Ct., Davidson
County, Dec. 10, 11)73) (Clearinghouse No.
11,585) (Presumptory writ of mandamus ordered
state to begin implementation steps required by
Tenn. Mandatory SPED Act of 1972. A consent
decree further requires new testing and evaluation
regulations that will not rely on lQ testing. Court
has retained jurisdiction.)
Pending State Cases:
Florida ex reI. Grace v. Dade County Board of
Public Instruction (Fla. Cir. Ct., Dade County,
filed Nov. 26,1973) (Clearinghouse No. 11,674)
and Florida ex rei. Stein v. Keller (Fla. Cir. Ct.,
Dade County, filed Nov. 26, 1973) (Clearinghouse
No. 11,675)
II. Adequacy of Special Programs
1. The right to education for children with special
needs means the right to an education appropriate
to those needs. Adequacy issues have been
raised on behalf of children completely excluded
from school as well as those misplaced in regular
classes or in "custodial special education programs."
Federal Decisions:
Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia,
348 F.Supp. 866 (D.D.C. 1972) (Adequate
public education suited to each exceptional child's
special needs or public payment of tuition for
appropriate private program required.)
State Decisions:
In re Reid, No. 8742 (N.Y. State Commr. of Ed.,
Nov. 26,1973) (Clearinghouse No. 9376) (Handicapped
children to be placed in appropriate public
school classes.)
Maryland Association for Retarded Children v.
Maryland, No. 77676 (Md. Cir. Ct., Baltimore
County, April 9, 1974) (Clearinghouse No.
12,451) (Local education authorities ordered to
determine ''That the educational program provided
for a child is in fact an educafional program
and that it is in fact an appropriate program for
that child.")
Kivell v. Nemoitin, No. 143913 (Conn. Super.
Ct., Fairfield County, July 18, 1972) (State obligated
to provide program appropriate to perceptually
handicapped child's needs. Mother
awarded costs for two years of private education
when locality failed to provide the program prescribed
on basis of educational evaluation and
ultimately mandated by state board of education.)
In re Leitner, No. 1403E (N.Y. Sup. Ct., App.
Div., Nov. 6, 1972) (Clearinghouse No. 9287);
In re Held, Nos. H-2-71 and H-I0-71 (N.Y.
Family Ct., Westchester County, Nov. 29, 1971)
(New York statutes give Family Court jurisdiction
over claims of inadequate educational programs.
In these two cases the state (or county) was ordered
to pay the costs of private special education
programs after parents showed the marked appropriateness
of the private program in contrast
to the inadequacy of existing public programs.
283

Federal Court Consent Agreements;
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children
v. Pennsylvania, 334 F.Supp. 1257 (E.D.Pa.
1971), 343 F.Supp. 279 (1972) (Free public
program of education and training appropriate to
each retarded child's learning capacities.)
LeBanks v. Spears, No. 71-2897 (E.D.La., April
24, 1973) (Free public program of education and
training appropriate to the age and mental status
of each retarded child.)
Federal Cases Pending In Which Substantive Issues
of Adequacy of Programs Are Raised:
Colorado Association for Retarded Children v.
Colorado, No. C-4620 (D.Colo., filed Dec. 22,
1972) (Clearinghouse No. 9504)
Rhode Island Society for Autistic Children v.
Rhode Island, No. 5081 (D.R.I., filed Jan. 22,
1973)
North Carolina Association for Retarded Children
v. North Carolina, No. 3050 (E.D.N.C., filed
May 19, 1972)
North Dakota Association for Retarded Children
v. Peterson, No. 1196 (D.N.D., filed Nov. 28,
1972)
Kekahuna v. Burns, No. 73-3799 (D.Hawaii,
filed April 12, 1973) (Case renamed Silva v.
Board of Education.)
Pending State Cases That Raise Adequacy Issues:
Burnstein v. Board of Education, No. R-I9266
(Cal. Super. Ct., Contra Costa County, filed Dec.
28, 1970)
David P. v. State Department of Education, No.
658-826 (Ca1. Super. Ct., San Francisco County,
filed Aug. 9, 1973) (Clearinghouse No. 10,139)
Tennessee ex rei. Rainey v. Watkins, No. 77620-2
(Tenn. Chancery Ct., Shelby COUDty, filed April
5, 1973) (Clearinghouse No. 10,092)
III. Misclassification and Testing
1. Where plaintiffs can show that tests were the
primary basis for classification and resulted in a
disproportionate racial, ethnic or economic balance
in these classes, the burden will shift to defendants
to show that the tests were rationally related to the
purpose of measuring innate ability to learn. Tests
that draw primarily upon a white, middle class background
cannot sustain this burden and are invalid
because they deny equal educational opportunity to
non-white, non-middle class students.
284
Federal Decisions:
Hobson v. Hansen, 269 F.Supp. 401 (D.D.C.
1967), afj'd sub nom. Smuck v. Hobson, 408 F2d
175 (D.C.Cir. 1969) (Class action by black students
challenging maintenance of racially segregated
schools through biased testing. Tests held
invalid, tracking system abolished.)
Larry P. v. Riles, 343 F.Supp. 1306 (N.D.Cal.
1972), affirmed, No. 72-2509 (9th Cir. August
16, 1974) (Class action by black students seeking
to restrain school districts from using IQ tests as
basis for placing blacks in special education
classes for mentally retarded children. Tests held
invalid, injunction as to their future use in special
education placement.)
Copeland v. School Board of City of Portsmouth,
464 F2d 932 (4th Cir. 1972) (Class actionby
black students challenging misclassification
through IQ tests by which black students were
inappropriately placed in special education
schools. Remanded to district court to determine
whether tests were "relevant, reliable and free of
discrimination." Burden of proof not discussed.)
Federal Court Consent Agreements:
Diana v. State Board of Education, No. C-7037
RFP (N.D.Cal., filed Feb. 3, 1970) (Clearinghouse
No. 2859) (Class action suit to ban use of
English IQ tests for placement of Spanish speaking
students in special classes for mentally retarded
children. Case settled by requirement of
bilingual re-testing to remove ethnic imbalance.
Board of Education later held in contempt of
court for failing to remove imbalance. Decision
dated May 24, 1974.)
Guadalupe Organization v. Tempe Elementary
School District No.3, No. 71-435 PHX (D. Ariz.
May 9, 1972) (Cleafinghouse No. 6312) (Class
action suit to eliminate linguistic bias in placement
in special classes for mentally retarded children.
Settled by stipulation providing for institution
of bilingual testing and retesting of all Mexican-American
and Indian children already
placed.)
Covarrubias v. San Diego Unified School District,
No. 70-394-T (S.D.Ca1., filed Dec. 1, 1970)
(Clearinghouse No. 7427) (Class action challenging
racial and ethnic discrimination in tracking
and placement in special education classes.)
LeBanks v. Spears, No. 71-2897 (E.D.La. April
24, 1973) (No recommendations can be made
for SPED placement unless IQ score of 69 or less
and subnormal in adaptive behavior after sociocultural
background effects have been taken into
consideration. Tests must lead to prescriptive
educational plan with specific goals.)

Pending Federal Cases:
Stewart v. Phillips, No. 70-1199-F (D.Mass., filed
Sept. 14, 1970) (Clearinghouse No. 4130) (Class
action challenging rnisclassification through IQ
tests which resulted in black and poor students
being improperly placed in classes for the mentally
retarded.)
Pending State Cases:
Ruiz v. State Board of Education, No. 218924
(Cal. Super. Ct., County of Sacramento, filed Dec.
16,1971) (Clearinghouse No. 7428) (Class action
by Mexican-American students challenging
use of culturally and linguistically biased tests in
any placement of evaluation of students.)
Arellano v. Board of Education, Las Angeles
Unified School District, No. C27836 (Cal. Super.
Ct., L.A. County, filed April 20, 1972) (Clearinghouse
No. 27836) (Class action challenging use
of IQ and achievement tests for purpose of tracking.)
2. Even achievement tests cannot be used as a
basis for assigning students to schools until a racially
desegregated system has been established for several
years. To allow such testing before a desegregated
system has had a chance to benefit black students
would merely lead to a continuance of past educational
discrimination.
Anthony v. Marshall County, decided sub nom.
Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School
District, 419 F2d l211 (5th Cil. 1970), reversed
in part (as to desegregation schedule) on other
grounds, 396 U.S. 290. (Class action by black
students challenging maintenance of segregated
school system through testing.)
United States v. Tunica County School District,
421 F2d 1236 (5th Cil. 1970), cert. denied, 398
U.S. 951 (1970) (Suit by U.S. attacking racial
segregation perpetuated by testing.)
United States v. Sunflower County School District,
430 F2d 839 (5th Cil. 1970) (Suit by U.S. attacking
racially segregated school system maintained
by testing.)
Moses v. Washington Parish School Board, 330
F.Supp. 1340 (E.D.La. 1971), aD'd 456 F2d
1285 (5th Cil. 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1013
( 1972) (Class action challenging racial segregation
as result of testing.)
Lemon v. Bossier Parish School Board, 444 F2d
1400 (5th Cir. 1971) (Class action challenging
racially segregated school system maintained by
testing.)
285

Mr. Peter E. Holmes
Director, Office for Civil Rights
Department of Health, Education
and Welfare
330 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20201
Dear Mr. Holmes:
Appendix II
SAMPLE FORMS OSICR 101 AND OSICR 101
OF THE FALL 1974 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL
CIVIL RIGHTS SURVEY AND LETTER TO OCR DIRECTOR
RECOMMENDING CHANGES IN FORMS
April 12, 1974
We have received no formal acknowledgment of
our letter to you of March 22, 1974, in which we
suggested refinements of the questions that appear
in the reporting forms for the Office for Civil Rights
Annual Elementary and Secondary School Civil
Rights Survey. However, a member of our staff has
contacted Ms. Rosa Wiener of your Elementary and
Secondary Education Divisi6n and has learned that,
except for several definitional changes regarding expulsions
and suspensions, it is likely that none of our
other suggested refinements will be incorporated in
the revised civil rights survey forms for Fall 1974.
We are therefore asking that you reconsider our
suggestions which we believe are essential if the data
collected by the Office for Civil Rights is to be useful.
We have attached again to this letter our specific
recommended changes in the instructions and forms
for the school system summary report (Form OSICR
101) and the individual school campus report (Form
OS/CR 102) and have incorporated, where appropriate,
what we understand to be the modifications
recently made by your staff. As you will recall, our
revisions in the area of special education are designed
to clarify the distinctions among handicapped
students participating in various special education
programs. With regard to suspensions, we propose
that the number of times single persons are suspended
and the durations of the suspensions be in-
286
c1uded in the annual civil rights survey. We have
also recommended that the question in the survey
regarding school-age children not in school be made
more meaningful. We would now like to discuss in
more detail than previously the reasoning behind
each of our recommendations.
Special Education
Our study of children out of school and children
effectively excluded from appropriate educational
programs has greatly increased our sensitivity to the
numerous special education problems and programs
available to children with various handicaps. It is
important that the information collected by the Office
for Civil Rights accurately account for the students
enrolled in various special education programs.
We share the views of your staff that minority students
who have been labeled as "socially maladjusted,"
"underachievers" and "slow learners," are
likely to be overrepresented in special education programs,
but we do not think the Office for Civil Rights
should use these labels to describe children enrolled
in special education programs. These ambiguous
labels are too often used to misclassify students,
especially those who have suffered from educational
deprivation or whose cultural backgrounds may be
different from the majority population. Our experience
has shown that children who have been so misclassified
are often placed in special education programs
for the emotionally disturbed. Thus we are
suggesting that, instead of asking for information
about pupils classified as socil\lly maladjusted, underachievers
and slow learners (OSICR Form 102,
Item lX. A.3), information be requested about pupils
enrolled in special education programs for the
emotionally disturbed (Attachment B, pp. B-1, B-3).
Our suggested refinements regarding Item IX. B.
(Form OSICR 102) arise from our concern that to

group children in programs for "physical, health,
sensory and related handicaps" with children in programs
for "specific learning disabilities," is to lose
an important distinction. And while we agree with
members of your staff that the former are programs
in which minority students are likely to be underrepresented,
we still think the nature of the two types
of programs is sufficiently different to warrant their
being listed separately. This distinction is particularly
significant in determining the extent to which various
types of handicapped pupils are, in fact, being provided
special services. Where no services of a particular
type are being provided, there may be an
inference of discrimination against certain handicapped
pupils. We recommend therefore that pupils
in special education programs for specific learning
disabilities be included as Item IX. A.3, and that
pupils in programs for physical, health, sensory and
related handicaps continue to be recorded in Item
IX.B. (See Attachment B.)
These revisions will clarify the distinctions among
handicapped students participating in special education
programs. The categories as we have defined
them will enable the Office for Civil Rights not only
to identify those types of special education programs
in which minority students are overrepresented but
also to identify the types of special services not provided
by districts or provided only to a certain racially
identifiable group of children.
Expulsions and Suspensions
We were pleased to hear the definition of expulsion
will be broadened to include all suspensions for
over twenty consecutive school days and that the
definition of suspension will be revised to include
only students suspended from a regular class program
for at least one day. However, we think it is
essential that some indication be given of the number
of times and length of time for which pupils are suspended.
Not only are the legal entitlements that attach
to suspensions of varying duration different, but
our experience has shown that in school districts
which have incorporated due process procedures for
suspensions over a defined number of days, large
numbers of students will be suspended repeatedly for
just under that defined number of days. Information
concerning the number of times single persons are
suspended and the duration of these suspensions will
make more evident possible discriminatory effects
suggested by gross figures on students suspended at
least once.
In a majority of the school districts we surveyed,
the only figures on suspensions centrally available
were the data compiled for the report to the Office for
Civil Rights this past fall. Therefore, since it is apparent
that many school districts have compiled this information
only at the request of the federal government,
it is very important for the Office for Civil Rights
to request of school districts information which, when
assembled, will adequately reflect the nature of discrimination
being practiced in the administration of
discipline. We realize that your only justification for
requiring school districts to report on suspensions
and expulsions is to insure nondiscrimination in federally
funded programs. However, there are incidental
values to the collection of this data. For example,
in Goss v. Lopez (42 LW 3458), a case
presently before the United States Supreme Court,
due process issues in suspension procedures are being
considered and suspension statistics gathered by
the Office for Civil Rights this past fall are being
used by parties to that litigation to emphasize to the
Court the large extent to which school districts are
relying on suspensions as a disciplinary measure.
Information on the extent to which short term suspensions
are in use would be more helpful.
For the numerous reasons cited above, we are
requesting that the questions regarding suspensions
and expulsions on the Fall 1973 survey forms be
revised to reflect our recommendations at pages A-2
and A-4 and pages B-2 and B-3 of the attachments
to this letter.
Sr.hool-Age Children Not In School
Since 1969, the Office for Civil Rights has asked
school districts for their best estimate of the total
number of school-age children who reside within the
boundaries of the school district but who are not in
school (OS/CR Form 101, Item VIII.C.). We know
from our exclusion interviews that these estimates
have been derived in various, and often arbitrary,
ways by numerous school districts. In one district
the estimate represented the number of dropouts in
the district, but in others it was based in part on 1970
287

census figures and often did not change from one
school year to the next. We recognize that this evident
variation from district to district makes the
usefulness of such a figure very questionable. To our
knowledge, the Office for Civil Rights has never
pulled this information out of its computer system,
and we suspect that the data has been referred to
only with reference to individual school districts.
Because this informatior: is of little value in its
present form, we have recommended that an attempt
be made to have this item represent the number of
pupils who dropped out of a school district during
the previous school year. Our definition of a dropout
is set out in Attachment A to this letter at pages
A-3 and A-4. We think that this definition should
result in some uniformity from district to district in
the type of data reported. Furthermore, it is clear
that a highly disproportionate number of minority
dropouts may indicate a need for a review of the
equality of educational services being provided students
in a particular district.
288
We have tried to keep our recommended revisions
to a minimum because we recognize your desire to
limit the reporting forms to one page each. Although
the revisions your staff has made in the definitions of
expulsion and suspension are good ones, we think
additional revisions must also be made if the data
collected concerning special education programs, expulsions
and suspensions and dropouts are to be
really useful. We would appreciate the opportunity
to meet with you or others on your staff if you have
questions concerning any of our recommendations.
We urge that you not finalize your 1974 forms before
we have had a chance to consult further.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Attachments
cc: Dr. Lloyd Henderson
Ms. Rosa Wiener
Sincerely,
Marian Wright Edelman

ITEM VI.
11ttachment 11
SUGGESTED REFINEMENTS IN INSTRUCTIONS FOR
THE SCHOOL SYSTEM SUMMARY REPORT
(FORM OSICR 101)
Line B. Report in each column the sum of pupils
reported in the corresponding column on the Individual
School Campus Report Form, Item IX. A.
Line B.l. Report in each column the sum of pupils
reported in the corresponding column on the Individual
School Campus Report Form, Item DCA. I.
(Enrollment in special education programs for EMR
or EMH pupils.)
Line B.2. Report in each column the sum of pupils
reported in the corresponding column on the Individual
School Campus Report Form, Item IX.A.2.
(Enrollment in special education programs for TMR
or TMH pupils.)
Line B.3. Report in each column the sum of pupils
reported in the corresponding column on Individual
School Campus Report Form, Item IX.A.3.
(Enrollment in special education programs for pupils
with specific learning disabilities.)
Line B.4. Report in each column the sum of pupils
reported in the corresponding column on Individual
School Campus Report Form, Item IX.A.4.
(Enrollment in special education programs for emotionally
disturbed pupils.)
Line C. Report in each column the number of
pupils reported in the corresponding column on the
Individual School Campus Report Form, Item IX.B.
(Enrollment in special education programs for pupils
with physical, health, sensory or related handicaps.)
NOTE: DO NOT include in Line C any students reported
in any part of Line B.
ITEM VII.
(FORM OSICR 101)
Line A. Report in each column the number of
pupils compelled by school authorities to withdraw
from any regular class program in this system because
of such reasons as unsatisfactory achievement
or unsatisfactory behavior during the previous school
year. This does not include temporary suspensions
but should include any student suspended from a
regular class program for over 20 consecutive school
days. If there are none, enter "0" on this line.
Line B. Report in each column the sum of pupils
reported in the corresponding column on the Individual
School Campus Report Form, Item X.A. (Number
of pupils suspended at least once.)
Line C. Report in each column the sum of pupils
reported in the corresponding column on the Individual
School Campus Report Form, Item X.B. (Number
of pupils suspended more than two times.)
Line 0.1. Report in each column the sum of pupils
reported in the corresponding column on the Individual
School Campus Report Form, Item X.C.l.
(Number of suspensi9ns for 1-3 days.)
Line D.2. Report in each column the sum of pupils
reported in the corresponding column on the Individual
School Campus Report Form, Item X.C.2.
(Number of suspensions for 4-10 days.)
Line D.3. Report in each column the sum of pupils
reported in the corresponding column on the Individual
School Campus Report Form, Item X.C.3.
(Number of suspensions for 11-30 days.)
ITEM VIII.
Line A. Report in each column your best estimate
of the total number of school age children who
reside within the boundaries of this school district
but who are enrolled in another public school system.
Line B. Report in each column your best estimate
of the total number of school age children who reside
within the boundaries of this school district but who
are enrolled in non-public schools.
Line C. Report in each column the number of pu-
289

pils who dropped out of this school district during the
previous school year. A student should be counted
as a dropout if he/she left this school district during
the previous school year without completing the designated
program of studies or transferring to another
SUGGESTED REFINEMENTS
IN THE
SCHOOL SYSTEM SUMMARY REPORT (FORM OSieR 101)
VI. B. Sum of pupils reported on INDIVIDUAL
SCHOOL CAMPUS REPORT FORMS.
Item IX.A. (Special Education)
290
1. Sum of pupils reported on INDIVI­
DUAL SCHOOL CAMPUS REPORT
FORMS. Item IX.A.l. (EMR or
EMH)
2. Sum of pupils reported on INDIVI­
DUAL SCHOOL CAMPUS REPORT
FORMS. Item IX.A.2. (TMR or
TMH)
3. Sum of pupils reported on INDIVI­
DUAL SCHOOL CAMPUS REPORT
FORMS. Item IX.A.3. (Specific
Learning Disabilities)
4. Sum of pupils reported on INDIVI­
DUAL SCHOOL CAMPUS REPORT
FORMS. Item IX.A.4. (Emotionally
Disturbed)
C. Sum of pupils reported on INDIVIDUAL
SCHOOL CAMPUS REPORT FORMS.
Item IX.B. (Physical, health, sensory and
related handicaps)
school district. Examples of reasons for dropping
out might include academic difficulty, behavioral difficulty,
dislike of school, need at home, employment,
physical or mental illness or disability, pregnancy, or
marriage.
VII. A. Report the number of pupils expelled
from any school campus in this system
during the previous school year. (See Instructions.
)
B. Sum of pupils reported on INDIVIDUAL
SCHOOL CAMPUS REPORT FORMS.
Item X.A. (No. suspended at least once.)
C. Sum of pupils reported on INDIVIDUAL
SCHOOL CAMPUS REPORT FORMS.
Item X.B. (No. suspended more than two
times. )
D.l. Sum of pupils reported on INDIVIDUAL
SCHOOL CAMPUS REPORT FORMS.
Item X.C.l. (1-3 days)
D.2. Sum of pupils reported on INDIVIDUAL
SCHOOL CAMPUS REPORT FORMS.
Item X.C.2. (4-10 days)
D.3. Sum of pupils reported on INDIVIDUAL
SCHOOL CAMPUS REPORT FORMS..
Item X.C.3. (11-30 days)
VIII. C. Resident pupils enrolled in this school
system who dropped out between 8/15/73
and 6/15/74. (See Instructions.)

-
ITEM IX.A.
Attachment B
SUGGESTED REFINEMENTS IN INSTRUCTIONS FOR
THE INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL CAMPUS REPORT
(FORM OSICR 102)
Report in each column the number of pupils enrolled
in any type of special education program at
this school campus for any part of the school day
EXCEPT students with physical, health, sensory and
related handicaps. If there are no special education
programs offered at this school campus, enter "0".
This line should be the sum of the numbers reported
in lines I, 2, 3 and 4 of this item.
Line A.I. Report in each column the number of
pupils enrolled for any part of the school day in special
education programs for educable mentally retarded
(EMR) or educable mentally handicapped
(EMH) pupils.
Line A.2. Report in each column the number of
pupils enrolled for any part of the school day in special
education programs for trainable mentally retarded
(TMR) or trainable mentally handicapped
(TMH) pupils.
Line A.3. Report in each column the number of
pupils enrolled for any part of the school day in special
education programs for pupils with specific
learning disabilities. This should include all pupils
who have been diagnosed as having one or more of
the following conditions: perceptual handicaps, brain
injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental
aphasia. This should not include pupils
with learning problems resulting from visual, hearing
or motor handicaps, mental retardation or emotional
disturbance.
Line A.4. Report in each column the number of
pupils enrolled for any part of the school day in
special education programs for the emotionally
disturbed.
(FORM OS/CR 102)
Line B. Report in each column the number of
pupils enrolled for any part of the school day in
special programs at this school campus for physical,
health, sensory and related handicaps. This includes
all pupils who have been diagnosed as having one
or more of the following handicaps: blindness, deafness,
hard of hearing, speech impaired, visually impaired,
crippled or other health impaired (such as
epilepsy, diabetes or rheumatic fever.) Do not include
in Line B any students reported in any part
of Line A.
ITEM X.
Line A. Report in each column the number of
pupils who have been suspended at least once during
the previous school year from any regular class program
on this school campus. Any pupil removed
from his/her regular class program for at least one
day but not over 20 days is considered to be suspended.
Count each pupil only once regardless of
the number of times that pupil was suspended.
Line B. Report in each column the number of
pupils included in Line A who have been suspended
more than two times during the previous school
year. Any pupil removed from his/her regular class
program for at least one day but not over 20 days
is considered to be suspended.
Line C.l. Report in each column the total number
of suspensions from any regular class program
during the previous school year that were for 1-3
days duration.
Line C.2 Report in each column the total number
of suspensions from any regular class program
during the previous school year that were for 4-10
days duration.
Line C.3. Report in each column the total number
of suspensions from any regular class program
during the previous school year that were for 11-20
days duration.
NOTE: The sum of Lines C.1, 2 and 3 above should
equal the total number of suspensions from
regular class programs on this school campus
during the previous school year. Each time a
pupil was suspended should be counted as a
single suspension.
291

SUGGESTED REFINEMENTS IN THE
INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL CAMPUS REPORT (FORM OSICR 102)
IX. A. Sum of Lines 1, 2, 3 and 4 below. (See
Instructions. )
292
1. No. in programs for EMR or EMH
pupils.
2. No. in programs for TMR or TMH
pupils.
3. No. in programs for pupils with specific
learning disabilities.
4. No. in programs for pupils who are emotionally
disturbed.
B. Pupils in programs for physical, health, sensory
and related handicaps. (See Instructions.)
X. A. Report the number of pupils suspended at
least once during the previous school year
from any regular class program. (S'ee Instructions.
)
B. Report the number of pupils in Line A who
were suspended more than two times during
the previous school year.
C. Report the total number of suspensions
from regular class programs on this school
campus during the previous school year that
were for:
1. 1-3 days
2. 4-10 days
3. 11-20 days

Slep 4:
Slep 5:
304
The results of adding together the three items for all c1as.

I. Name of School System _
II. Name of School CamplU _
III. Street Addreu or P.O. Box _
IV. Ci'y .Counly _
State • Zip COOe _
V. Grades and prOirams offered (Put an ''x'' in the appropriate box for every grade or program offered at this
school campus). If totally or partially ungraded, do not check grades covered by ungraded span.
Pre·K K 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Ungraded Special Ed. Voc./Tech.
0000000000000 0 0 0 0
VI. PUPILS IN MEMBERSHIP: Report the number of pupils in
membership at this school campus as ofOctober I, 1974
VII. Report the number of pupils retained this school year in the
same grade they attended lase year. If this school is ungraded,
write Not/Applicable (N/A).
A.
GRADE:
3
VIII. Report the number ofpupils for
each of the grades indicated if they
are offerc4 at tb.iJ 'CGhooi.
8. 6
C. 9
If none of the indicated grades
(3,6,9, 12) are offered report for
D. 12
the lowest grade offered and name
the grade here _________ E Lowest
. Grade
IX. A. Report the number ofpupils in programs for EMR or EMH
at this school campus.
B. Report the number of pupils in TMR or TMH classes at this
school campus.
C. Report the number of pupils In programs for the emotionally
disturbed, socLally maladjusted, underachievers, and/or slow
learners at this school campus.
D. Report the number ofpupils in programs for physical, health,
sensory, and related handicaps at this school campUJ.
E. Report the number of pupils in programs for specific learning
disabilities at this school campus.
X.A. Report the number of pupils suspended for at least one day,
but not more than 20 consecutive school days during the
previous school yeu.
8. Report the total number of suspension days during the
previous school year.
XI.A. 1. Report the lotal number ofphysical education classes, sections or instructional groupings at this school campus.
Col.I Col. 2 Col. 3 Col. 4 Col. S Col. 6
AU Indi-
Spanish viduals NOT
AmerIcan Black Asian Surnamed Included in
Indian American American American Cob. 1-4 TOlals
2. Report the number of physical education classes, sections, or imtructional groupings at this school campus which are comprised of 80 percent or
more of pupils of one sex.
8. 1. Report the number of aD other claues, sections, or insC1Uctional groupinp at this school campus.
2. Report the number of aU other classes, sections, or instructional groupings at this school campw which are comprised of 80 percent or more of
. pupils of one sex.
XII. Repon the number of pupils transported at public expense to this
"'hool campus (see INSTRUCTIONS)
Certification: I certify that the Wormatiop given above it true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
(A willfully false stltement u punishable by law [U.S. Code, Tille 18 Section 1001 J.)
Sigliannt: ofPersorf Furnishing Information
Title
(Area Code) Telephone Number
•
DUPLICATE-RETURN TO OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
-
Date Silned
305

AppendixB
OCR DATA ON STUDENT SUSPENSIONS
197Z.1973
Table I
ARKANSAS
w
o
00
No. of Schools
(No. Reporting Total Students Suspended At Least Onc
School District 1972-1973 Student Enrollment l
Suspensions) (Total Suspension Days)4
Sp. Sp.
Sum. Am. Asian Sum.
Total White Black Am. Ind. Am. Total Elem? Sec:' Total White Black Am.
2 1 1 56 6 49 I
Altheimer 1,064 172 885 7 (2) (1) (1) (252) (26) (223) (3)
6 4 2 46 26 20
Arkadelphia 2,374 1,657 716 I (2) (2) (127.5) (71.5) (56)
2 2
Arkansas City 104 40 64 (0)
I 1
Armorel 340 209 126 5 (0)
4 2 2 31 19 12
Ashdown 1,992 1,321 671 (2) (2) (117) (73) (44)
3 2 1 28 8 20
Augusta 1,154 623 527 4 (2) (1) (1) (121) (28) (93)
3 2 I 52 24 28
Barton·Lexa 890 370 520 (1) (1) (298) (146) (152)
2 1 1
Bearden 636 378 258 (0)
I I
Beedeville 248 219 29 (0)
7 4 3 166 130 36
Benton 4,030 3,774 253 3 (5) (2) (3) (479) (360) (119)
2 I 1 17 4 13
Blevins 450 254 196 (1) (1) (70) (13.5) (56.5)
11 8 3 230 68 162
Blytheville 5,233 2,871 2,336 14 4 8 (6) (3) (3) (1,341) (237) (1,104)
2 I I 8 8
Bradley 629 208 421 (I) (I) (178) (178)
1 1 5 4 I
Bright Star 296 212 84 (1) (1) (15) (12) (3)
3 2 I 35 8 27
Brinkley 2,007 1,065 942 (3) (2) (1) (228) (38) (190)
5 3 2 77 29 48
Camden 2,539 1,170 1,369 (3) (I) (2) (356) (127) (229)
2 1 I 5 4 I
Carlisle 868 740 128 (1) (1) (25) (20) (5)
I I 10 5 5
Carthage 269 70 199 (1) (I) (100) (50) (50)
1 1 30 30
Chidester 288 44 244 (1) (I) (90) (90)
3 2 1 7 4 3
Clarendon 895 583 312 (2) (I) (1) (70) (20) (50)
I 1
Collins 45 39 6 (0)
6 4 2 24 18 6
Conway 3,512 2,963 547 2 (3) (1) (2) (101) (71) (30)
4 3 1
Coming 1,538 1,538 (0)

2 1 1 16 2 14
Cotton Plant 586 72 514 (2) (1)
(48) (6) (42)
2 1 W 13 1 12
Crawfordsville 987 87 900 (1) (1) (39) (3) (36)
4 3 1 10 6 4
Cross County 1,035 878 156 1 (1) (1) (30) (18) (12)
7 5 2 61 22 39
Crossett 3,198 2,379 819 (4) (2) (2) (496) (187) (309)
1 1 11 5 6
DeVaIls Bluff 579 389 190 (1) (1) (33) (15) (18)
4 3 1 27 15 12
DeWitt 1,635 1,374 261 (2) (1) (1) (81) (45) (36)
3 2 1 4 4
Delta Special 803 421 382 (2) (1) (1) (49) (49)
2 1 1 13 3 10
Dermott 1,404 382 1,007 15 (1) (1) (43) (14) (29)
2 2
Desha County 102 14 85 3 (0)
2 1 1 5 5
Desha-Drew 401 84 317 (1) (1) (15) (15)
5 3 2 83 8 75
Dollarway 2,717 1,133 1,584 (2) (2) (245) (24) (221)
1 1 23 11 12
Drew Central 715 500 214 1 (1) (1) (80) (44) (36)
4 3 1 77 22 55
Dumas 2,542 1,059 1,483 (2) (1) (1) (402) (116) (286)
4 2 .2 212 31 181
Earle 1,409 373 1,031 4 1 (4) (2) (2) (1,544) (250) (1,294)
14 10 4 660 247 413
EI Dorado 5,898 3,600 2,298 (5) (1) (4) (2,701) (863) (1,838)
3 1 2 30 11 17 2
Elaine 1,141 323 781 34 3 (2) (1) (1) (106) (33) (67) (6)
1 1 10 4 6
Emerson 441 223 218 (1) (1) (19) (7) (12)
2 1 1 6 2 4
Emmet 158 112 46 (2) (1) (1) (24) (6) (18)
2 1 1 65 25 40
England 1,245 694 551 (1) (1) (195) (75) (120)
4 2 2 22 10 12
Eudora 1,591 453 1,124 8 6 (2) (2) (93) (44) (49)
1 1 27 17 10
Fairview 1,987 1,416 571 (1) (I) (82) (57.5) (24.5)
4 3 1 40 6 34
Fordyce 1,446 824 619 3 (3) (2) (1) (192) (18) (174)
3 1 2 2 I 1
Foreman 738 507 223 8 (1) (1) (2) (1) (1)
12 10 2 531 208 323
Forrest City 5,836 2,369 3,445 15 2 5 (6) (4) (2) (3,302) (1,121) (2,181)
26 20 6 299 199 94
Fort Smith 12,962 11,742 1,144 31 29 16 (9) (4) (5) (1,665) (931) (716)
I 1
Garland 179 52 127 (0)
1 1 4 3 I
Gillett 445 368 77 (1) (1) (12) (9) (3)
1 I 1 I
Glendale 300 187 113 (I) (1) (1) (I)
2 I 1 12 2 10
w
Gould 541 123 418 (2) (1) (I) (267) (14) (253)
0 2 I I 4 I 3
\0 Grady 682 184 498 (1) (1) (12) (3) (9)

2 1 1 1 1
Linwood 364 19 345 (1) (1) (53) (53)
39 31 8 1,474 309 1,165
Little Rock 22,348 11,921 10,362 28 25 12 (35) (27) (8) (9,327) (1,694) (7,633)
1 1 2 1 I
Lockesburg 461 379 82 (1) (1) (3) (2) (1)
3 2 1 9 2 7
Lonoke 1,707 1,128 579 (1) (1) (27) (9) (18)
2 1 1 21 8 .13
Luxora 777 384 386 7 (2) (1) (1) (116) (36) (80)
3 2 1 113 55 58
Magnolia 3,071 2,010 1,061 (2) (1) (1) (412) (170) (242)
7 5 2 126 92 34
Malvern 3,044 2,279 765 (3) (1) (2) (464) (338) (126)
10 6 4 249 35 214
Marianna 4,763 1,136 3,608 10 1 8 (5) (1) (4) (1,200) (183) (1,017)
5 3 2 40 11 29
Marion 1,987 1,040 944 3 (3) (1) (2) (126) (44) (82)
3 2 1 79 44 35
Marked Tree 1,387 1,056 331 (2) (1) (1) (377) (207) (170)
4 2 2 92 22 70
Marvell 1,749 359 1,390 (4) (2) (2) (922) (197) (725)
3 2 1 4 2 2
McCrory 965 742 223 (1) (1) (6) (3) (3)
2 1 1 3 1 2
McGehee 1,460 733 727 (1) (1) (30) (10) (20)
2 1 1
McNeil 417 139 278 (0)
1 1 8 4 4
Mineral Springs 470 238 232 (1) (1) (66) (33) (33)
4 2 2 65 34 31
Monticello 1,909 1,261 648 (3) (1) (2) (321) (180) (141)
5 3 2 61 53 8
Morrilton 2,368 2,068 298 2 (2) , (2) (308) (255) (53)
1 1 4 1 3
Mount Holly 3q 151 162 (1) (1) (20) (5) (15)
3 1 2 13 6 7
Nashville 1,569 1,195 373 1 (2) (2) (65) (30) (35)
1 I
New Edinburg 275 176 99 (0)
5 3 2 13 10 3
Newport 2,967 2,217 750 (1) (1) (39) (30) (9)
I 1 7 5 2
Norphlet 636 443 193 (1) (1) (35) (25) (10)
28 21 7 621 328 293
North Little Rock 12,171 9,249 2,893 14 2 13 (7) (7) (2,113) (1,149) (964)
1 1 1 1
Okolona 184 18 166 (1) (1) (10) (10)
5 3 2 58 13 45
Osceola 2,352 1,200 1,144 8 (4) (2) (2) (407) (91) (316)
2 I 1 9 5 4
Palestine 744 453 291 (2) (1) (1) (102) (28) (74)
2 2
Parkdale 175 8 167 (0)
I 1
Parkers Chapel 292 252 40 (0)
-
3 2 1 14 6 8
w Parkin 1,113 405 695 13 (1) (1) I (42) (18) (24)
1 1
Patmos 54 32 22 (0)

1 1 5 4 1
Tuckerman 820 711 109 (1) (1) (109) (40) (69)
2 1 1 22 7 15
Turrell 920 247 668 5 (1) (1) (55) (21) (34)
1 1
Tyronza 307 235 72 (0)
1 1
Union County 256 178 78 (0)
1 1
Urbana 84 9 75 (0)
1 1 4 3 1
Village 192 102 90 (1) (1) (30) (27) (3)
2 1 1 5 5
Webbaseka 490 16 469 5 (1) (1) (17) (17)
3 1 2 15 15
Waldo 691 276 415 (2) (2) (45) (45)
5 2 3 30 10 20
Warren 2,032 1,232 800 (4) (1) (3) (275) (30) (245)
3 2 1 5 5
Washington 301 301 (1) (1) (15) (15)
5 4 1 234 69 165
Watson Chapel 3,309 1,573 1,736 (2) (1) (1) (1,204) (252) (952)
13 8 5 687 219 468
West Memphis 7,045 3,333 3,712 (12) (7) (5) (3,377) (990) (2,387)
1 1 21 6 15
Wheatley 480 206 274 (1) (1) (63) (18) (45)
2 1 1 4 4
Williford 295 295 (2) (1) (1) (39) (39)
1 1
Willisville 80 6 74 (0)
2 1 1 6 1 5
Wilmar 367 126 241 (1) (1) (18) (3) (15)
2 1 1 13 1 12
Wilmot 479 81 393 5 (2) (1) (1) (46) (3) (43)
1 1
Wonderview 348 306 42 (0)
4 3 1 13 8 5
Wynne 2,978 1,962 1,016 (2) (1) (1) (34) (22) (12)
TOTAL 587 370 217 10,349 3,974 6,363 6
(147 Districts) 270,338 166,716 102,843 473 108 198 (325) (131) (194) (49,569.5)11 (16,016.5) (33,515) (20)
IN­IN

173
(1,187)
3
15,783 7,039 5,554 3,133
Elizabeth
2
4,195 1,850 2,202 120
Englewood
30
(74)
527
(3,685)
109
(410)
1.04
(254)
373
(1,104)
7
(7)
1
(I)
4
(2)
2
(2)
25 18
54 (16) (9)
7 6
21 (2) (1)
4
3 (2)
10 8
9 (8) (6)
2 2
1. (1) (1)
2 2
6 (1) (1)
4 3
4 (3) (2)
2,074 842 1,021 208
Essex Co. Voc.
9
5,489 4,389 1,065 17
Ewing Township
1,033 25 1,019 2 11
Fairfield Borough
153
(287)
1
(2)
317
(1,863)
9
(29)
7
(13)
711
(1,899)
3
(0)
58
(102)
89
(136)
1,017
(6,735)
118
(439)
141
(341)
1 08524
(3,004)
3
(0)
211
(389)
90
(138)
318 765 25
1,114 26
Fairfield Township
1
(1)
1,638 1,453 181
Florence Township
6 6
10 I (0)
Franklin Township
(Gloucester Co.) 1,299 1.,102 156 31
Franklin Township
(Somerset Co.) 6,811 4,991 1,676
(
Freehold Borough 1,459 925 495
(
6
(38)
1
(1)
3
(8)
132
(644)
64
(62.5)
123
(474)
107
(333)
39
(35)
277
(723)
245
(1,015)
105
(99.5)
404
(1,208)
Glassboro 2,713 2,080 607
15
(34)
83
(144)
254
(431)
352
(609)
9 2
(2) (2)
6
(4)
4 2
(1) (2)
2
(2)
11
60 (4)
6
2 (4)
6
6 (3)
82 2
37
20
Greater Egg Harbor
Regional 2,602 2,176 347
Guttenberg 566 484
4
(10)
133
(331)
64
(190)
201
(531)
6 1
(3) (1)
2
(2)
1
(0)
7
221 (4)
79
82
373 2
Hackensack 6,111 4,165 1,549
1
(3)
1
(3)
2
(3)
11
(46)
4
(20)
18
(84)
22
(87)
(1
69
(802)
20
(155)
41
(191)
24
(78)
75
(410)
2
(10)
154
(956)
4
(10)
303
(4,320)
21
(120)
195
(1,047)
1
(3)
75
(75)
35
(135)
5
(15)
79
(229)
276
(1,528)
8
(40)
140
(757)
8
(25)
122
(1,542)
169
(763)
93
(381)
I
(3)
58
(225)
6
(18)
105
(310)
371 27
(2,004)
14
(70)
312
(1,797)
12
(35)
65328 (7,949)
210
(1,038)
329
(1,619)
2
(6)
75
(75)
2
(2)
2 1
(I)
4 1
(1) (I)
5 1
(4) (I)
6 2
(l)
8 2
(6) (2)
2 1
(2) (1)
33 4
(27) (4)
3 1
(1) (1)
5 1
(2) (1)
1
(1)
1
(1)
1
(8)
47
(431)
38
(295)
86
(734)
1
(1)
2
1 (2)
3
2 (1)
5
13 (2)
6
27 (5)
8
5 (I)
10
23 (8)
3
(3)
37
228 (31)
4
13 (2)
6
13 (3)
1
(1)
1
(1)
1
(1)
261 46 3
898
Hamilton Township
(Atlantic Co.) 1,209
245
1,598
Harrison 1,845
258 32
2,133
Highland Park 2,437
630 83
3,014
Hillside 3,754
476 4,443 6
2,899
Hoboken 7,829
1,827 526 5
5,540
Irvington 7,921.
146
1,018
Jamesburg 1,164
17,548 6,906 22
13,91.2
Jersey City 38,616
150 122
1,691
Keyport 1,977
1,480 540 6
3,038
Lakewood 5,077
41 6
496 1
349
1
Lambertville 397
Lawnside 498
209 6
285
Lawrence Township
(Cumberland Co.) I 500
'" .... 'I

Appelldlx R
OCR DATA ON STUDENT SUSPENSIONS
1972·1973
Table V
SOlrrn CAROLINA
w
tv
.j>.
1972-1973 Total Students Suspended
School District Student Enrollment I At Least Once47 Span.
Span.
Sum. Am. Asian Sum.
Total White Black Am. Ind. Am. Total White Black Am.48 Other 49 Total
Abbeville 4,306 2,321 1,985 232 91 141 5.4
Aiken 24,326 16,504 7,735 11 69 7 1,782 815 967 7.3
Allendale 2,430 557 1.873 157 39 118 6.5
Anderson #1 4,253 3,658 590 3 1 1 166 120 45 1 3.9
Anderson #2 3,946 3,044 898 3 1 451 264 187 11.4
Anderson #3 2,286 1,631 655 160 65 95 7.0
Anderson #4 2,257 1,520 737 16 50
.7
Anderson #5 12,523 9,622 2,887 5 6 3 696 394 302 5.6
Bamberg #1 2,162 877 1,285 85 21 64 3.9
Bamberg #2 1,757 287 1,470 90 14 76 5.1
Barnwell #29 1,055 483 572 65 9 56 6.2
Barnwell #45 2,116 1,199 917 155 70 85 7.3
Beaufort 9,779 3,826 5,907 15 7 24 584 253 330 1 6.0
Berkeley 18,493 11,271 7,072 54 8 88 682 363 319 3.7
Calhoun #1 1,648 267 1,381 61 13 48 3.7
Calhoun #2 758 4 754 9 0 9 1.2
Charleston 55,562 28,241 26,965 155 47 154 4,272 1,927 2,329 11 5 7.7
Cherokee 8,639 6,218 2,419 2 1,153 667 486 13.3
Chester 7,629 3,674 3,955 730 294 436 9.6
O,esterfield 8,744 5,149 3,595 477 288 189 5.5
Oarendon #1 2,009 2 2,007 27 0 27 1.3
Oarendon #2 3,229 761 2,468 93 38 55 2.9
Clarendon #3 1,310 571 739 58 23 35 4.4
Colleton 6,992 2,602 4,387 3 614 161 453 8.8
Darlington 13,310 5,991 7,315 2 2 572 160 412 4.3
Dillon #1 1,513 616 887 10 41 14 27 2.7
Dillon #2 4,863 2,262 2,484 117 222 81 137 4 4.6
Dillon #3 2,107 1,030 1,077 68 32 36 3.2
Dorchester #1 1,694 438 1,256 52 10 42 3.1
Dorchester #2 6,842 5,241 1,560 7 18 16 468 207 261 6.8
Edgefield 3,649 973 2,676 242 63 179 6.6
Fairfield 4,997 1,241 3,756 358 94 264 7.2

Florence #1 14,221 8,266 5,950 3 2 1,080 449 630 1 7.6
Florence #2 1,623 813 810 139 46 93 8.6
Florence #3 4,847 1,972 2,873 2 370 136 234 7.6
Florence #4 1,537 180 1,357 136 15 121 8.8
Florence #5 1,306 897 409 40 22 18 3.1
Georgetown 9,298 3,627 5,670 1 780 195 585 8.4
Greenville 56,930 44,164 12,680 41 13 32 3,754 1,953 1,800 1 6.6
Greenwood #50 9,720 6,139 3,559 18 2 2 1,078 401 677 ILl
Greenwood #51 1,261 988 273 40 18 22 3.2
Greenwood #52 1,403 941 462 68 41 27 4.8
Hampton #1 2,496 1,155 1,341 54 24 30 2.2
Hampton #2 1,940 321 1,619 0 0.0
Horry 18,936 12,372 6,541 7 1 15 542 346 196 2.9
Jasper 3,005 659 2,345 1 159 38 121 5.3
Kershaw 9,008 5,259 3,741 3 1 4 517 244 273 5.7
Lancaster 11,428 7,970 3,457 1 394 235 159 3.4
Laurens #55 5,598 3,267 2,331 410 189 221 7.3
Laurens #56 3,899 2,397 1,501 1 234 77 157 6.0
Lee #1 4,520 679 3,840 1 103 24 79 2.3
Lexington #1 5,609 5,Q70 538 1 191 133 58 3.4
Lexington #2 11,374 10,088 1,260 8 5 13 834 607 227 7.3
Lexington #3 2,661 1,672 989 132 47 85 5.0
Lexington #4 1,290 825 462 3 57 37 20 4.4
Lexington #5 5,962 5,315 643 1 3 235 144 91 3.9
Marion #1 3,186' 1,346 1,840 305 87 218 9.6
Marion #2 3,248 1,219 2,027 2 67 9 58 2.1
Marion #3 966 152 814 21 6 15 2.2
Marion #4 555 157 398 0 0.0
Marlboro 7,694 3,443 4,239 11 1 309 60 249 4.0
McCormick 2,384 501 1,883 102 21 81 4.3
Newberry 6,604 3,639 2,965 180 52 128 2.7
Oconee 10,417 9,195 1,216 3 3 457 251 206 4.4
Orangeburg #1 1,376 479 897 79 27 52 5.7
Orangeburg #2 1,166 171 995 68 14 54 5.8
Orangeburg #3 4,211 586 3,625 45 9 36 Ll
Orangeburg #4 1,627 753 873 1 64 28 36 3.9
Orangeburg #5 6,681 2,097 4,580 4 156 34 122 2.3
Orangeburg #6 1,354 553 801 21 9 12 1.6
w
N Orangeburg #7 1,128 190 938 43 8 35 3.8
Ul
Orangeburg #8 604 258 346 9 3 6 1.5

APPENDIXR
FOOTNOTES
I Unless noted otherwise, enrollment figures were taken from the Directory ofPublic Elementary and Secondary Schools in Selected
Districts, Enrollment and Staff by Racial/Ethnic Group, Fall 1972, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office for Civil
Rights. Because the suspension figures reported to the Office for Civil Rights in the fall of 1973 were for the previous school year, they
had to be compared, where possible, to the school districts' enrollments in the fall of 1972.
zGenerally, for purposes of these tabulations, any schools serving grade six or grades lower than six were classified as "elementary"
schools. However, in districts operating only one school serving all 12 grades, the one school was classified as a secondary school. Ungraded
schools and other special schools, such as those serving various types of handicapped students, were classified as elementary schools
unless it was clear that the special schools served only secondary students.
3For purposes of these tabulations, "secondary" schools include single schools serving all twelve grades, other schools serving no grades
lower than seventh grade, and ungraded schools and other special schools clearly serving junior and senior high school students.
4These figures were compiled from the Individual School Campus Reports (Form OSICR 102) submitted to the Office for Civil Rights
of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare in the fall of 1973. Because the data regarding suspensions were not edited by the
Office for Civil Rights, these tabulations represent conservative interpretations of the figures reported. Suspension figures for individual
schools were not used unless information on both the number of students suspended at least once and the total number of suspension
days was supplied. An exception to this rule was made if no suspension days were recorded for any of the schools in a district. The
suspension data for individual schools were also not used when obvious errors were recognized. For example, when the number of
students of a particular racc that were suspended exceeded the total number of students of that race in the school in the 1972-1973
school year, neither the suspensions nor suspension days were counted. Obvious arithmetical errors were corrected. The figures compiled
from the Individual School Campus Reports tend to be an undercount, not only for the reasons described above, but also because, in a
number of the school districts reporting, "no information available" was recorded for certain schools, particularly junior and senior high
schools where suspensions are more apt to occur. Some school districts only reported to OCR suspensions over a certain number of days,
thus many more students were affected by suspensions than are reflected here.
sit should be noted that these percentages tend to understate the extent to which suspensions are being used because they reflect the
percentage of the total enrollment that was suspended at least once, while the great majority of suspensions occur at the junior and senior
high school level.
6This school, in Crawfordsville, served grades 3-12.
'The Fall 1972 Directory of Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, p. 53, reflected that Harmony Grove School District No. I
had two schools serving grades 1-6 and 7-12 respectively. In reporting its suspension data to OCR in the fall of 1973, Harmony Grove
reported these two schools as one campus serving grades K-12. In order to accurately report the suspension data, the district was
recorded as having one school.
sThe Fall 1972 Directory of Public Elemelllary and Secondary Schools, p. 54, reflected that the Helena-West Helena School District
had four secondary schools serving grades 7, 8, 9-10, and 11-12 respectively. In reporting its suspension data to OCR in the fall of 1973,
Helena-West Helena reported these four schools as two campuses, one serving grades 7-8 and one grades 9-12. In order to accurately
report the suspension data, the district was recorded as having two secondary schools.
91972-1973 enrollment figures were not available for the Lakeside School District, so 1973-1974 enrollment data from Form OSICR
101 were used.
IONo suspension days were recorded for the schools in the Lakeside School District.
II Because no suspension days were reported for the schools in Lakeside, the suspensions should not be counted when comparisons of
suspensions and suspension days are made.
IZThe Baltimore City School District did not provide a racial breakdown of its suspension figures.
13TIlere are 140 students in Baltimore County who were suspended for 210 days who are included in the total, but for whom no racial
or ethnic breakdown was reported.
14There are 29 students in Howard County who were suspended for 106 days who are included in the total, but for whom no racial or
ethnic breakdown was reported.
ISThere are 18 students in Somerset County who were suspended for 54 days who are included in the total, but for whom no racial or
ethnic breakdown was reported.
327

16Because no suspension days were reported for any of the schools in Worcester County, the suspensions should not be counted when
comparisons of suspensions and suspension days are made.
17There are a total of 1,870 students (suspended for 64,553 days) in four school districts who are included in the total of the number
of students suspended and suspension days but for whom no racial or ethnic identification was reported.
18Because the Baltimore City School District did not provide a racial breakdown of suspended students, the white enroUrnent (57,350)
in the district was not counted when the percent of white students suspended in the surveyed districts was computed.
19Because the Baltimore City School Districtdid not provide a racial breakdown of suspended students, the black enroUrnent (129,250)
in the district was not counted when the percent of black students suspended in the surveyed districts was computed.
2°ln order to accurately report the suspension data for the Asbury Park District, 1973-1974 enroUrnent figures had to be used because
the middle school in Asbury Park was not included in the enroUment figures in the Fall 1972 Directory of Public Elementary and
Secondary Schools, p. 821.
21 There were 467 students in Asbury Park who were suspended for 1,401 days who are included in the total, but for whom no racial or
ethnic identification was reported.
22There were 987 students in Bridgeton who were suspended for 2,981 days who are included in the total but not in the racial and
ethnic breakdowns because no racial or ethnic data were provided for suspension days. If the 987 students (27 White, 430 black and
530 Spanish-sumamed American) had been counted, the percentages, by race and ethnic group, would have been 26.1,34.1 and 32.5,
respectively.
23The Downe Township District reported that it keeps no information on suspensions by race and no information on suspension
days.
24There was one student in Ewing Township who was suspended for one day who is included in the total, but for whom no racial or
ethnic identification was reported.
25Because 1972-1973 enroUment figures were not available for Fairfield Borough, 1973-1974 enroUrnent data from Form OSICR 101
were used.
26Because 1972-1973 enroUrnent figures were not available for Fairfield Township, 1973-1974 enroUment data from Form OSICR 101
were used.
27There were nine students in Hillside who were suspended for 20 days who are included in the total but not in the racial and ethnic
breakdowns because no racial and ethnic data on suspension days were provided.
28There were 158 students in Jersey City who were suspended for 1,273 days who are included in the total but not in the racial and
ethnic breakdowns because no racial and ethnic data on suspension days were provided. If the 158 students (20 white, 127 black and 11
Spanish-sumamed American) had been counted, the percentages, by race and ethnic group, would have been 1.2, 2.5 and 1.0 respectively.
29Because 1972-1973 enroUrnent figures were not available for Morris, 1973-1974 enroUrnent data from Form OSICR 101 were used.
30Twelve students, suspended for 24 days, are included in the total for Morris but not in the racial or ethnic breakdowns because no
racial or ethnic data on suspension days were reported.
31 There were 189 students suspended for 1,317 days, who are included in the total for Neptune Township, but for whom no racial or
ethnic identification was reported.
32There were 794 students, suspended for 1,402 days, who are included in the total for North Bergen, but for whom no racial or ethnic
identification was reported.
33There were 393 students, suspended for 1,270 days, in Paterson who are included in the total but not in the racial and ethnic breakdowns
because no racial and ethnic data on suspension days were provided. If the 393 students (36 White, 328 black and 29 Spanishsumamed
American) had been counted, the percentages, by race and ethnic group, would have been 1.8, 7.4 and 2.4, respectively.
34The RoseUe District reported that it had no information available, by race or ethnic group, on students suspended or suspension days.
35There were nine students, suspended for 45 days, in Trenton who are included in the total but not in the racial and ethnic break·
downs because no racial and ethnic data on suspension days were provided. There were also an additional 745 students who were suspended
who are not counted at all, for purposes of our tabulations, because no information on suspension days was reported.
328

36There were 1,763 students, suspended for 6,276 days, who are included in the total for Willingboro, but for whom no racial or ethnic
identification was reported.
37Because 1972-1973 enrollment figures were not available for Woodbury, 1973-1974 enrollment data from Form OSICR 101 were
used.
38There were 5,290 students, suspended for 17,243 days, who are included in the total, but for whom no racial or ethnic identification
on students suspended andlor suspension days were reported.
39Because no suspension days were reported for the schools in Downe Township, the suspensions should not be counted when comparisons
of suspensions and suspension days are made.
40Because neither Downe Township nor Roselle provided a racial or ethnic breakdown of suspended students' the enrollments in these
two districts (2,267 White, 1,432 black, 91 Spanish-surnamed American) were not counted when the percentage of students suspended,
by race and ethnic group, in the surveyed districts was computed.
41 There are 229 students in Cincinnati who were suspended for 687 days who are included in the total, but for whom no racial or
ethnic identification was reported.
42There are 219 students in Mt. Healthy who were suspended for 882 days who are included in the total, but for whom no racial or
ethnic identification was reported.
43There is a significant discrepancy here between reported suspensions and suspension days because for some of the schools in this
district both out-of-school and in-school suspensions (for which there are no suspension days) were recorded. Where it was possible to
distinguish, in-school suspensions were not included in the count.
44There are 27 students in Youngstown who were suspended for 79 days who are included in the total, but fnr whom no racial or
ethnic identification was reported.
4SThere are a total of 475 students (suspended for 1,648 days) in three districts who are included in the total number of students
suspended but for whom no racial or ethnic identification was provided.
46Because the Columbus School District reported that no information was available regarding suspensions, the enrollmen t in Columbus
was not included when the percentages were computed.
47The suspension figures for individual districts were drawn from the table entitled ·Student Suspensions and Expulsions in South
Carolina School Districts, 1972-1973" at pp. 14-16 of ·Do Unto Others ... A Report on School Districts' Compliance With South
Carolina's 1973 'Student Discipline Law' ", Your Schools, Special Report, April 1974, published by the South Carolina Community
Relations Program of the American Friends Service Committee. The figures in that table were taken from the School Systell\ Summary
Reports (Form OSICR 101, Item VlI.B.) submitted to the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare in
tbe fall of 1973.
48Students who were recorded in the table in Your Schools as ·other" were identified further by checking back to the School System
Summary Report (Form OSICR 101, Item V1I.B.).
49·0ther" includes students identified on Form OSICR 101 as American Indian or Asian American.
sONo racial breakdown of the 16 suspensions reported in Anderson County No.4 was included in Item V1I.B. on Form OSICR 10!.
SI The enrollment figures here do not include two schools which were recorded as being in RiChland County No.1 in the Directory
ofPublic Elementary and Secondary Schools in Selected Districts, Fall 1972, p. 1264, but were not in fact part of the public school
system. The two schools, John G. Richards for Boys and Willow Lane School for Girls, are correctional institutions.
S2The figures for the Saluda County School District include enrollment and suspension figures for Hollywood School District No.4
which was operative during the 1972-1973 school year but is no longer operative.
S3The total includes 16 students who were suspended in Anderson County No.4 for whom no racial breakdown was reported.
s4Because Anderson County No.4 did not provide a racial breakdown of suspended students, the white enrollment (1,520) in the
district was not counted when the percent of white students suspended in the surveyed districts was computed.
sSBecause Anderson County No..4 did not provide a racial breakdown of suspended students, the black enrollment (737) in the district
was not counted when the percent of black students suspended in the surveyed district was computed.
329

State School District
Appendix S
NUMBER OF STUDENTS EXPELLED AS REPORTED TO OCR'
1972-1973 1971-1972 1970-1971
School Year School Year School Year
Total I White I Black I Other 2 Total IWhite I Black I Other 2 Total I White I BlackTOther 2
Alabama Autauga Co.
Montgomery
0
72 16 56 0
0
43 10 33 0
0
58 18 40 0
Georgia Bibb Co.
Hancock Co.
2
0
1 I 0 0
0
(Report not Available)
17 4 13 0
South Carotina RicWand Co. No.1
Sumter Co. No.2
7
6
0
1
7
5
0
0
11
3
1
0
10
3
0
0
43
4
4
0
39
4
0
0
Mississippi Canton 0 0 0
Kentucky Floyd Co. 0 0 0
Iowa Davenport 0 0 0
Colorado Denver 9 I 3 5 21 2 14 5 30 5 24 1
Maine Portland (Not Surveyed) 0 (Not Surveyed)
Massachusetts Cambridge 0 7 3
2 3
Holyoke
New Bedford
Somerville
Springfield
0
0
0
(Not Surveyed)
2
0
0
0
1 1 0 0
1
0
3
1
2
0
I
0
0
Washington, D.C. 0 0 1 0 1 0
1Expulsion figures taken from Forms OSICR 101 submitted by individual school districts to the Office for Civil Rights in the fall of 1971
(Item VII.), 1972 (Item VlI.) and 1973 (Item VlI. A.).
20ther includes students categorized on Form OSICR as American Indian, Asian American, or Spanish Surnamed American.
3Racial breakdowns were not reported.
330

Total Students Suspended At Least Onces Total No. of Days for Which Percent of Total
(percent of Total Students Suspended) Students Were Susoendeds EnroUment Susoended6
Spanish Spanish Spanish
Surnamed Surnamed Surnamed
Total White Black American Other Total White Black American Other Total White Black American Other
66 27 39 184 90 94 0.9 0.6 1.7
(40.9) (59.1)
1,832 694 1,138 5,219 1,847 3,372 5.0 3.5 6.6
(37.9) (62.1)
6,622 2,682 2,418 1,497 25 20,714 6,922.5 8,500.5 5,239 52 7.2 5.0 15.4 7.0 2.3
(40.5) (36.5) (22.6) (0.4)
2,651 13 2,635 3 5,890.5 35 5,849.5 6 1.9 0.3 2.0 0.4
(0.5) (99.4) (0.1)
1,411 552 859 5,641.5 2,055.5 3,586 4.6 3.5 5.7
(39.1) (60.9)
41 41 57 57 1.7 1.7
(100.0)
276 225 46 5 536 452 75 9 1.2 1.1 2.9 1.1
(81.5) (16.7) (1.8)
128 128 290 290 1.4 1.4
(100.0)
322 226 89 6 1 708 457 226 24 3.3 2.9 6.0 1.6
(70.2) (27.6) (1.9) (0.3)
53 51
(96.2)
2
(3.8)
334 162 172 0.6 0.7 0.5
1,860 1,626
(87.4)
187
(10.1)
45
(2.4)
2
(0.1)
4,373 3,777 486 104 6 11.0 11.4 8.5 10.3
1,305 9
737 496 64 I 11,935.5 9 (56.5) (38.0) (4.9) (0.1)
6,099 4,890.5 837 5 4.3 3.6 6.7 2.7
60 10
(16.7)
50
(83.3)
240 40 200 1.5 5.6 1.3
4,085 11 1,066 11 3,019 11
(26.1) (73.9)
13,163.5 3,211 9,952.5 11.4 6.9 14.9
815 323
(39.6)
490
(60.1)
2
(0.2)
2,972 1,179 1,787 6 7.9 7.3 8.3 5.4
333

Secondary Students Suspended
At Least Onces
(percent of Secondary Students Suspended)
Total Number of Days for Which
Secondary Students Were Suspended
Percent of Secondary
s
Enrollment SUsPended
Total White Black
Spanish
Surnamed
American Other Total White Black
Spanish
Surnamed
American Other Total White Black
Spanish
Surnamed
American Other
50 19 31 138 67 71 1.5 0.9 2.6
(38.0) (62.0)
1,188 524 664 3,298 1,465 1,833 8.0 5.9 11.3
(44.1) (55.9)
5,996 2,483 2,117 1,373 23 9,061 6,423.5 7,657.5 4,936 44 14.5 9.6 30.6 16.7 4.9
(41.4) (35.3) (22.9) (0.4)
2,397 13 2,381 3 5,171 35 5,130 6 4.3 0.7 4.5 1.2
(0.5) (99.3) (0.1)
1,247 495 752 4,853 1,723 3,130 10.7 8.4 13.0
(39.7) (60.3)
41 41 57 57 3.2 3.3
(100.0)
247 199
(80.6)
44
(17.8)
4
(1.6)
509 426 74 9 2.4 2.1 7.7 2.1
115 115
(100.0)
251 251 4.2 4.2
267 179
(67.0)
83
(31.1)
5
(1.9)
633 397 213 23 9.2 7.9 17.3 4.3
53 51
(96.2)
2
(3.8)
334 162 172 1.3 1.4 1.3
1,804 1,581
(87.6)
178
(9.9)
43
(2.4)
2
(0.1)
4,214 3,645 462 101 6 28.4 29.2 22.6 30.1
1,247 9
715 461 63 1 11,084 9
(57.3) (37.0) (5.1) (0.1)
5,790 4,359 826 5 9.2 7.3 15.2 9.7 5.3
60 10
(16.7)
50
(83.3)
240 40 200 3.4 15.9 2.9
2,313 11 686 11
1,627 11
(29.7) (70.3)
8,076 2,144 5,932 17.3 10.9 22.9
465 192
(41.3)
271
(58.3)
2
(0.4)
1,821 727 1,088 6 14.6 14.8 14.6 14.3
335

APPENDIX T
TABLES I-II
FOOTNOTES
ISchool districts in Somerville, Massachusetts and Portland, Maine were visited by CDF staff, but were not surveyed by OCR in the
fall of 1973 and thus are not included in this analysis.
2Unless noted otherwise, enrollment figures were taken from the Directory ofPublic Elementary and Secondary Schools in Selecred
Districts, Enrol/ment and Staff by Raciol/Ethnic Group, Fall 1972, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office for Civil
Rights. Because the suspension figures reported to the Office for Civil Rights in the fall of 1973 were for the previous school year, they
had to be compared, where possible, to the school districts' enrollments in the fall of 1972.
3Generally, for purposes of these tabulations, any schools serving grade six or grades lower than six were classified as "elementary"
schools. However, in districts operating only one school serving all 12 grades, the one school was classified as a secondary school. Ungraded
schools and other special schools, such as those serving various types of handicapped students, were classified as elementary
schools unless it was clear that the special schools served only secondary students.
4 For purposes ofthese tabulations, "secondary" schools include single schools serving all twelve grades, other schools serving no grades
lower than seventh grade, and ungraded schools and other special schools clearly serving junior and senior high school students.
sThese figures were compiled from the Individual School Campus Reports (Form OSICR 102) submitted to the Office for Civil
Rights of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare in the fall of 1973. Because the data regarding suspensions were not edited
by the Office for Civil Rights, these tabulations represent conservative interpretations of the figures reported. Suspension figures for
individual schools were not used unless information on both the number of students suspended at least once and the total number of suspension
days were supplied. An exception to this rule was made if no suspension days were recorded for any of the schools in a district.
The suspension data for individual schools were also not used when obvious errors were recognized. For example, when the number of
students of a particular race that were suspended exceeded the total number of students of that race in the school in the 1972-1973
school year, neither the suspensions nor suspension days were counted. Obvious arithmetical errors were corrected. The figures compiled
from the Individual School Campus Reports tend to be an undercount, not only for the reasons described above, but also because, in a
number of the school districts reporting, "no information available" was recorded for certain schools, particularly junior and senior high
schools where suspensions are more apt to occur. Some school districts only reported to OCR suspensions over a certain number of days,
thus many more students were affected by suspensions than are reflected here.
6lt should be noted that these percentages tend to understate the extent to which suspensions are being used because they reflect the
percentage of the total enrollment that was suspended at least once, while the great majority of suspensions occur at the junior and senior
high school level. See Table II for an analysis of suspensions in secondary schools.
'Suspension data were not available for one of the junior high schools and one senior high school in Davenport. Another secondary
school reporting no suspensions was the Drop-In Center, for which the district indicated questions regarding student suspensions were not
applicable.
8 Keith Junior High (7-8) in New Bedford reported that no suspension data were available.
9There were seven students suspended for 104 days from the Pupil Adjustment Center in Springfield who are included in the total
figures, but for whom no racial or ethnic identification was reported.
IOThe enrollment figures here do nol include two schools which were recorded as being in Richland County No.1 in the Directory of
Public Elementary and Secondary Schools in Selected Districts, Fall 1972, p. 1264, but were not in fact part of the public school system.
The two schools, John G. Richards for Boys and Willow Lane School for Girls, are correctional institutions.
liThe suspension data for Richland County No.1 represent only students suspended dUring the second semester of the 1972-73 school
year.
336

AppendixT
SUSPENSIONS IN CDF SURVEY DISTRICTS
197Z·1973
Table ill
FREQUENCY OF SUSPENSIONS
OF SECONDARY SCHOOL AGE CffiLDREN'
(Age 12-17)
...,
00
Children Suspended Children Olildren
At Least Once Suspended Once Suspended Twi
%of All
Areas Surveyed Race/EUlOici ty Children % of All %of
Number Surveyed Number Children Number Chil
Suspended 12-17 Susoended Suspended Suspended Suspe
Alabama
Autauga County Total 9 4.6 9 100 0
Beat 10 Black 5 6.4 5 100 0
White 4 3.4 4 100 0
Montgomery Total 4 3.9 2 50 0
Census Tract 3 Black 2 4.2 0 0 0
White 2 3.8 2 100 0
Oriental 0 0 - - - -
Montgomery Total 3 5.3 2 67 0
Northgate Housing Project (All Black)
Colorado
Denver
Census Tract 1.01 Total 2 4.1 I 50 0
Mexican American 0 0 - - - -
White 2 4.4 I 50 0
Denver Total 16 10.3 7 44 5
Census Tract 8 Black 5 17.2 4 80 I
Mexican American 8 7.5 2 25 2
White 3 17.6 1 33 2
American Indian 0 0 - - - -
Denver Total 16 25.0 6 38 I
Census Tract 41.01 Black 15 24.6 5 33 1
White 1 50.0 1 100 0
Oriental 0 0 - - - -
Georgia
Hancock County Total 0 0 - - - -
Militia Districts Black 0 0 - - - -
102 & 113 White 0 0 - - -
Macon Total 7 6.5 6 86 I
Census Tract 127 Black 7 7.8 6 86 1
White 0 0 - - - -
Iowa
Davenport Total 6 9.8 5 83 0
Census Tract 107 Black 5 12.8 4 80 0
Mexican American 0 0 - - - -
White 1 5.3 1 100 0
Davenport Total 1 1.6 0 0 1 1
Ccnsus Tract 123 Black 0 0 - - - -
While 1 1.6 0 0 1 1

Kentucky
Floyd County Total I 2 0.5 2 100 0
Mud Creek Area (All White)
Mainc
Portland Total I 13 12.7 12 92 1
Census Tract 11 (AU White)
Portland Total 5 14.7 5 100 0
Census Tract 12 (All White)
Portla.nd Total 2 t.5 2 100 0
Census Tract 19 (AU White)
Portland Total 2 8.0 1 50 0
Bayside East Housing Project (AU White)
Portland Total 6 10.0 3 50 1
Riverton Housing Project Black None Surveyed at Ages 12-17
White 6 10.0 3 50 1
Massachusetts
Cambridge Total 3 4.3 1 33 I
Census Tract 3524 Black 2 7.4 0 0 1 5
Puerto Rican None Surveyed at Ages 12-17
Portuguese o 0 - - -
White I 2.4 I 100 0
Cambridge
Total 1 1.3 0 0 1 1
Census Tract 3527 I Black 1 ll.l 0 0 1 1
Portuguese 0 0
White 0 0
Holyoke
Total 14 8.0 5 36 5
Census Tract 8114 I Black I 9.1 I 100 0
Puerto Rican 7 9.9 2 29 3 4
White 6 6.7 2 33 2
New Bedford
Total 11 8.3 7 64 0
Census Tract 6510 I Black 7 25.9 3 43 0
Puerto Rican 0 0
Portuguese 0 0
White 4 4.7 4 100 0
New Bedford
Total 11 6.5 6 55 2
Census Tract 6526 I Black 4 28.6 3 75 0
Puerto Rican 0 0 - - - -
Portuguese 2 2.0 I 50 0
White 5 12.8 2 40 2 4
Somerville
Total 1 0.5 0 0 I 10
Census Tract 3512 I Black None Surveyed at Ages 12-17
Puerto Rican o 0
Portuguese 0 0
White 1 0.6 0 0 1 10
Oriental None Surveyed at Ages 12-17
Springfield
Total 17 9.5 11 65 3 1
Census Tract 8008 I Black 2 11.1 1 50 0
Puerto Rican 15 10.2 10 67 3 2
White 0 0
I
Portuguese 0 0 - - - -
w
W
\Q

11 ppen.di;-c T
SUSPENSIONS IN CDF SURVEY DISTRICTS
1972-1973
Table III
FREOUENCY OF SUSPENSIONS
OF SECONDARY SCHOOL AGE CHiLDREN'
(Age 12-17)
w
o"""
O,ildren Suspended Children Children
Al Least Once Suspended Once Suspended Tw
%of All
Areas Surveyed Race/Ethnic")' Children %of All %o
Nu mber Surveyed Number Children Number Chi
Susnended 12-17 Susnended Susnended Susnended Susp
Springfield Total 22 13.0 16 73 a
Census Tract 80 18 Black 16 11.8 12 75 a
Puerto Rh.:an 2 11.8 I 50 a
\%ile 4 25.0 3 75 a
Mississi ppi
Canlon
Joe Prichard Homc' Total 14 15.4 10 71 2
!lousing Projcct (All Black)
South Carolina
Columbia Total 24 20.9 9 38 6
Census Tract 5 Black 24 21.6 9 38 6
White a a - - -
Columbia Total 3 7.5 a a 1
Census Tract 22 Black 3 14.3 a a 1
White a a - - -
Sumter County Total l7 14.3 11 65 5
Precinct 2 Black 12 22.2 7 58 4
While 5 7.7 4 80 1
Sumter Counly TOlal 4l 17.4 20 49 8
Precincts 1 and 261.l Black 4l 17.6 20 49 8
White a a - - -
Washington. D.C.
Census Tract 74.04 Total 24 10.3 20 83 2
Black 24 10.4 20 83 2
White a a - - -

AppendixT
SUSPENSIONS IN CD" SURVEY D1Smlcrs
1972-1973
Table III
FREQUENCY OF SUSPENSIONS
OF SECONDARY SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN'
(Age 12-17)
Olildren
Suspended T
Children 12-17
Suspended Olildren
At Lease Once Suspended Once
%of All
Totals I Children
Number Surveyed
Suspended 12-17
Black 193 12.8 58
Mexican American 8 7.1 25
Puerto Rican 24 9.4 54
Portuguese 2 1.2 50
White 70 4.1 73
American Indian 0 0 -
Oriental 0 0 -
47
GRAND TOTAL: 297 7.9 179 60
lSurvey data gathered between July 1973 and March 1974. See Appendix A for further discussion.
w
.;.. -

AppendlxT
SUSPENSIONS IN CDF SURVEY D1STRlCfS
1972-1973
Table IV
DURATION OF SUSPENSIONS
OF SECONDARY SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN'
(Age 12-17)
w
-I>tJ
Children 12-17
Suspended Suspensions of
Duration of
At Least Once Children l2-l 7 1-3 Days 4-5 Days
Areas Surveyed Race Number % of All Number Number for Number %of Number %of
of Children of Which Data of All of All
Children Surveyed Suspen- Collected on Suspen- Suspen- Suspen- Suspen-
Suspended 12-17 sions Duration sians sians sians sians
Alabama
Autauga County Total 9 4.6 9 9 5 56 J 11
Beat 10 Black 5 6.4 5 5 3 60 J 20
White 4 3.4 4 4 2 50 0 0
Montgomery Total 4 3.9 9 9 5 56 4 44
Census Tract 3 Black 2 4.2 7 7 4 57 3 43
White 2 3.8 2 2 1 50 J 50
Oriental 0 0 - - - - - -
Montgomery Total 3 5.3 5 4 4 100 0 0
Northgate Housing Project (All Black)
Colorado
Denver Total 2 4.1 6 6 5 83 0 0
Census Tract 1.01 Mexican American 0 0 - - - - - -
White 2 .. 4.4 6 6 5 83 0 0
Denver Total 16 10.3 32 32 23 72 6 19
Census Tract 8 Black 5 17.2 6 6 4 67 2 33
Mexican American 8 7.5 21 21 16 76 2 10
White 3 17.6 5 5 3 60 2 40
American Indian 0 0 - - - - - -
Denver Total 16 25.0 45 45 41 91 4 9
Census Tract 41.01 Black IS 24.6 44 44 40 91 4 9
White I 50.0 1 J I 100 0 0
Oriental 0 0 - - - - -
Georgia
Hancock County Total 0 0 - - - - - -
Militia Districts Black 0 0 - - - - - -
102& 113 White 0 0 - - - - - -
Macon Total 7 6.5 8 8 5 63 0 0
Census Tract 127 Black 7 7.8 8 8 5 63 0 0
White 0 0 - - - - - -
Iowa
Davenport Total 6 9.8 8 7 5 71 2 29
Census Tract 107 Black 5 12.8 7 6 4 67 2 33
Mexican American 0 0 - - - - - -
White 1 5.3 1 1 1 100 0 0
Davenport Total 1 1.6 2 1 1 100 0 a
Census Tract 123 Black 0 0 - - - - - -
White 1 1.6 2 1 1 100 0 0

Kentucky
Floyd County Total
Mud Creek Area (All White) I 2 0.5 2 2 2 100 0 0
Maine
Portland Total
Census Tract 11 (All White) I 13 12.7 14 12 2 17 6 50
Portland Total
Census Tract 12 (All White) I 5 14.7 5 5 2 40 1 20
Portland Total
Census Tract 19 (All White) I 2 1.5 2 2 2 100 0 0
Portland Total
Bayside East Housing Project (All White) 2 8.0 4 2 1 50 1 50
Portland Total 6 10.0 13 13 7 54 4 31
Riverton Housing Project Black None Surveyed at Ages 12-17
White 6 10.0 13 13 7 54 4 31
Massachusetts
Cambridge
Total 3 4.3 6 3 2 67 1 33
Census Tract 3524 I Black 2 7.4 5 3 2 67 1 33
Puerto Rican None Surveyed at Ages 12-17
Portuguese 0 0 - -
White 1 2.4 1 0
Cambridge
Total 1 1.3 2 2 2 100 0 0
Census Tract 3527 I Black 1 11.1 2 2 2 100 0 0
Portuguese 0 0
White 0 0
Holyoke
Total 14 8.0 34 31 17 55 9 29
Census Tract 8114 I Black 1 9.1 1 1 1 100 0 0
Puerto Rican 7 9.9 21 21 10 48 8 38
White 6 6.7 12 9 6 67 1 11
New Bedford Total 11 8.3 21 18 15 83 0 0
Census Tract 6510 I. Black 7 25.9 17 14 11 79 0 0
Puerto Rican 0 0
Portuguese 0 0
White 4 4.7 4 4 4 100 0 0
New Bedford
Total II 6.5 19 19 19 100 0 0
Census Tract 6526 I Black 4 28.6 6 6 6 100 0 0
Portuguese 0 0 - - - - -
Portuguese 2 2.0 4 4 4 100 0 0
White 5 12.8 9 9 9 100 0 0
Somerville
Total I 0.5 2 2 2 100 0 0
Census Tract 3512 I Black None Surveyed at Ages 12-17
Puerto Rican 0 0
Portuguese 0 0
White 1 0.6 2 2 2 100 0 0
Oriental None Surveyed at Ages 12-17
Springfield
Total 17 9.5 32 29 15 52 12 41
Census Tract 8008 I Black 2 11.1 4 3 0 0 3 100
Puerto Rican 15 10.2 28 26 15 58 9 35
White 0 0
Puerto Rican 0 0 - - - -
I
w
.j>.
W

Appendi.T T
SUSPENSIONS IN CDF SURVEY DISTRICTS
1972·1973
Table IV
DURATION OF SUSPENSIONS
OF SECONDARY SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN'
(Age 12-17)
w
.j>.
.j>.
Children 12-17
Duration of
Suspended Suspensions of
At Least Once Children 12-17 1-3 Days 4-5 Days
Areas Surveyed Race Number %of AU Number Number for Number %of Number %of
of Children of Which Data of All of All
Children Surveyed Suspen- Collected on Suspen- Suspen- Suspen- Suspen-
Suspended 12-17 sions' Duration sions sions sions sions
Springlield Total 22 13.0 33 24 14 58 8 33
Census Tract 8018 Black 16 11.8 21 17 10 59 6 35
Puerto Rican 2 11.8 6 1 0 0 1 100
White 4 25.0 6 6 4 67 J 17
Mississi ppi
Canton
Joe Prichard Homes Total
Housing Project (All Black) 14 15.4 22 22 10 45 10 45
South Carolina
Columbia Total 24 20.9 68 52 43 83 6 12
Census Tract 5 Black 24 21.6 68 52 43 83 6 12
White 0 0 - - - - - -
Columbia Total 3 7.5 16 16 9 56 7 44
Census Tract 22 Black 3 14.3 16 16 9 56 7 44
White 0 0 - - - - - -
Sumter County Total 17 14.3 24 24 19 79 4 17
Precinct 2 Black 12 22.2 18 18 14 78 3 J7
White 5 7.7 6 6 5 83 I 17
Sumter County Total 41 17.4 95 94 41 44 29 31
Precincts 1 and 26B Black 41 17.6 95 94 41 44 29 31
White 0 0 - - - - - -
Washington,D.C.
Census Tract 74.04 Total 24 10.3 31 30 21 70 8 27
Black 24 10.4 31 30 21 70 8 27
White 0 0 - - - - - -
[Survey data gathered between July 1973 and March 1974. See Appendix A for further explanation.

Appendix T
SUSPENSIONS IN CDF SURVEY DISTRICTS
1972-1973
Table IV
DURATION OF SUSPENSIONS
OF SECONDARY SCHOOL AGE CHlLDREN'
(Age 12-17)
Children 12-17
Suspended Suspensions of
Duration of Susp
At Least Once Children 12-17 1-3 Days 4-5 Days
Totals Number %of All Number Number for Number %of Number %of Nu
of Children of Which Data of All of All
Children Surveyed Suspen- Collected on Suspen· Suspen· Suspen- Suspen- Su
Suspended 12-17 sions Duration sions sians sians sians s
Black
193 12.8 388 358 234 65 85 24
Mexican American
8 7.1 21 21
16 76 2 10
Puerto Rican
24 9.4 55 48 25 52 18 38
Portuguese
2 1.2 4 4
4 100 o 0
White
70 4.J 101 92
60 65 18 20
American Indian
o o
Oriental
o o
GRAND TOTAL:
297 7.9 569 523 339 65 123 24
I Survey data gathered between July 1973 and March 1974. See Appendix A for further discussion.
V> ... Ul

APPENDIX U
FOOTNOTES
1The Superintendents of Hancock and Bibb Counties, Georgia refused to be interviewed by CDF or AFSC staff. Therefore, these two
school districts are not represented in this analysis.
2All items marked below with an "X" or answered in a phrase are specified in the written code. All items marked with a 0 are not
specified in the written code. If an item is circled, the item is known to be in use but is not discussed in the written code.
3"Rules and Regulations Concerning Standards of Conduct and Behavior" were given to aU pupils and parents at the beginning of the
1973-74 school year. Since the new state law under which the school officials say they operate was not distributed to parents and students,
its provisions are not rellected in this table.
4Procedmes outlined in decree ofMills v. Board ofEduCiltion ofDistrict ofColumbia (348 F. Supp. 866 (1972».
sSuspension of more than 2 days is prohibited without a hearing. Other disciplinary procedmes are not specified in the decree but
the hearing examiner has the discretion to prescribe other disciplinary measures.
61ndefinite suspension similar to an expulsion.
7Offense specified only in general terms.
SOnly the Student Handbook at Holyoke High School specified this procedme.
9There is an inference in the "Rules of Conduct" that a conference wiU be held, but no indication of how parent is informed of this.
IOThe Superintendent said there are no formal hearings, but that a student may request a hearing if he wishes.
II Hearing held only for expulsion (not indefinite suspension) of which there has been only one in 20 years according to the Assistant
Superintendent.
12Administrative Advisory Council composed of Director of Instruction, Director of Secondary or Elementary Education (depending
on age of the child), faculty representative not personaUy involved, and principal of school involved.
13Hearing Board composed of two teachers, one administrator, one parent, and one student.
14Unclear who may appear, but student may be represented by counsel.
ISFinal action on expulsion must be taken by Board of Education.
16Can appeal Superintendent's decision after hearing on long term suspensions and expulsions.
349

Appenllb V
STATUTORY PROVISIONS FOR SUSI'ENSION AND EXPULSION
w
VI
o
Local Authority
Procedure: Notice;
Hearing
Grounds For
To Report
Statutory
Grounds To
Follow-
State Provision Suspension Expulsion The State Suspension Ex
I
I
Alabama None - - - -
Alaska Official -Willful disobedience None - None
state poucy -Physical Or mental
set by condition
statute -Conviction of
felony
-Behavior inimical
10 welfare of
olher students
Arizona Official -For good cause -Open defiance - None
state poucy -Habitual profanity
set by -Misconduct
statute
Arkansas Official -Immorality None - None
state policy -Refractory
set by conduct
statute -Insubordination
-Infectious disease
-Habitual uncleanuness
-Conduct which
impairs discipune
or harms others
Caufornia Official For good cause For good cause - Written notice Right
state poucy including: including:
set by -Willful disobedience -Willful disobedience
statute -Habitual profanity -Habitual profanity
-Defiance -Defiance
-Assault and -Assault and
battery battery
-Threats -Threats
-Abuse -Abuse
-Smoking -Smoking
-Use or possession -Use or possession
of drugs of drugs
-Violation of -Violation of
school district school district
rules rules
-Misconduct -Misconduct
-Injuring school -Injuring school
property property
Colorado Official -Disobedience -Disobedience - None Hearin
state poucy -Damaging school -Destruction of co
set by property school property
statute -Behavior harmful -Behavior harmful
to others to others
-Physical or men tal
disability

Connecticut I Policy set by None "Conduct inimical No Policy set by local -Writ
local to best interest of administrators -Hear
administrators the school"
Delaware None
D.C. None
Florida Policy set by None None No None
local
administrators
Omcial -Willful disobedience -Being convicted of - Written notice -Writ
state policy -Profane language drug-relaled felony -Hear
set by -Serious or repeated coun
statute misconduct
-Being charged with
drug-related felony
Georgia I None - - - -
Hawaii Official -Detrimen t to -Detriment to - Right to appeal in Right
state policy school morals school morals detrimen t to school detrim
set by or discipline or discipline morals or discipline moral
statute -Poor work -Poor work cases cases
Idaho I Official -Habitual truancy -Habitual truancy - None -Noti
state policy -Incorrigibility -Incorrigibility -Hear
set by -Conduct disrupting -Conduct disrupting coun
statute sehool school
-Presence detrimental -Presence detrimental
to pupils' health to pupils' health
and safety and safety
Illinois I Policy set by -Gross disobedience -Gross disobedience No None
local -Misconduct -Misconduct
administrators -Membership in -Membership in
secret society secret society
Indiana I Official -Conduct con- -Conduct con- No None
state policy stituting stituting
set by in lerference interference
statute with school with school
purposes purposes
Iowa I Official -Incorrigibility -Incorrigibility - None
state policy -Abnormality -Abnormality
set by -Unable 10 -Unable to
statute benefit benefit
-Presence harmful -Presence harmful
-Immorality -Immorality
-Violation of rules -Violation of rules
-Tobaeco -Tobacco
-Liquor -Liquor
-Drugs -Drugs
-Membership in -Membership in
prohibited prohibited
society society
.....
VI .....

Massachusetts I Official None -Misconduct - None Hearin
state policy counse
set by
statute
Michigan I Official -Gross misdemeanor -Gross misdemeanor Written notice Written
sta te policy -Persistent -Persistent Conference Confer
set by disobedience disobedience
statute
Minnesota I Official -Sufficient cause -Sufficient cause - None
state policy
set by
statute
Mississippi I Official -Misconduct -Misconduct - None
state policy -Where best interest -Damaging school
set by of school requires it property
statute -Mental or emotional -Membership in
abnormality secret society
-"'Good cause"
-Damaging school
property
-Membership in
secret society
Missouri I Official -Conduct prejudicial -Conduct prejudicial Notice (unspecified) Notice
sta te policy to good order and to good order and Hearing Hearing
set by discipline discipline Right to appeal to
statute board arises where
exceeds summary
suspension
Montana [ Official -Refusal to comply -Refusal to comply - Policy set by local Policy
state policy with school rules wi th school rules ad ministra tors admini
set by -Refusal to pursue -Refusal to pursue
statute req uired courses required courses
-Defiance of school -Defiance of school
authorites au thorities
-Damaging school -Damaging school
property property
-Harming or -Harming or
threatening to threatening to
harm another harm ano ther
-Good cause -Good cause
Nebraska I Official -Gross misdemeanors -Gross misdemeanors - When suspended by Written
state policy -Immorality -Immorality local board Righ t t
set by -Persistent -Persistent Written notice
statute disobedience disobedience Right to appeal
-Violation of -Violation of
rules rules
-Presence detrimental -Presence detrimental
to school to school
Nevada I Official -Not submitting to -Not submitting to - None
state policy "reasonable and "reasonable and
set by ordinary rules of ordinary rules of
statute order and discipline" order and discipline"
New Hampshire Official -Gross misconduct -Gross misconduct If exceeds summary Right t
state policy -Nonconformity to suspension period
w set by school rules Right to appeal
w
statute
VI

A ppendix V
STATUTORY PROVISIONS FOR SUSPENSION AND EXPULSION
w
Ut
.j:>
Procedure: Notice;
Hearing;
Follow-
Local Authority
Grounds For
To Report
Statutory Grounds To
State Provision Suspension I Expulsion The State Suspension I Ex
New Jersey Official Including but not Including but not - None
state policy limited to: limited to:
set by -Continued and -Continued and
statute willful disobedience willful disobedience
-Open defiance of -Open defiance of
school au thority school authority
-Dangerous conduct -Dangerous conduct
-Physical assault -Physical assault
-Taking another's -Taking another's
personal property personal property
-Damaging school -Damaging school
property property
-Unauthorized -Unauthorized
occupancy of occupancy of
school property or school property or
incitement of such incitement of such
-Incitement of -Incitement of
truancy truancy
-Habitual use of -Habitual use of
profanity profanity
New Mexico None - - - -
New York Official -Insubordination None No If exceeds summary Hearin
state policy -Disorderliness suspension period right to
set by -Conduct endangering Hearing' with right
statute others to counsel
-Mental or physical
condition
North Carolina Official -Willful and persistent -Willful and persistent - None
state policy violation of school violation of school
set by rules rules
statute -Immoral or dis- -Immoral or disreputable
conduct reputable conduct
-Menace to school -Menace to school
North Dakota Official -Insubordination None - Notice (unspecified)
state policy -Habitual disobedience
set by
statute
Ohio Official None None - Written notice Written
state policy
set by
statute
Oklahoma Official -Immorality None - Right to appeal
state policy -Violation of public
set by school regulations
statute -Possession of dangerous
weapons or controlled
dangerous substances

itppe",db V
STATUTORY PROVISIONS FOR SUSPENSION AND EXPULSION
w
Ul
0'\
Local Authority
Procedure: Notice
Hearin
Grounds For
To Report
Statutory
Follow
Grounds To
State Provision Suspension I Expulsion The State Suspension I
Washington Official -Disorderly conduct None - State Board of State B
state policy -Anti-social conduct Education sets Educa
set by due process guide- due pr
statute lines for local lines fo
boards boards
West Virginia Official -Disorderly, --Conduct detrimental - None Investi
state policy refractory, to the progJess a'nd require
set by indecent, or the general conduct
statute immoral behavior of the school
Wisconsin Policy set by -Endangering health, -Endangering health, No Right to appeal Hearin
local safety or property safety or property counse
administrators of others of others
Wyoming Official -Disobedience -Disobedience - Written and oral Wri tten
state policy -Defiance -Defiance notice notice
set by -Destruction or -Destruction or Hearing'if Hearin
statute defacing school defacing school suspension exceeds counse
property property summary suspcn·
-Behavior detrimental -Behavior detrimental sion period, wi th
to welfare, safety, to welfare, safety counsel
or morals of others or morals of others
-Torturing or -Torturing or
abusing pupils abusing pupils
-Maltreating pupil -Maltreating pupil
or teacher with or teacher with
physical violence physical violence
Source: State statutes and constitutions.
'Hearing given only if suspension or expulsion exceeds a specified minimal time period.

B. Children of Limited English-Speaking Ability
Similar problems are confronted in determining
the number of children of limited English-speaking
ability who are not enrolled in educational programs.
The only data available at the federal level is in the
Division of Bilingual Education in the Office of
Compensatory Educational Programs. It prepared
a base statistic from the 1970 Census data (the
number of persons in age group 3-18 who come
from homes where the dominant language is other
than English) and from various staff sources. However,
it is not possible to contrast this figure with
the number of children served by educational programs
because there is no centralized data available
on how many children of limited English-speaking
ability are in federal, state and local bilingual and
English as a Second Language programs.
With the institution of legislation and litigation
for educational programs for bilingual and handicapped
children, state departments of education are
being required to identify children of limited Englishspeaking
ability and handicapped children. Again,
if such data as are being collected in these special
surveys are ever going to be useful on a national
scale, some uniformity from district to district and
state to state must be maintained. A provision for
the identification of handicapped children and children
of limited English-speaking ability should be
included in whatever model census is developed by
the Bureau of the Census in conjunction with the
Office of Education.
Ill. Programs For Children with Special Needs
Because so little adequate data were available on
the number of students not enrolled in educational
programs, we turned our efforts toward figures which
might be available on the number of students with
special needs who are enrolled in school. We hoped
that we could then draw conclusions on our own as
to the number of students not being served. We
quickly determined, however, that little hard data
are available on the number of students with special
needs being served by the various federal programs
designed to assist such children.
A. Program for the Handicapped
I. ESEA Title I
Although funds allocated under Title I of the
360
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
of 1965 may be used for the handicapped, only
limited data are available on the number of handicapped
children actually being served by Title I
programs in almost 14,000 school districts. The
Division of Education for the Disadvantaged in the
Office of Compensatory Educational Programs has
collected no statistical information on students being
served by Title I programs since the 1968-69 school
year. (The data gathering function in the Bureau of
Elementary and Secondary Education was moved
to the Consolidated Program Information Report
(CPIR), which will be discussed in more detail
below.) Although individual states may require
local education agencies to submit information on
the number of children participating in various types
of Title I programs, this information is not submitted
to Washington or to the federal regional Title I
offices. The states must submit Annual Evaluation
Reports to Washington each year, but since there is
no standardized form for these reports, there is great
variation in the quantity and quality of data submitted.
We reviewed the most current Annual
Evaluation Reports submitted by the state departments
of education in the nine states and the District
of Columbia included in our study. Only seven of
them gave any information on services provided
handicapped children, and the types of data given
on these programs were not consistent. Only one of
the seven, Maine, gave any indication of the various
handicapping conditions affecting the children being
served.
There is more useful information available on
handicapped children served under P.L. 89-313, an
amendment to ESEA Title I, which provides funds
to state-operated and state-supported schools. This
program is administered by the Bureau of Education
for the Handicapped. Figures, by state, on the number
of children served and the allocations under
P.L. 89-313, by handicapping condition, are available.
2. ESEA Title III
Although more data are available on the number
of handicapped children served under ESEA Title
III than under ESEA Title I, there is still no centrally
compiled information available by handicapping
condition. ESEA Title TIl provides two set-

Bureau is interested primarily in descriptions of the
types of programs being funded under the Vocational
Education Amendments. Congressmen and
others trying to evaluate the effectiveness of certain
legislation are more interested in who is being served
by the various programs. If data on programs are
to be useful, both of these interests must be accommodated.
5. NCES Survey
A survey conducted by NCES in the Spring of
1970, as part of the 1970 School Staffing Survey,
attempted to show the extent to which special instruction
was being provided to handicapped pupils
in local public schools. However, because the data
was collected from a survey of only approximately
2,000 elementary and secondary schools, no state by
state breakdowns of the data are available. The survey
does give data for each of nine handicapping
conditions. NCES estimated that 4,752,000 handicapped
pupils were enrolled in public schools in the
United States in Spring 1970, and that almost 3
million of these were receiving some special services.
However, this estimate exceeds the 1971-72 estimate
prepared by the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped,
which said that less than 3 million of the
total number of children in the country (ages 0-21
years old) got special education services. However,
their incidence estimates for various handicapping
conditions differed from those prepared by the Bureau
of Education for the Handicapped.
6. OCR Survey
The Annual Fall Elementary and Secondary
School Civil Rights Survey conducted by OCR also
contains some useful information on the number of
pupils being served by various special education
programs. The OCR data are particularly useful
because they provide the only racial and ethnic
breakdown available at the federal level on children
classified according to various handicaps. We share
OCR's concerns about the potential for assigning
students discriminatorily to special education classes.
We are also concerned that children are being misclassified
and wrongly placed in special programs.
Although there is a problem because the OCR
data do not precisely indicate the handicapping conditions
being served by various special education
362
programs, it is the only data which give racial or
ethnic breakdowns and is also available by district.
OCR's Fall 1973 Survey was the first one to provide
any sort of information on the various types of special
education programs. The 1973 survey was
based on a smaller sample than the 1972 survey, but
it accounts for over 50 percent of the total enrollment
in the country's public elementary and secondary
schools and about 90 percent of the total
minority enrollment.
B. Programs for Children of Limited
English-Speaking Ability
We know that non-English-speaking children and
children of limited English-speaking ability are likely
to be excluded from school and from appropriate
educational programs. We wanted, therefore, to
obtain whatever data was available on the number
of such children being served by special programs in
order to ascertain the proportion of such children
whose special needs were not being met. We contacted
the program officers responsible for administering
ESEA Title VII, ESEA Title T, ESEA Title I
(Migrant), ESEA Title III, and the Emergency
School As istance Act. There is no composite data
available at the federal level on the number of children
being served by various bilingual or other programs
whose purpose is to increase the English
speaking-ability of certain children.
I. ESEA Title VIl
The Division of Bilingual Education, which is
responsible for administering ESEA Title VIT, had
the best data available, which was only on the number
of students being served in the bilingual projects
funded under Title VII. They had data available for
fiscal years 1970 through 1973, by project, on the
estimated pupil participation, the dominant language
served, and funding levels. However, the data provided
were estimated participants rather than actual
participants. They did not give the percentage of the
pupils who came from environments where the
dominant language is one other than English or the
percentage who have limited English-speaking ability.
When data are requested on the number of
participating pupils who are of limited Englishspeaking
ability, attention must be given to the manner
in which this figure is determined, i.e., there

must be a uniform measure by which school districts
can determine what constitutes "limited" Englishspeaking
ability.
2. ESEA Title J
o figures were available on the number of children
participating in English as a Second Language
(ESL) programs or bilingual programs funded un-:ler
ESEA Title I. As in trying to determine the nun Jer
of pupils participating in special programs for the
handicapped, the only available sources of data were
the Annual Evaluation Reports submitted by the
various state departments of education. Two states
included in our study, Colorado and Massachusetts.
have significant numbers of children whose dominant
language is one other than English. However, only
in the Massachusetts report was there any indication
of the number of children participating in Title I ESL
classes. There were no figures on participation in
Title I ESL programs in Colorado. New Mexico,
whose Annual Evaluation Report we had an opportunity
to review, also did not provide any data on
children participating in Title I bilingual programs.
Figures on ESL or other bilingual programs are submitted
to the state departments of education by the
local education agencies, but never to the federal
government.
3. ESEA Title J (Migrant)
The Title I Migrant program has never collected
any figures by language or other program component
on the approximately 360,000 migrant children
being served by Title I programs. Officials
estimate that between 80 and 8S percent of tht:sl:
migrant children are of limited English-speaking
ability, and they suggest that most of them are getting
some language training, "because it is an essential
component to any overall program." The Uniform
Migrant Student Record Transfer System, a
computerized data system which provides education
and health information on migrant children, contains
no information on the English-speaking ability of
the migrant children. These data and information
about the types of special programs being provided
these children should be added to the system.
4. ESEA Title III .
Although there are bilingual programs funded
under ESEA Title lIT, no data are available on how
many programs there are or the number of students
being served. A review of the abstracts of the over
1,400 individual projects funded under Title ITI last
year should provide the total number of children
being served by bilingual programs, but no indication
would be given about the percent of children
served who had a dominant language other than
English.
5. ESAA
1973-74 was the first school year in which bilingual/bicultural
programs were eligible for funding
under the Emergency School Aid Act (ESAA).
Four percent of the funds allocated under Title VII
of the Education Amendments of 1972 were mandated
for children whose dominant language is other
than English. One of the criteria for ESAA assistance
to bilingual programs is the number of children
whose dominant language is other than English who
are enrolled in a district. We were not able to obtain
centrally the number of pupils served by the 39
bilingual programs funded under ESAA, although
we did obtain the amount of funds received by each
of the programs.
6. OCR Survey
OCR requests some data on bilingual instruction
in its annual survey. These data, which are collected
only at the district level and not school-byschool,
do not include information about the sources
of program funding. They do, however, provide an
indication of the number of children who receive
bilingual instruction - instruction in any subject
matter in a language other than English. An item
wa added to the survey this past fall asking for the
number of first grade pupils in the school district
whose primary language is other than English. We
understand that a question asking how many students
who need bilingual instructions are not receiving it
may be added to the Fall 1974 Survey Report.
In 1973 the Center for Applied Linguistics (a
private organization in Arlington, Virginia), attempted
to collect data on the various types of bilingual
programs offered in public and private
schools throughout the country. They were interested
in gathering information for each program on: 1)
the nature of instruction and the materials being
used; 2) the dominant language of instruction; 3)
363

could be collected centrally at the federal level.
We have suggested to OCR that it include a question
about the number of dropouts in its annual
survey this coming fall and have received an informal
indication that such a question will be asked.
We realize that the definition of a dropout may vary
from district to district, but we think it valuable that
OCR will receive information by race and ethnic
group.
The OCR survey also provides the only information
available at the national level. and in many
instances at the state level, regarding the number of
students expelled and suspended from local school
districts. District-wide data on expulsions have been
collected by OCR since 1971 and data on suspensions
was collected for the first time this past fall.
We vi ited 17 school districts for our study of children
out of school and found that in over half the
districts the only figures on suspensions centrally
available were those compiled for the report to OCR.
It is apparent that many school districts compile information,
which often turns out to be of value to
them, only at the request of the federal government.
Because it is the only data source in many instances.
we have strongly urged OCR to ask more questions
about school discipline and suspensions, e.g., the
number and length of time for which students are
suspended.
Because so little hard data presently exist from the
numerous education surveys conducted at the federal
level, we recommend that OCR be enabled to expand
its annual survey. We recognize that the survey
was conceived as a civil rights compliance tool, and
when we asked OCR to add questions on suspension
tbey reminded us of this purpose and their space
limitations. However, the usefulness of the OCR
survey could be made much broader with minimal
additional effort. We have been alarmed at the suggestion
that it be curtailed or discontinued because
of financial considerations. Such a move would be
a major setback not only to civil rights enforcement
efforts but to the collection of education data in
general.
366
The OCR survey is the largest education survey
conducted at the federal level, and one of the only
ones that includes any data on race, ethnicity or data
on a district-by-district and school-by-school basis.
The large sample survey which has been conducted
by OCR in the fall of every even-numbered year
since 1968 covers over 90 percent of the Nation's
public elementary and secondary school pupils. All
school districts with 3,000 or more students are included
in the survey and the sampling rate for those
under 3,000 varies from 75 percent to 25 percent.
It is absolutely essential, in our opinion, that
OCR's Elementary and Secondary School Civil
Rights Survey be continued and expanded, perhaps
in conjunction with other efforts at the federal level.
Our review of federal data on education, even
though limited in scope, has impressed upon us the
tremendous need that exists for the development of
more coordinated information on the number of
children who are or are not being served effectively
by the present educational system in our country.
The development of such coordinated information
can only occur if there is guidance from the federal
level as to the types of data that must be collected
and the manner in which they must be obtained.
Efforts must also be undertaken to ensure that whatever
data are collected will be published as soon as
possible. Particularly when planning for children
with special needs, it is necessary to have current
data on the number of these children being served by
special programs so that an accurate assessment can
be made of the need for additional services.
Our review of federal data is continuing. We
hope. however, that our preliminary observations indicate
some of the inadequacies in federal education
data, and encourage you to continue to explore ways
to remedy these inadequacies. We hope this is helpful
to you.
Sincerely,
Marian Wright Edelman