Expansion of Civil Rights Legal Platform (Telegram)

    naacp Legal Defense and r 

Educational Fund, Inc. 
~ 



RICHMOND'S SCHOOL MERGER 
SPAWNS A NEW MELTING POT 

Mosby sits atop Church Hill, 
a heavily black area in the 
city's East End, and Mrs. H., 
a white woman with her grey 
hair in green plastic roll­
ers says, "I hate her going 
to school with them niggers. 
They teach everybody in school 
nowadays to love one another 
and I don't believe in that. 
I tell her she's got to go 
to school somewhere, but I 
hate this busing." 

D.A. formerly bused herself 
up to predominantly white 
Highland Springs Elementary 
School in Richmond's North 
Side, which was just as far 
away as Mosby, but Mrs. H. 
says distance isn't the is-
sue: "It's the niggers." 

The Washington Post, 
January 17, 1972 



IT'S NOT lFIE 
Dl9'ANCE, 
"IT'S lFIE 

NIGGERS:' 
Comments on the Controversy 

Over School Busing 

The Division of Legal Information 
and Community Service 

naacp Legal Defense and 
Educational Fund, Inc. 

10 Columbus Circle New York, N.Y. 10019 

May 1972 



CHAPTER I 

I N T R 0 D U C T I 0 N 

American children arrive at school via every conceivable 

mode of transportation, including horses, snowmobiles, boats and 

airplanes. Assuring their arrival on time and safely every day 

is big business. A vast transportation system coordinates the 

efforts of citizens of all racial and economic groups: trustees, 

administrators, patrons and children of public, private and 

parochial schools, Indian families on reservations, professionals 

who design the often-computerized travel routes, manufacturers, 

the suppliers and mechanics who keep the vehicles running, the 

safety experts, the 275,000 drivers.1:/ 

The school bus has now become the business of judges and 

politicians. Because judges have declared that the bus is one 

among many tools necessary to eliminate racially and illegally 

segregated schools, politicians are clamoring for the curtailment 

of the power of the judiciary. A serious constitutional crisis 



- 2 -

has been precipitated. The Legal Defense Fund is deeply con­

cerned about this attack, for it undermines the confidence in the 

judiciary which is vital to the effective functioning of our 

constitutional system. Having represented black plaintiffs for 

over 30 years in most of the nation's school desegregation cases, 

LDF lawyers know, perhaps better than any other group of private 

citizens, that Federal judges are extremely reluctant to impose 

harsh and unreasonable remedies even for clearly unconstitutional 

actions. 

The proposed moratorium on busing threatens gains which 

have been made in the long and painful struggle to fulfill the 

constitutional rights of children to equal educational opportunities. 

The reopening of school cases would create pandemonium across the 

land and undercut the work of those courageous school officials 

who have provided professional leadership during the transition 

to unitary school systems. These proposals, which would curtail 

only one kind of busing - busing to desegregate schools - and 

not any other kind of pupil transportatim, barely camouflage their 

racist motivation. They signgl the reversal of the momentum 

of equal justice which during the 60's ended a century of Con­

gressional silence on the legal rights of the nation's racial 

minorities. 

The politicizing of the busing issue during an election 

year is not a mark of leadership. It has polarized our people 



- 3 -

It has diverted attention from the urgent need to eradicate ra-

cism. "Instead of cursing the disease (segregation ) ," as Father 

Hesbl.rgh has aptly stated, "we curse the medicine, we curse the 

doctors."£/ Emotions have been aroused. Wild, unsubstantiated 

charges about judges and about busing have been made. They must 

be answered. It is not the school bus which is in trouble. What 

is at stake is our sanity as a people, the independence and integ-

rity of our courts, the fulfillment of our commitment to equal 

justice. 

* * * * 

our findings demonstrate that the current sentiments 

about busing and courts used to justify opposition to further 

school desegregation are popularized myths. 

* Federal courts have not exceeded Supreme Court 
rulings and have not ordered "massive " or "reck­
less" busing in order to implement desegregation 
plans. 

* Increases in busing in some cities have occurred, 
but these increases are not always enormous and 
sometimes they are due to factors other than de­
segregation. 

* Busing is not harmful to children. In fact, school 
authorities utilize busing to protect young child­
ren. 

* Transportation for various school purposes is 
used to improve the educational program, not to 
undermine it. 



* 

- 4 -

The cost of school busing is minor. It does 
not deplete re s ources for better schools. 

* * * * 

Ev er since Massachusetts enacted the nation's first pupil 

transportation law i n 1869, American children hav e been trans-

ported to school under arrangements which hav e been regulated and 

subsidized by state authorities. The early horse-drawn vehicles 

and the ubiquitous y e llow school bus have bee n symbols of communi-

ties that care for their children . The two major concerns which 

have motivated the steady increase in pupil transportation in the 

last century have been America's unwillingness to limit a child's 

educational opportunities to those a vailable within walking dis-

tance from his home and a concern for his physical safety. 

That the school bus is an established institution in 

American education which has received tremendous public support 

is evident from the following statistics: 

* 43.5% of the total public school enrollment 
or 18,975,939 pupils are transported to 
school daily, acco~ding to HEW statistics.ll 

* There has been a steady increase in pupil 
transportation, with annual increases in 
the last decade of from .5% to 2.5%. The 
decades with the largest percentage gains 
were: 11.4% from 1939-40 to 1949-504/ 

9.9% from 1949-50 to 1959-60 

* American taxpayers have been willing to 



* 

- 5 -

invest significant funds in busing. The 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administra­
tion reports that the total cost including 
capital outlay for pupil transportation for 
1971-72 is $1.7 billion.2/ 

256,000 buses are now traveling 2.2 billion 
miles.6/ 

Busing has been motivated not only by a commitment to 

further educational, social and humanitarian objectives, but by 

school administrators' concern for more efficient utilization of 

facilities. The major increases in busing have accompanied the 

moves to provide greater educational opportunities by consolidat-

ing rural schools. Urban school districts are increasingly 

busing children threatened by traffic hazards, a service which 

must usually be provided from local funds because the miles in-

valved do not meet state requirements for reimbursement. Most 

states provide for the transportation of handicapped children. 

The bus has made it possible for urban school districts 

to relieve overcrowded conditions, to use space wherever it is 

available in the community, to prevent double sessions and to 

reduce class size. The ERIC study reports the St. Louis experience 

where "busing was used as an alternative to having double-sessions, 

which would have set one set of children free in the morning and 

another set in the afternoon. For those transported, the benefits 

of the program were obvious, but they were not the only benefi-

ciaries. As a report to the Superintendent of St. Louis Schools 



- 6 -

emphasized, 'reduction of class size, through bus transportation 

and other expediences ... made it possible for nontransported as 

well as transported children residing in the districts of these 

seriously overcrowded schools to suffer minimal education loss.' u7 / 

Busing has made it possible for school districts to avoid 

expensive new school construction and not just because current 

available facilities can be used more efficiently. A school 

official in Lynchburg stated candidly that the only alternative 

to busing in his district would be the building of new schools 

in the ghetto - a capital outlay requiring bond issues which he 

8/ 
felt the taxpayers probably would not approve.-

The desire of local school authorities to use the school 

bus as a vehicle for enriching the educational program, particu-

l ar ly of disadvantaged children, can be seen in their use of 

ESEA Title I funds for this purpose. In 1967-68, $18 million 

of Title I money was used nationally for transportation. Sixty 

percent of the Title I districts in California and 75% in Massa­

chusetts had transportation components.
91 

Now that the school bus is the center of public controversy, 

it is most unfortunate that there is no longer any public or 

private agency which annually collects and reports statistics 

on pupil transportation in the U.S. The most current national 

figures available are for the 1969-70 school year. These were 



- 7 -

reported by the National Association of State Directors of Pupil 

Transportation Services, an informal group which has no budget, 

office or staff. The U.S. Office of Education collects some 

limited information on pupil transportation as part of its larger 

biennial survey of educational statistics, but this information is 

out of date at the time it is published. 

There never has been a national source of data on pupil 

transportation by race. Nor are any statistics available nationally 

on the numbers of students bused or the number of miles school 

buses travel to further various educational objectives, i.e., 

more efficient use of facilities, vocational education, summer 

school, field trips and special educational programs. 

The current discussion suffers from a lack of uniform, 

objective, factual information. In order to collect some informa-

tion from school districts in which desegregation orders have 

been implemented in this school year, Legal Defense fund staff 

members interviewed local school officials in fifteen districts 

which implemented busing plans this year. Four state departments 

of education were visited to gather state-wide information on 

pupil transportation. In addition, national data and information 

were collected from the of=ice of Education and the Office for 

Civil Rights in HEW, from the Department of Transportation, the 

National Safety Council, the National Education Association, the 

National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation 



- 8 -

Services, and the U.S. Corrunission on civil Rights. Besides 

court records, school budgets and monthly transportation reports 

were examined. 

We trust that our findings from this survey, done between 

March 27 and April 17, 1972, will help put busing into its proper 

perspective and thus contribute to a rational discussion of i t s 

role in fulfilling the constitutional rights of black and brown 

children to equal educational opportunities. The quotes whi ch 

begin the following chapters are from President Nixon's Message 

to Congress on March 17, 1972, the proposed Student Transportation 

Moratorium Act of 1972, and the proposed Equal Educational Opportuni­

ties Act of 1972, which were submitted by the White House to 

Congress. 



- 9 -

CHAPTER II 

"Many lower court decisions 
have gone far beyond .•. 
what the Supreme Court said 
is necessary .• . • 

"Reckless extension of bus­
ing requirements . . • . 

"Some of the Federal courts 
have lately tended toward 
extreme remedies .... " 

1 . The President's reference is somewhat difficult to 

identify, since the Supreme Court said in Swann and Davis (Mobile) 

that an adequate desegregation plan would have to achiev e "the 

greatest possible degree of actual desegregation consistent with 

the practicalities of the situation," and that in measuring the 

performance of proposed plans against this goal, there was a 

presumption against schools all or virtually all of one race. 

It is apparent from a study of district court orders in school 

desegregation cases issued after Swann that most lower court 

judges have made a conscientious effort to apply these principles 

to the systems before them by being willing to consider desegrega-

tion plans requiring proportionately similar amounts of busing 

as were approv ed for Charlotte. (Chief Justice Burger's opinion 

denying a stay in the Winston-Sal:em case last summer urged caution 

in making such comparisons, but the Court eventually declined to 

review Winston-Salem on the merits, without any dissent . ) 



- 10 -

The inunediate impact of Swann was that district judges 

insisted upon the incorporation into plans of techniques such as 

non-contiguous zoning and pairing, which many had refused to re­

quire prior to the Supreme Court's ruling. However, many courts 

rejected unusually long bus rides by applying the Swann standards. 

In Jacksonville, Fla., the court declined to order busing to the 

North Beach schools in the system , finding that the trip would 

take one-and-one-half hours each way. And in Nashville, Tenn., 

the court accepted an HEW-drawn plan which the government's experts 

said was deliberately designed not to desegregate some schools in 

outlying Davidson County areas because of the length of the bus 

rides. 

2. It is undoubtedly the concern about metropolitan reme­

dies to school segregation which the President refers to in his 

comment on "extreme remedies." U.S. District Court Judge Merhige 

ordered the consolidation of the Richmond, Va., city schools with 

the school districts of the surrounding counties of Henrico and 

Chesterfield. The Court found that to accomplish the consolida­

tion, 78,000 of the 104,000 students in the new system would have 

to be transported, about 10,000 more than those in the three 

jurisdictions who are now bused. The Court further found that 

no additional buses would be necessary and that busing times and 

distances would not exceed those already required of the students 



- 11 -

10/ in those counties for many years.~ 

3. In defense of district judges, one must point out 

that some comprehensive school integration plans have been initi-

ated by local school boards and have not been compelled by district 

courts under a mandate from Swann. The Winston-Salem-Forsyth 

County case was on appeal at the time of the Swann decision. The 

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case to the district 

judge who ordered the school board to prepare a plan which he 

subsequently approved and which is currently in effect. The board 

subsequently objected to its own plan and has sought to amend it. 

The Columbus-Muscogee County, Ga . , school board developed 

on its own initiative a comprehensive and complicated racial balance 

plan under which much of the busing is done by the children of 

military personnel in the area. The court approved it and the 

black plaintiffs were pleased to support a plan which had been 

locally initiated. 

Federal District Judge James B. McMillan entered a find-

ing in the Swann case in October, 1971 that the "feeder plan" 

which the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school board had adopted would 

require the transportation of 46 , 667 students , while the "Finger 

plan", which the school board rejected after it had been approved 

11/ 
by the U.S. Supreme Court, called for transporting 39,080.~ 





- 12 -

CHAPTER III 

"Some (court orders) have 
required that pupils be 
bused long distances, at 
great inconvenience .... " 

1. Our investigations do not support the conclusion that 

large numbers of children are being bused long distances to im-

plement desegregation plans. There are individual instances of 

long rides, but we suspect that these are far fewer than when 

schools were segregated. Speaking in Congress on February 28, 

1970, Senator Walter Mondale mentioned counties in Georgia and 

Mississippi which bused black children 75 miles and 90 miles 

respectively to all-black schools . ..!£/ 

Judicial notice has been taken of the length of bus rides 

prior to desegregation. Judge McMillan observed that an analysis 

of principals' reports filed in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg 

had revealed that: 

"The average one way bus trip is one hour and 
fourteen minutes; 

"80% of the buses require more than one hour for 
a one way trip; 

"75% of1~~e buses make two or more trips each 
day .... -

The Honorable Stephen Horn, vice-chairman of the United 

States Commission on Civil Rights, testified recently before 

Congress: 



- 13 -

... before the Charlotte-Mecklenburg decision, 
pupils averaged over an hour on the bus. When 
the desegregation plan was carried out, however, 
bus trips were cut to a maximum of 35 minutes. 
Similarly, the Richmond decision would call for 
average bus rides of about 30 minutes, which is 
less than the current average in an adjacent dis­
trict involved in the decision. Where pupils 
are bused for the first time, trips are rarely 
long. The average travel time reported seems to 
be 20-30 minutes. Trips of an hour or more would 
be out of the ordinary. A trip of a half hour 
or so would not bring the pupil home much later 
than if he walked from a neighborhood schoo1.14/ 

2. In recent testimony before a Congressional committee, 

Elliot Richardson, Secretary of the Department of Health, Education 

and Welfare, referred to an 80-minute, one-way bus trip in Winston-

Salem, N.C. Prior to the recent court order, there were at least 

five bus trips which were 80 minutes or over, one of which was 

120 minutes long. Three out of the five schools involved were 

overwhelmingly white and had hardly felt the impact of integra-

t
. 15/ 
ion.~ It is difficult to evaluate how much children are in-

convenienced by these long trips because the mileage reports do 

not show how long each child is actually riding. The mileage 

begins when the bus leaves the driver's home and ends when he 

parks his bus. Children riding varying periods of time have 

boarded and left the bus in the meantime. 

3. A long bus ride or an inconveniently early departure 

time from home does not necessarily reflect a long distance. 

Sometimes children must leave home early or travel circuitous 



- 14 -

routes because local authorities refuse to provide enough buses. 

When it was clear that the court-ordered integration plan for 

metropolitan Nashville-Davidson County, Tenn. would increase 

the number of bused students from 34,000 to 49,000, Superintendent 

Elbert Brooks sought funds from the Metropolitan Council for the 

purchase of buses. The Council refused to appropriate these funds, 

so the district had to rely on its existing fleet supplemented 

only by 18 new buses which had been bought prior to the de­

segregation order.
161 

According to school officials interviewed 

by a Tennessee reporter, the shortage of buses has resulted in 

inconvenience and hardships for students: 

•.. with buses having to run more than one 
route, many children must stand in the dark 
to catch buses near their homes in the morn­
ing, while others who go to school later get 
home after dark .... Some children ride up to 
14 mil es in the morning and afternoon , spend­
ing up to an hour on the vehicles twice a 
day.11./ 

4. We are indeed concerned about the inconveniences which 

children experience, especially when black pupils are expected to 

carry a disproportionately heavy share of the busing. In Pinellas 

County, Fla., 6.4% of the white students are bused because of the 

desegregation order in comparison to 75.2% of the black children. 181 

(Sixteen percent of the student population is black.) An official 

in Hillsborough County, Fla., reports that of the elementary pupils 

transported because of the court order, 8,576 are black and 5,404 



- 15 -

19/ . 
are white.~ Seventy-five percent of the bused students in 

Jackson, Miss., are black.
201 

Furthermore, black children are 

often bused at an earlier age. When schools are paired or clustered, 

it is not unusual for the plan to require black pupils to leave 

their neighborhoods for the early elementary grades. The formerly 

all-black schools receive the older elementary children, or may 

become sixth-grade centers or junior highs for both races - an 

arrangement which requires black children to travel in the earliest 

years. 

5. It is the lack of transportation which is often the 

hardship. Local and Federal officials who refuse to provide 

transportation to pupils who must travel long distances to school 

and archaic state laws which discriminate against cities in their 

transportation reimbursements are responsible for inconveniences 

to children. Hattiesburg, Miss. and Texarkana, Ark. have plans 

which require junior high pupils to travel long distances at their 

own expense. Some states do not provide reimbursement for busing 

within cities. (See the discussion of Sparrow v. Gill in Chapter 

I V.) 

The lack of transportation in Norfolk, Va. is a real hard-

ship to students who must pay $63 a year to ride city buses to 

school because the district does not operate its own transportation 

system. Several hundred students from poor families in Norfolk 



~ 16 -

are not in school this year because they do not have transporta-

21/ 
tion.--

Most of the school districts mentioned in this report have 

sought Federal funds for transportation from the Emergency School 

Assistance Program (ESAP). Federal officials rejected the request 

from Greenville, Miss. for funds to purchase buses to transport 

2,000 students who had been reassigned to elementary schools out 

. . 22/ 
of their neighborhoods.--

In 1970-71, Duval County, Fla. received a grant from ESAP 

of which over $100,000 was used for pupil transportation. The 

district applied for another grant for 1971-72 and requested 

several hundred thousand dollars for transportation. The total 

application was approved but not the use of the funds for busing . 

Accordingly, the school board put over $900,000 of the grant in 

escrow and filed suit in Federal court to compel Secretary Richardson 

23/ 
to authorize the use of this money for transportation.--





- 17 -

CHAPTER IV 

"Massive Busing" 

1. We find no conclusive evidence that the aggregate 

amount of busing has increased nationally or regionally as a re-

sult of court-ordered integration. In the absence of data on 

pupil transportation by race which would reveal how many white 

and black children are being bused to what kinds of schools, it 

is impossible to state accurately the number or race of pupils 

who are being bused to racially segregated or integrated schools. 

The cry of "massive busing" for "forced integration" is completely 

irresponsible. 

We agree with Donald E. Morrison in his testimony on be-

half of the National Education Association before the House 

Committee on the Judiciary: "There is no statistical proof that 

desegregation has substantially increased pupil busing, either 

24/ 
nationally or regionally."-

2. HEW has estimated a 3% increase in busing as a result 

25/ 
of integration.- This figure represents the increase in the 

Southeastern states in overall pupil transportation between 1967-70 

from 52.5% to 55.5%. Our investigation leads us to the conclusion 

that this is no more than normal growth. The Southeast has been 

subsidizing the transportation of more than 50% of its pupils 

since 1957, a larger proportion than any other region. Between 



- 18 -

1965 (when HEW's Title VI civil rights enforcement program began) 

and 1970, there was a 4% increase in the numbers of pupils trans-

ported in the South. Yet at the same time the percentage of 

pupils increased at a more rapid rate in other parts of the nation 

. . d f . . 26/ where there were few court orders and limite en orcement activity.~ 

Nationally 4.9% 

North Atlantic 4.9% 

Great Lakes 5 .2% 

3 . 
. 27/ . 

The Department of Transportation~ estimates that 

the annual increase is attributable to the following causes: 

Population growth 95% 

Centralization about 3% 

Safety less than 1% 

Desegregation less than 1% 

Other less than 1% 

4. Urban school districts which have only bused minimally 

or not at all in the past experience a major upsurge when a com-

prehensive plan to eliminate the dual school system is implemented. 

Often, however, this does not bring the district up to the state 

average. All of the schools in Raleigh, N.C., were effectively 

desegregated in 1971-72 under a plan which contributed to the 

increase of bused students from 1,342 to 10,126, at least 5,000 

of which were Sparrow students. Although the district is now 



- 19 -

transporting 46 . 5% of its students, this is less than the North 

Carolina state a v erage of 64.9%
281 

In Norfolk, Va., where the desegregation order required 

most elementary students to travel outside their neighborhoods for 

the first time in 1971-72, approx imately 39% of the district's en-

rollment is bused. Yet 63% of all public school students in 

29/ 
Virginia are bused.~· 

5. An increase in busing may result from factors which 

have nothing to do with integration: 

a. There has been an increased use of busing 

to protect children from traffic hazards. 

In 1971-72, 66,115 students in Florida are 

bused at local expense because they do not 

meet the 2-mile state reimbursement require-

ment. This is a dramatic increase from 1968-69 

when only 40,792 in this category were bused. 

Officials report that the main reason is 

safety, a concern about busy streets and haz-

ardous walking conditions. The vast majority 

of these are elementary pupils . 301 

b. Busing is increasing through commitments to 

transport younger children. School officials 

in Roanoke, Va. took advantage of their new 



- 20 -

school buses to provide rides in hazardous 

areas for kindergarten children who ordinarily 

lk h 1 
311 . . . 1973 74 wa to sc oo .-- Beginning in - , 

Florida law will mandate state-supported 

kindergartens. All districts will be re-

. d 'd . 32/ quire to provi e transportation.-- Orange 

County, Fla. expects to bus 4,000 kinder-

33/ 
garten pupils that first year.--

c. At the time of desegregation, some school 

districts use their newly acquired buses 

to further other objectives. Lynchburg, Va . 

is transporting students for the first time 

this year. The school system's 37 new buses 

not only get students to school, they are also 

used to provide field trips and to facilitate 

string music, choir practice and R.O.T.C. 

in high school. 

d. The decision of a three-judge Federal Court 

34/ 
in North Carolina in Sparrow v . Gill-- has 

increased busing and complicates the effort 

to determine the impact of integration on 

busing. Prior to the 1970-71 school year, 

North Carolina law generally provided that 



- 21 -

county children who lived more than a mile 

and a half from school would be provided 

school bus transportation paid for by the 

state. City children, however, living a 

mile and a half from school were not pro­

vided school bus transportation at state 

expense. City children were defined as 

those children who lived within the 1957 

boundaries of a city. Therefore, those 

children who lived in areas of a city which 

had been annexed after 1957 and lived more 

than one and a half miles from school did 

receive bus transportation at state expense. 

Additionally, the law was interpreted to 

mean that if a school was located outside 

of the 1957 limits, then children living 

within the 1957 limits more than a mile and 

and half from the school were eligible for 

transportation. Thus, prior to the 1970-71 

school year there was at least some school 

bus transportation provided for city children. 

Moreover, local boards of education were free 

to provide bus transportation at local expense 



- 22 -

if they chose to do so. Greensboro, for 

instance, has for many years provided trans-

portation for children living more than a 

mile and a half from school and has paid 

for it out of local funds. 

A lawsuit was filed by white children and 

their parents in Winston-Salem challenging 

the inequity which existed where city children 

living more than a mile and a half from school 

did not receive bus transportation but county 

children living more than a mile and a half 

from school did. A three-judge Federal Court 

decided that classifying city children differ-

ently from county children in determining who 

was to receive bus transportation at public 

expense was constitutional. However, the 

Court determined that it was unconstitutional 

to treat children who lived in the areas of a 

-
city prior to 1957 differently from children 

who lived in areas of a city annexed after 

1957. 

The result of the Sparrow decision was that 

the State Board of Education required local 



- 23 -

school boards to offer transportation to 

all city children or to none. If local dis­

tricts decided to offer transportation to all 

city children living more than a mile and a 

half from school, then the state would pro­

vide the money for the increased transporta­

tion. This new policy went into effect for 

the 1970-71 school year. Almost all cities 

chose to increase their transportation to in­

clude city children. Raleigh was the notable 

exception. It began to transport Sparrow 

pupils in 1971-72. 

The comparison of transportation data before 

and after desegregation is complicated by the 

effects of the Sparrow decision because de­

segregation was beginning to occur in North 

Carolina cities at the same time that state 

financed transportation was being offered for 

the first time for city students. All of the 

cities were surveyed by the State Department of 

Public Instruction prior to the 1970-71 school 

year to determine how many additional children 

would be riding school buses to be paid for by 



- 24 -

the state. The survey revealed that an 

additional 54,000 students, requiring 549 

buses, would become eligible throughout the 

state as a result of Sparrow. Included in 

this figure were 1,900 students (21 buses) 

in Asheville, 3,108 pupils (34 buses) in 

Winston-Salem-Forsyth County, 6,122 pupils 

(68 buses) in Charlotte-Mecklenburg, 2,281 

students (25 buses) in Greensboro and 3,801 

d (4 ) 1 . h 35/ stu ents 2 buses in Ra eig .~ 

Therefore, to calculate the extent of in-

creased transportation occasioned by desegre-

gation requirements, it is necessary to sub-

tract the number of children bused in the year 

prior to desegregation from the number of child-

ren bused after desegregation and then subtract 

the number of additional city children who 

would have received transportation under the 

new state policy. The resulting figure should 

also be discounted further by such factors as 

normally expected growth, increases for special 

education, and pre-school education, etc . 

6. Whether integration brings an overall increase in 

busing is difficult to assess . One might expect the implementation 



- 25 -

of a busing plan to result in an increase in both the number of 

students bused and the mileage . Actually: 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

36/ 
Arlington, Va., buses 1,000 fewer pupils.~ 

Pinellas County, Fla., buses about the same 

number of students but the buses travel 3,200 

. . 37/ 
more miles daily.~ 

Duval County, Fla . , has increased the number 

of pupils bused but there has been a substantial 

decrease (11 miles or 20%) in the average num-

38/ 
ber of miles per day per bus.~ 

Busing to desegregate in Alabama, according 

to the United States Commission on Civil Rights, 

has resulted in 1 million fewer passenger miles 

h h 
. . 39/ tan t e previous year under segregation. · ~ 

From 1965-66 to 1970-71, the number of pupils 

transported in Mississippi has decreased from 

40/ 
312,085 to 292,472.~ 





- 26 -

CHAPTER V 

"Rather than require the spend-
ing of scarce resources on ever­
longer bus rides •.. , we should ... 
[put] those resources directly in­
to education .••• 

"Implementation of desegregation 
plans will in many cases require 
local educational agencies to 
expend large amounts of funds for 
transportation equipment, which 
may be utilized only temporarily, 
•.. thus diverting those funds 
from improvements in educational 
facilities and instruction which 
otherwise would be provided." 

1. The cost argument against pupil transportation rests 

on the assumption that busing costs are so great that they seriously 

deplete funds for the regular educational program. But the facts 

do not support this assumption. The latest national figures 

available show that 3.7% of all educational expenditures in the 

United States were spent on pupil transportation of all kinds. 

This percentage has declined slightly since the 1953-54 school 

year, as the attached table on busing costs 1953-54 through 

1967-68 shows. The chart on pupil transportation costs for 

individual school districts reveals that even with increased 

costs, pupil transportation remains a small percentage of all 

educational expenditures. 

2. The broad allegations of the cost burden must also 



- 27 -

reviewed against the fact that each state reimburses local 

school districts for both capital and operating costs. There 

are wide variations among states in their patterns of reimburse-

ment, and there is no national average of state reimbursement 

of pupil transportation costs. In Florida in the 1970-71 school 

year, $11.2 million of the total transportation expenses of more 

than $23 million for all school districts were reimbursed by 

41/ 
the state.~ 

In North Carolina, the state pays a vast majority of all 

pupil transportation costs incurred by local school jurisdictions. 

For example, the state pays the cost of operating all school buses 

which transport students eligible for state reimbursement. It 

pays for replacing all school buses. If a local district chooses 

to contract with a private company, the state pays the company 

even if its charges are higher than the average level of state 

reimbursement. The main financial burden for local school dis-

tricts is limited to (1) the initial purchase of the bus , (2) 

maintenance and upkeep of facilities, (3) some administrative 

costs, and (4) the cost of busing pupils who are not eligible for 

42/ 
state reimbursement.~ 

3. Cities which have never subsidized busing before de-

segregation claim a terrible financial burden when ordered to 

desegregate, yet sometimes the wild projections of costs have 



- 28 -

been completely misleading . In the spring of 1971 shortly after 

the court ordered desegregation in Pinellas County, Fla., a 

local school official was quoted as saying that the order would 

require the busing of an additional 11,000 students. In fact, 

about 1,700 additional students were transported to comply with 

the court order. In Pinellas County, Fla., approximately 2,000 

white children left the school system and the district ceased 

transporting 1,413 students who were ineligible for busing be-

cause they lived within walking distance of their school. Even 

if these 3,413 were transported in addition to the 1,700 who were 

bused for desegregation purposes, still less than half of the 

43 / 
projected 11,000 students would have had to be transported.~ 

The Raleigh, N.C. school district projected that in order 

to comply with its desegregation order, it would have to spend 

$980 , 956 from local funds for the 1971-72 school year. Of this 

amount, $828,000 was for 138 new buses and $26,500 was for drivers' 

44/ 
salaries.~ The $26,500 represents a local supplement in excess 

of state reimbursement for drivers' salaries. In fact, the total 

local expenditures required to meet the court order were $643,054 , 

and of that sum, cbout $444,993 represented the cost of buses which 

45/ 
were not delivered in the 1971-72 school year.~ 

4. The major cost of desegregation is the initial capital 

outlay for new buses. This cost can be handled by school authori-



- 29 -

ties in several ways. If the money is spent all in one year, 

it represents assets that are carried over a number of years. 

However, if the district borrows money for new buses, the actual 

cost is carried over the duration of the loan and does not con-

stitute a one-time expense. 

School officials in some districts have publicly claimed 

enormous expenditures for new buses. While this may sometimes 

be true, it may also be that some of the buses were alreadybudg-

eted, that some buses are needed for non-desegregation purposes, 

or that some buses paid for in one year are not delivered until 

the following year. 

5. In some instances, the number of students bused may 

vary depending on the management practices in various school dis-

tricts. A Hillsborough County, Fla. school official conunented to 

an LDF staff member that his school district transported 10,000 

more children with 100 fewer. buses than the Charlotte-Mecklenburg, 

. 46/ 
N.C. district did.--

6. The Norfolk, Va. public schools had not subsidized 

bus transportation prior to desegregation. When the school dis-

trict was ordered to desegregate its schools, the school board 

and the city council refused to purchase buses to get children 

to their assigned schools. The 15,000 children who ride a bus 

to get to school must pay $63 per student per year, a financial 



- 30 -

burden which families have had to bear. Yet, if Norfolk operated 

its own bus fleet, it would cost less than half that much, or 

47/ 
$26.17 (the Virginia cost per pupil for cities),- to trans-

port students. Furthermore, if Norfolk were to operate its own 

buses, it would be eligible for 47% of its operating costs from 

48/ 
the state.-

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on 

March 7, 1972, ordered the Norfolk school board to provide free 

transportation as a part of its desegregation plan on the grounds 

that without transportation to the assigned school, the whole 

desegregation plan is a "futile gesture" and a "cruel hoax." 

The Court recognized that the cost of transportation would be 

a burden, but held that $3 million capital outlay for buses and 

maintenance could be amortized over the normal· life of the equip-

ment and that the $600,000 increase in annual operating costs 

was reasonable in a district with a total school budget of $35 

49/ 
million.-

7. The decision of this Administration to prohibit the 

use of ESAP funds for any transportation costs created severe 

problems in a number of school districts. Dr. Elbert Brooks 

testified before Congress that at a meeting with southern school 

superintendents in Atlanta in July, 1971, he and other superinten-

dents were led to believe by HEW officials that their requests 



- 31 -

for help to pay busing costs would be honored by HEW. But in 

August, after President Nixon's announcement, HEW refused to 

fund any of the requests . .1Q/ Dr. Brooks, as well as other 

southern school superintendents, felt betrayed. 

8. In other cases, it was not only the President, but 

also local municipal authorities who prohibited the use of public 

funds to buy school buses to meet the requirements of the court's 

order. The Nashville Metropolitan Council refused to approve 

new buses for desegregation, and as a result schools are operat-

ing on staggered hours, some extra curricular activities have 

been curtailed and students and parents have been inconvenienced. 

Despite all these problems, Dr. Brooks reported that "the regular 

program should not be hurt • .. W 

9. In some instances, school districts may spend extra 

money for transportation in order to provide conveniences for 

students. North Carolina only reimburses local districts for 

"mixed" buses, i.e., buses which carry elementary, junior and 

senior high school students at the same time. Winston-Salem-

For$yth County, however, has had a practice for several years 

of taking elementary students home in the afternoon before junior 

and senior high schools are let out for the day. Thus, the local 

board must pay for the costs of transporting these elementary 

52/ 
students from local funds.~ 



- 32 -

10. Some districts pay busing costs out of local funds 

because they undertake supplementary costs which are not state 

reimbursed. For example, in 1971-72 Winston-Salem-Forsyth County 

dJcided to hire adult bus drivers for the first time. They pay 

each adult driver $80 a month more than state reimbursement. The 

district projected in September that it would cost them about 

53/ 
$150,000 this year for this driver-salary supplement.~ 

11. Inflation has caused increases in busing costs. In 

North Carolina, for example, state reimbursement for bus driver 

salaries has gone up considerably in the past few years after bus 

drivers came under the minimum wage laws. Salaries for mechanics 

have shown a sharp upward trend recently in North Carolina, as have 

54/ 
the costs of parts and gas.~ 

12. Two North Carolina school systems - Greensboro and 

Asheville - desegregated their schools at no additional expense to 

local districts. In Greensboro, the additional busing of 6,000 

students in 1971-72 was accomplished by the city's existing fleet, 

by county buses already utilized by the city to transport some 

city children, and by the borrowing of 86 buses owned by the 

county and maintained by the state. In Asheville, no local money 

was spent to bus over 2,000 children to accomplish desegregation 

because all transportation is done by private bus companies which 

55/ 
are reimbursed by the state.~ 



I 

ii 



- 33 -

CHAPTER VI 

"Curb busing while expanding 
educational opportunity" 

1. School officials see busing and expanding educational 

opportunities as complementary and not contradictory objectives. 

Their views are directly contrary to those of the President who 

sees busing as a "symbol of social engineering on the basis of 

. 56/ abstractions."- School districts throughout the country use 

their transportation systems to promote a variety of educational 

and social goals including school consolidation, improved voca-

tional education programs, broadened horizons for their children 

through field trips, and expanded summer programs and pre-school 

education. No one, to our knowledge, has ever held out these 

objectives as "social engineering." 

As Donald E. Morrison of NEA has testified: 

School systems have not hesitated to bus child­
ren to vocational education programs and special 
education programs concentrated in particular 
geographical areas. School children are regu­
larly bused on field trips serving some educa­
tional purpose. In some school districts, such 
as Cleveland's Shaker Heights, children have 
been bused~e for lunch to give teachers duty­
free time. 5 

2. Educators have supported school busing to promote edu-

cational opportunity. The Council of Chief State School Officers 

in November 1971, stated: 

Although transportation of students as a method 
of achieving desegregation has become a highly 



- 34 -

controversial issue throughout the nation, the 
members of the Council of Chief State School 
Officers believe it is a viable means of achiev­
ing equal educational opportunity and should be 
supported. 58/ 

3. Transportation is still a relatively modest percent-

age of all educational expenditures. (See discussion in Chapter 

V.) Even if the nation were to re-allocate for compensatory 

education all funds currently allocated to pupil transportation, 

including those which subsidize affluent, middle-class children 

attending suburban schools which have never been involved in 

integration, we would have little more than is currently in the 

budget for Title I. This program has yet to prove its effective-

ness in raising the levels of academic achievement of educationally 

disadvantaged children. 

4. The effect of transportation for desegregation on the 

regular education program has varied from district to district. 

In Pinellas County , Fla. desegregation resulted in a decrease in 

extra-curricular activities but not an increase in the number of 

pupils bused. 591 But in Roanoke, Va. school authorities report 

that because of the new buses required for the desegregation plan, 

the district can now "do more in a central location than could 

formerly be done in separate places." Roanoke operates five 

educational centers for elementary school children, including an 

oceanography center and a Japanese garden exhibiting the culture 

of the Far East. Students are bused to these centers as part 



., 

J 
1 

- 35 -

of their regular program. The cost of duplicating such centers 

in each elementary school would prohibit the use of such educa-

. . . 60/ tional innovations.~ 

Finally, Lynchburg, Va. school authorities report a 3.5% 

increase in school attendance this year over last year. This 

is the first year that the city has transported students to school, 

and officials say the only factor to which they can attribute 

improved attendance is busing. 



I. 



- 36 -

CHAPTER VII 

"The school bus ... has become 
a symbol of helplessness, 
frustration and outrage - of 
a wrenching of children away 
from their families ..•• " 

1. If this sentiment represented the prevailing attitude, 

school systems and local taxpayers would long ago have stopped 

busing. Many southern school districts have bused 70-100% of 

61/ 
their students for years prior to desegregation.-

Many school officials are obviously proud of their buses 

and pleased with the advantages which busing has brought. When 

interviewed by our representative, a Roanoke, Va. official ob-

served that busing has me ant "be tte r control, better schedules, 

and h . k ' d ,,62 / appier 1 s. -

Of the students who were bused prior to desegregation, 

98% in Winston-Salem-Forsyth County, N.C. and over 90% in Greensboro, 

. 63/ 
N.C. were white.- Did the citizens of those communities see the 

school bus as an outrage? We doubt it. 

2 . A Hillsborough County, Fla. school official, noting 

apparently for the first time that the complete desegregation of 

the school system might require a one percent increase in total 

expenditures , mused aloud that, "maybe it isn't so bad after all; 

maybe it is really worthwhile! 1164/ 

3. It is true that reports of problems with discipline 



- 37 -

and with vandalism involving buses have increased. Whether this 

is a concomitant to integration is a mixed picture. Some incidents 

have involved persons of the same race. Tensions which occurred 

on newly integrated buses have sometimes subsided. Some problems 

seem to be the result of having young, inexperienced and untrained 

drivers, many of whom are students themselves. Where districts 

have employed drivers of a different race from the majority of 

pupils, especially white drivers for all-black busloads, they have 

invited trouble. 

As the bus has become politicized, it has become the 

symbol of racial divisiveness. Buses have been turned over and 

burned by irate white parents. White hostility against integra­

tion has been directed against the bus. However, some officials 

whom we interviewed believe that the current problems have little 

to do with race. They are convinced that parents lack confidence 

in public schools, that the bus as a symbol of the educational 

establishment is an easy target, and that those who commit acts of 

vandalism are merely reflecting the prevailing disenchantment with 

public education. 

In view of this problem, citizens have urged the employ­

ment of monitors and the training of bus drivers. Norfolk, Va. 

sought ESAP funds for monitors and was turned down by HEW officials 

who referred to President Nixon's veto of the use of ESAP funds 



- 38 -

for any purposes related to transportation. As a direct conse­

quence of the President's decision, the Norfolk school board 

decided to use city police on the buses for the first month of 

school. 



,-



- 39 -

CHAPTER VIII 

"Excessive transportation of 
students creates serious risks 
to their health and safety .... 

"The risks and harms created by 
excessive transportation are 
particularly great for children 
enrolled in the first six grades." 

1. One of the most emotional appeals against busing is 

that riding a school bus risks the health and safety of children, 

especially those in the first six grades of school. National 

safety statistics refute this contention. 

Data on student accident rates from the National Safety 

Council reveal that it is safer to ride a bus to school than to 

walk. The accident rate for boys riding a school bus is .03 per 

100,000 student days compared with .09 for walking. For girl 

students the accident rate is similar - .03 when riding a bus 

66/ 
and .07 when walking to school.~ These rates for the 1968-69 

school year are based on the reports of more than 35,000 school 

jurisdiction accidents, that is all types of accidents during a 

school day. The National Safety Council warns that since report-

ing is voluntary, the figures may not be representative of the 

national accident picture. But the figures do show that of 

school accidents reported, risks to student safety on a bus were 

much lower than risks to students in other school activities, 

such as sports and classroom instruction. 



NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL, ACCIDENT FACTS, 90-91, (1971 EDITIONo) 

Boys - Student Accident Rates by School Grade_!_/ 

Location and Type Total K.gn. 1-3 Gr. 4-6 Gr. 7-9 Gr. 10-12 Gr. 

Going to and from school (MV) .19 .40 .22 .13 .20 .15 
School bus .03 .04 .02 .02 • 06 .02 
Public carrier (incl. bus) .01 .02 .01 .01 .01 .02 
Motor scooter .01 0 0 * .02 .02 
Other mot. veh.-pedestrian .09 .33 .16 .08 .04 .02 
Other mot. veh.-bicycle .02 0 .02 .02 003 * 
Other mot. veh.-other type .03 0 .01 .01 .04 .06 

Girls - Student Accident Rates by School Grade_!_/ 

Going to and from school (MV) .14 .29 .13 .08 .14 .19 
School bus .03 .01 .01 .03 .04 .02 
Public carrier (incl. bus) .01 .02 0 * .01 .02 
Motor scooter .01 .01 * * .01 .02 
other mot. veh.-pedestrian .07 .23 .10 .04 .06 .04 
other mot. veh.-bicycle * 0 .01 * .01 0 
Other mot. veh.-other type .03 .01 .01 .01 002 .10 

_!/ The figures in the tables are rates which show the number of accidents per 
100,000 student days. 

*Less than 0.005 

- 40 -

Days Lost 
per Inj. 

3.56 
1.24 
3.57 
2.42 
4.53 
3.34 
3.01 

8.26 
2.01 
4.31 
1.83 

14.14 
4.50 
1.95 



- 41 -

The risks to health and safety are presumed b y the 

President to be even greater for younger children , those in 

the first six grades. This unsupported assumption has risen to 

the status of a "finding" set forth in the President ' s legisla-

tion establishing national standards for equal educational oppor-

tunity, yet the chart on the previous page demonstrates that 

accident rates on school buses for boys and girls in grades 1 

through 6 are slightly ·lower than the total accident rate for 

all ages for both sexes. 

2. Any discussion of safety must recognize that without 

adequate vehicles to transport children to school, students may 

be subjected to unwarranted hazards. Dr . Elbert Brooks, the 

Director of the Nashville Metropolitan schools , testified before 

the Senate Select Committee on Equal Educational Opportunity that 

because the school board had been unable to purchase the necessary 

number of buses some children left home and returned home in the 

darkness of winter days and that some buses made trips on an 

inter-state highway to shorten the trip . Dr . Brooks felt that 

such practices did create risks , but that such risks were directly 

due to the fact that both the Nashville City Council and the 

President of the United States had made it impossible for the 

school board to purchase enough buses to eliminate these potential 

67/ 
hazards . -



- 42 -

3. School officials are not unmindful of potential risks 

to children who walk to the nearest school, but who must cross 

busy streets, walk down roads with no sidewalks, and traverse 

railroad tracks in order to get to their neighborhood school. 

In such instances, local school systems often provide transporta-

tion for these students even though they would not otherwise be 

eligible for busing. For example, Roanoke, Va. this school year 

purchased 20 new yellow school buses in order to comply with 

their desegregation order. These were the first large passenger 

buses to be operated by the district itself. The new vehicles 

permitted the school system not only to bus children to desegrega-

gated schools, but also to bus kindergarten children who last 

68/ 
year had to walk unsafe streets to get to class.~ 

4. In the state of Florida during this school year, 66,115 

children who are ineligible for state-reimbursed transportation 

because they live within walking distance of their school, are 

nonetheless bused to school. School officials report that this bus-

ing was done at local expense, that it was done mostly for safety 

reasons, and that the vast majority of these children are in the 

elementary grades. 

69/ 
The following chart ~ shows, for five Florida school 

districts, the number of students who were ineligible for state-

reimbursed transportation but who were bused primarily for reasons 



- 43 -

of safety or convenience. Again, the majority of these child­

ren are in the elementary grades. 

District 1968-69 1969-70 1970-71 1971-72 

Duval 3,397 3 I 030 3,630 5,764 

Hillsborough 1,879 3,211 5,408 3,565 

Pinellas 2,701 3I194 2 I 142 729 

Manatee 613 504 748 822 

Orange 3,767 4,635 6,347 7,834 

Apparently, it is the judgment of local educational officials 

that busing elementary school students is not a risk to their 

health or safety. Indeed, such busing is deemed a protection of 

young children. 



I, 

I! 
I 



- 44 -

CHAPTER IX 

"A remedy for the historic evil 
of racial discrimination has 
often created a new evil of dis­
rupting communities and impos­
ing hardships on children .... " 

Who has disrupted communities, imposed hardships, and torn 

us apart as a people? 

It is not the Federal judges who have exercised judicial 

restraint. 

It is not black citizens who are still trying to secure 

equal educational opportunities for their children. 

It is not the school bus. 

It is the present Administration which has used the powe r 

and majesty and authority of the President's office to stir 

dissension, confusion, and uncertainty among us by politicizing 

the busing issue. 





HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA - A PROFILE 

Florida is a state of metropolitan school districts. 

Every city in Florida, no matter how large, is part of the county 

school system in which it is located. cities like Miami and 

Jacksonville are located in county school systems which also have 

rural areas, many municipalities, and burgeoning suburbs. In 

spite of the state's size and population, it has only 67 school 

districts. 

Hillsborough County, which includes Tampa, is a sprawling 

metropolitan area, composed of diverse racial and ethnic groups. 

About 20% of its 500,000 citizens are black and nearly 20% are 

Spanish-speaking. Within its l,034 square miles are some fourteen 

municipalities which range in population from 5,500 to almost 

40,000. There are also many unincorporated, but heavily populated 

areas in this county. Like many metropolitan areas in Florida, 

significant population growth has occurred in the county, but 

little of that growth has occurred in Tampa itself. The county 

has experienced an increase in population from 398,000 in 1960 

to nearly 500,000 in 1970, while the Tampa population during that 

same period grew from 275,000 to 278,000 persons. 

Hillsborough County also has a very large, metropolitan 

- l -



school system with about 103,000 students (about 20% black) 

attending 129 schools. During the 1969-70 school year, the 

dual system was still intact. Freedom of choice had produced 

only some token desegregation in a few formerly white schools. 

In 1970-71, many other formerly white schools became desegregated 

for the first time as a result of a Federal Court order. 

In the spring of 1971, black plaintiffs filed a Swann 

motion with the U. S. District Court asking that the Hillsborough 

County schools be desegregated. Accordingly, the Court directed 

the board to devise an appropriate school desegregation plan. 

The plan adopted by the board and approved by the Court called 

for each school in the system to be about 80% white and 20% black. 

The plan, which had the approval of the superintendent, the school 

board, the Chamber of Commerce, civic groups and the press, was 

a combination of pairing, clustering and non-contiguous zoning. 

The clusters were composed of one formerly black school and a few 

formerly white schools, with the black schools becoming middle­

grade centers and the white schools serving grades 1-5. Thus, 

white students now attend formerly black schools in grades 6-7 

only, while black students attend formerly white schools for 10 

of their 12 school years. 

Some resistance to this plan existed prior to the opening 

of the current school year. A significant portion of the resistance 

- ii -



was in the black community. There were threats of demonstrations 

by blacks at the two formerly black high schools. The Court-

ordered Bi-Racial Advisory Committee, which reflected the senti-

ment in the black community, told the Court that the plan "essen­

tially establishes a 'community school concept' for white students .... 

The plan's undue effort to minimize white flight serves to maxi-

mize black busing." The elimination of the two black high schools, 

the Advisory Committee said, " .•. deals a punitive blow to the 

black community and by so doing .•. is inconsistent with the short 

or long range harmony between the races desired and needed to 

implement school desegregation in the community at large." Some 

white citizens attempted to thwart the Court's order, but no 

major organizations opposed the plan or caused disruptions in 

the schools. 

In 1969-70, 164 buses were bused to transport more than 

27,600 students over 15,200 miles daily. In 1970-71, 179 buses 

transported some 32,400 students more than 15,700 miles, an in­

crease of about 5,000 students. 

Just before the Court approved the current desegregation 

plan last summer, the board projected that the proposed plan 

would require the additional transportation of about 15,700 ele­

mentary, 7,400 junior high and 2,200 senior high school students, 

a total of 25,300. The projection was close~ 25,200 students 

- iii -



are bused this year for the purpose of desegregation. However, 

1,800 fewer elementary students are bused than projected. Of 

the 14,000 elementary pupils who are bused, 8,600 are black and 

5,400 are white. The total number of secondary students of 

both races who are bused is 11,300: 8,500 in junior and almost 

2,800 in senior high schools. 

Transportation statistics for the 1971-72 school year in 

Hillsborough County reflect the increased busing necessary to 

implement the desegregation plan. 

1. The number of buses used increased from 179 

to 339, including 29 spares. 

2. There are 907 separate bus trips daily this 

year compared with 461 last year. 

3. Students were transported to 84 schools last 

year and 126 this year. 

4. The number of elementary students bused in-

creased from 10,600 to 22,500; junior high 

school students increased from 8,800 to 

. 
16,200~ and senior high school students 

from 7,500 to 10,400. 

5. Buses traveled 6,000 more "essential miles"* 

this year. 

* "Essential mile" is a state department term meaning the 
number of miles a bus travels with one or more students. 

- iv -



6. Total mileage has increased from 15,750 per 

day to 32,300 miles per day. 

Two schools in the county operate on double sessions. Two 

separate administrative units operate within the same facility 

each day. The morning session has a different principal and 

faculty than the afternoon session. This year double sessions 

necessitate an additional $18,000 in bus drivers' salaries and 

about 5,200 "non-essential miles".** Double sessions result in 

less efficient use of buses. Since only students in particular 

grade levels are picked up, buses must travel further to obtain 

a full load and they must travel more miles empty. 

Other non-essential costs have increased this year be-

cause the state computes mileage from the time a bus begins its 

route at the driver's house until it stops at the garage after 

dropping off the last student, and because the district has had 

difficulty in finding bus drivers who live close to the beginning 

of their routes. 

During the 1970-71 school year, Hillsborough County spent 

$1,206,708 for transportation, or about $37.23 per pupil bused. 

This cost represented approximately 1.3% of the district's total 

budget. Out of a total budget of over $119 million this year, 

** "Non-essential miles" is a state department term indicating 
the miles a bus travels without students, or miles a bus 
travels off the main bus route if that detour is 1.5 miles 
or less one way. 

- v -



the school district is spending about $1,973,728 or 1.7%, for 

transportation. The cost per pupil bused is $37.38. 

The purchase of new buses has been a significant factor 

in the increase in transportation costs this year. One hundred 

and forty-five regular buses were bought, of which 20 had already 

been budgeted. One million dollars was borrowed on a four-year 

loan to pay for the new buses. 

The Florida State Department of Education recommends that 

school buses be replaced every ten years, yet in 1961, 1963, 1964, 

1965 and 1966, Hillsborough County purchased no new buses. As 

a result of this delay in bus replacement, 71 buses are now 11 

or more years old, and 29 buses purchased in 1957 and 1958 are 

now used as spares. If buses had been replaced on a regular 

basis, Hillsborough County's bus fleet might have more easily 

accommodated the increased student transportation and 29 old buses 

would not have had to be utilized. 

This year's total anticipated educational expenditures of 

over $119 million are a considerable increase over 1970-71 when 

somewhat more than $89 million· was spent. What is most interest­

ing to note, however, is the substantial increase in the allocation 

for capital improvements and debt service: 

- vi -



Capital Improvements 

Debt Service 

1970-71 

$12,034,617 

2,838,883 

1971-72 (est.) 

$32,847,393 

7,741,681 

The investment in new buses represents a small percentage indeed 

of the total capital outlay for Hillsborough County. 

Despite the substantial increase in busing in Hillsborough 

County and the reassignment of students to new schools, the 

citizens of the metropolitan area, black and white alike, have 

accommodated to the change brought by conversion to a desegre­

gated school system. School officials have taken steps to ease the 

transition. Specialists have been employed with ESAP funds to 

work in each secondary school in the county. Bi-racial student 

advisory committees have been established at each secondary school, 

and together with the specialists, have helped to moderate inter­

racial antagonisms. Facilities at the formerly black schools have 

been improved. Air conditioning was installed and needed supplies 

were increased, thus reducing parent complaints. While many black 

students have resented losing their identity with their old high 

schools, they have increasingly participated in extra-curricular 

activities and sports at their new schools. Buses have been pro­

vided to transport students home after regular school hours. 

In the first week after school opened in the Fall of 1971, 

many white parents did not send their children to school, and 

others drove their children to schol and picked them up in the 

vii -



afternoon because of fear of disruptions at formerly black 

schools. But the disruptions failed to materialize, and after 

several weeks white children began riding buses to school. 

Approximately 2,000 white students left the public schools this 

year. The fact that there was no greater amount of "white 

flight" was due to the fact that the private schools in the 

county resisted expanding their enrollment for students who 

sought to avoid desegregation. Superintendent Raymond Shelton 

has noted a trend of white students returning to public schools.*** 

Hillsborough County is an example of what can be accomplished 

when a metropolitan-wide desegregation plan becomes the vehicle 

for securing the constitutional rights of black children. Most 

encouraging, however, is that the plan is not only working but 

that at least one school official believes that, "maybe it isn't 

so bad after all; maybe it is really worthwhile! 1164/ 

***Testimony of Chairman Theodore Hesburgh, U.S. Commission on 
Civil Rights before Subcommittee No. 5 of the House Committee 
on Judiciary, 6-15 (March l, 1972). 

- viii -



NORTH CAROLINA - A PROFILE 

North Carolina has several large, urban school districts 

and is unique because it is the only state in the South that has 

completely desegregated its city school systems. In the past 

four years, pupil transportation has increased by 10% in the 

state, from 55% of North Carolina's enrollment to 65%. Yet 

only a small portion of that increase can be attributed to de­

segregation of the urban areas. 

In 1968-69 no school districts, including those mentioned 

in this report, had desegregated school systems. During that 

year over 9,200 school buses transported nearly 611,000 students 

(almost 55% of all students in the state) at an annual cost of 

over $14.2 million, which included the cost of purchasing bus 

replacements. Over 352,000 miles were traveled in that year at 

a cost of $23.40 per pupil. 

In 1969-70 most North Carolina school systems were still 

segregated, including all of the large, urban school districts. 

In that year, over 9,400 vehicles transported nearly 630,000 

students (over 57% of all the students in the state) at a cost 

of over $19.1 million, which included the cost of bus replacements. 

Over 357,500 miles were traveled at a cost of $30.39 per pupil. 

During this year about 15,000 special education students became 

- ix -



eligible, for the first time, for state reimbursed transporta­

tion costs. 

In 1970-71 Charlotte-Mecklenburg became the first urban 

district in the state to approach the elimination of the dual 

school system. There were other isolated cases where urban dis­

tricts made beginning steps as, for example, Winston-Salem­

Forsyth. Other urban districts remained almost totally segre­

gated, such as Raleigh and Greensboro. 

During 1970-71 nearly 10,000 vehicles were used to trans­

port over 683,400 students (62% of all students in the state) 

at a cost of over $21.3 million, including bus replacement. 

375,370 miles were traveled that year with a per pupil cost of 

$31.21. Significantly, this was the year when Sparrow v. Gill 

became effective. 

By 1971-72 nearly all school districts in the state had 

made major steps in achieving unitary school systems. During 

this year 10,400 vehicles have transported about 717,000 students 

(nearly 65% of all pupils in the state). 

As the above figures indicate, there has been a constant 

increase during each school year (before and after desegregation) 

in the number of vehicles, the cost of operations, the number of 

miles traveled annually, the number of pupils transported and 

the percent of pupils transported. Some items increased at a 

- x -



faster rate than others. 

The Sparrow decision resulted in approximately 54,000 

additional students (requiring 589 additional buses) becoming 

eligible for transportation. In the school year prior to 1968-69, 

about 5,000 additional students became eligible for transportation 

each year due to normal student population growth. A state 

transportation official believes that approximately the same 

pattern has existed for each school year since 1968-69. 

Based upon our interviews with state officials and upon 

our examination of their files and documents, we conclude that 

of the approximately 106,200 students now transported who were 

not transported in 1968-69 that: 

Sparrow 

Special education 

Growth (6,000 students per 
year x 3 ye~rs) 

resulted in 54,000 

accounted for 15,000 

resulted in 18,000 

Urban desegregation caused 
TOTAL 

19,000 
106,000 

Therefore, approximately 19,000 of the 717,000 students 

transported in 1971-72 in North Carolina represents a net in-

crease in pupil transportation because of urban, court-ordered 

desegregation. Other desegregation steps have decreased trans-

portation in the state. 

- xi -





FOOTNOTES 

1. N. Mills, Busing: Who's Being Taken For A Ride, 7 
(ERIC-IRCD Urban Disadvantaged Series No. 27, 
April, 1972) 0 

2 a Testimony of Theodore M. Hesburgh, Chairman, U.S. 
Commission on Civil Rights before Subcommittee 
No. 5 of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 16 
(March 1, 1972). 

3. HEW Memorandum, from Constantine Menges to Christopher 
Cross, 1 (March 30, 1972). 

4. Supra, note 1, at 9. 

5. U.S. Department of Transportation, Report on School 
Busing, 1 (March 24, 1972). 

6. Supra, note 1, at 7. 

7. Id. at 12-13. 

8. Interview with Harlan C. McNeil, Supervisor, Department 
of Transportation, Lynchburg Public Schools, April 6, 
1972. 

9 o U.S. Office of Education, Elementary and secondary 
Education Act of 1965 as Amended, Title I, Assistance 
for Educationally Deprived Children, Expenditures 
for Pupil Transportation services, Fiscal Year 1968. 

10. Bradley v. The School Board of the city of Richmond, 
Va., C.Aa No. 3353, F. Supp. (E aD. Va., Jan a 5, 
1972) Slip Op. at 23"'7": ~ 

ll a Swann Va Charlotte-Mecklenburg, No. 1974, F. Supp. 
(W.D. N.C a , October 21, 1971) Slip Op a 6. 

12 0 Congressional Record, February 28, 1970, S2652-2653. 

13 a Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 
(W.D a N. c~r. Civ. A. No. 1974; unreported 
supplementary Findings of Fact, March 21, 19700 see 
petitioner's Appendix to petition for writ of 
Certiorari, U.S. Sup. Ct. Oct. Term 1969, Noa 1713, 
p. 142a.) 

14 0 Testimony of Stephen Horn, Vice Chairman, U.S. 
Commission on Civil Rights, before the Committee on 
Education and Labor, House of Representatives, 5 
(April 11, 1972). 

- xii -



15. Winston-Salem-Forsyth county Public Schools, 
Principal's Monthly Bus Report, March, 1971. 

16. Hearings Before the Select Committee on Egual 
Educational Opportunity of the U.S. senate, 92nd 
Cong., lsto Sess., Part 18-Pupil Transportation 
Costs, 9017 (October 6, 1971). 

17 0 Memphis Commercial Appeal, JanQ 30, 1972. 

18 0 Speech by c. A. Hunsinger, member, Pinellas County Board 
of Education, A Chronology of Pinellas County School 
Desegregation, March, 1972. 

19. Memorandum from w. P. Patterson, Director of Trans­
portation, Hillsborough County Board of Education to 
Wayne Hull, Assistant Superintendent for Business, 
October 15, 1971. 

20. Interview with D. c. Windham, Transportation Supervisor, 
Jackson Public Schools, April 10, 1972. 

210 Interview with Mrs. Vivian Mason, member Norfolk City 
Board of Education, January 24, 1972. 

22 0 Remarks of Superintendent w. B. Thompson, Greenville 
Municipal Separate School District, Board of Education 
Meeting, August, 1971. 

23. Interview with Superintendent cecil Hardesty and 
Joseph J. Smith, Director of Finance, Duval County 
Board of Education, Jan. 17, 1972 and April 4, 1972 0 

24 0 Statement of Donald E. Morrison, president, National 
Education Association before Subcommittee No. 5 of 
the House Committee on Judiciary, 8 (March 2, 1972). 

25. Supra, note 3, at 3 o 

26. Id. at 2. 

270 Supra, note 5. 

28. Figures supplied by local and state officials o 

29 0 Interview with Dr. John McLaulin, Assistant 
Superintendent for Research and Planning, Norfolk 
Public Schools, January 28, 1972. Annual Report of 
the Superintendent of Public Instruction of the 
Commonwealth of Virginia, 110 (Dec. 1971). 

- xiii -



30. Florida Department of Education, Mid year Trans­
portation Report, 5 (May, 1969}; interviewswith 
Department of Education officials, April 4 and 
17, 1972; interviews with school officials in 
Pinellas County and Hillsborough County, April 5, 
1972. 

31. Interview with Richard Via, Director, Building and 
Grounds, Roanoke Public Schools, April 6, 1972. 

32. Interview with Wayne Hull, Assistant Superintendent 
for Business, Hillsborough County Board of Educa­
tion, Jan. 27, 1972. 

33. Interview with Clifton Jones, Assistant Coordinator 
for Pupil Transportation, orange County Board of 
Education, April 7, 1972. 

34. Sparrow v. Gill, 304 F. Supp. 86 (M.D. N.C. 1969). 

35. North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 
Division of Transportation, Status of School Trans­
portation Within Municipal Corporate Limits, (Sept. 
3, 1969.) 

36. Interview with Rene Couleman, Supervisor of Trans­
portation, Arlington County Pub lic Schools, March 
29, 1972. 

37. Figures supplied by Florida Department of Education, 
Transportation Section. 

38 0 Id o 

39. Supra, note 14, at 6 0 

40. Reports of Advisory Study Groups, Public Elementary 
and secondary Education and Junior Colleges To The 
Legislative Education Study Committee, Vol. 1 
(December, 1961); Mississippi State Department of 
Education, Division of Administration and Finance, 
Statistical Reports 1961-62 through 1970-71; R. 
Barber, Mississippi School Busing, April, 1972 0 

41. Figures supplied by Florida Department of Education 
Transportation section and Finance Department. 

42. Interview with officials of Transportation Division, 
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 
March 27, 1972. 

43. Supra, note 37. Interviews with Pinellas County 
school officials, April 15, 1972. 

- xiv -



44. Raleigh City Board of Education, Estimated Raleigh 
Public School Budget - 1971-72; Cost Estimates To 
Increase Raleigh city Schools' Bus Fleet to one 
Hundred Fifty Nine Buses. 

45. Figures supplied by Raleigh Public School officials. 

46. Interview with W.P. Patterson, Director of Transportation, 
Hillsborough County Board of Education, April 5, 1972. 

47. Annual Report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction 
of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 125 (Dec. 1971). 

48. Brewer v. School Board of the city of Norfolk, Nos. 
71-1900 and 71-1901, F.2d (4th cir., March 7, 
1972), Slip Op. 3. 

49. Id. at 8-9. 

50. Supra, note 16, at 9016-9017. 

51. Id. at 9022. 

52. Interview with Morris Hastings, Transportation Director, 
Winston-Salem-Forsyth Board of Education, 
March 30, 1972. 

53. Id. 

54. Supra, note 42. 

55. Interview with R. s. walthal, Director of Transportation, 
Greensboro Board of Education, March 30, 1972. 

56. The President's Message to Congress, 4 (March 17, 
1972). 

57. Supra, note 24, at 9. 

58. Council of Chief State School Officers, Policies and 
Resolutions (November 17, 1971). 

59. Interview with Superintendent N. G. Mangum and 
Assistant Superintendent Mathew Stewart, Pinellas 
County Board of Education, April 5, 1972. 

60. Supra, note 31. 

61. Supra, note 12. 

62. Supra, note 31. 

- xv -



63. Principal's Annual Bus Report, June 29, 1970; 
Simkins v. Greensboro Board of Education, C. No 
C-34-G-70, Answers to Interrogatories, September 
10, 1970. Annual Pupil Transportation Report 
1969-70; Scott V o Winston-Salem-Forsyth County 
Board of Education, c. N. c-174-WS-68, Answers 
to Interrogatories, December 19, 1969. 

64. Supra, note 32. 

65. Interview with Dr. John McLaulin, Assistant 
Superintendent for Research and Planning, Norfolk 
Public Schools, January 28, 1972. 

66. National Safety Council, Accident Facts, 90-91 
(1971 Edition). 

67 0 Supra, note 16, at 9018-9019. 

68. Supra, note 31 0 

69 0 Florida Department of Education, Mid-Year Trans­
portation Reports for 1968- 69, 1969-70, 1970-71. 
Interview with officials of Transportation section, 
Florida Department of Education, April 17, 1972 0 

- xvi -



BUSING COSTS 1953-54 THROUGH 1967-68 

Total Trans. as 
No. Trans. % of Av. Cost % of Total 
u .s. Enroll. Per Pupil Educ. Expend. 

1953-54 8,411,719 32.8% $36.55 4. 5% 

1955-56 9,695,819 35% $36.51 4.3% 

1957-58 10,861,689 36.5% $38.34 4.1% 

1959-60 12,225,142 37.6% $39.78 3. 9<'/o 

1961-62 13,222,667 38.1% $43.59 3. 9<'/o 

1963-64 14,475,778 38.7% $46.53 3. 9<'/o 

1965-66 15,536,567 39. 7% $50.68 3.7% 

1967-68 17,130,873 42.0% $57.27 3.7% 

Source: U.S. Office of Education, National Center for 
Educational Statistics 

- xvii -

.J 



PUPIL TRANSPORTATION BY REGION 

RE.GION 1953-54 1955-56 1927-28 1959-60 1961-62 1963-64 1965-66 1967-68 

Northeast 
No . Trans. 1,396,518 1, 7865231 2,386, 339 2,759 ,515 3,093,701 3,533,950 NA 4,487,990 
% of Total 25.2% 30.1% 34.4% 36.9% 38.5% 4o .6% 47% 

North Central 
No. Trans . 2,140, 803 2,157,035 2,807,469 3,138,674 3,441,681 3,914,131 4,863,556 
% of Total 29 .5% 31.3% 33 .4% 34.8% 35.9% 37 . 7% 42 . 7% 

South 
No. Trans . 3,895,400 4,205,068 3, 730,215 3,990,808 4,254,184 4,459,630 4,855,105 
% of Total 43 . 2% 43 .6% 50.6% 5o .6% 51.2% 50 .7% 52 .5% 

West 
No. Trans. 978,998 1,247,485 1,932, 666 2, 296,145 2,427,901 2,568, 067 2, 924, 222 
% of Total 25.5% 29% 27.6% 28.8% 27 . 8% 27% 27 .5% 

Source: U.S. Office of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics 

- xviii -





~)istrict 

Arlington 

Asheville 

Charlotte 

Duval 

Greensboro 

Hi llsborough 

.Jackson 
-· 

Lynchburg 

Manatee 

Nashville 
·-
Norfolk 

Orange 

Pinel l as 

Raleigh 

Richmond 

Roanoke 
-

Winston- Salem 

INCREASE IN PUPIL TRANSPORTATION IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS DUE TO DESEGREGATION COURT ORDERS 

Tota l Total Bused % of Enroll. Total Enroll. Total Bused 
After Court After Court Enroll. Prior in Dist. Prior Bused in 

Court Order Court Order 

24, 390 y 

8 , 381 11 

84,518 y 

122,493 y 

31, 901 ];./ 

105,347 y 

30,937 y 
I 11,590 y 

16,923 11 
2/ 

94 ,170 -

59 , 429 11 

I 2/ 

I 

85,270 -

85,117 y 
I 

I 23 ,469 y 

I 47,988 y 

19,284 y 

50,462 y 

~/ 1969-70 school year 
?i 1970-71 school year 
l! 1971- 72 school year 

9,532 

None 

29,737 

38 , 750 

10,781 

32,406 

2 ,127 

None 

6 , 628 

34,000 

7 , 500 

32,964 

36.588 

1 , 342 

13,916 y 

2,150 

18,444 

Distr i ct Order Order 

39.0% 23 , 133 y 8,588 

None 8,241 y 2 ,170 

35.1% 82 , 507 y 39,080 

31.6% 118 217 y . , 44 , 706 

33.8% 30 ,105 y 16,689 

30.8% 102,728 y 52 , 795 

7 . 0% 29,031 y 7,300 

None 11 , 700 y 4,478 

39 .2% 17 , 386 y 8 , 287 

36.0% 87,000 y 49 , 000 

3/ 
12.6% 50 , 791 - 15,000 

38.7% 86 , 705 11 "35,713 

43 .0% 86 , 880 y 36,888 
3 

5.7% 22 , 236 - 10,126 

29.0% 44 , 989 y 17,563 

11.1% 18,294 y 4 , 665 

36. 5% 50,070 y 32,220 

4/ Of the total o f 13,916 
- 8,500 rode Vi rginia Transit Co . 

b u ses and 5 , 4 16 rode school 
district- owned buses. 

- xix -

% of Enroll. 
Bused after 
Court Order 

37 . 0% 

26. 3% 

47 . 3% 

37.8% 

55.4% 

51.4% 

25 . 0% 

38 . 0% 

47. 7% 

56.0% 

29 . 5% 

41. 2% 

42.5% 

45 . 5% 

39 . 0% 

25 . 5% 

64 . 3% 

% Public Bnroll. 
Transported 
State-
wide 

63 .0% 

62. 2% 

62. 2% 

NA 

65 -0% 

NA 

58. 7% 

63.0% 

NA 

49 . 0% 

63.0% 

NA 

NA 

65.0% 

63.0% 

6'.:i . 0% 

65.0% 



District 

Arl ington 

Greensboro 

Jackson 

Lynchburg 

Nashville 

Norfolk 

Orange 

Raleigh 

Ri clunond 

Roanoke 

Winston-Salem 

Av. Cost 
Per Pupil 
Prior to Deseg . -

$61.15 

NA 

79 .50 

None 

39 . 71 

None 

30 . 02 

75.0l 

32 .31 

55 .58 

20 .26 

COST OF STUDENT TRANSPORTATI ON IN INDIVIDUAL 
SCHOOL DI STRICTS WHERE DESEDREGATION OCCURRED 

(Operating Expensesl) 

Total Operating 
Cost for Trans. 
Prior to Deseg . -

$ 709,300 

NA 

169,103 

None 

1,574, 790 

None 

989,614 

l 00,669j 

175,000 

137,393 

373,838 

% Trans. Cost 
of Total Operating 
School Budget 
Prior to Deseg . -

2 .8% 

NA 

.6% 

None 

2 . 3% 

None 

1.8% 

.7% 

.4% 

.8% 

1.8% 

- xx -

Av. Cost 
Per Pupil 
After Deseg. 

NA 

NA£'. 

$56 .17 

32 . 90 

49.00 

None 

30.58 

24. 69 

28.46 

30 .655 

30 .67 

Total Operating 
Costs for Trans . 
After Deseg . 

NA 

NAc 

$ 410,110 

147,350 

2, 704,228 

None 

1,092,175 

250,061 

500,000 

207,699 

988,454
4 

continued 

% Trans. Cost 
of Total 
Operating School 
Budget After 
Deseg. 

NA 

NA 

1.8% 

1.3% 

3.8% 

None 

1. 9% 

1. 7% 

1.1% 

1.1% 

4% 



COST OF STUDENT TRANSPORTATI ON IN INDIVIIUAL 
SCHOOL DI STRI CTS WHERE DESEDREGATION OCCURRED 

(Total Cost of Transportati on) 

Av. Cost 
Per Pupil 

Total Cost 
for Transp. 

% Transp . Cost 
of Total School 
Budget Pr i or to 

------ - - - - -- - - - ""' -
6 

Asheville None None None 

Charlotte $15. 97 $ 475,000 .8% 

Duval 6 31.90 1,236,157 1.3% 

Hillsborough 37.23 1,206,708 1.35% 

Manatee 51. 70 342 , 696 2.3% 

Pinellas 29.40 1,075, 850 1.4% 

]j Some figures may i ncl ude spare parts or mi nor capital outlays . 
2/ No city school district money was spent . State expenditures 
- are no~ available . 
3/ This includes lunchroom and admi ni strative salaries; thus 
- transportation above is cons i derably less. 

4/ About $269,300 is paid from local f unds for supplements for 
- bus drivers ' sal aries and f or transporting elementary 

students who are not eligible for state reimbursement . 
51 For elementary students on school owned buses . $35.00 per 
- student per year i s spent for 900 elementary students on 

public buses contracted for by the district . This cost is 
based upon the number of routes. $63.00 per student per year 
is spent for 1,000 secondary students who cannot afford the 
student fare. The cost is based upon 35¢ per day per student 
times 180 school days. 

6/ Asheville and Duval Counties own no bus es but contract with a 
- private carrier for all transportation. 
]J Includes l easing of 18 private buses. 

- xxi -

Av. Cost 
Per Pupil 

f 

$56.95 

27 .32 

48.91 

37. 38 

46.39 

55.38 

-

Total Costs 
for Trans . 

-
$ 123 ,598 

1,067,691 

2,186, 590 

1,973,728 

384,468 

2,042,970 7 

% Transp. Costs 
of Total Sch. 
Budget After 

-
NA 

1.6% 

2.2% 

1. 7% 

2.5% 

2.4% 



DISTRICT -

Arlington 

Asheville 

Charlotte 

Duval 

Greensboro 

Hillsborough 

Jackson 

Lynchburg 

Manatee i 

Nashville 

Norfolk 

Orange 

Pinellas 

Raleigh 

1971-72 BUSES PURCHASED AND TOTAL SCHOOL BUDGETS 

Number of Regular 
Buses Purchased -

8 

2/ 
None -

NA 

2/ 
None -

None 

145 ]/ 

69 

37 

19 

1 8 4/ 

None 

None 

90 

89 

Total School Budget 
Total Cost of Buses <All Monies) . ----- ----- - -- , 

$ 56,000 (Est. ) NA 

2/ 
None - NA 

$ 68 , 231 y I $ 67,252 , 036 
I 
I 

Non e Y $10 1, 909 , 630 

None $ 23,971,934 

3/ 
$1,160,000 - $119 ,099,553 

$ 500,000 (Est.) $ 23 , 084 , 121 

$ 272,387 $ 12,543,342 

NA $ 15 , 298,905 

$ 3 15, 000 $ 71, 567,152 

None 
! 

None $ 64,000,000 

$ 794,237 v $ 85,094,490 

$ 534,993 61 
$ 18,063 , 007 

cont i nued 
- xxi i -



1971-72 BUSES PURCHASED AND TOTAL SCHOOL BUDGETS 

Number of Regular Total School Budget 
DU.;:>..::;;:, I:\..l.L\.-J.J.O~C~ A'-"'-Q ..L. '-""'~ '- ""' ..... ,'-J\-4.,;J~o:;J I \n~..1.. .L'"J.V.&.J.J..t;:;o;:> I J.J.J..U.LL'l..J..'-.J. -

Richmond 115 $ 874,000 $ 60,000,000 (Est.) 

Roanoke 16 $ 120,672 $ 18,157,764 

Winston-Salem 59 (Est.) $ 343,456 ]_/ $ 37,103,968 

1/ About half of this amount was for "major replacements " and the other half repr e sents purchase 
of new "buses, trucks, and garage e quipment." 

21 Asheville and Duval County contract all pupil transportation so there is no capital out lay. 

31 20 buses were already budgeted; $1 million was borrowed on a four year loan to purchase 125 buses . 

4/ Already budgeted for replacement. 

5/ Includes $341,300 which was for 40 buses already budgeted. 

6 / Fiv e buses already budgeted and delivered in 1971-72; 10 other buses purchased and deliv ered 
in 1971-72; 74 buses purchased but will not be deliv ered in 1971-72. 

7 / Includes about 12 replacement buses purchased by the State. 

- xxiii -