Keyes v. School District No. 1 Denver, CO. Appendix Vol. 2
Public Court Documents
February 2, 1970 - February 20, 1970
Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Keyes v. School District No. 1 Denver, CO. Appendix Vol. 2, 1970. 81f839ff-b99a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/0b6b2c81-ee7b-4541-a063-e1fd8580b4c8/keyes-v-school-district-no-1-denver-co-appendix-vol-2. Accessed July 03, 2025.
Copied!
APPENDIX
Volume 2— Pages 481a to 1032a
Supreme Court of the United States
OCTOBER TERM, 1971
No. 71-507
WILFRED KEYES, ET AL.,
PETITIONERS,
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,
DENVER, COLORADO, ET AL.
OK WRIT OP CERTIORARI TO THE UHITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TEHTH CIRCUIT
CERTIORARI GRANTED JANUARY 17, 1972
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED OCTOBER 8, 1971
INDEX TO APPENDIX
Volume I
PAGE
Docket Entries .................................................... la
Complaint for Permanent Injunction and Declara
tory Judgment ......... 2a
Exhibits annexed to Complaint:
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3—Resolution 1520 ............. 42a
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 4—Resolution 1524 ........ 49a
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 5—Resolution 1531 ... 60a
Motion for Preliminary Injunction.......................... 71a
Answer of Defendants Amesse, Noel and Yoorhees,
J r ............................................................................... 73a
Hearing on Preliminary Injunction July 16-22, 1969 85a
T est im o n y
(M in u t e s of H ea rin g on P r e l im in a r y I n ju n c t io n
J u l y 16-22, 1969)
Plaintiffs’ Witnesses:
Rachel B. Noel—
Direct ........................................................... 85a
Redirect ....................................................... 104a
A. Edgar Benton—
Direct ........................................................... 108a
Cross ............................................................. 121a
Redirect ............ 123a
11
Paul 0. Klite—
Direct ....................
Voir Dire .... ........
Cross ......................
Redirect ...... .... .....
James D. Voorliees, Jr.-
Direct ...... .............
George E. Bardwell—
Direct ....................
Voir Dire .......... ....
Cross ......................
Robert D. Gilberts—
Direct ........ .... ..... .
Cross ..................... .
Redirect ................ .
Defendants’ Witnesses :
Gilbert Cruter—
Direct ................... .
Voir Dire _______
Cross .....................
Howard L. Johnson—
Direct .......... ...... .
Cross .....................
Recross .................
Robert Gilberts—
Direct ....... ...........
Cross - ..... .............
Redirect ....... ........
Recross ........ .........
PAGE
126a,133a
..... 132a
__ 139a
..... 142a
143a
151a, 191a
.... . 185a
.... . 193a
227a
252a
255a
208a, 214a
..... 213a
..... 216a
256a
302a
369a
376a
393a
408a
414a
m
Richard Koeppe—
Direct ........ .......... ..... ..... ..................... ..419a, 437a
Voir Dire .............. ....................................... 436a
Cross ........... ................................................. 438a
Preliminary Injunction .................. ............................ 452a
Memorandum Opinion and Order of District Court 454a
Opinion of Court of Appeals dated August 5, 1969 .... 455a
Supplemental Findings, Conclusions and Temporary
Injunction by District C ourt.......... .................... 458a
Opinion of Court of Appeals dated August 27, 1969 459a
Order ............................................................... ........... 463a
Opinion by Brennan, J. on Application for Vacating
of Stay .................. .......... ....................................... 464a
Opinion of Court of Appeals dated September 15,
1969 ........................... .............................................. 467a
Answer ...... ................... ............................................. 470a
Memorandum Opinion and O rder............................ . 475a
PAGE
IV
Volume 2
( M in u t e s oe T ria l on M e r it s ,
F ebruary 2-20, 1970)
PAGE
Minutes of Trial on Merits, February 2-20, 1970 .... 481a
Plaintiffs’ Witnesses:
Paul Klite—
Direct ................
Voir Dire —.....
Cross ..................
Redirect .............
Lorenzo Traylor-—
Direct ................
Cross ..................
Redirect .............
Gerald P. Cavanaugh-
Direct .................
Cross ..................
Redirect .............
Recross ...............
Mary Morton—
Direct ................
Cross ..................
Marlene Chambers—
Direct ................
Voir Dire ...........
Cross ..................
Redirect .............
Recross ...............
,481a, 493a, 502a, 523a,
530a, 533a, 537a
____ 491a, 502a, 522a,
528a,532a, 536a
......................... 564a
......................... 621a
......................... 579a
......................... 607a
......................... 621a
... .......... 626a
........................ 646a
........................ 652a
........................ 655a
656a
660a
665a, 671a
..... 670a
..... 676a
..... 681a
...... 682a
V
Palicia Lewis—
Direct ...........
Cross ....... -....
Redirect .......
Recross .........
Mildred Biddick—
Direct .......... .
PAGE
684a
693a
696a
696a
697a
George E. Bar dwell—
Direct ......................
Yoir Dire ..............
Cross ............. —-
Redirect ............ .
George L. Brown, Jr.—
Direct ...............-
:700a, 703a, 707a, 716a, 727a,
757a, 769a, 790a, 798a
........ .702a, 707a, 715a, 726a,
755a, 767a, 786a,791a
........... ...................... 800a
.................................. 818a
857a
Dr. Dan Dodson—
Direct ........................................................... 1469a
Cross .......................... - ..................... —........ 1493a
Defendants’ Witnesses:
Robert L. Hedley—
Direct ..............
Yoir Dire ........
Lois Heath Johnson-
Direct ..............
Cross ...............
Redirect ..........
Recross ............
820a, 834a
..... 833a
893a
922a
955a
956a
VI
Palmer L. Burch—
Direct ........... -............................................— 963a
Cross ....... ..................-.................................. 978a
Redirect ...............................................1023a, 1030a
Recross ......................................................... 1025a
PAGE
Volume 3
William Berge-—
Direct ....................................................-...... 1033a
Cross ............................. -.............................. 1051a
James C. Perrill—
Direct ................ .......................................... 1076a
Cross ............... -............................................ 1083a
Redirect ....................................................... 1100a
Recross ......................................................... 1101a
John E. Temple—
Direct ....................................... 1101a, 1115a, 1129a
Voir Dire ............................................ 1112a, 1128a
Cross .......................-..................................... 1131a
Jean McLaughlin-
Direct ........................................................... 1131a
Cross ............................................................. 1146a
Redirect ....................................................... 1150a
Dr. Harold A. Stetzler—
Direct ........................................................... 1150a
Cross .....-....................................................... 1189a
Redirect ...............................-....................... 1210a
Lidell M. Thomas—
Direct ........................................................... 1214a
Cross ............................................................. 1239a
Redirect ....................................................... 1252a
Recross ...................................... -.....-........... 1253a
Charles Armstrong—
Direct ........................................................... 1254a
Cross ............................................................. 1289a
Kenneth Oberholtzer—
Direct ..................... 1299a
Cross ........... -........................................ .... . 1393a
Redirect ....................................................... 1463a
Memorandum Opinion and Order of District Court .. 1514a
V ll
PAGE
Volume 4
(M in u t e s of H ea rin g on R e l ie f , M ay 11-14, 1970)
Hearing on Relief, May 11-19, 1970 ........................ 1515a
Plaintiffs’ Witnesses:
James Coleman—
Direct ................ ................................. 1516a, 1526a
Voir Dire .... ................... ........................... 1520a
Cross ............................................. ............... 1552a
Redirect ............... 1561a
Neal Sullivan—
Direct ........................................................... 1562a
Cross ........................... 1588a
Redirect .................. 1598a
George Bardwell—
Direct ..... 1602a
Cross - ...... 1664a
Redirect .......... 1683a
William Smith—
Direct ......... 1688a
Cross ................................. 1698a
V ll l
Robert O’Beilly—
Direct .............. ...................................1910a, 1925a
Yoir Dire .................................................... 1920a
Cross ............................................................. 1942a
Redirect .................................................... 1968a
Defendants’ Witnesses:
Bobert D. Gilberts—
Direct ........................................................... 1706a
Cross ............................................................. 1763a
Redirect .................................................... 1834a
Beeross .. 1842a
James D. Ward—
Direct ........................................................... 1844a
Cross ............................................................. 1868a
George Morrison, Jr.—
Direct ........................................................... 1874a
Cross ............................................................. 1892a
Redirect .................................................... 1896a
Albert C. R eam er-
Direct ........................................................... 1897a
Cross ............................................................. 1905a
Decision Re Plan or Remedy by District Court___ 1969a
Final Decree and Judgment .... .............. 1970a
Defendants’ Notice of Appeal................................ 1978a
Plaintiffs’ Notice of Appeal............ 1979a
Decision by Court of Appeals on Motion for Stay,
etc.............................................................................. 1981a
PAGE
IX
Decision by IT. S. Supreme Court on Stay, etc. ......... 1984a
Opinion of Court of Appeals dated June 11, 1971 ..... 1985a
Judgment of Court of Appeals dated June 11, 1971 .. 1985a
Decision by Court of Appeals for “Clarification of
Opinion” ............... ........................... ....................... 1986a
Order Granting Certiorari............................... .......... 1988a
I ndex to E x h ib it s A ppea ls in E x h ib it V o lu m e
PAGE
481a
Trial on Merits, February 2-20, 1970
[403 * * *
Mr. Greiner: Our first witness will be Dr. Paul
Klite.
P aul K l it e , a witness called by and on behalf of plain
tiffs, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testi
fied as follows:
Direct Examination by Mr. Greiner:
The Court: Please state your name and address.
The Witness, Paul Klite, 1434 Birch Street in
Denver.
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. You’re the same Paul Klite who testified at the pre
liminary injunction hearing in the summer of 1969? A.
I am.
Q. Dr. Klite, first turning your attention to old Manual
High School, have you had occasion in the course of [413
preparing to testify here to examine maps, student enroll
ment and capacity utilization data for old Manual and East
High Schools for the period 1926 through 1952? A. Yes.
Q. And with respect to new Manual High School, which
opened, as I recall, in 1953, have you also studied school
district data regarding student enrollment and capacity
utilization on the boundaries of new Manual High School?
A. Yes, I have.
[42] Q. What was the source of this data that you ex
amined? A. The data was obtained from several sources.
For the most part, official boundary maps were not available
prior to the year 1959. Information on the boundaries was
obtained from school board minutes, from newspaper clip
pings, from reviews of various documents at the school
482a
district, at the public libraries, and review of PTA member
ship lists, to establish location of students, and from these
types of sources the enrollment data and the boundary data
was put together.
Q. Now, with respect to the school boundaries, Dr. Elite,
of old Manual High School, you have before you what has
been marked for identification as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 200,
purporting to be a map showing the boundaries of Manual
High School in 1962. Would you kindly tell the Court what
the source of Exhibit 200 is? A. Yes, the map is a map
from the 1960s, from which boundaries have been erased.
The superimposition of boundaries is taken from the super
intendent’s circulars at 1926, in which the boundaries of
Manual were verbally indicated.
Q. How were they indicated? A. They were indicated by
elementary school area, occasionally by street. Some of the
limitations of the [43] boundaries are not indicated, be
cause they extended to places like the city limits, for which
no specific street locations were given.
# * # # #
I51] * * *
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. Dr. Elite, does Exhibit 200 purport to depict all of
the boundaries of Manual? No.
Q. Why not? [52] A. As I have just stated, this is the
first of a series of exhibits focusing on the Manual-East
boundary, so that portion of the boundary between those
schools is what is listed.
Mr. Greiner: Well, Your Honor, we again offer
Exhibit 200 solely for the purpose of showing that
in 1926 the attendance area boundary between East
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs-—Direct
483a
and Manual, which is all the exhibit purports to de
pict, were as shown on Exhibit 200.
Mr. Ris : Still object. He says he didn’t even check
what all the elementary school boundaries were, and
this is what it is based on.
The Court: Overruled, it can be explained by
either side to a certain degree. We will receive it for
whatever value it may have in establishing the loca
tions and boundaries of that area.
(Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 200 was received in evi
dence.)
Q. Dr. Klite, with reference to Exhibit 200, where was
the eastern boundary for the attendance area of Manual
High School in 1926? A. This was the Adams Street and
Columbine Elementary School area, which would be ap
proximately Colorado Boulevard.
Q. Now what about the attendance area for Manual with
respect to the area north of City Park? [53] A. This was
in the Manual district.
Mr. R is: Just a moment, if the Court please, this
witness is not an expert. He merely says that he
went to certain records and made a map.
Now, if he made the map, it is going to speak for
itself, and we object to any interpretation or any
construction or any opinion by this witness pertain
ing to that map or things not shown thereon.
The Court; Well, he can express himself as to
what appears in a map and comment on it.
Mr. Greiner: That’s all the question goes to, Your
Honor, is what does the exhibit itself depict.
The Court: Very well.
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
484a
Q. Does Exhibit 200 depict an attendance area for Manual
north of City Park, Doctor ? A. Yes.
Q. What are the bounds of that attendance area for
Manual? A, Southern boundary is 26th Avenue. The east
ern boundary is Colorado Boulevard. No northern bound
ary is shown.
Q. East of Colorado Boulevard, is there depicted on
Exhibit 200 an attendance area which was purportedly op
tional between both East and Manual? A. Yes, sir.
[54] The Court: That’s east of Colorado?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
Q. Calling your attention to Exhibit 356, Doctor—
The Court: He has already testified to that, hasn’t
he?
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, the authenticity of Ex
hibit 356 has been stipulated to by counsel, the nature
of the stipulation being that no formal foundation is
required for its introduction.
Dr. Klite, I am handing you what has been marked
for identification as Exhibit 356, and, Your Honor, at
this time we would like to offer into evidence Exhibit
356, being a book concerning the new Manual High
School. We are offering it for the purpose of putting
in the record the racial and ethnic statistical data
which appears in the exhibit at Page 5 on Chart 1.
The Court: Do you object to it?
Mr. Bis: Well, there are other things in that that
I think may be germane to this case and I presume
you are offering the entire pamphlet, even though
you may refer to the one chart.
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
485a
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
Mr. Greiner: That’s correct.
Mr. Ris: All right, we have no objection to the
entire pamphlet being in.
The Court: All right, it will be received.
= $ # # # #
[56] * * *
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. Dr. Klite, referring to Exhibit 356, page 5, Chart 1,
what does Chart 1 depict? A. Chart 1 is a table showing
the racial distribution of Manual students from 1926 to
1950.
Q. From what are the categories reported in Chart 1?
A. For each year, the number and percentage of white, col
ored, Spanish and Oriental students is listed.
Q. Now again referring to Chart 1, what happened to the
racial composition of old Manual between the years of 1930
and 1950?
Mr. Ris: If the Court please, it speaks for itself.
The Court: We will let him comment on it. It may
save some time.
A. In 1926 Manual was 87.2 percent white, 10 percent Negro.
Over the period of the next 24 years the Anglo population
gradually declined to a point where by 1945 it was 47% per
cent Anglo, 20 percent Negro, about 16 percent Hispano
and 15 percent Oriental.
Q. Dr. Klite, do you recall when the new Manual High
School was opened? A. 1953.
Q. Handing you what’s been identified as Plaintiffs’ Ex
hibit 203, Dr. Klite, can you identify that for us? A. Yes,
this is a reconstruction of the boundaries of [573 Manual
High School in 1955.
486a.
Q. That would then he the boundaries for new Manual
High School? A. That, is correct.
Q. And what is the source of the boundary data depicted
on Exhibit 203? A. There are several sources; one of these
superintendent’s circulars for 1936. The other is a map in
a 1955 site study report which shows that boundary.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, at this time we would
offer Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 203.
# * * * #
[61] * * *
The Court: We will receive it for whatever value
it may have, bearing in mind that it may change as
time goes on; as the trial progresses.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 203 was re
ceived in evidence.)
Direct Examination by Mr. Greiner (Cont’d ) :
Q. Referring then to Exhibit 203, Doctor, what was
the eastern boundary line for Manual? A. The eastern
boundary line was an irregular line that ran up York Street
south to 34th Avenue, and then over about three and a half
blocks to the alley between Race and High, then south to
28th Avenue, then over one more block to the alley—in the
alley between Williams and High, which was one-half
block from Manual; then south to 22nd Avenue and then
westward down a stair-step line.
The Court: This is as of 1953 ?
The Witness: This boundary was probably created
in 1936. In 1953 when new Manual was built, that
was the boundary, yes, sir.
Paul D. Elite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
487a
Q. Dr. Klite, next calling yonr attention to what’s [623
been marked for identification as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 210, will
you please identify Exhibit 210. A. Exhibit 210 lists the
number of students and the percent capacity utilization at
Manual and East Highs for the years 1951 through 1961 as
derived from the statistical reports of the Denver Public
Schools, several years for which the statistics are not avail
able, are missing.
Q. What are these statistical reports which you describe?
A. These are bound volumes which listed statistical indicia
of membership and attendance at all of the schools and
were published yearly up until the sixties.
Q. By whom is this data published? A. By the Denver
Public Schools.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, at this time we would
offer Exhibit 210.
Mr. Bis: I am going to object, Your Honor. I
just want the record to reflect that it is incomplete
and some of the columns are absent. It omits 1955
completely. But, we will have an exhibit that will fill
in all the gaps as well.
The Court: Mr. Brega?
Mr. Brega: No objection.
The Court: It will be received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 210 was re
ceived in evidence.)
[63] By Mr. Greiner:
Q. Dr. Klite, referring to Exhibit 210, in 1953 when new
Manual was opened, what was the capacity utilization? A.
There were 1,003 students for capacity utilization of 64 per
cent.
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
488a
Q. And is the capacity utilization of East High School
also depicted on Exhibit 210? A. Yes. East was at 100
percent capacity.
The Court: What was the percentage of utilization
at Manual?
The Witness: Sixty-four percent.
Q. How many students did East have at that time? A.
East had 2426 pupils.
Q. Now with respect to Manual in 1953, were there any
empty seats in Manual! A. The capacity of Manual was
1560. There were approximately 550 empty seats.
Q. Next, Doctor, I would like to call your attention to
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 401. Would you please identify Exhibit
401. A. Exhibit 401 shows the number and percent Negro
enrollment at selected schools for the years 1949 to 1956.
Q. What is the source of the data reflected in Exhibit
401? A. These were taken from the principals’ reports
that [64] were made available to us by the defendants a
few weeks ago.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, at this time we would
offer Exhibit 401.
The Court: May I see it, please.
Mr. Bis: No objection.
Mr. Brega: No objection, Your Honor.
The Court: I t will be received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 401 was re
ceived in evidence.)
Q. Dr. Klite, referring to Exhibit 401, does it depict the
percentage of Negro enrollment at Manual High School in
1953? A. Yes, it does.
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
489a
Q. What is shown there? A. It shows that the Negro
percentage was 35.
Q. And what was the Negro percentage enrollment at
East High School in 1953 ! A. Two.
Q. Pardon? A. Two percent.
Q. Now, in January of 1956, Dr. Klite, was there a pro
posal made by the school administration for a change in the
boundary lines between Manual and East? A. Yes, there
was.
Q. Calling your attention to what’s been marked as [65]
Exhibit 332, can you identify Exhibit 332 for us? A. Yes,
this is a copy of the School Board minutes of January 11,
1956, dealing with the proposed boundary changes.
Q. Does Exhibit 332 describe the proposed change? A.
Yes, it does.
Q. What is the source of Exhibit 332? A. These are the
School Board minutes.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we would offer 332 at
this time,
Mr. Ris: May I see it, please! May I ask counsel,
this indicates proposed boundaries and does not show
enactment or adoption as of January 11, 1967? You
are not purporting to show the adoption or enact
ment?
Mr. Greiner: That’s correct, Exhibit 333 will de
scribe when they were actually effected.
Mr. Ris: All right, no objection to Exhibit 322 as
merely showing a proposal.
The Court: I t is received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 322 was re
ceived in evidence.)
Paul D. Elite—for Plaintiffs-—Direct
490a
Q. Dr. Klite, with reference to Exhibit 401, you stated
that in 1953 Manual was 35 percent Negro? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would you refer again to, please, Chart 1 in Exhibit
356? What’s the last year reported in Chart 1? [661 A.
1949-50.
Q. In 1949, what was the percent Anglo enrollment? A.
40.7.
Q. What was the percent Hispano? A. 23.5.
Q. Do we know, Dr. Klite, whether or not when Manual
opened in 1953 it was predominantly a minority school?
A. We do not have figures that show the Hispano enroll
ment in 1953.
Q. But we do know what it was in 1949 and ’50? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Calling your attention, Dr. Klite, to Exhibit 332, would
you please describe the boundary change which was pro
posed as reflected in Exhibit 332 between Manual and East
High School? A. Yes, this is listed on page 15 of the
Board minutes, which says: “A. The area from York
Street to Franklin, between 21st and 17th, will remain op
tional between East and Manual. The remainder of the
area west of York Street and north of 17th, which is pres
ently optional between East and Manual High Schools will
become Manual District.”
Q. Dr. Klite, have you had occasion to study the census
data from 1950 with respect to the racial composition of the
neighborhood which was to be affected by the proposed
boundary change which you have just described? [67] A.
Yes.
Q. What census data did you use or inspect? A. The
1950 census enumeration district data for that part of Den
ver in the area of the Manual School District.
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
491a
Q. These were the enumeration districts? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What are the sizes of enumeration districts! A. They
vary considerably, depending upon the population. In this
area, the average size was about six square blocks.
Q. And how might the population within a single enu
meration district vary! A. In these districts, the popula
tion varied from about 100 to 1,000 people.
Q. Now, Dr. Klite, based upon your examination of the
1950 census data, have you prepared an exhibit which de
picts the racial composition of the neighborhood and the
area to be affected by the boundary change? A. Yes, I
have.
Q. And which exhibit is that? A. 211-A.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, at this time we would
offer Exhibit 211-A into evidence.
The Court: Is this related to 332?
Mr. Greiner: At the moment, 211-A is being over
laid [683 on Exhibit 203, and it simply shows the
census data for the area described in Exhibit 332,
Your Honor.
The Court: Any objection to Exhibit 211-A?
Voir Dire Examination by Mr. Bis:
Q. Do I understand, Dr. Klite, that you used 1950 data,
to which you are now referring, to conditions in 1956? A.
No, the census data is 1950 data.
Q. And you are relating that to boundary changes made
in 1956? A. I am going to relate it to population in 1950.
Q. Was there a boundary change in 1950? A. No, sir.
Q. Your testimony is with reference to boundary change
in 1956, is it not? A. I t will be, yes, sir.
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Voir Dire
492a
Q. Are you testifying with respect to this overlay then
with respect to the 1956 boundary change! A. Well, coun
sel has phrased it in those terms. I am testifying to the
1950 population data.
Q. Now, do you have any statistics to show what rela
tion that has to the 1956 population data for the same area!
A. We will have data to show for that, yes, sir.
Q. Do you have it? A. I t is in Exhibit 401.
E69] Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, all 211-A is is a
reference point in 1950, and we will then offer to
update to 1956 the racial characteristics of the
affected neighborhood. We have to start somewhere.
Mr. Ris: Well, Exhibit 401 relates to what he
has already testified to, the percentage of Negro
enrollment at Manual and East in 1953, and has all
other years, also, but we object as to a matter of
relevancy of a census taken in 1950 and attempting
to show that it’s accurate in 1956.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, if there is any doubt,
we are not saying that Exhibit 211-A reflects the
racial composition of the affected neighborhood in
1956. It is not offered for that purpose. It is
offered to show what the racial composition was in
1950.
The Court: I don’t suppose there was a census
in 1956.
Mr. Greiner: No, it was taken in ’50.
The Court: Well, we will receive it for whatever
value it may have.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 211-A was re
ceived in evidence.)
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs-—Voir Dire
493a
Direct Examination by Mr. Greiner (Cont’d ) :
Q. Dr. Klite, referring to Exhibit 211-A, what is the
bine area depicted on the exhibit! 170J A. These are
gronps of enumeration districts, each one having a Negro
population of greater than 50 percent and having an
average of 82 percent Negro in 1950.
Q. Looking to the east on Exhibit 211-A, what does
the yellow area represent! A. These are groups of enu
meration districts, each having a population of less than
4 percent and having an average population of 0.4 percent.
Q. Finally, with respect to the red area, what does the
red area on Exhibit 211-A depict! A. These are enumera
tion districts having Negro populations between 4 and
50 percent. The percent Negro population of each enu
meration district is listed on the district.
Q. Well, according then to Exhibit 211-A, Doctor, was
there any discernible residential racial line disclosed by
the 1950 census!
Mr. Kis: If the Court please, that’s calling for
a conclusion now, and this is not within this man’s
expertise. We will object to his interpretations and
conclusions.
The Court: I think you are going to have to
establish Mm as an expert witness.
Mr. Greiner: Well, Tour Honor, the exhibit itself
I think shows the great variance.
The Court: Well, if it does, then we don’t need
any expert testimony on it.
[71] Mr. Greiner: I don’t believe it is expert
testimony.
The Court: Well, it is a conclusion. Conclusions,
the general rule is they are inadmissible, because the
Pawl D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
494a
average lay mind can draw the inference that is
apparent. When it gets into a field of expertise,
why, we call on the experts.
If yon say that the lay mind can fathom this,
why, it is not necessary really to have any con-
clusory testimony on it.
Mr. Greiner: Very well, Yonr Honor.
Q. Dr. Klite, referring to Exhibit 211-A, is there any
relationship between the census data reflected in 211-A
and first of all, the eastern boundary for old Manual?
Mr. B is: If the Court please, this again is either
an expert matter or it is a conclusion by a layman.
The exhibits are in, and they will speak for them
selves without conclusions or editorializing. We ob
ject to it.
The Court: Well, I think it will be helpful if he
would describe the kind of preparation that he has
made for this, what kind of studies he has done and
what analysis he has carried out as a foundation
for this.
Mr. Greiner: I thought we had already done that,
Your Honor, the fact that he had studied the 1950
census data that 211-A depicts, the census data
within the area with which we are concerned.
Now, we are simply relating the census data to
[723 something already in evidence, namely, the
boundary line in 1950 for old Manual.
The Court: Well, you are asking him to give an
analysis and to draw a conclusion, I assume.
Mr. Greiner: No, I am simply asking him if as
a matter of objective fact disclosed by Exhibit 211-A
Paul D. Elite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
495a
overlaid on Exhibit 203 there is any relationship
between the census data and the boundary line for
old Manual.
The Court: Well, you are asking him to make a
deduction which is exactly the same thing. Do you
feel that this is a deduction that wouldn’t occur to
the average man?
Mr. Greiner: No, Your Honor, I think any
average man who overlaid 211-A on 203 can see
that the relationship exists. I am merely pointing
it out, wishing to point it out, through the witness.
The Court: All right, go ahead, see what he says,
hear what he says.
Q. Dr. Klite, was there any relationship between the
racial composition of the neighborhood as depicted in Ex
hibit 211-A and, first of all, the boundary for old Manual?
A. The general area indicated in blue on 211-A in which
each enumeration district is over 50 percent Negro is
eastern boundary as approximately Race and High Streets.
Q. Pardon me, where was the eastern boundary for old
Manual? [733 A. The eastern boundary ran between the
alley of Race and High north of 28th and High and
Williams south of 28th.
The Court: You mean the old Manual?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
Q. Now, Dr. Klite, with respect to Exhibit 203, was
there any change between the boundary for old Manual,
which you have just described, and the boundary for new
Manual, which is depicted on Exhibit 203? A. Not that
I am aware of.
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
496a
Q. Dr. Klite, between 1950 and 1956, referring yonr
attention to Exhibit 401 again, does that exhibit reflect a
change in Negro enrollment at certain of the elementary
schools in this area which we are now discussing? A. Yes,
it does.
Q. Referring to Exhibit 401, what does the exhibit show
as to the change in the racial composition at Columbine
Elementary School? A. It shows that Columbine in 1949
was 13 percent Negro, that the Negro percentage increased
yearly until by 1954 Columbine was 54 percent Negro.
Q. Where was the Columbine district located? A. It
was located approximately half east of York Street and
half west of York Street.
Q. Now, with respect to Harrington Elementary School
as depicted on Exhibit 401, what was the racial composi
tion [74] of Harrington Elementary School? A. Harring
ton had no Negro pupils until 1952, when it had one Negro
pupil. The Negro population of Harrington then began
to increase to by 1956 it was 20 percent Negro.
Q. Where was the Harrington district located? A. It
was entirely east of York Street.
Q. All right, and what does Exhibit 401 show as to
the racial composition of Whittier Elementary School?
A. Whittier School was 96 percent Negro in 1949 and
remained predominantly Negro throughout the entire
period of 1949 to 1956.
Q. Where was the attendance area for Whittier Ele
mentary School? A. The eastern border of Whittier is
exactly the same as the eastern border of Manual.
Q. All right. A. And the southern portion.
Q. Finally, what does Exhibit 401 show with respect to
the racial composition of Wyman Elementary School?
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
497a
A. Wyman, which had been 20 percent in 1949, increased
its Negro population to where by 1956 it was 45 percent
Negro.
Q. Where was the Wyman attendance area located!
A. Just east of City Park and approximately south of—
I am sorry, just west of City Park and south of 23rd
Avenue.
Q. Doctor, calling your attention to what’s been marked
for identification as Exhibit 333, would you identify
[75] that exhibit for us, please! A. Yes, sir, these are
copies of the School Board minutes of the night of June
20, 1956, a letter from Superintendent Oberholtzer.
Q. You will recall that Exhibit 332 was the boundary
proposal. Was the boundary proposal as reflected in Ex
hibit 332 actually implemented or passed! A. Yes, it
was.
Q. Does Exhibit 333 describe the boundary change as
effected! A. No, it does not.
Q. And in what manner does it not! A. It is a letter
from Superintendent Oberholtzer to the Board of Educa
tion, recommending that the boundary changes be enacted.
Q. Do you know, Doctor, whether or not they actually
were inacted! A. Yes, they were.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we at this time would
offer Exhibit 333.
The Court: Do you have a copy of it!
Mr. Ris: Well, we saw two pages of it, I believe,
and they would add a couple more. Do you have
those pages, 14 and 15!
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, there are two more
pages [76] to be attached to this exhibit, and we
Paul D. Elite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
498a
can add them. They will have to be added at the
recess.
Mr. Bis: We have no objection if they are com
pleted.
The Court: Very well, it will he received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 333 was re
ceived in evidence.)
Q. Dr. Klite, calling your attention to what has been
marked for identification as Exhibit 204, being a boundary
map showing the boundaries between Manual and East,
could you identify Exhibit 204? A. Yes, Exhibit 204
shows the boundaries of Manual after the boundary change
of 1956 that I quoted before with the small optional zone
west of York remaining, in the area north of City Park
between York and Colorado Boulevard remaining optional,
the rest of the area west of York being ceded to Manual.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we would offer 204
at this time.
Mr. Eis: No objection.
Mr. Brega: No objection.
The Court: It will he received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 204 was re
ceived in evidence.)
The Court: What is No. 333? Does it carry out
the proposals in 332?
[77] The Witness: Yes, sir, the boundary changes
reflected in 333 are identical for the senior high
schools to those in 332.
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
499a
Q. Dr. Elite, referring again to Exhibit 210, which I
believe yon have in front of you, in 1956 what was the
capacity utilization shown in Exhibit 210 for Manual High
School! A. One hundred seven percent.
Q. And what was the capacity utilization for East High
School? One hundred seven percent.
Q. Were there any empty seats at Manual in 1956? A.
Slightly less than 500.
Q. Referring then to Exhibit 401, Doctor, what was the
percentage Negro enrollment in 1956 at Manual! A. In
1956, Manual was 42 percent Negro.
Q. And what was the situation at East as to its Negro
enrollment? A. It was 1 percent Negro.
Q. Referring to Exhibit 210, what was the capacity of
new Manual when it opened in 1953? A. 1560.
Q. Was the capacity the same in 1956? A. As far as I
know, yes.
Q. Is that capacity shown on Exhibit 210 or 401? A. It
is shown on Exhibit 210.
[78] Q. Again, referring to Exhibit 401, does that ex
hibit depict for the year 1949 what percentage of all Negro
senior high school students in Denver were enrolled in
Manual? A. It shows the numbers. It shows that 275 of
the city’s 363 Negroes, or approximately 75 percent, were
enrolled in Manual in 1949.
Q. By 1956, what percentage of Negro senior high school
students were enrolled in Manual? A. It shows that 541 of
the city’s 641, or roughly 85 percent, were enrolled in
Manual.
Q. Again referring to Exhibit 401, between 1949 and 1956,
is the Negro enrollment at East depicted in Exhibit 401?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. What does the exhibit show happening to the Negro
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
500a
enrollment at East? A. East had 3 percent Negro students
in 1949, decreased to 2 percent in 1950 and 1 percent in 1956.
Q. Referring then again to Exhibit 210, Doctor, when new
Manual opened in 1953, what was its capacity? A. 1560.
Q. And what was its enrollment? A. 1,003.
Q. And referring to Exhibit 401, what was new Manual’s
racial composition when it opened? A. It was 35 percent—
I am sorry, 35 percent Negro. [791 We do not know the
Hispano population.
Q, In 1953 when new Manual opened, at East High School
what was East’s capacity? A. Approximately 2,430.
Q. And what was East’s enrollment? A. 2,426.
Q. And again referring to Exhibit 210, what was the
capacity utilization at East? A. 100 percent.
Q. What was its racial composition? A. It was 2 percent
Negro. We do not know the Hispano population.
Q. Doctor, I would like to next call your attention to
what’s been marked for identification, what is in evidence
as Exhibit 200. Was there any relationship, Doctor, be
tween the attendance area for Manual and East High
Schools and the attendance areas for Cole and Smiley
Junior High Schools? A. In 1926?
Q. Yes. A. The Cole boundaries were identical to the
Manual boundaries in 1926.
Q. How do you know that? A. It was stated in the Super
intendent’s circular.
Q. So then Exhibit 200 also depicts the attendance areas
for Cole and Smiley Junior High Schools? [801 A. I think
more fairly it depicts the attendance for Cole and Gove.
Smiley opened in 1928.
Q. All right, referring then to Exhibit 336, can you iden
tify Exhibit 336? A. Exhibit 336 is the racial ethnic data
of the Denver Public Schools by school in school year 1946.
Paul D. Elite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
501a
Q. What is the source of Exhibit 336? A. This was ob
tained from the Urban League of Colorado in their tiles.
The Court: This is for what year?
The Witness: 1946.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, the authenticity of Ex
hibit 336 has been stipulated to, and we would offer
it at this time.
Mr. Ris: No objection.
Mr. Brega: No objection.
The Court: It will be received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 336 was re
ceived in evidence.)
Q. Referring to Exhibit 336, Doctor, by 1946 what is
reflected in that exhibit as to the racial composition of Cole
Junior High School? A. Cole had 1663 students, of whom
1,717 were Anglo, 345 were Negro, 113 were listed as Mon
golian, and 483 were listed as Spanish, Spanish-American
and Mexican.
[81] Q. Is the percentage racial composition disclosed
there? A. No, it is not.
Q. Can you determine approximately what percent Anglo
Cole was in 1946? A. Approximately 40 percent.
Q. Then, Doctor, if you would refer to Exhibit 211, what
does 211 purport to depict? A. This depicts the Cole and
Smiley boundary lines in the areas where they intersect.
Q. For which year? A. For 1952.
Q. Doctor, what’s the source of this boundary informa
tion depicted on Exhibit 211? A. Well, there are several
corroborating sources. One is a newspaper map from the
Rocky Mountain News in 1952. The others are maps ob
tained by the defendants, showing the junior high areas in
1952.
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
502a
Q. And does Exhibit 211 accurately depict the boundaries
shown in those sources? A. Yes, for the areas shown. It
does not depict the entire boundaries of either Cole or
Smiley, just the areas where they intersect.
Mr. G-reiner: Your Honor, we offer Exhibit 211
at this time.
[82] Mr. Ris: No objection.
Mr. Brega: May I ask a question?
The Court: Surely.
Voir Dire Examination by Mr. Brega:
Q. Dr. Klite, on the western boundary with the hash
mark on the western side of the optional area, are these
estimates by you? A. The indication that this was an op
tional zone has been corroborated since my deposition by
the 1936 Superintendent’s reports, which depict this as the
Columbine area, being optional between Cole and Smiley.
[83] Q. Do you find that your corroboration shows that
the original areas you depicted are the correct demarcation
lines? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Brega: No objection.
The Court: 211 is received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 211 was re
ceived in evidence.)
Direct Examinaion by Mr. Greiner (Continued):
Q. Referring, Doctor, to Exhibit 211, by 1952 where does
the exhibit depict the eastern boundary of Cole Junior
High School? A. It is at an identical location to that of
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
503a
Manual, between the alleys of High and Race Streets from
34th to 28th and between Williams and High from 23rd to
28th.
Q. Does Exhibit 211 depict an optional zone between Cole
and Smiley? A. Yes.
Q. Could you describe that optional zone, please? A.
Yes, the area between the boundary I have just described
and Colorado Boulevard is all optional.
Q. Next, Doctor, if you would refer to Exhibit 215 and
215-A. First, could you identify Exhibit 215? A. Exhibit
215 is a similar exhibit to 210. This time [84] listing for
Cole, Smiley and Morey the average daily memberships
from 1951 to 1963. Similar sources as were used for Ex
hibit 210.
Q. And referring to what has been marked for identifica
tion as Exhibit 215-A, what does 215-A. purport to be? A.
These are the percentage calculations based on 215.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, at this time we would
offer Exhibits 215 and 215-A.
Mr. Ris: May I check them, please?
Mr. Creighton: There has been a change recently,
Mr. Greiner, since we saw an earlier version.
Mr. Greiner: This has gone through several re
visions.
Mr. R is: If the Court please, we do object to this
on the grounds of insufficient foundation. On the
basis of the figures supplied to the plaintiffs by the
defendants—
The Court: Are you referring to 215-A?
Mr. R is: 215-A and 215. One is the numbers and
the other is percentage, but for the same schools and
the same period. And they are—they have from some
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
504a
other source apparently arrived at some contrary
figure. For example, one year for one school—
there’s a difference of—a difference from 74 to 86
percent. So, it is [851 substantial and we object on
the grounds of insufficient foundation.
The Court: May I see those, please?
Which school are you referring to, Mr. Ris?
Mr. Ris: I’m going to ask Mr. Creighton to cover
this. He has the details in mind.
Mr. Creighton: Your Honor, I believe you have
the only copy of that particular version of it avail
able, but, taking Cole for 1956, let’s just say 1955,
we will offer an exhibit—-it will be Exhibit CC when
it’s offered—which will show that the capacity utiliz
ation at Cole that year was 90 percent—86 percent.
That was based on a capacity of 1,770, which in turn
was based upon a room count from files and sources
made available to the plaintiffs. The membership
that we used for our exhibit is consistently the end-
of-September principal’s report, which in turn is
always used by the school district in any planning
function.
And so we get for 1955 an 86-pereent capacity
utilization and we believe it to be based upon more
proper sources. In 1956 our capacity would be 90
percent for Cole.
The Court: I will say this, that there is no guaran
tee that the plaintiffs’ exhibits and the defendants’
will be the same. I mean, they may reach different
results. At the same time, I suppose the truth is of
the type that—it’s immutable. And, if you have the
right sources, if you [86] convince me, wThy that’s
the thing. That will straighten this out. But, I don’t
Paul D. Elite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
505a
see any reason for rejecting that, because you believe
you are going to be able to prove one part of it is
wrong.
Mr. Creighton: By way of foundation, I think the
witness ought to at least put in the record the source
for each year for his capacity figures, because—then
the Court will be able to measure his source against
the ones we’re going to use.
The Court: I will surely look forward to having
you cross-examine him thoroughly on that subject.
We will receive these.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 215 and 215-A
were received in evidence.)
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. Dr. Klite, referring to Exhibits 215 and 215-A, in
1951 as to Cole, what was the capacity? A. May I have
the exhibits, please?
Q. Yes. I ’m sorry.
The Court: 1951?
Mr. Greiner: Yes, Your Honor.
The Court: As shown by this?
Mr. Greiner: As shown by the exhibit.
The Witness: What was its capacity? Is that the
question, Mr. Greiner?
[87] Q. Yes, in 1951. A. 1,908.
Q. And what was its enrollment in 1951 according to
Exhibit 215? A. 1,338.
Q. And what was the capacity utilization then, referring
to Exhibit 215-A, in 1951? A. 71 percent.
Q. Again referring to Exhibit 215 and 215-A, in 1951 is
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
506a
the capacity for Smiley Junior High School depicted there?
A. Yes, 890.
Q. And in 1951 what is the enrollment shown at Smiley?
A. 1,224.
Q. What then is the capacity utilization, referring to
Exhibit 215-A? A. 126 percent.
Q. In 1952, referring to Exhibit 396—
The Court: Are we going to go through each year
here?
Mr. Greiner: No, Your Honor. We’re leading up
to some material concerning a boundary change
which took place in 1952. This is before.
The Court: All right. Go ahead.
Q. Referring to Exhibit 396, Doctor, have you [88] iden
tified that exhibit for us? A. Yes, this is the 1955 school
building and site needs study for the East High area.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, the authenticity of 396
has been stipulated to by the original defendants.
We would offer it at this time.
Mr. Ris: We have no objection.
Mr. Brega: No objection.
The Court: 396 will be received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 396 was re
ceived in evidence.)
Q. With respect to Smiley Junior High School, Doctor,
and referring to Exhibit 396, does that exhibit disclose any
change in the capacity at Smiley in 1952? A. Yes, it shows
that an addition was built in January of 1952 that added
556 seats to the school.
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
507a
Q. Now, referring to Exhibit 215-C, at Cole Junior High
School at that same time in 1952, were there any empty
seats in Cole? A. Cole was 63 percent of capacity with a
capacity of 1,908, and a membership of 1,208. There were
700 empty seats.
Q. In 1952, Doctor, at Cole Junior High School, there
were then how many empty seats? A. In 1952?
[89] Q. Yes. A. 700.
Q. And in 1952 at Smiley what was the capacity accord
ing to Exhibit 215? A. What was the capacity?
Q. Yes? A. After the addition was built?
Q. Yes. A. 1,446.
Q. What was the enrollment? A. 1,367.
Q. And what then, according to Exhibit 215-A, was the
capacity utilization at Smiley? A. 94 percent.
Q. Now, as shown by Exhibit 215-A, Doctor, between
1952 and 1956 what was the utilization first at Cole and
then at Smiley? A. Cole remained undercapacity through
that period. Smiley became filled and slightly overcapac
ity in 1954.
Q. Now, Doctor, do we have any information with re
spect Ho what was happening during this period to the
racial compositions of Cole and Smiley? A. Yes, Exhibit
401.
Q. What does 401 show happening to the racial composi
tions ?
[90] Pardon me. I think we’d better identify 401.
Mr. Greiner: 401 is in evidence.
A. Exhibit 401 shows that Cole, which was 25-percent Ne
gro in 1950 was 40-percent Negro in 1956. Smiley, which
was one-percent Negro in 1950 was five-percent Negro in
1956.
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
508a
Q. Now, between 1952 and January of 1956 what, if any,
changes were made in the Cole-Smiley attendance area?
The Court: Between what years?
Mr. Greiner: Between calendar year 1952 and
prior to January of 1956.
A. The western tip of the Smiley-Cole boundary was ap
parently changed to Race Street, a change of one-half to
one and a half blocks.
Q. Referring your attention, Doctor, to what’s been
marked as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 211-B, would you describe—
identify 211-B for us ? A. 211-B depicts two facts: one
is this change in boundary that I have just mentioned,
and a second is a—an approximate eastern border of the
Negro population in 1950 obtained from Exhibit 211-A.
Q. Doctor, referring first to the apparent boundary
change which you referred to, what is the source of the
information concerning that boundary change? A. The
source is the board minutes of January, 1956, Exhibit 332,
I believe, which is in evidence.
[91J Q. Do you still have that exhibit in front of you,
Doctor? A. Yes, I do.
Q. What does Exhibit 332 say with respect to this ap
parent boundary change ? A. On Page 14, under 3, change
from boundary line between Cole, Morey and Smiley, it
says the present optional area between Cole and Smiley
Junior High Schools from York Street to Race Street,
34th to 23rd, will become Cole district, (b) The present
optional zone between Morey and Cole Junior High Schools,
from York Street to Race Street, 21st to 23rd Avenues,
will become Cole district.
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
509a
Q. Referring nest, Doctor, to what’s been identified as
Exhibit 211, purporting to be a boundary map, can you
identify Exhibit 211? A. Yes, this is the 1952 Cole-
Smiley boundary map.
Q. "With respect to the 1950 census data, Doctor, which
you have identified as being reflected in Exhibit 211-A—
The Court: May I see the minutes of the board?
The Witness: I do not have 211-A, Mr. Greiner.
Q. Dr. Klite, what is the source of the boundary de
picted on the Exhibit 211? A. I believe I have already
discussed that, Mr. Greiner.
Q. The source? [92] A. Yes, sir.
Q. Being the minutes? A. No. The source is the super
intendent’s circulars in 1936. That exhibit is in evidence.
Q. Now, with respect to—
Mr. Greiner: Well, first of all, Your Honor, we’d
like to offer into evidence Exhibit 211-B.
The Court: What is it? The overlay?
Mr. Greiner: This is the overlay, Your Honor,
which goes on Exhibit 211.
The Court: Do you object to this?
Mr. Creighton: Let’s look at it. There have been
some changes from time to time.
Mr. Ris: If the Court please, this seems incon
sistent on its face. This purports to be a boundary
change, 1953 to 1955, with the overlay. It pertains
to “approximate eastern border of Negro popula
tion in 1950.” Now, we’re mixing apples and oranges
here and I don’t think it’s proper to do this. So
we’re going to object for that purpose.
Paul D. Elite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
510a
Q. Doctor, with respect to the racial composition data
depicted on 211-B, what was the source of that data? A.
That’s Exhibit 211-A.
Q, Or 211-A. A. The source of 211-B for the racial and
ethnic data [93] is 211-A.
Q. Which is, in turn, the source of what! A. The 1950
census.
Paul D. Elite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
The Court: 211 is in evidence now!
Mr. Greiner: Yes, Your Honor.
The Court: What is the net effect of all this
change ?
The Witness: The net effect!
The Court: Of this boundary change. In 1953—
from 1953 to 1955!
The Witness: Well, the 1956 board minutes indi
cate that at that time the western border of the
optional zone was Race Street. It’s clear that in
1952 the western border was between Williams and
High Street; the implication being that sometime in
that period the small area between Williams and
High and Race was ceded to Cole.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, 211-B also depicts what
the racial composition of that neighborhood was at
least in 1950.
The Court: Very well. We will receive it for
whatever value it may have. And we will take a re
cess until two o’clock.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 211-B was re
ceived in evidence.)
# * # • #
511a
[94] * * *
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. Dr. Klite, just before the noon recess, we were dis
cussing Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 211-B. One of the facts de
picted on that exhibit concerns the census data from 1950,
is that right? A. Yes.
Q. Referring to 211-B, what does 211-B show was the
racial composition of the neighborhood which was ceded
to Cole from that optional area? A. I don’t have the ex
hibit before me, Mr. Greiner.
The Court: Here it is.
A. (Continuing) It shows that the area ceded to Cole falls
at approximately the line of demarcation between the
heavily Negro area and the transitional area indicated in
Exhibit 211-B.
Q. What was the percentage of Negro population in that
area? A. Well, we do not have a specific fix of the Negro
population in the exact area of boundary change, but in
general the population—
[95] Mr. Ris: Object now. The witness wasn’t
even a resident here at that time.
Mr. Greiner: We are talking about the census
data, Your Honor, as depicted on Exhibit 211.
The Court: Well, how did he compute it? How
did he arrive at this conclusion he is about to give
us?
The Witness: Your Honor, if you overlay the
census data on the map, one can see in which terms
of Negro population the area of boundary change
occurred.
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
512a
The Court: Yes.
The Witness: And it shows that it occurred right
at the border of the heavily Negro area.
Q. On the east side of what you have referred to as the
border, can you tell from Exhibit 211-A what the Negro
population was? A. Well, it shows that in 1950—
Q. Yes. A. —that the area ceded was partly in the 32
percent Negro enumeration district and partly in an area
that’s included among the greater than 50 percent, which
as I recall happened to be 64 percent Negro.
Q. Referring your attention again to Exhibit 332, Dr.
Klite, after the boundary change that took place some
time—
The Court: Now, where is this boundary that you
are now describing?
[963 Mr. Greiner: It is on the western portion of
the optional attendance area between Cole and
Smiley.
The Court: What street would this be?
The Witness: Race Street on the eastern boun
dary, 23rd on the southern boundary, 34th Avenue
to the north, and then an irregular area westward
as far as the alley between Williams and High
Street.
The Court: All right.
Q. Now, that boundary change occurred sometime be
tween when? A. It appeared that it occurred sometime
between 1953 and 1955.
Q. Now, subsequent to 1955, Dr. Klite, was there an
other boundary change proposed with respect to the Cole-
Smiley attendance area? A. Yes, there was.
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
513a
Q. Referring to Exhibit 332, would you please describe
the change ? A. Exhibit 332, which is a copy of the Board
minutes—
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
The Court: Do you have that? I have got the
original. You don’t have a copy?
The Witness: No, I don’t. Thank you.
A. (Continuing)—indicated that the present optional area
between Cole and Smiley Junior High Schools from York
to Race, 34th Avenue to 23rd, would become Cole District,
and [97] that the present optional area between Morey
and Cole from York to Race, 21st to 23rd, would become
Cole.
Q. Now, Dr. Klite, referring your attention to Exhibit
212, can you identify Exhibit 212 for us? A. Yes, Exhibit
212 depicts what the boundaries would have been in 1955
prior to boundary change recommended in the Board
minutes.
Q. And what is the source of the boundary lines de
picted on Exhibit 212? A. Several sources, partly from
the Board minutes, partly from newspaper maps, and partly
from the defendants’ exhibits dealing with the same sub
ject.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, at this time we would
offer Exhibit 212 into evidence.
The Court: Do the interveners have a copy of
this?
Mr. Brega: I can’t seem to locate a 212, Your
Honor.
The Court: Well, show them the original then.
Mr. Brega: Oh, I found it; thank you.
514a
Mr. Creighton: Your Honor, the defendants ob
ject to this exhibit on the ground that an insufficient
foundation has been made, specifically that this de
piction of the optional area for Cole, Smiley, and
Morey west of York depends upon an interpreta
tion of the January proposal to the Board, which
is inconsistent with the June action of the Board,
both [983 of which is Exhibit 333.
In June, the Board canceled all of that optional
area west of York with no mention of its eastern
limit.
I t is our position, Your Honor, that that block
and a half sliver remained there throughout this
period and that there was not a two-stage, piece
meal—
The Court: What block and a half sliver!
Mr. Creighton: Speaking of from the alley be
tween I believe it is Williams and High, running up
a ways north, and then shifting over to the alley
between High and Race. Now, it varied from a half
block to a block and a half.
It is our position that this does not accurately
represent the situation in 1955 because that sliver
remained.
The Court: Well, what does 332 show?
Mr. Creighton: Exhibit 332 is the proposal made
to the Board in January, Your Honor.
The Court: And it was never adopted?
Mr. Creighton: I t was not adopted. The actual
Board action on this matter was taken in June, and
it simply says all of that optional area west of
Yok, which by I think equal inferential methods
means that there was no change from 1936, as this
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
515a
witness testified, down to 1956, when a somewhat
different portion of the optional area was canceled.
Mr. Greiner: Well, Your Honor I think counsel
has made my point for me. Exhibit 332 can sup
port either of two 199] inferences, and what we are
urging here is one inference, and I assume counsel
will urge the opposite inference, either in cross-
examination or in the presentation of their case.
There is no better evidence than Exhibit 332 as to
what the situation had been prior to the change
which actually took place.
Mr. Creighton: Well, there is better evidence.
There is the Board’s action.
The Court: We have taken 332 in evidence al
ready, haven’t we?
Mr. Greiner: Yes, Your Honor.
The Court: And this is 212?
Mr. Greiner: What we’re talking about now is
212, Your Honor, that’s correct.
The Court: And for what purpose are you offer
ing 212?
Mr. Greiner: 212 is offered, Your Honor, to show
what the boundaries were in fact immediately prior
to the change in 1956. 212 shows the boundaries in
1955.
The Court: Do you object to it for that limited
purpose ?
Mr. Creighton: The objection is that an insuffi
cient foundation has been laid. These changes are
made by Board action and Board action alone, and
there is no showing that there was any Board ac
tion between 1952 and 1955. There would have to
Paul D. Elite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
516a
be Board action to have made these piecemeal
changes in the boundaries.
[100] Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, it seems to me
what counsel is objecting to is 211-B rather than 212.
211-B is already in evidence.
The Court: True. Let me see it, would you please,
Exhibit 212, I mean.
Well, I will withhold a ruling on it until it’s clar
ified a little more. I don’t know.
Mr. Brega: Your Honor, we offer an additional
objection—
The Court: I am not going to receive it now.
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. Dr. Klite, have you prepared an exhibit which reflects
the change which was actually implemented in June of
1956? A. Yes.
Q. And is that Exhibit 212-A? A. Yes, 212-A shows
the difference in the boundaries between 212 and I believe
213.
Q. And what is the basis of 212-A f
The Court: Which exhibit is he identifying now?
Mr. Greiner: It’s the overlay, Your Honor.
A. 212-A is an overlay which shows the area that was ap
parently ceded to Cole in 1956.
Q. And what is the basis of 212-A? A. Exhibit 332
and 333.
Q. And Exhibit 333 depicts the action actually taken by
[101] the Board? A. That’s correct.
Paul D. Elite—for Plaintiffs■—Direct
517a
Q. And does Exhibit 212-A accurately depict the change
described in 337? A. It depicts the change described in
332.
Q. What is the difference in the change described in 332
and that actually enacted in 333? A. In defining the area
to be ceded to Cole in Exhibit 332, the proposal in Janu
ary—it was specifically stated that the western boundary
was Race Street. In the final action, the western boundary
is not indicated. It is just stated that the area west of
York will be ceded.
Mr. Greiner: Well, Your Honor, we would again
then offer Exhibits 212 and 212-A as depicting the
boundary change that was actually made in 1956.
Mr. Creighton: Same objection, same basis.
The Court: Well, do you deny that Exhibit 333
does show the rest of the picture? It seems to me
that there is a derivation here that may have some
value from their standpoint.
Mr. Creighton: 333 is what the Board did. It
was the minutes of the Board action.
The Court: All right. Then you can argue your
inference and they can argue theirs. We will receive
these. If you say it’s a false conclusion, why, you’re
free to urge [102] it. But, I don’t see why they
can’t offer it for the purpose for which they are
arguing in any event.
So, we will receive it.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 212 and 212-A
were received in evidence.)
Q. Dr. Klite, referring to Exhibit 212-A, would you
please describe the changes as they were proposed pertain
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
518 a
ing to Cole and Smiley? A. Yes, the area from 34th to
23rd, York to Race, which had been optional Cole-Smiley,
would be ceded to Cole. The area 21st to 23rd, York to
Race, which had been optional Morey-Cole, would be ceded
to Cole.
Q. Now, would yon refer to Exhibit 215, and in 1955,
Doctor, first, as to Cole Junior High School, what was
the capacity of Cole!
The Court: Haven’t we had that before?
Mr. Greiner: No, Your Honor, I don’t believe so.
A. 1955, capacity was 1908.
Q. And what was the enrollment at Cole? A. 1401.
Q. And what was the capacity utilization at Cole? A.
74 percent.
Q. Referring to Exhibit 401, what was the racial com
position? A. Cole was 36 percent Negro. The Hispano
percentage [103] is not known.
Q. Now as to Cole and Smiley in 1956, Doctor, after the
change was implemented, as to Cole what was the capacity!
Had it changed? A. I have no indication that it had.
Q. So referring to Exhibit 215, the capacity of Cole then
was what? A. Still 1908.
Q. And what was the enrollment at Cole after the bound
ary change? A. 1540.
Q. And what was its capacity utilization? A. 81 per
cent.
Q. And what was its racial composition? A. It was 40
percent Negro.
Q. Did any empty seats remain at Cole after the bound
ary change in 1956? A. Yes, the difference between the
capacity of 1908 and enrollment of 1540 is approximately
375 seats.
Paul D. Elite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
519a
Q. Now with regard to the other school affected, Smiley
Junior High School, in 1956 what was the capacity of
Smiley? A. 1446.
Q. And what was its enrollment? A. 1479.
Q. And what was its capacity utilization then? [1043
A. 102 percent.
Q. Doctor, referring to Exhibit 215, in 1958 was there
another addition built at Smiley? A. Yes, there was.
Q. How many spaces were added?
The Court: What year is this now?
Mr. Greiner: 1958.
A. We have the addition of about 85 spaces.
Q. Now, at the time those spaces were added to Smiley,
were there any empty spaces still available at Cole, refer
ring to Exhibit 215? A. Yes.
Q. How many empty spaces ? A. Approximately 250.
Q. Again referring to Exhibit 401, Doctor, in 1958, can
you give us the Negro composition at Cole? A. I ’m sorry,
Mr. Greiner. Exhibit 401 does not list 1958 data.
Q. Do you have it for 1959? A. No, sir.
Q. So we don’t know then what the racial composition
was at Cole and Smiley in 1958? A. No, we do not.
Q. I ’d like next, Doctor, to have you identify what’s
been marked in evidence as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 402. [105]
A. Exhibit 402 is a small blueprint copy of a 1951 ele
mentary school boundary map of the district.
Q. And does Exhibit 402 depict the boundary lines for
Columbine Elementary School in 1952? A. It depicts the
boundaries after January 1952, yes.
Q. And what is the source of Exhibit 402? A. This was
obtained from the defendant.
Paul D. Elite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
520a
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, I believe the authen
ticity of 402 has been stipulated and we would offer
it into evidence at this time.
Mr. Ris: We have so stipulated, yes, sir.
Mr. Brega: No objection.
The Court: Very well, it will be received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 402 was re
ceived in evidence.)
Q. Next, Dr. Klite, will you please refer to Exhibit 371.
Can you identify Exhibit 371 for us? A. Yes, this is a
copy of the official School Board minutes, January 16,
1952.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we offer Exhibit 371 at
this time.
Mr. R is: No objection.
Mr. Brega: No objection.
The Court: It will be received.
[106] (Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 371 was
received in evidence.)
The Court: This is 1952, January?
The Witness: 1952.
Q. Referring to Exhibit 371, Doctor, does that exhibit
purport to show the establishment of optional attendance
areas around Columbine? A. Yes, it does.
Q. Will you please describe those optional attendance
areas ? A. The Board minutes state that “In order to elim
inate eight double sessions and alleviate crowded condi
tions at Columbine, the principals of Columbine, Harring
ton, and Stedman recommended the following boundary
changes: Creation of an optional zone between Columbine
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
521a
and Stedman, between East 26th and East 32nd, between
Colorado Boulevard and Steele, and an estimate then of
the 100 boys and girls to be transferred to Stedman by
use of this option.”
Q. Those were to come out of the optional area! A.
Yes.
“2. That an optional district be established between
Columbine and Harrington and then a description of the
boundary between that optional zone,” which is also de
picted on Exhibit 402, the map. It is an area bordering
both schools. And then the statement: “It is felt approx
imately [107] forty-five children will be transferred to
Harrington by use of this option.” Then a summary of the
effect of the boundary changes that will “1. Eliminate eight
double sessions from Columbine, changing the membership
from 660 to 500. 2. Harrington School will absorb approx
imately 40 boys and girls resulting in school membership
of 509. 3. Stedman School will absorb approximately 100
boys and girls from Columbine, resulting in a school mem
bership of approximately 700. Stedman School will thus
be filled to capacity with no double sessions.”
And then a statement that the Board passed the motion.
Q. Now, referring to Exhibit 406, Doctor, is 406—wdiat
is the source of 406! Can you identify it for us! A. Yes,
Exhibit 406 shows the capacity utilization and the Negro
percent enrollment at Columbine, Harrington and Sted
man, through the years 1949 through 1953. They were
taken from the principal’s reports, the same data from
which Exhibit 401 was taken. The capacity data was based
on the membership data in those exhibits.
Q. In the principal’s reports! A. Yes.
Q. What are the principal’s reports again that you have
reference to! A. These are ledger sheets of each school
Paul I). Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
522a
recorded the [1083 first semester and second semester
listing the membership and attendance at the school, the
Negro percent, white percent, foreign-horn white percent,
Oriental percent that were calculated up until 1956.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we offer Exhibit 406.
Mr. Creighton: I believe there is a last-minute
change in that exhibit. May we look at it?
Mr. Greiner: Certainly.
Mr. R is: May I voir dire for a moment?
The Court: You may.
Voir Dire Examination by Mr. Ris:
Q. Hr. Klite, with regard to Harrington School, prior
to 1950, isn’t it true that the capacity of that school was
240 and not 300? A. The 300 figure is based on the fol
lowing calculation, Mr. Ris. The 1955 site study which I
believe is in evidence for the East High area, Exhibit 396,
shows an addition to Harrington in 1950 of 150 spaces. In
addition, Superintendent Oberholtzer’s notes of 1952 show
at that time a capacity of Harrington of 450. Simple
subtraction then would indicate that the capacity of Har
rington was 300 prior to the addition.
Q. I understood you got your capacities directly from
the principal’s reports for each of these years? [109] A.
No, the capacities are not listed on the principal’s reports.
Q. Well, then, you have arrived at the 300 capacity rather
than 240 for 1949 and ’50 by comparing later documents
and doing mathematical comparisons? A. Yes, that’s cor
rect.
Mr. Ris: If the Court please, we object to this on
the ground of incompleteness and inaccuracy, lack of
foundation.
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Voir Dire
523a
The Court: Would you say that these figures are
just guesses'?
The Witness: If I might say something, there are
several figures published each year for enrollment,
membership, capacity. These vary on the basis of a
lot of different formulas, and one can find examples
of many different schools or the same school in a
given year. I think this is the source of a lot of dif
ferences in figures we have had. This is, I think, a
reasonable calculation based on the site study need,
which shows the size of the addition to Harrington
in 1950 of 150 pupils and Superintendent Ober-
holtzer’s notes which I believe is also numbered as
an exhibit which show that the capacity in 1952 was
450. Therefore, a guess would be that the capacity
prior to that addition was 300.
[110] Direct Examination by Mr. Greiner (Continued):
Q. What year was the addition constructed? A. 1950.
Q. Was there any indication of the publications of the
School District that there was a further addition after
1950, before 1952? A. Not to my knowledge.
The Court: This capacity utilization figure, this
is the same figure?
The Witness: That is correct, the same tables from
which the racial and ethnic data were obtained also
list the average membership at that time. That over
the capacity of the building is the percent capacity.
The Court: Do you have reason to believe these
are inaccurate projections or estimates?
Mr. Ris: Yes, we have every reason to believe
that the first two for those first two years are in
Paul D. Elite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
524a
accurate. May I ask another thing here? Referring
to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 24—
The Court: Is there any other source of infor
mation that will give you the exact figures?
Mr. Ris: Well, what I am referring to here are
some additional construction dates in one of their
exhibits that I would just like to ask about.
[ I l l ] The Court: All right. I mean, do you
have the source of information that would furnish
these answers?
Mr. Ris: Yes, our own figures from the defen
dants’ records are that it was 240 until 1952.
Mr. Greiner: I think the problem is there is a
discrepancy. We are all working with the defen
dants’ records and they say two different things.
The Court: Are yours projections also?
Mr. Creighton: Your Honor, we have had this
exhibit in its present form for several days and we
have checked it carefully—
The Court: That isn’t what I asked you. Are
yours projections also? These particular figures ap
parently were not kept contemporaneously, so you
have had to reconstruct them, too.
Mr. Creighton: We go back to the room counts
made year by year.
The Court: You have had to reconstruct them
also?
Mr. Creighton: Yes.
The Court: All right, well, we will take this and
we will take yours also.
Mr. Creighton: Fair enough.
(Exhibit 406 was received in evidence.)
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
525a
E1123 Q. Dr. Klite, referring to Exhibit 406, in the year
1951, what does 406 state as to Columbine Elementary
School, its capacity utilization? A. Columbine was at 114
percent capacity.
Q. What was its percent Negro composition? A.
Twenty-four.
Q. And as I recall the board minutes indicated that it was
on double sessions? A. Yes, they did.
Q. Now, referring to Harrington Elementary School, one
of the other schools affected by the establishment of the
optional zones, in 1951 what was its capacity utilization?
A. 104 percent.
Q. And what was its percent Negro? A. Zero.
Q. And was it on double sessions according to the min
utes? A. The minutes made no record that it was.
Q. Now, again, in 1951, prior to the establishment of
the optional zones, what was the capacity utilization at
Stedman, according to Exhibit 406? A. 95 percent.
Q. What was its percent Negro composition? A. Zero.
Q. Do the minutes indicate it was on double sessions?
[1133 A. There is no indication.
Q. Now, Stedman was to receive approximately 100 stu
dents under this change? A. That was the estimate in the
board minutes.
Q. Now, again referring to Exhibit 406, after the optional
zones were put into effect, what was the capacity utiliza
tion at Stedman? A. It was 116 percent capacity.
Q. How many students did Stedman actually receive?
A. Approximately 120.
Q. Did the board minutes, Exhibit 371, indicate whether
or not Stedman could absorb a given number of students
without going on double sessions? A. I believe, as I read
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
926a
it, the statement was that 100 students would fill Stedman
to capacity with no double sessions.
Q. All right, and they got 20 more than they counted on?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Do we know whether or not that caused Stedman to
go on double sessions? A. No, we don’t.
Q. Now, what was the percent Negro at Stedman after
the receipt of these additional 120 students? A. Zero.
Q. And what had it been prior to the change? A. Also
zero.
[114] Q. And at Harrington, what happened to the ca
pacity utilization at Harrington after the boundary change ?
A. It was at 120 percent capacity.
Q. And it had been what? A. 104.
Q. What happened at Columbine? A. It went from 114
prior to the boundary change to 109 the year after.
Q. Do you know whether or not the double sessions were
in fact eliminated at Columbine? A. No, I do not know.
Q. Now, after the implementation of these optional zones,
Doctor, what was the percentage enrollment of Negroes at
Columbine? A. Thirty-one percent in 1952.
Q. And what had it been just prior to the change? A.
Twenty-four percent.
Q. And did you give us the figures for Harrington before
and after the change? A. No, Harrington remained zero
percent Negro after the change.
Q. So that neither Stedman or Harrington then received
any Negroes from these optional zones? A. There was one
Negro enrolled at Harrington in 1952.
Q. Whereas there had been none prior? [115] A. Cor
rect.
Q. Doctor, I would like to call your attention to Exhibit
408, which purports to be a boundary map. Can you identify
Paul D. Elite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
527a
that for us? A. Yes, this is the northwest section of Den
ver, the elementary school boundaries in 1961, specifically
outlining the Brown, Boulevard and Ashland Schools.
Q. What was the source of Exhibit 408 ? A. This is the
official 1961 boundary map with the changes, with the em
bellishments described.
Q. The embellishments simply being the outlining of at
tachments? A. That’s right.
Mr. Greiner: At this time, Your Honor, we would
offer Exhibit 408.
The Court: Any objection to 408?
Mr. B is: No, sir.
Mr. Brega: No objection.
The Court: It will be received.
Mr. Greiner: Thank you.
(Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 408 was received in evi
dence.)
Q. Initially, Dr. Klite, I would like to call your attention
to Exhibit 404. Please identify 404. A. Exhibit 404 lists
for Boulevard, Brown and Ashland [116] in the 1961 school
year and the 1962 school year the Anglo and Hispano num
ber and percent enrollment, the total enrollment and the
capacity of those schools.
Q. And what is the source of that data? A. The source
of the racial and ethnic data are the 1961 and 1962 school-
by-school breakdown provided us by the defendants. The
total enrollments are also obtained from the same sheets
and the capacity data is from the 1962 planning report.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we will offer Exhibit
404.
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
528a
The Court: Do you object?
Mr. Ris: May I voir dire briefly?
The Court: Very well.
Voir Dire Examination by Mr. R is:
Q. Your capacity data, Doctor Klite, you relied on the
’62 planning report, right? A. Yes.
Q. But you don’t use the racial enrollment shown in that
report? You use some other figures? A. There is no racial
enrollment shown in that figure.
Q. Does it show any figures at all? A. Yes, it does.
Q. Did you use those figures? A. No.
[117] Q. So, you used the report for one purpose and
not the other? A. That’s correct.
Q. Where did you get the other figures ? A. The figures
for enrollment were taken from the same sheets as the
ethnic and racial data.
Q. Where did you get those? A. Obtained from you.
Q. What source? A. I think they are marked as exhib
its. They are May 1962, I think.
Q. I am not being facetious— A. Right, these are the
racial and ethnic composition by school for 1961 and 1962.
Mr. Greiner: He has reference to 398 and 399.
Mr. Ris: May we check those for a minute?
The Court: These are the principal’s estimates?
The Witness: No, sir, these are—these are pub
lished—
The Court: They didn’t count them in those days?
Mr. Greiner: They started counting again, Your
Honor.
Mr. Ris: Now, just a minute, we don’t know that
they counted. These were estimates, all of these
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Voir Dire
529a
principal’s things. There has never been a census
per se and counsel is volunteering £118] that. I don’t
think it is evidence.
The Court: Well, I think the administration itself
indicated that these are pretty accurate counts, these
informal counts of the principals, at the other hear
ing. That was the testimony.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, I might add that the
authencity of 398 and 399 have been stipulated.
Mr. Ris: We granted the authenticity of 405, too.
We only object to them taking figures that prove
their point from one document and other figures
from another document, instead of taking them all
from the same document.
The Court: That’s a familiar process in the law.
Mr. Ris: Well, I know it is.
The Court: You take depositions of parties by
adverse parties and they take a portion of it as an
admission. The rest of it they leave it to the other
side to introduce. It is self-serving data. They are
not bound by it. That’s the advantage of being an
adverse party. You don’t have to take the works,
you know. As I say, it is very familiar. It is
everyday practice. You do it all the time.
Mr. R is: I want to make a record, though, is all,
as to what he has done and the reason for it, that’s
all.
The Court: All right, we will note your objection,
but I don’t see any reason why they can’t use this
source for one purpose and perhaps use another
source, unless you think— [119] unless the other
source is wholly untrustworthy. Are there differ
ences in the numbers there?
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Voir Dire
530a
Mr. E is: They run as much as about 7 percent.
The Court: Very well, you can point those out.
We will have that in evidence, 404.
(Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 404 was received in evi
dence.)
Direct Examination by Mr. Greiner (Continued):
Q. With reference to Exhibit 404, Dr. Klite, in 1961,
what does it show being the racial composition for Boule
vard Elementary School? A. Boulevard is 59 percent
Anglo, 40 percent Hispano.
Q. And what was its capacity utilization in 1961? A.
Eighty-five percent.
Q. Now, with respect to Brown Elementary School, what
was its racial composition in 1961? A. It was 98 percent
Anglo, 1 percent Hispano.
Ei203 Q, What was its capacity utilization? A. 95 per
cent.
Q. And with respect to Ashland Elementary School in
1961, what was its racial composition according to 404?
A. 61 percent Anglo, 37 percent Hispano.
Q. And what was its capacity utilization? A. 99 per
cent.
Q. Were any of these three schools then at overcapacity
in 1961? A. No.
Q. Now referring to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 20, Dr. Klite,
which is in evidence from the preliminary injunction hear
ing, there is census tract data, is there not, set forth in the
map in the back of Exhibit 20? A. Yes.
Q. Would you find that, please, and identify the map
that you’re speaking from? A. The Map Number 4 in the
appendix identifies the Spanish surnamed population on
the basis of 1960 census tracts.
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
531a
Q. What does it show as to the Spanish surnamed popu
lation in this area? A. You mean the area of Ashland,
Boulevard and Brown?
Q. Yes, sir. A. It shows that census tract 6 falls rough
ly within [1213 the Boulevard Elementary area and it is
ten to twenty-five percent Hispano.
Q. What about Census Tract 4B? A. That is very
roughly within the Ashland area and that is also the same
percentage Hispano.
Q. What about Census Tract 5? A. That’s very roughly
within the Brown Elementary area and that is 0.1 to ten
percent Hispano. , , !
Q. Now, was there an administration proposal to effect
a change in the attendance areas of Brown, Boulevard and
Ashland? A. Yes.
Q. Referring to Exhibit 405, would you identify 405 for
us, please ? A. 405 is the 1962 study on pupil populations,
school boundaries, pupil transportation and school building.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, the authenticity of 405
has been stipulated and we would offer it in evidence
at this time.
Mr. R is: No objection.
Mr. Brega: No objection.
The Court: It will be received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 405 was re
ceived in evidence.)
Q. Can you find in Exhibit 405, Doctor, a reference
[122] to the proposed change at Brown, Boulevard and
Ashland? A. This exhibit on Page 7 of the elementary
school section indicates proposed building change at Boule
vard to close and demolish the north section of the school.
It does not specifically list the boundary changes.
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
532a
Q. And what was the effect of the razing of a portion of
Boulevard to be upon its capacity! Is this reflected in 405!
A. Yes, it is shown that the adjusted building capacity will
be 375, a decrease of 240 spaces.
Q. Now, were there also boundary changes proposed with
respect to adjustments in the boundaries for those three
schools? A. Yes.
Q. Where do they appear! A. Well, they appear in two
sources that would be quoted: one is Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 52
and the other is 62, official boundary map of the Denver
Public Schools, which shows the area of change.
Q. Now, have you prepared an exhibit, Doctor, which
reflects the boundary changes? A. Yes, I prepared an Ex
hibit 408-A which shows the areas taken from and ceded to
Boulevard School.
The Court: What’s the number of this, now?
The Witness: 408-A.
[1233 Q. What’s the source of that data? A. It is a
comparison of the 1962 and 1961 official school boundary
maps.
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Voir Dire
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we would offer 408-A
at this time. That’s the overlay.
Mr. Ris: May I voir dire, please?
The Court: Yes.
Voir Dire Examination by Mr. Bis:
Q. Dr. Klite, this 1962 change was a change involving
all three schools, Ashland, Boulevard and Brown, was it
not? A. That’s right.
Q. And you merely show the portion pertaining to
Boulevard and Brown? A. That is correct.
533a
Mr. Bis: No objection to what it shows. It just
doesn’t show the whole picture.
The Court: 408-A will be received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 408-A was re
ceived in evidence.)
Direct Examination by Mr. Greiner (Continued):
Q. Would you describe, please, Dr. Klite, from Exhibit
408-A the areas affecting Brown and Boulevard and Ash
land Schools as depicted on the exhibit! [1243 A. A one-
block wide area on the western edge of Boulevard and ap
proximately a three-block-wide area on the northern area
were ceded to Brown. A triangular-shaped area between
the Valley Highway and the Platte Biver that had been
in the Ashland area was ceded to Boulevard.
Q. Now, as to the capacity at Boulevard, what was the
effect of razing a portion of the school! A. The capacity
for the school was lowered by 240 students.
Q. And what was the capacity utilization at Boulevard
at that point? A. In 1962?
Q. Yes. A. There were 387 students or 103-percent ca
pacity.
Q. Now, again, after the boundary changes which we
have reference to, what was the capacity utilization of
Brown? A. It also was 103-percent capacity.
Q. And what was it at Ashland? A. 91 percent.
Q. Now, with reference to the racial composition, what
was the racial composition at Brown before and after the
change? A. Brown was 98-percent Anglo in 1961 and 88-
percent Anglo in 1962.
[125] Q. And what was the racial composition at Ash
land before and after the change? A. It did not signifi
cantly change.
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
534a
Q. It remained approximately what? A. 60 percent.
Q. And what was the racial composition then of Boule
vard before and after the change? A. It went from a 59-
percent Anglo school in 1961 to a 39-percent Anglo school
in 1962.
Paul D. Elite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
Mr. Greiner: Pardon ns for a moment, Tonr
Honor. We have a new series of exhibits.
The Court: Wouldn’t it be well to submit all of
the proposed exhibits to counsel so that they can
read them ahead of time?
Mr. Greiner: Oh, we have, Your Honor. They
have had them for weeks. I just want to get these
out of the way.
The Court: These are all marked?
Mr. Greiner: Yes.
Q. Dr. Klite, next I’d like to call your attention to what’s
been marked for identification as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 34,
which is in evidence from the preliminary injunction hear
ing. That’s the Policy 1226A. A. Yes, it is.
Q. Having to do with the assignment and transfer of
[126] pupils? A. Correct.
Q. In 1226A the—does it define the administration policy
of limited open enrollment? A. Yes, it does.
Q. Is there any integration requirement or condition
stated in 1226-A, the limited open enrollment policy? A.
No, there is not.
Q. Next, Doctor, I ’d like to call your attention to Exhibit
99. Can you identify 99, please? A. Yes, Exhibit 99 is
from the Division of Personnel Services of the Denver Pub
lic Schools and shows the school transfer data for the lim
ited open enrollment, LOE, policy as of September 16,
535a
1966. It lists the receiving schools and the number of
transfers from the sending schools.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, I believe 99 is in evi
dence from the summer hearing, but in any event,
if it’s not, we would offer it at this time.
Mr. Creighton: It has been received, Your Honor.
The Court: Very well.
Q. Doctor, next I ’d like to call your attention to Exhibit
100, which was put in evidence at the summer hearing.
Would you please tell us what Exhibit 100 depicts! A.
Yes, also for the limited open enrollment policy on Sep
tember 16, 1966, it shows the ethnic groups of each C127 3
of the students who transferred.
Q. Was this by receiving school? A. Yes.
Q. Doctor, have you prepared an exhibit which is an
interpolation of the data received in the exhibits—and the
data depicted in Exhibit 99 and Exhibit 100 which purports
to show the integrating effects or the nonintegrating effects
of transfers under LOE in September, 1966, school year?
A. Yes, I have. Exhibit 359.
Q. Would you explain, please, how 359 was constructed?
A. Yes. From Exhibit 99, for example, it shows that Swan
sea received one child from Stedman; Exhibit 100 shows
that Swansea received one Negro child. Obviously, the
child that had transferred from Stedman to Swansea was
Negro. For other schools that received multiple students
from multiple schools, one can establish a range of trans
fers. For example, Stevens School received two children
from Columbine, three children from Ebert, one from
Montclair, one from Stedman, and four from Teller. Of
these eleven students, then, six transfers from schools less
than 50-percent Anglo in 1966 and five from schools more
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
536a
than 50-percent Anglo. Exhibit 100 shows that of the
eleven students who transferred to Stevens, ten were Anglo,
one was Negro. To construct, then, the maximal and mini
mal integrating effect [128] of those transfers, on Table 1
of Exhibit 359, it is assumed that the one Negro who trans
ferred to Stevens was integrated by this process, that is,
he transferred from a minority school to an Anglo school.
And that leaves then five places from Anglo schools that
Anglos would have transferred from and, finally then, five
Anglos would have transferred from minority schools.
Q, Those would have been non-integrating transfers?
A. Yes, those would have been.
Now, assuming in Table 2 of the least possible integra
tion, one would assume that the most possible Anglo stu
dents transferred from minority schools; in other words,
six. And that would leave four who then transferred from
one Anglo school to another Anglo school. And you would
assume that the Negro child had already been integrated.
So, using these figures in Exhibit 99 and 100, one can
establish the range of transfers by racial and ethnic data,
sometimes with pinpoint clarity and other times estimates.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we offer Exhibit 359 at
this time.
Mr. Jackson: May I voir dire, Your Honor!
The Court: Yes.
Voir Dire Examination by Mr. Jackson:
Q. Dr. Klite, on Exhibit 359 you have a heading, [1293
“Anglo Schools” and “Minority Schools.” Would you tell
us what those mean? A. Yes, these were 1966 data. The
school that was over 50-percent Anglo in 1966 was consid
ered an Anglo school. A school that was less than 50-percent
Anglo was considered a minority school.
Paul D. Elite—for Plaintiffs—Voir Dire
537a
Q. And that is the sole determining factor as to whether
yon would call it an Anglo school or a minority school?
A. For the purpose of this exhibit, yes.
Q. In terms of minority transfers, did yon treat the
Hispano and Negro children the same? A. Yes.
Q. You made no distinction between a Hispano child
transferring into a school that had less than 50-percent
Anglo as opposed to a Negro child transferring into the
same kind of school? A. That’s correct. There are eight
columns on this chart when you consider only two groups.
To consider three groups would have caused too many col
umns to make it meaningful.
Q. And you don’t, as I believe you have testified, have
any figures as to the exact racial composition of these
transfers, in some cases where there was only a single
child transferring, you felt you could determine the racial
or £1303 ethnic composition, but otherwise it was guess
work and you were making estimates ? A. A range of esti
mates, that’s correct.
Mr. Jackson: We object, Your Honor, on lack of
foundation and also as to the classification admitted
ly utilized by the witness for which there is no other
foundation.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 359 was re
ceived in evidence.)
Direct Examination by Mr. Greiner (Continued):
Q. Dr. Klite, referring then to Exhibit 359, can you tell
us what the range of Anglo transfers from minority schools
to Anglo schools was as depicted in Table 1 and Table 2
of that exhibit? A. Yes, between 58 and 77 Anglo elemen
Paul D. Elite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
538a
tary students transferred from a minority school to an
Anglo school.
Q. Between 58 and 77 out of a total of how many Anglo
transfers! A. Approximately 125.
Q. How many Anglos transferred to minority schools?
What is the range? A. The range is from 1 to 2.
[131] Q. Out of, again, 128 Anglos? A. Yes, 127, I
believe.
Q. Out of 149 minority transfers, depicted on the exhibit,
what was the range of transfers to Anglo schools by minor
ity students ? A. 14 to 27.
Q. And that is approximately what percent? A. Ten to
20 percent.
Q. And with respect to transfers of minority students to
minority schools under limited open enrollment that school
year, what is the range of the number of such transfers?
A. Minority students transferring from one minority school
to another?
Q. Yes, sir. A. About 70 percent of the students, 110
or 111.
Q. Now, what does Exhibit 359 show for the total partici
pation at the elementary level in this limited open enroll
ment that year? A. I think those figures show better on
Exhibit 99 and 100. It would show that there were a total
of 267 elementary participants in the limited open enroll
ment policy.
Q. Approximately how many elementary school students
were in the district at that time ? A. Approximately 50,000:
[132] Q. Now, considering, Doctor, the range of the in
tegrating transfers which you have described, on the basis
of Exhibit 359, what is the maximum number of students
who participated in an integrating transfer either Anglo or
minority students under LOE that year ? A. 29.
Paul D. Elite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
539a
Q. Nest, Doctor, I ’d like to call your attention to what’s
been marked as Exhibit 87. Will you identify that for us,
please! A. Yes, that is a document from the office of the
Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Services, Denver
Public Schools, and it lists the eligible open enrollment ele
mentary schools, junior high schools, and senior high
schools for the school year 1968.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, Exhibit 87—the authen
ticity of Exhibit 87 has been stipulated to by counsel.
And we would offer it into evidence at this time.
[1333 Mr. Ris: We did so stipulate.
The Court: Very well, it will be received.
Mr. Brega: No objection.
(Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 87 was received in evi
dence. )
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. Directing your attention then to Exhibit 87, Doctor,
how was this report by the school organized! A. The
eligible open enrollment spaces for the elementary schools
are organized by high school area. They show that there
were no spaces in the Abraham Lincoln area. They show
that there were no spaces in the John P. Kennedy area.
There were 10 spaces in the George Washington area. There
were no spaces in the Thomas Jefferson area.
Q. Now, is that at all levels or is that only at the ele
mentary levels! A. That’s elementary.
Q. Now, where does Exhibit 87 show that there were
spaces at the elementary level that year? A. There were
spaces in four elementary schools in the East High area,
four elementary schools in the Manual area, live elementary
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
540a
schools in the North area and three elementary schools in
the West area.
Q. Now, at the elementary school level, what were the
total number of spaces open for limited open enrollment that
year? [134] A. 365.
Q. And what was the total number of openings at the
junior high school level? A. 635.
Q. And do you have a figure there for the senior high
school? A. 120.
Q. What was the total number of openings then that
were available for limited open enrollment in September
of ’68? A. 1120.
Q. Nest, I would like to call your attention to Exhibit
89, Doctor, which is in evidence from the summer hearing.
Just for reference, could you identify it for us? A. Ex
hibit 89 is a list of ten schools who have several things in
common.
Q. What, are these common characteristics? A. They
have no limited open enrollment openings announced. They
were under capacity. They were predominantly Anglo and
they were receiving students by bus.
Q. Now, this is at what point in time, Doctor? A. Sep
tember 1968.
Q. Does the Exhibit 89 show how many children were
being bussed into these ten schools? A. Yes.
Q. Could you give us those figures, please? [135] A.
1,071 Anglos, 121 Negroes.
Q. Does Exhibit 89 reflect the total amount by which these
schools were under capacity? A. 482 spaces.
Q. And how many spaces did they announce were avail
able for limited open enrollment? A. Zero.
Q. And what was the average Anglo enrollment at these
schools? A. 93 percent.
Paul D, Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
541a
Q. Now, calling your attention, Doctor, to Exhibit 90,
which is also in evidence from the summer hearing, what
does Exhibit 90 depict? A. Exhibit 90 lists seven elemen
tary schools who have also certain things in common. Num
ber one, they have limited open enrollment spaces. Number
two, they were for the most part under capacity. Number
three, they were predominantly minority enrollment and
Number four, they were not receiving children on the bus.
Q. Now, what does Exhibit 90 show the schools to be
under capacity by, what total number of spaces? A. 270.
Q. And how many limited open enrollment openings
were announced for those schools? A. 203.
[136] Q. And how many—what was the total number of
limited open enrollment openings at the elementary level
for the whole district? A. I believe I testified 365.
Q. So, 203 of the 365 openings were in the schools de
picted on Exhibit 90? A. Yes.
Q. What was the average Anglo enrollment at those
minority schools ? A. Twelve percent.
Q. Could you list those for us, please? A. Crawford,
Ebert, Gilpin, Wyatt, Harrington, Smedley, Elmwood.
Q. Dr. Klite, I would like now to ask you a series of
questions regarding achievement in the Denver Public
Schools. Would you first refer, please, to Exhibit 82, and
would you identify the exhibit for us, please? A. This is
a 1968 study entitled, “The Denver Public Schools Look at
Themselves,” from the Division of Instructional Services.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, the authenticity of the
exhibit has been stipulated by counsel and we would
offer it in evidence at this time.
[137] Mr. Bis: It is so stipulated.
The Court: It will be received.
(Exhibit No. 82 was received in evidence.)
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—-Direct
542a
Q. Dr. Klite, Exhibit 82 is a report of what? A. The
results of the city-wide testing, achievement tests, in 1968.
Q. Now, how were those tests reported, test results re
ported ?
Paul D. Elite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
Mr. Bis: If the Court please, I am going to con
tinue to object. All he has been doing is reciting
from these exhibits. They either speak for them
selves or else this witness has no expertise on them
at all. It is just going on and on, his own discussion
concerning these. Either they are in and in for all
purposes—
The Court: Well, I suppose he could read them
and interpolate some.
Mr. Greiner: Tour Honor, the purpose—
The Court: Do they really show the conclusions
to be drawn from them from the mere reading?
Mr. Bis: Well, either they do or this witness is
not qualified as an expert to interpret them, that’s
the point.
The Court: Well, he has studied them, at least,
and I suppose counsel could do it in argument, you
know.
Mr. Bis: Well, that’s—
[138] The Court: We often do this, I think. We
receive the exhibit, but we let—particularly, if it is
a narrative report, we permit comment on some
portions of it.
Mr. B is: I am sure that’s true with respect to the
person that prepared it, but here is something this
man never even prepared.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor—
The Court: I don’t know if it would be any better
543a
if he had summarized his old testimony as an expert.
Undoubtedly, he could have.
Mr. E is: He is not an expert.
The Court: Put in a summary report.
Mr. E is: He was a doctor of medicine, not a mathe
matician or statistician or anything.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, if I might speak to the
objection, the purpose of a series of questions, this
being the first of which, is simply to familiarize the
Court with the methods used, the terminology used,
in these reports, and what the witness is going to
testify to are the meanings of such terms as median,
the first quartile, the third quartile, and so forth.
These all appear in the exhibit.
The Court: Well, is he peculiarly well fitted to
study these achievement tests and reach these con
clusions? What is his background!
Mr. Greiner: We are not asking him to reach any
[139] conclusions with regard to these test results,
merely to state what these exhibits show.
Now, these exhibits are hundreds of pages long and
we thought that it might be more convenient if we
could simply highlight certain facets of what these
reports, which are prepared by the District itself,
state and how they state it. We are not in an area
of expert testimony.
The Court: Well, it is quasi-expert, I would say.
Mr. E is: If the Court please, may I answer the
Court’s question as to this man’s background? He is
a doctor of medicine and expert in virusology and
playing the cello, not in mathematics or statistics.
Mr. Greiner: May I ask a preliminary question
of the witness, Your Honor?
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
544a
The Court: Well, we might inquire as to the extent
of his study of this.
Q. Dr. Klite, in the course of preparing for your testi
mony here for the trial, have you studied the reports of
the Denver Public Schools on the achievement test results
as published by the school system? A. Yes, I have.
Q. And have you studied those reports from the stand
point of familiarizing yourself with the terminology used
in those reports, for example? A. Yes.
[1403 Q. Now, with respect to the terminology used in
Exhibit 82, could you tell us, please, the terms used to
describe the means of reporting the achievement test re
sults? For example, are the achievement tests results re
ported as a median score?
# # # = & #
[1443 * * *
By Mr. Greiner-.
Q. Dr. Klite, again referring to Exhibit 82, does that
exhibit report achievement test results? A. Yes, it does.
Q. Now, what are the methods used for reporting of
those results? Is there, for example, a median test score
reported? A. Yes, the school district has published every
three years the results of their city-wide testing in quite
similar form.
[145] Q. That’s the triennial testing program? A. Yes,
the results are reported both citywide and by school, show
ing the results of the test of each individual achievement
test given, for example, spelling or language, and marking
the four quarters of achievement. That is, the point up
to which 25 percent of the children achieve is called Q-l.
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
545a
Q. That’s the first quartile? A. That’s right. From
that point to the point at which half the children have
scored, that next point is called the median. Proceeding
upward to the point at which 75 percent of the children
are performing is Q-3, and then there is the upper 25 per
cent. These are reported in two forms consistently. One
is a tabular form listing the Q-l, median, Q-3, et cetera,
for each test, and the other is a bar graph, which depicts
these three values and also shows the range of expect
ancy of achievement for the group tested. There are two
ways of showing this data, the bar graph, either on the
basis of grade level—that is, in the third month of the
third year, one would expect or one would be at grade 3.3
—or in a percentile basis, in which these quartiles are based
on national ranging of students and schools.
Q. You mentioned the question of expectancy, Doctor.
Do you know how these expectancies are determined! A.
Yes, according to page 17 of Exhibit 82, the red [146]
expectancy background, I am quoting from the chart, was
determined by the inner quartile distribution of IQ scores
of over 472 students tested in the 1968 survey.
Q. Exhibit 82 predicts the test results on a citywide
basis? A. That is correct.
Q. There is no individual school data predicted in Ex
hibit 82 by school? A. No.
Q. Next, Dr. Klite, referring to Exhibit 372, tell us
please what 372 depicts? A. Yes, for the 1968 achieve
ment testing, the average of the nine tests administered
to the fifth grade students at each school have been con
structed. Those schools whose average median achieve
ment was below the 20th percentile have been plotted on a
map of School District No. 1. There are eleven schools
indicated on the map.
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
546a
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, the authenticity of
Exhibit 372 has been stipulated to and we would
offer it into evidence at this time.
Mr. Ris: That’s correct, 372 to 375 inclusive.
The Court: Very well, it will be received.
(Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 372 was received in
evidence.)
[147] Q. Dr. Klite, you said that these were schools
achieving below the 20th percentile. What does that mean!
A. That means that the 20th percentile is that level at
which 80 percent of the children nationally score above,
and 20 percent below.
Q. Now, with reference to Exhibit 372, Dr. Klite,—or,
pardon me, if you will refer to Exhibit 376, did you pre
pare Exhibit 376? A. Yes, I did.
Q. What does it purport to show? A. It shows the per
centage of the district’s Anglo, Negro and Hispano chil
dren who attended the schools depicted in Exhibits 372
to 375.
Q. And what is the source of the data of 376? A. The
racial and ethnic data for the 1968 school year.
Q. That was in evidence at the summer hearing as Ex
hibit S, is that correct? A. Yes.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we would offer Exhibit
376 at this point.
Mr. Jackson: If the Court please, this is one of
those exhibits I indicated earlier we would not
have a definite reading on until this evening. The
preliminary examination indicates we are going to
have some difficulty with the figures represented on
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
547a
this exhibit, so at this time [148] I would have to
object on the basis of its inaccuracy.
The Court: Well, we can postpone ruling until
you have had an opportunity to study it carefully.
Mr. Jackson: We will be ready to advise the
Court in the morning on Exhibits 376, -77, -78, -79,
-80, -81, and -82, which I believe then finish the
achievement area.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, I do have one ques
tion of counsel. Exhibit 372 identifies certain
schools that are a certain percentile of achievement.
The accuracy of that has already been admitted, and
all that 376 does it take those schools that are iden
tified in 372 and on the basis of district-wide racial
compositions depicts the percentage of Anglos, Ne
groes, and Hispanos who are in those schools. I don’t
see that it really has anything to do with achieve
ment per se.
I wondered if we couldn’t get through at least 376.
Mr. Jackson: If the Court please, the exhibit does
not purport to show the racial or ethnic composition
of each of those schools, but, rather attempts to
relate the percentage of the Anglo, Negro or His-
pano population in that school as a part of the
school district as a whole.
Our difficulty with this exhibit is that our initial
inquiry into this field brings us up with different fig
ures and it is merely a mathematical computation
which has not yet been made. It is related to achieve
ment, as the title of the [149] exhibit shows, cor
relation with achievement scores.
The Court: Well, we will postpone a ruling on
this until you have had an opportunity to study it.
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
548a
Mr. Greiner: All right. Well, Your Honor, we
are going to have the same problem. I think we
can go ahead and put in 373, 374, and 375.
The Court: They have no objection to those.
Mr. Jackson: No objection to those, Your Honor.
The Court: They will be received.
(Plaintiffs’ Exhibits Nos. 373, 374, and 375
were received in evidence.)
Q. And also 375—yes, 375, and at that point until we
can utilize 376 I think we are going to have some prob
lems, so I will go now then to Exhibit 373, Dr. Klite, and
ask you what does that exhibit depict? A. This is a simi
lar computation that was made for Exhibit 372. It shows
the elementary schools whose average median achievement
in the fifth grade in 1968 was below the 30th percentile.
Q. How many such elementary schools are there shown
on Exhibit 373? A. I believe there are thirty.
Q. That’s out of a total of how many elementary schools
in the District? A. Ninety-two.
£1503 Q. That’s approximately a third then of the ele
mentary schools? A. Approximately.
Q. All right, then, calling your attention to Exhibit 374,
Doctor, what does 374 depict? A. This is a similar com
putation showing the schools below the 40th percentile
level, the elementary schools.
Q. How many such schools are there of the elementary
schools of the district? A. Approximately 45.
Q. So, that’s approximately half of the elementary
schools? A. Yes.
Q. Finally, Doctor, Exhibit 375, which is also a map,
depicts what? A. This is a similar plot of those elemen
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
549a
tary schools whose fifth grade median acievement was
above the 60th percentile.
Q. Above the 60th percentile means what! A. It means
that level below which 60 percent of the students nation
ally tested.
Q. And how many such schools are there? A. Twenty-
two.
Q. Twenty-two out of the ninety? A. Yes.
[1513 Q. All right, now, I would like to call your at
tention to Exhibit 380, and, Your Honor, before going on,
I would like to advise the Court that tomorrow we would
go back to Exhtbit 376 and complete that portion of the
witness’ testimony.
The Court: All right.
Q. (Continued) With regard to Exhibit 380, Doctor,
would you identify Exhibit 380, please? A. Yes, Exhibit
380 lists the mean achievement level at the 20 schools with
the lowrest Anglo population in the district in April of
1969, for the achievement test on paragraph meanings,
which was administered to the second, third, fourth, fifth
and sixth grades at those schools.
Q. Paragraph meanings is one of the subjects which
were tested? A. That is the only test that appeared on
the data sheets that we had, yes.
Mrs. Greiner: Your Honor, we offer 380, and as
I understand it, counsel has a similar problem with
380.
Mr. Jackson: With 381, 382, and 380, yes, sir. The
problem is not necessarily similar to the extent it is
a mathematical problem. The question is the actual
Paul D. Elite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
550a
source of the mean scores as they are shown on the
exhibit.
I have been advised by the witness that the source
data for 380 and 381, and, of course, by the same
token, 382, [152] the package is available and may
be examined, but it is not anything which we fur
nished to the plaintiffs and have not had a chance
to examine, but will have it examined by this eve
ning.
The Court: Well, what is the source of this data?
The Witness: These are reports on single sheets
listing by school, by grade level, the results of this
achievement test in 1969. The purpose of each of
these—
The Court: Reports by the schools?
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: To whom?
The Witness: I don’t know who they are addressed
to. They were obtained from a member of the
school administration. They are depicted to show
the percentage of students who were more than
two years behind at each level in this test, but they
show the mean achievement score in that test.
[1613 * * *
Q. Dr. Klite, you have previously testified today with
respect to the location of new Manual High School, and
would you tell us again, please, where new Manual is
located in relationship to its school attendance area? A.
It was in the eastern corner of this attendance area, one-
half block from its boundary,
Q. Now, what was the situation with respect to Cole
Junior High School, which you have testified to? A. Cole
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs■—Direct
551a
was approximately four blocks from its eastern boundary.
[1623 Q. And with respect to the location of Barrett
Elementary School, wbicb was in evidence from the sum
mer hearing, where was Barrett located in relation to its
school attendance areal A. I believe that its playground
was on its eastern border.
Q. Referring to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 20, which is in evi
dence with respect to Gove Junior High School, was Gove
located in the middle of its attendance area? A. This
Map Number 6 is from a reproduction of the 1962 boun
daries and shows that the Gove attendance area was an
irregular one with a long arm extending from approxi
mately Forest Street east of Colorado Boulevard to the
city limits.
Q. What about the location of West High School in re
spect to its attendance areal A. I believe Exhibit 396,
which is in evidence,—
The Court: That’s Forest Street and what, for
Gove I
The Witness: I t’s difficult to describe, Your Hon
or. I think, if you look at the map, it’s much easier
seen. I t’s a long arm that extends—approximately
two blocks wide that extends towards the city limits
and then enlarges.
The Court: Now, when did this occur! When does
[163] it! Or when did it!
The Witness: I t existed, we know, in 1960. It
ceased to exist in 1964.
Q. Do we know how far prior to 1960 it existed! A. I ’m
not sure it was formed when Hill was built or not, in—
Q. When was Hill opened? A. —1956. I ’m not sure.
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
552a
Q. Doctor, with respect to the location of West High
School and its attendance area, was there a time when
West was located in the upper northeast corner of its
attendance area! A. It is so depicted on the base map in
Exhibit 396, the 1950 site needs study.
* * * * *
£181] * * *
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. Dr. Klite, I’d like to first call your attention to what
are now in evidence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 372. 372, as I
recall it, depicts a group of schools whose achievement
level is at the 20th percentile, is that correct? A. That’s
correct.
Q. Now, would you refer, please, to Exhibit 376, and
this has now been designated as 376-R. And it indicates
that it has been revised from Exhibit 376, which was just
received in evidence.
And would you, first of all, explain to the Court and
counsel what the nature of the revision is in Exhibit
376-R? A. The percentage of Anglo, Negro and Hispano
has been rounded off.
Q. And what process did you use in rounding it off?
£182] A. All values of .5 percent below on even numbers,
were rounded off to a lower number, and above that, to the
higher number.
Q. Now, was there also an additional source listed for
Exhibit 376-R? A. Yes, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 242.
Q. And what is the source of the data reflected in Ex
hibit 376-R? A. These are the estimates of racial and
ethnic composition of each school as indicated in Defen
dants’ Exhibit S, with the alteration that the small number
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
553a
of Indian, Oriental and, quote, Other, unquote, categories
have been included with the Hispano, a practice which the
school district from time to time practices.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, at this time we would
tender 376-R and offer it in evidence.
Mr. Jackson: I have just one question, Your
Honor. My copy of 376-R shows as the source Plain
tiffs’ Exhibit 241, I believe.
The Witness: That’s incorrect, Mr. Jackson. It
should be 242.
Mr. Jackson: I would make the same objection
to this, Your Honor, as I previously made to 376.
The Court: Very well. We will receive it.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 376-R was re
ceived in evidence.)
[183] Q. Doctor, referring to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 376-R,
with respect to the schools depicted on Exhibit 372, what
does Exhibit 376-R show as to the racial composition of
those schools? A. It shows that those eleven schools con
tain 3 percent of the city’s Anglo children; 36 percent of
the city’s Negro elementary children; and 28 percent of
the city’s Hispano elementary children.
Q. Now, calling your attention to Exhibit 373, the map
which portrays the schools achieving below the 30th per
centile, how many such schools were there? A. I believe
there were 30.
Q. Now, referring again to Exhibit 376-R, what does
that exhibit reflect with respect to the racial composition
of those 30th percentile schools? A. It shows that at
tending those 30 schools are 13 percent of the city’s Anglo
elementary children; 61 percent of the city’s Negro chil-
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
554a
rlren, and 64 percent of the city’s Hispano elementary
children.
Q. Now, with respect to Exhibit 374, Dr. Klite, which
portrayed schools achieving below the 40th percentile, how
many snch schools are there? A. I believe there were 45.
Q. Calling yonr attention to Exhibit 376-R, what does
Exhibit 376-R show as to the number of students attending
[184] those schools below the 40th percentile in achieve
ment? A. 26 percent of the city’s Anglo students attend
those schools; that 87 percent of the city’s Negro students
and—
The Court: How many?
The Witness: 87 percent of the city’s Negro stu
dents and 78 percent of the city’s Hispano students
attend those 45 schools.
Q. An achievement below the 40th percentile means what?
A. To the level below which 60 percent of the children na
tionally score.
Q. Then, finally, Doctor, with respect to Exhibit 375,
which depicts schools achieving at above the 60th per
centile, how many such schools were there? A. 22, I be
lieve.
Q. And referring then to 376-R, what percentage of the
elementary school population by race or ethnicity attend
those 60th percentile achieving schools? A. 42 percent of
the city’s Anglo children and 4 percent each of the city’s
Negro and Hispano children.
The Court: May I have those percentages again.
The Witness: 42 percent of the Anglo children,
4 percent of the Negro children and 4 percent of the
Hispano children.
Paul D. Elite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
555a
[185] Q. Doctor, I would next like to call your atten
tion to Exhibit 380—which has been marked now in ev
idence as Exhibit 380. What does Exhibit 380 depict? A.
I do not have 380 here, Mr. Greiner.
Exhibit 380 shows the paragraph-meaning mean score
in April.
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
The Court: What mean score!
The Witness: The mean score in the paragraph
meaning test.
The Court: We started on that yesterday.
The Witness: Yes, that’s correct. I think I al
ready indicated what this shows. During Grades 2,
3, 4, 5 and 6 for 20 schools.
Q. And then Exhibit 381 depicts what Dr. Klite! A.
The score—the mean scores on the same test for 21 pre
dominantly Anglo schools.
Q. Then, calling your attention to Exhibit 382, which
is now in evidence, what does Exhibit 382 depict? A.
382 is a graph that depicts the average of the scores at
each grade level of the schools listed in 380 and 381.
Q. How do these two groups of schools compare as re
flected on Exhibit 382 ? A. There’s a difference in the aver
age of their achievement during the second grade test,
which was [186] administered in the sixth month of the
second grade of approximately one grade level. That gap
widens to—At the fifth grade the difference is slightly more
than two grade levels.
Q. This is the difference in what ? A. This is the differ
ence in the averages of the mean achievement score in
one achievement test administered during the 1969 school
year.
556a
Q. Referring again to Exhibit 382, Doctor, at grade level
4.6, what is the average in the Anglo schools ? A. In these
Anglo schools it is 5.44.
Q. And what’s the average in the minority schools! A.
In these minority schools it is 3.58.
Q. Which is a difference of what! A. Looks like about
1.9 grades.
Q. Now, according to Exhibit 380, are there any of the
minority schools achieving a grade level on this particular
exam! A. Stedman School in the second grade is achiev
ing at grade level. I think that’s the only example.
[1873 Q. And referring to the next grade level at Sted
man, what does Exhibit 381 reflect! A. It shows that the
students one year at—one year ahead at grade 3.6, differ
ent students, were achieving .18 grade levels higher.
Q. Referring to Exhibit 381, at the sixth grade level,
what is the highest achieving Anglo school! A. The mean
achievement in this test at Fallis Elementary School to
the sixth graders was graded 9.
Q. And at the sixth grade level, what was the lowest
grade in the minority schools? A. Grade 4.2 at Mitchell.
Q. That was a difference of how many grade levels,
Doctor? A. 4.78.
Q. Now, Doctor, as I understand it, the triennial test
ing program administered by the district has been going
on since the year 1950, is that correct? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were the results of that testing program reported
differently at any given time? A. Are you referring to
the normalizing scores in the fifth grade in 1965?
Q. Yes. A. Yes.
[1883 Q. And what was the difference? A. In the fifth
grade in 1965, the expected score was adjusted to a na
Paul D. Elite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
557a
tional norm. If you would like, I could quote to you from
an exhibit how this was conducted.
Q. Yes, would you, please? What exhibit do you have
reference to? A. 379.
The Court: Which exhibit are you referring to
now!
The Witness: This is Exhibit 379, Your Honor. I
am reading from—
Q. Pardon me, Dr. Klite, would you please identify Ex
hibit 379? A. Yes, these are Xeroxed copies of the achieve
ment records from the triennial testing of Wyatt, Cole,
Merrill, Morey, and Fairview Schools in the years 1956,
’59, ’62, ’65 and ’68.
Q. Would you then continue, please, Doctor. A. Yes, I
am quoting now from the Wyatt School Fifth Grade
Achievement in 1965, and it says:
“Your grade placement chart—the authors of the Stan
ford Achievement Test Battery have developed a ‘norm
adjuster’ designed to enable a school to adjust the total
group norms of the various subject tests in terms of the
mental ability of the pupils tested. This adjuster is used
for Grade 5 pupils and applies only in relation to the na
tional [1893 norm expectancy. Consequently, the reports
on all Grade 5 pupils are prepared by establishing a na
tional norm for Grade 5 at Grade 5.7 grade placement and
adjusting to grade placement achievement in the various
subjects tested by use of the deviations provided in the
‘norm adjuster’. The red expectancy background for the
grade placement chart for your school is at the underlined
national norm for fifth grade pupils. All Q-3 median and
Q-l levels of achievement have been adjusted up or down
according to the median IQ of the group tested.”
Paul D. Klite-—for Plaintiffs—Direct
558a
Q. Doctor, have you prepared an exhibit which reflects
the effect of the adjustment referred to in quotation which
you have just made! A. Yes, I have.
Q. And that is Exhibit 378! A. Yes, it is.
Q. And would you tell us, please, what 378, which is
now in evidence depicts! A. 378 lists the individual test
results in eight tests for twenty predominantly Anglo
schools and twenty predominantly minority schools in the
years 1962, 1965, and 1968.
Q. And 1965 was the only year in which this normalizing
process was used! A. That is correct.
Q. Then, what was the effect of this normalizing process
as reflected in Exhibit 378! For example, what happened
at [190] Wyatt School! A. Well, Wyatt School on the
paragraph meaning test, for example, had a grade place
ment of 4.8 in the 1962 testing, a grade placement of 3.2
in the 1968 testing. In 1965, when the median was nor
malized, the recorded result was grade 6.4.
Q. So then there was an increase in 1965’s report as to
Wyatt! A. Well, the published median scores for Wyatt
in paragraph meaning was almost two grades higher in
1965 than it had been in ’62 and two and a half grades
higher than it was in ’68.
Q. Now, referring to the 1965 report for Wyatt con
tained in Exhibit 378, Doctor, what did the school district
say about the achievement at Wyatt in 1965! A. The
summary for the fifth grade states:
“The grade placement chart shows achievement well
above the national norm by pupils at all levels of ability.
Most scores reflect the success with which the staff is im
parting basically academic skills. When comparison is made
with the national norm, the fifth graders at Wyatt School
appear to be well prepared to meet the academic challenge
Paul D. Elite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
559a
of the sixth grade. The total results reflect a carefully
planned program for all levels of ability. The staff and
community may be well pleased with these results.”
Q. Now, Doctor, three years later, when no normalizing
[1913 was used at Wyatt, what was the achievement level
in that particular test? A. Grade 3.9. That’s the four
teenth percentile.
Q. Doctor, we have mentioned briefly the question of ex
pectancy yesterday. Referring to Exhibit 379, and in par
ticular I have in mind Baker Junior High School and
Merrill Junior High School, with respect to expectancy,
does it vary by school? A. Yes, it does.
Q. And the two schools which I have just mentioned,
what are the expected levels of achievement? A. Well,
they vary from year to year.
Q. In 1956 ? A. In 1956 at Merrill, the expected achieve
ment was the 72 percentile. The same year at Baker, the
expected achievement was 23 percentile.
Q. Now, what did the school district say about Baker’s
performance in 1956? A. The composite score at Baker
was 23 percentile at expectancy. The summary states:
“The total score summarizes the good situation indicated
in the two sections and their sub tests.”
I am sorry, I am quoting from the wrong page.
“The summary indicates comparisons with 1953 results
are not possible, as Baker did not have a ninth grade
[192] then. These 1965 results reveal that a good, well-
balanced program has been established. All ability levels
are doing well. The sub test results might indicate that
the composite scores, particularly at the median and Q-l
should be higher, but this column is affected by all scores
of all tests. The uses of sources of information results
show that the pupils have learned how to study, and this
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
560a
together with their achievement in subject matter should
help them at the senior high school level. The faculty
should be pleased with this evidence of its good work.”
Q. This was a school in 1956 that was achieving at what
percentile? A. Twenty-three.
Q. Now, in 1956, what were the actual test results as re
ported for Merrill Junior High School? A. Eighty-two
percentile. That was the median.
Q. "What did the School District say about performance
at Merrill? A. “The composite score summarized the fa
vorable situation presented in the sub tests. All exceeded
expectancy, the median by about 10 percentile points, Q-l
by about 15. The faculty should be well pleased with these
attainments. A very high standard has been established by
this new school, which it should strive to equal in the fu
ture.”
Q. Calling your attention to the 1956 report for Cole
[1933 in Exhibit 379, what was the level of expected achieve
ment at Cole, and what were the results? A. The ex
pectancy mean was 23. The composite mean was 21.
Q. And what did the School District say about the
achievement levels at Cole? A. “All scores and all sub
ject matter tests are combined in the composite scores. The
general situation here is good with the median and Q-3 at
expectancy and Q-l only slightly below it. The general pic
ture of this group is very similar to that of the group tested
in 1953. In both years, pupils at all levels experienced sat
isfactory achievements in the subject matter areas. The
faculty should be pleased with these accomplishments.”
Q. This was a school achieving at what percentile? A.
Composite score was 21.
Q. Referring to the 1962 report as contained in Exhibit
379, Doctor, what was the result of the achievement testing
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
561a
at Cole in 1962? A. The expectancy median was 29. The
achievement was 27, median.
Q. What did the School District report with respect to
the achievement at Cole? A. “This chart displays a very
consistent representation of ability. The pupils at Cole
have performed about as [194] expected in most of the
tests at all three levels. There is no unusual display of
strength, and with the possible exception of the Q-3 score
in general vocabulary and scores on Test 1, Concepts of
Basic Social Studies, there is no significant weakness.
The red area on this chart is considerably higher than it
was in 1959, and since the bars occupy positions almost
totally within the expectancy areas, parents and teachers
should consider educational achievement to be satisfactory.
However, a general picture may indicate that many of
Cole’s pupils will have difficulty achieving high school grad
uation unless some decided improvement takes place in their
learning.”
Q. That was in what year, 1962? A. I have lost my
place here. I believe that was, yes.
Q. Now, again referring to Exhibit 379, Doctor, what
were the achievement test results reported for Cole Junior
High School in 1965? A. The expected median was ap
proximately 28. The median achievement was 23.
Q. How does that 23 compare with the 1962 results at
Cole? A. It is lower.
Q. What did the School District say in 1965 as to these
achievement test results at Cole Junior High School? A.
“The general picture at Cole is satisfactory. The [195]
composite scores imply that some small lack of strength
exists, which is discussed above. The red expectancy back
ground on the 1965 chart is somewhat wider than it was
in 1962, which would seem to suggest that the ability pat
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs-—Direct
562a
tern of the student body at Cole is changing. If such a
change is true, a limited amount of adjustment within the
instructional program may he advisable. It must be re
emphasized, however, that the overall accomplishment as
shown on the chart is very acceptable and the pupils
should be proud of their showing on these tests. The par
ents and teachers should be pleased with the result.”
Q. There is no reference in the 1965 report then to
graduating from senior high school? A. No, sir.
Q. Is the achievement level in ’65 lower or higher than
it was in ’62 when that comment was made? A. I believe
I just said it was lower.
Q. Dr. Klite, I have handed you what has been marked
for identification as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 242, 243, 244, 245,
246, 248, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 302, 303, 304,
305, 306, 307 and finally 308. Doctor, what common char
acteristics do these identified exhibits have? A. Excuse
me, Mr. Greiner, did you mention 247 ?
Mr. Greiner : No, I did not. Is 247 there?
A. I have that here.
Q. All right. [196] A. These lists—these are computer
print-outs which show pupil numbers by race and ethnicity,
numbers and percentages faculty experience and building
facilities at all of the schools in District No. 1. The ele
mentary schools, junior highs and senior highs are on
different exhibits.
Q. Is teacher experience data also reflected in those ex
hibits? A. Yes, it is.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, the authenticity of
each of the listed exhibits has been agreed to by
counsel, and at this time we would offer those ex
hibits into evidence as listed.
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
563a
Mr. Eis: You started reading those numbers so
fast—
Mr. Greiner: Here’s a list.
Mr. E is: All right, thank you.
The Court: This is what might be termed a whole
sale offer, so you are entitled to more time.
Mr. Creighton: Your Honor, there is a stipulation
regarding all this list now being offered, setting
forth that we agreed that the basic data accurately
reflects data in School District records. That it has
been run through a computer, what they show, and
with the understanding that they have the entire
data run through the computer and display it in a
somewhat different way, we have no objection.
Mr. Brega: No objection.
[197] The Court: Very well.
Mr. Greiner: They will be received then, Your
Honor 1
The Court: They will be received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 242, 243, 244,
245, 246, 247, 248, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278,
279, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307 and 308 were
received in evidence.)
Mr. Greiner : Your Honor, then that concludes
our examination of Dr. Klite.
• # # • #
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct
[197] * * *
The Court: All right.
564a
Cross-Examination by Mr. B is:
=#= # # # #
[213] * * *
Q. Now, did you search the minutes of the Board of
Education for the period between 1950 and 1955 for boun
dary changes, action taken to boundary changes! A. I
perused the minutes. I did not search them intensively.
Q. Now, with respect to the one change that you in
ferred that there may have been a change between the Cole
and Smiley boundaries in 1952 or 1953, you actually found
no record either in the superintendent’s records or the
board minutes of such a change? Correct? A. Just as
stated in the board minutes, yes, with the Race Street
boundary—you’re right, I ’m sorry. Let me retract that.
No.
Q. So that actually you have drawn an inference from
several:—from a couple of documents that you have ex
amined and because of variances between those that there
may have been a change? A. Yes.
Q. But other than such an inference, you found no evi
dence in an actual change during that period of time?
£214] A. That’s right.
Q. And actually the change you’re referring to was a
change of an optional area to a mandatory area? A. It
would have been, yes.
Q. And it involved a half a block for a few blocks and
then a block and a half in width for another couple of
blocks, is that right? A. That’s right.
Q. And that’s the only change you inferred for that
period of time? A. That’s correct.
# # # # *
[219] Q. You have studied, I presume, Exhibit 356,
entitled “The New Manual”? A. Yes.
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Cross
565a
Q. And from your study of this, you know that a great
amount of time and effort was devoted by many, many
people to determine the characteristics that the new Man
ual should have? A. Yes.
Q. This was a very comprehensive study, and the re
ports were in this exhibit from the administrative staff,
central administrative staff, right? A. Yes.
Q. From the school principals and teachers? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Students? A. Yes.
Q. Parents? A. Yes.
Q. And the community at large? A. Right.
Q. And very substantial studies were made as to voca
tional interests and what the students and the people in
that community wanted in their new high school? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Not only physically but by way of curriculum, right?
A. Yes.
[2203 Q. And the new Manual then was constructed and
curriculum then adopted based upon this exhibit, as far as
you know? A. I am sure this exhibit was important in
what they added up to, yes.
Q. Did you make any study of the curriculum after the
new Manual was built, as compared to East High School,
for example? A. No, I did not.
Q. Are you aware that there was a substantial differ
ence in the curriculum between the two? A. I have heard
it alleged.
Q. Would that be an element in considering subsequent
boundary changes ? A. I don’t know why it would.
Q. You don’t, after all the studies that went into the
new Manual? A. Unless the type of curriculum at Man
ual was not offered any other place in the city, you would
have to make provisions for students all over the city to
Paul I). Klite—for Plaintiffs—Cross
566a
be able to come there or students who lived in tbe Manual
district wbo didn’t want that type of curriculum to go some
place else. That’s how it could affect it.
Q. This is your present theory? A. Yes, sir.
Q. This is not anything you obtained from anybody in
[2213 the school district? A. No.
Q. All right. Now, in 1956 there was a major event that
occurred that had a very substantial influence on redraw
ing of boundaries in east and northeast Denver, was there
not? A. Are you referring to the opening of Hill Junior
High School?
Q. Yes. Did that occur in 1956? A. Yes, it did.
Q. You didn’t mention that yesterday, I don’t believe,
did you? A. That Hill opened? No, I did not.
Q. Now, it was the opening of Hill in 1956 that required
the establishment of new boundaries for Hill? A. Correct.
Q. Dr. Klite, certainly your study reflects that when a
new school is opened, particularly a secondary school, in
a city such as Denver, and new boundaries are established,
that it affects the boundaries of every other school at the
same level surrounding it? A. Yes, it may.
Q. In turn, that may indirectly affect boundaries of
schools beyond that first tier? A. That’s correct.
[2223 Q. So that actually in your reviewing of the min
utes of the Board and the action taken, it all centers around
the opening of Hill and spreads out from that point, right?
A. I don’t know if I could make that statement, Mr. His.
Q. You wouldn’t go that far? Would you say it had any
effect at all, the opening of Hill, on the boundaries of
Smiley? A. It might have. If you let me digress, per
haps, for one second, the amount of area ceded to Cole,
for example, was very small. It didn’t seem to me to make
any difference whether it was ceded or not in terms of its
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Cross
567a
capacity utilization, so I don’t know if you could say that
Hill was the reason for that.
Q. If you are talking about the area ceded to Cole in
1956, you are talking about the area west of City Park and
west of York Street about four blocks wide! A. That’s
right.
Q. And when you say that was ceded-—that had not been
part of the Smiley area that had been optional Smiley or
Cole, isn’t that correct? A. That’s correct.
Q. So, it was nothing new? Any child, even prior to
that, could go to either Cole or Smiley? A. Living in that
area, Yes.
Q. And, now, it merely made it mandatory for them in
E22S2 that small area to go to Cole? A. That’s right.
Q. And that’s what you mean by ceding? A. Yes.
# # # *
[2453 * * *
Further Cross-Examination by Mr. Jackson:
Q. Dr. Klite, if you would, would you get before you
the maps identified as 372, 373, 374 and 375, please? Now,
[2463 would you explain to us again, Dr. Klite, the basis
upon which you selected the schools appearing in the map
designated Exhibit 372 as being below the twentieth per
centile? A. Yes, from Exhibit 83, the median percentile
score of each individual’s achievement test was averaged.
Q. And was this procedure followed also in 373, 374 and
375? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And this was purely a mathematical computation of
averaging the median scores? A. That is correct.
Q. And was that for all tests given? A. Yes.
Q. That year? A. Yes.
Q. Do you have a copy of Exhibit 83 in front of you,
Doctor? A. Yes.
Paul D. Klite—■for Plaintiffs—Cross
568a
Q. What is the median score that yon averaged, Dr.
Klite? What is a median? A. It is a score above which
and below which half the students have scored.
Q. So, on Exhibit 372, which shows schools whose medi
ans fell below the twentieth percentile, there were a number
of students in each of those schools scoring well above the
[2473 twentieth percentile? A. Scoring above it, yes.
[248] Q. And depending upon the specific average at
tained for any one school, it could be as high as 49.9 per
cent, is that correct? A. For any individual student?
Q. No, for the school. It could be 49.9 percent of the
students achieving above the 20th percentile? A. Yes.
Q. So what that exhibit, in reality, shows is that at least
50 percent of the students in those schools were achieving
at those levels? A. That is correct.
Q. And was this for the entire school, Dr. Klite? Does
this map purport to show the achievement level of all the
children in the school ? A. This map is based on fifth grade
source.
Q. So we’re talking now of only fifth grade students? A.
That’s correct. I might add, Mr. Jackson, that the third
grade scores are available and they are quite similar.
Q. But you have not prepared any maps on that basis?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Do the schools that scored below the 20th percentile
in the fifth grade also score below the 20th percentile in
the third grade? A. Some of them do. Many of them
don’t. Many of [249] them scored higher in the third grade.
For example, Wyatt’s median was 42 percentile in the
third grade and 15 percentile in the fifth grade.
Q. But you have not shown the third grade achievements
on any of these exhibits? A. That’s correct.
Q. Now, in Exhibit 373, Dr. Klite— Let’s skip to Exhibit
Paid D. K lite~for Plaintiffs—Cross
569a
375, if you will. Do you find Gust Elementary School shown
up on that exhibit? A. Yes, I do.
Q. Would you, Dr. Klite, turn to the portion of Exhibit
83 which shows the median percentile ranking for the fifth
grade at Gust and you might tell your counsel where that
appears. A. No page numbers.
Mr. Jackson: Did you find it?
Mr. Greiner: (Shakes head negatively.)
A. (Continuing) I have the place.
Q. Now, Exhibit 375 indicates that the median percentile
at Gust Elementary in the fifth grade was 60th percentile
and above, does it not? A. Yes, it does.
Q. Would you, Dr. Klite, take your time and compute
the average of the median as shown on Exhibit 83 for Gust,
the percentile? [250] A. I have just done that, Mr. Jack-
son.
Q. What do you come up with? A. I come up with a
median of 59, point, something. I can’t do the division in
my head.
Q. But in any event it is less than 60? A. I think it will
round off to 60, Mr. Jackson.
Q. That—is that the reason it was included? A. Yes.
Q. Then if you would back up in the same series to Deni
son School, again fifth grade percentile ranking, and if you
would compute the average of the median there? A. You
have caught me, Mr. Jackson. It’s 56.
Q. 56, point, something, not 59, point, something? A.
No, sir. 56.
Q. On which now? A. Denison.
Q. Now, Dr. Klite, Exhibit 376 and Exhibit 376-R, have
as their source the Exhibit 83 as well as, I believe it’s
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Cross
570a
Defendants’ Exhibit F, does it not? A. And Plaintiffs’
Exhibit 242 is listed on 376-R.
Q. Yes. So these figures then are taken from the group
ing of schools which you achieved on your map, is that
correct? A. Yes.
Q. So if the grouping of schools on the maps are [2513
incorrect, then this exhibit is incorrect, is that true? A.
That is correct.
Q. Now, Dr. Klite, Exhibit 376 was changed from yester
day to today. Would you indicate to the Court, please, the
reason for that change? A. Yes, the final percentage of
students was computed with a slide rule and after checking
and finding it impossible to be extremely consistent on some
of the tenths of these percentages, the figures were rounded
o ff.
Q. Now, the Hispano grouping on 376-R includes all stu
dents within the Denver Public Schools who are not other
wise identified as Anglo and Negro, does it not? A. Cor
rect.
Q. And they are placed with the grouping with the
Hispano rather than either of the other two groupings?
A. That is correct.
Q. Now, move if you will, Dr. Klite, to Exhibit 377.
There is a note contained at the bottom of that exhibit,
is there not, Dr. Klite? A. Yes.
Q. And that note indicates that the test given in 1956
and 1968 were not the same test, is that correct? A. That’s
correct.
Q. And yet the exhibit purports to compare the scores
achieved in 1956 with those achieved in 1968 at the [2523
respective schools? A. The district has used literally hun
dreds of different tests during that period, Mr. Jackson.
Q. But the exhibit purports to compare the results from
different tests, does it not, for those two years? A. The
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Cross
571a
exhibit shows the results of the tests in those two years,
yes.
Q. And they are different tests? A. Well, there are, I’m
sure, different questions. They are the same general type
of test, I am sure.
Q. Do they contain the same number of subtests? A. I
don’t know.
Q. Doesn’t your exhibit show? A. My exhibit does not
mention subtests. I ’m sorry. Yes, it does. There were a
different number of subtests.
Q. In two years? A. That is correct.
Q. Do you know, Dr. Klite, whether or not conversion
tables are available for the 1956 test in order to correlate
the results with the 1968 test? A. I don’t know.
Q. Do you know whether these tests were alternate forms
of the same test? A. No, I do not.
Q. Do you know when the 1956 test was standardized?
[253] A. No, I do not.
Q. Do you know when the 1968 test was standardized?
A. No.
Q. What do you know about these tests? A. I know
that these were the tests given by the Denver Public Schools
upon which they relied to publish the achievement scores of
the grades indicated and the years indicated.
Q. For those specific tests? A. That is correct.
Q. But you don’t know how they compare it at all? A.
No, I don’t.
Q. And did you prepare this exhibit? A. Yes.
Q. Now, Doctor, if you will, one other question on Ex
hibit 377. The title is “Average Mean Achievement Score,
Third Grade.” Were the scores ever reported in 1956 or
1968 as mean scores? A. No, they were median scores.
Q. So that should also be changed? A. Yes, that should
be changed.
Paul D. Klite—■for Plaintiffs—Cross
572a
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Gross
Q, Now, on Exhibit 378, Dr. Klite, the title of the exhibit
is “Effects of ‘Normalizing’ Achievement Scores.” And yon
read from—I believe it was Exhibit 379 regarding the nor
mal adjustment process, is that correct1? [254] A. Yes.
Q. Does the word normalizing appear in Exhibit 379?
A. No.
Q. This is your word? A. That’s why it’s in quotes.
Q. All right, now, Dr. Klite, on Exhibit 378, are tables
showing achievement scores by grade level for 1962, 1965
and 1968, and then there is a percentile ranking for 1968,
also, for certain schools. Can you tell us which test these
represent in 1962, in 1965 and in 1968? A. Paragraph
meaning.
Q. Are these the same tests or is this like Exhibit 377
where we had different tests given in these years? A. I
do not rcall. They could very well be different versions of
paragraph-meaning achievement tests, yes.
Q. And the paragraph meaning would be one portion of
the larger test? A. Correct.
Q. And there was paragraph meaning in the tests identi
fied in Exhibit 377, was there not? A. I believe there was.
Q. And in that instance it was a part of either six tests
or of eight tests? A. That’s correct.
Q. So this 'would be one.
[255] Now, was the normal adjustment process which
you read to us a design of the Denver Public Schools? A.
No.
Q. Whose design was it? A. I believe, as I quoted, it
was available from the Stanford Testing Bureau.
Q. This was a national process? A. This was a process
that was available, yes.
Q. And were the instructions given by the test publisher
as to how the grades would be adjusted for norms? A. I
believe, as I read the paragraph, it said that they have a
573a
conversion table, or they have the means of converting the
scores.
Q. Do you know how these conversion tables work? A.
No. I know generally how it works. A school with—
Q. Well, you either know or you don’t know how it works,
Dr. Klite. Which is it? A. I know how it works in gen
eral, Mr. Jackson.
Q. Do you know how it worked in regard to Greenlee
School in 1965? A. I don’t know the specific process that
was followed for Greenlee. The general process would
have been to take the average score of Greenlee, change its
expectancy, which might be a grade below grade level to
grade level, and report [2563 the grade achievement score
on the basis of the new calculation.
Q. Wasn’t the expectancy absolutely the same for every
school in 1965 on this norm adjustment process ? A. That’s
what norm adjustment was all about.
Q. In other words, every single school in the fifth grade
had an expectancy of 5.7 grade level? A. That’s correct.
Q. So the expectancy was not changed at all, was it? A.
Yes, it was. The expectancy previously had been all over
the place; had varied tremendously among schools.
Q. Why is that, Dr. Klite? A. The expectancy calcula
tions, as I read yesterday, apparently were based on the
interquartile distribution of I.Q. scores.
Q. Do you know for certain how it’s based? A. I have
just told you, Mr. Jackson; on the interquartile distribu
tion of I.Q. scores.
Q. I believe you indicated you thought generally this
was the way. A. I was just trying to remember the exact
quote in the pamphlet.
Q. Do all children achieve at the same level, Dr. Klite?
A. No.
[257] Q. Would you expect them to? A. No.
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Cross
574a
Q. Dr. Klite, I wish you would examine for a moment
Exhibit 379, that package, like this. A. Which part of it,
Mr. Jackson?
Q. Well, I wish, if you would, first advise me and advise
the Court the schools that are represented by the materials
in Exhibit 379. A. Wyatt, Cole, Merrill, Baker, Morey,
Fairview.
Q. So within that group then you have two elementary
schools, Wyatt and Fairview, and four junior high schools,
Cole, Merrill, Baker and Morey? A. That’s correct.
Q. And I believe you testified, Dr. Klite, that in Baker,
for example, in 1956, that you expected achievement at
Baker—and I believe it was for the fifth grade—I mean for
the 9th grade, but I could be mistaken—was 23 percentile.
Do you recall that portion of your testimony? A. Yes,
that’s correct.
Q. And that expectancy is shown in the ninth grade sec
tion of Baker, April, 1956, as the heavy, dark line marked
XA? A. Correct.
Q. And reflects a median? A. That’s right.
[258] Q. Now, within that same exhibit do you find
the median for the achievement scores actually received by
the students at Baker? A. Yes.
Q. It’s true, is it not, Dr. Klite, that in all of the nine
subtests with one exception, that the achievement at Baker
exceeded the expected achievement? A. That’s correct.
Q. Now, in 1968 in Baker do you find that the achieve
ment scores are reported at percentile scores? A. Yes.
Q. Directing your attention to Test 3, Dr. Klite, Correct
ness of Writing— A. Yes.
Q. —what is the highest percentile ranking achieved at
Baker in 1968? A. By any individual student?
Q. Yes. A. 99.
Paul D. Elite—for Plaintiffs—Cross
575a
Q. And what does that mean in terms of that student’s
relationship to the nation as a whole? A. That means
that that student was among the top one percent in that
test.
Q. That 99 percent of the other students tested through
out the country were at a lower level of achievement [259]
that this? A. That’s correct.
Q. In that same test, Dr. Klite, what is the Q-3 ranking,
approximately? A. Approximately 58th percentile.
Q. Which means that the Q-3 ranking on that same test
is above 58 percent of the students tested nationwide? A.
Correct.
Q. Now, if you would, Dr. Klite, turn your attention to
Merrill, again, in 1968, and again Test 3. What is the
highest score achieved at Merrill? A. An individual score
as high as 99 and as low as one.
Q. Now, how did those compare with the results at
.Baker in the same year on the same test? A. That means
that at least one student at Merrill scored just as well as
one student at Baker.
Q. And was the reverse true also? A. I believe it was.
Q, So there were students who were scoring just as poorly
who attended Merrill as those that attended Baker? A. At
least one student. We don’t know if it was more than that
from this table.
Q. We do know, for example, that at Baker in that year
for the same test that at least 25 percent of the [260] stu
dents at Baker were above the 58th percentile on Test 3,
do we not? A. Correct.
[261] Q. And I direct your attention to Cole for the
same year, same test. Are the results exactly the same
as for Merrill and for Baker? A. Tou mean in terms
of what, at least one student—
Q. Of the extremes of the percentile. A. Yes, at least
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs■—Cross
576a
one student has performed at the 99 percentile and at
least one at 2 percentile.
Q. How many tests were given in 1968, Dr. Klite? A.
Nine tests.
Q. In terms of Cole, out of those nine sub tests, there are
99 percentile ranking for— A. Five.
Q. Five, as well as the composite for one to eight? A.
Eight.
Q. So, in at least five of the nine sub tests areas, stu
dents at Cole scored as high or higher than 99 percent in
the entire country that took the test? A. At least one
student.
Q. And the same is true for Merrill? A. At least one,
right.
Q. Now, Dr. Klite, in 1968, does Exhibit 379 also give
the estimated ethnic distribution of pupils for the schools
one year prior thereto, or within the test year, excuse
me. A. Are you referring to this page?
Q. Eight. [262] A. Yes, right.
Q. And what is the estimated ethnic distribution of pu
pils at Merrill? A. Ninety-nine percent white, Anglo.
Q. At Cole? A. Six percent Anglo, 65 percent Negro,
28 percent Hispano.
Q. And at Baker? A. Nine percent Anglo, 8 percent
Negro, 83 percent Hispano.
Q, Now, Dr. Klite, referring back again to your Exhibit
376—I guess who should say 376-E—that purports to show
the percentage of Anglo, Negro and Hispano students at
tending the schools, for example, scoring below the twenti
eth percentile in the fifth grade on the test as they relate
to the estimated ethnic distribution of the district as a
whole; is that correct? A. That’s correct.
Q. It does not in any way purport to show the estimated
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Cross
577a
ethnic distribution of the schools themselves as contained
within the various exhibits? A. Just the totals of the
groups of schools.
Q. As they relate to the district as a whole? In other
words, 2.7 percent of the Anglo students is not the average
percentage of Anglo students in the schools scoring below
the [2633 twentieth percentile, is that wrong? A. No,
that’s correct, not on the individual schools. That’s the total
number in those eleven schools.
Q. In those eleven schools, you might find schools with
as high as 45 or 30 percent Anglo? A. There is one school,
Smedley, that has about 38 perecnt Anglo, yes.
Q. Dr. Klite, what is your experience in the field of test
ing? A. You mean testing achievement scores to public
school students?
Q. Yes. A. I have no experience other than analyzing
the data of the Denver Public Schools.
Q. I believe you testified that you are not famiilar with
the tests themselves, the results of which you have been
analyzing; is that correct? A. That’s right.
Q. Have you had any experience in standardization of
tests? A. Not formally.
Q. Have you had any experience in devising tests for
public school students? A. No, just medical students.
Q. Have you compared the various tests given by the
[2643 Denver Public Schools during the period of time
covered by your testimony? A. No, sir.
Q. You do not know, do you, Dr. Klite, whether they are
comparable or relevant to one another at all? A. No, sir,
I am relying upon the District’s judgment in choosing them.
Q. Does the fact of the existence of a test in one year
necessarily mean it relates to the test as given in other
years? A. I am sure there are differences from year to
year between the tests.
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Cross
578a
Q. And the scores would therefore be different, would
they not! A. They might.
Q. And might represent different things? A. I don’t
know if I could answer that, Mr. Jackson. They are used
by the District to test the same general principles each year.
They are using different tests—there is a consistency among
the data of the school score from year to year, and while
the exact score might not be identical, you are testing dif
ferent children. Testing might be different. I think in
general, they are fairly consistent from year to year.
Q. Now, Exhibit 83, the 1968 listing by school test, [2651
reported tests in two different fashions, did it not, Dr.
Klite? A. Percentile and grade level.
Q. All right, your exhibits relate to the percentile level
that we were discussing earlier in terms of your map, Ex
hibit 372? A. Correct.
Q. Now, Dr. Klite, in Exhibits 380, 381 and 382, there'
are certain notations at the bottom of both Exhibits 380
and 381, are there not? A. Yes.
Q. And those refer again to the fact that different tests
were given at different schools in second grade? A. That’s
right, in the second grade only, there were two different
tests administered in 1969 for paragraph meaning.
Q. And that applies not only to Exhibit 380 but also to
Exhibit 381, does it not? A. Yes.
Q. And is the frequency with which the two tests were
given at the two schools which you have selected the same
in Exhibit 380 and 381? A. No, it is not.
Q. How does it differ? A. Of the twenty schools—
twenty-one Anglo schools, three of those schools were given
a Primary-2 level—let’s [266] see—a Primary-1 level test,
Form X. Among the schools where the predominantly
minority population, listed in Exhibit 380, thirteen of them
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Gross
579a
were given, that Primary-1 test and one school was given
both tests.
Q. Were any schools in Exhibit 381 given both tests?
A. No.
Q. Do you know how those tests compared, Dr. Klite?
A. No.
Q. Now, this exhibit is for April of 1969, for one section
of the test given that year, is that correct? A. The only
test results that we had available for that year was this
one test, Paragraph Meaning. We did not have any other
scores.
Q. But, again, the Paragraph Meaning is but one part
of the composite? A. Tes, it is.
Q. And this was given at the same time of year to grades
2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, was it not? A. Yes.
Q. As indicated by the .6 following the grade level each
time? A. Correct.
Q. And these were given to different students, each
test? A. That’s correct, yes.
[2673 Q. Do you know anything at all about the stu
dents? A. How they were selected, you mean? No, I do
not.
Q. Do you know how long they have been in the Denver
Public School system? A. No.
Q. You don’t know how long they have been at their
particular school? A. No, I do not.
Q. Do you know anything about their IQ’s? A. No.
* # # # #
[ 273] * * *
L orenzo T raylor, called as a witness by the plaintiffs,
being first duly sworn, on his oath testified as follows:
The Court: Please take the witness chair. Give us
your name and address and occupation
Lorenzo Traylor—for Plaintiffs—Direct
580a
The Witness: My name is Lorenzo H. Traylor,
T-r-a-y-l-o-r. My address is 2694 North Lincoln
Avenue, Altadena, California. I am employed by
the IT. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commis
sion as Area Director for the office of Los Angeles,
which covers Southern California, Nevada, Hawaii,
Guam, Wake Island, and some more.
Direct Examination by Mr. Barnes:
Q. Did you ever reside in Denver, Mr. Traylor! A.
Yes, I lived at 2128 Vine Street.
Q. From what— A. From 1952 until 1956. Early in
1952 I lived on Downing Street, but I moved to Vine in
1953, I believe.
Q. Early in 1952, you lived on Downing Street! A.
Yes.
Q. Then you moved to Vine Street! A. Yes, sir.
C2743 Q. In what month did you leave Denver! A. I
left Denver in May of 1956.
Q. What is your race! A. Negro.
Q. When you lived in Denver, did you have children in
the Denver Public Schools! A. Yes, I had a son, Howard
Traylor, who attended Morey Junior High School, and
a daughter who was at Wyman Elementary School.
Q. In what school subdistrict boundaries did you live
in your residence on Vine Stree! A. I lived in the Wyman
Elementary School District and the Morey-Cole optional
district, and the East-Manual optional district.
Q. Do you recall any proposals by the School Board to
change the boundaries of the district in which you lived!
A. Yes, in late 1955, I had information that the proposed
boundary changes that you have been discussing here for
the last couple of days was to take effect early in January.
Lorenzo Traylor—for Plaintiffs—Direct
581a
Q. Can you identify what those boundary changes—what
those proposals were? A. Yes, the optional areas be
tween East and Manual, which extended from 17th Street
to 23rd Street and from York to Race, were to be changed
from—with that part from Race to York eliminated and
placed in the Manual district, and there [275] was a dis
trict between Smiley and Cole and between Morey and
Cole, and that was to be reduced in size. That is the
optional area was to be reduced in size and the new op
tional area would be an area that would eliminate—would
place the district in which I lived in the Cole district
rather than optional between Cole and Morey, and would
place me in the Manual district rather than in the optional
Manual-East district.
Q. Did you have occasion to discuss these proposed
changes with any representative of the School District?
A. Yes, I had several discussions with members of the
School District on this, these discussions beginning in
early 1956, I think the first week in January, and con
tinuing through until later in the year, perhaps in Feb
ruary or March.
Q. With whom did you have the first of these discus
sions! A. The first discussion I had with school officials
was Mr. Holm, who was the person that I had been told
by Dr. Oberholtzer to be the person who was in charge
of the planned boundary changes.
Q. Mr. Traylor, did you go there in any official capacity?
What was your occupation when you were here in Denver?
A. At that time I was an educational and vocational
counselor with the Urban League of Denver, and I went
to see them, as a member of the Urban League staff but
also as a parent of young people who were involved in
the proposed [276] changes.
Lorenzo Traylor—for Plaintiffs■—Direct
582a
Q. When you went to see Mr. Peter Holm, what sub
stances were discussed? A. Well, in my initial discussion
with him I asked such questions as, “Why are you making
boundary changes ?” I asked to see in writing the proposed
criteria that was being used and also had a chance to
look at some maps that he had available in the Adminis
tration Building. I think generally I expressed my con
cern that my family was involved and also that from what
I had been able to see from the —together from the in
formation that I had at that particular point, that those
boundaries may have been discriminatory.
Q. Did you make any—after that meeting, did you make
any effort to gather any further information about these
boundary changes? A. Yes, after my first meting with
Mr. Holm, at which time he indicated that the criteria
being used was, first, overcrowding in some schools, empty
seats in other schools, and they were concerned about
equal distance, equal distance between schools and also
transportation, and I believe he mentioned the fact that
they were making some of these changes because of the
building of a new junior high school in the west part of
town; I called several people, and I suppose several peo
ple called me—
Q. May I interrupt you, Mr. Traylor? [277] A. Yes.
Q. Could that junior high school have been Hill Junior
High School in the east part of town? A. Yes, Hill.
Q. Excuse me, continue. A. I called several people, and
we got together a small quote, citizen’s committee of about
five people, who decided that we would take a look at what
was being proposed and to get more information about it.
Q. Did you testify that this was early in January, 1956?
A. Yes, I first heard about the boundary changes in De
Lorenzo Traylor—for Plaintiffs—Direct
583a
cember of 1955, but the activity I have just talked about
occurred in early 1956.
Q. Did you have occasion then to meet again with rep
resentatives of the school district? A. Yes, on January 9,
1956, a committee from the Urban League visited with Mr.
Holm and with Dr. Oberholtzer to discuss the boundary
changes and also to discuss some other matters relating
to the integration of teachers in the public schools and
the fact that many—all of the Negro teachers were still
housed—teaching in the East Denver area and in schools
considered to be Negro schools.
Q. Who was present at that meeting? A. At that meet
ing there was a Mrs. Dickerson—I believe she was the wife
of a Dr. Dickerson—Mr. Owens, Mr. [278] Sebastian
Owens, Mr. Caldwell, Councilman Caldwell, Mr. Vance
Austin, and I believe Mr. Charles Cousins also attended
that meeting.
Q. Who was present from the School District? A. Mr.
Holm and Dr. Oberholtzer.
Q. What was the date of that meeting? A. That meet
ing was on January 9, 1956.
Q. And had the proposed boundary changes been adopted
by that time? A. No, we had heard that the boundary
changes were to be considered on or about the 18th of
January.
Q. Had you completed your investigation of the facts
by that time? A. No, actually, I was still trying to make
some determination as to the criteria. I did not have
enough information to be sure that they were discrimin
atory, and I felt that I needed more information. At the
same time, I had received a copy of a letter to Mr. George
Brown, who was in the State Legislature, that had been
sent to him by Mr. Frank A. Traylor, who was on the
Lorenzo Traylor—for Plaintiffs—Direct
584a
School Board, and this was a letter responding to a letter
that Mr. Brown sent to Mr. Samuels on the School Board,
requesting information about the school boundary changes.
Q. Handing you what’s been identified as Plaintiffs’ Ex
hibit 338, can you state what that is? 1279] A. Yes, this
is a letter addressed to Mr. George Brown, Member, House
of Representatives, State of Colorado, and it is signed by
Mr. Frank A. Traylor, Vice-President, Board of Educa
tion. This is the letter—
[280] Q. Before you go on, can you give us the date of
the letter? A. The date of the letter is January 16, 1956.
Q. And from whom did you receive it? A. Mr. Brown
sent me a copy on or about the 17th, 1956.
Q. Is this that copy? A. Yes.
Q. Where has that been kept since? A. I have kept that
copy in my files.
Mr. Barnes: I ’d like to offer Plaintiffs’ Exhibit
338 into evidence.
The Witness: You will note that that letter also re
peats the criteria—
Mr. Barnes: If you will wait a moment, Mr. Tray
lor, for counsel to decide whether to object.
Mr. Creighton: The defendants have no objection.
The Court: 338 is received unless the intervenors
object.
Mr. Brega: No objection.
The Witness: You will note that this letter re
peats—
Mr. Brega: I ’ll object to the witness stating a re
sponse until there has been a question asked.
The Court: Sustained.
Lorenzo Traylor—for Plaintiffs—Direct
585a
Lorenzo Traylor—for Plaintiffs—Direct
By Mr. Barnes:
Q. Mr. Taylor, does that letter contain the criteria con
cerning which you conducted your £281] investigation? A.
Yes, the letter indicates that the changes were being- made
because of the growth of schools in population, overcrowd
ing in some schools, availability of rooms in other schools,
distances to schools, and the opening of a new junior high
school. And, it closes with a quote which says, “Made with
out thought of segregation.”
Q. What did you do in the course of your investigation
of the application of those criteria? A. Well, I first de
cided that I needed to check the criteria and to get informa
tion that would relate to this criteria. So I went into the
community with an automobile and I measured the distances
between the schools involved. I discovered that the dis
tances between Cole and Smiley was approximately 41
blocks or about 3.2 miles. And the distance between Cole
and Morey was about 19 blocks, and about 2.3 miles. And
also I measured the distances between the other schools
involved, that is, the schools in the predominantly Negro
area, and also took a look at the distances from the school
boundary—the Cole school boundary to the beginning of
the new boundaries. And also a look at the old boundary to
see how far they had moved the other boundaries. I was
also concerned about the halfway point between Smiley and
Cole, the halfway point between East and Manual, and the
same thing between Morey and Cole. I also checked through
the Urban £2823 League files for the population of schools
to find out how many Negro students we had in the schools
outside of the Negro area, and I also checked this by going
to the principals in these schools.
Q. Which schools are you referring? A. The schools
at Smiley, at Cole, and at Morey. I was able to get inf or-
586a
mation on the number of Negroes in Smiley which indicated
that there were 46 Negroes attending Smiley at that time.
I was unable to get accurate information on the number at
Morey but made an estimation that it was a very small num
ber based on the optional area that was available to Morey
between Cole and Morey. I also checked the number of
families—Negro families living east of York Street because
the new boundaries were to begin at York Street. And I
went to three of the realty companies and tried to get some
estimation of the number of Negro families that had moved
across York Street at that time.
Q. Why did you go to the three realty companies! A.
These companies were quite active in attemtping to sell,
to get Caucasians to sell homes in the area on the other
side of York and also with large numbers of listings that
were beginning to develop at that time.
Q. To sell homes to whom? A. Homes to Negroes in
that area. I need to clarify the fact that up until this time
there were very few Negro [283] families on the other side
of York.
Q. Were you able by this procedure to determine how
many Negro families there were between York and Colo
rado Boulevard?
Mr. Bis: Just a moment.
The Witness: It was difficult.
Mr. Bis: All right. Go ahead. I am sorry. He
may answer. He said it was difficult. Move to the
next question.
Mr. Barnes: I don’t think it was finished.
The Witnes: It was difficult, but we estimated
based on information we had—
Lorenzo Traylor—for Plaintiffs—Direct
587a
Mr. Ris: Well now, at this point I am going to
object to any estimate based on such information and
information obtained from the realty companies. It’s
not credible.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Did you make any other investigations? A. Yes, we
took a look at the map. that was being presented by the
School District, and we noted that the map was in the form
of an L, which gave the impression that the Cole District
went as far east as Holly and Smith Road, and that it also
extended as far north as 54th Street. And this looked
somewhat strange, because the people who would have been
living in the Smith Road-Holly area were closer to Smiley,
and we wondered why they were being placed in the Cole
[284] district. And so I drove into that area to find out,
only to learn that there were no human beings in that area
and that the School District in drawing the map had given
the impression that the Stockyards and all of the industrial
area to the north of 43rd Street had been included as part
of the Cole district, to give the—I suppose give the im
pression of a large geographic area.
I also checked the bus routes and learned that there were
buses going down 32nd Street in the direction of the Air
port, and also down 28th Street. There was direct trans
portation coming near Cole from the area out and near
the Airport on the north of 26th.
Q. How far west did those bus routes go, on 28th and
32nd Streets? A. I am not sure, but they went past both
Manual and Cole, and where they terminated, I don’t know.
Q. Did you find any similar bus routes from the area
above 28th Street that went down to East High School?
A. There were buses that could be used, but you would have
Lorenzo Traylor—for Plaintiffs—Direct
588a
to transfer. In other words, children who were attending—
who had lived in the area north of 28th Street all the way
to the Airport conld come down one of these streets and
transfer to York Street and come up 16th Street and be at
East. I also checked the distances from the area which is
north of 28th Street all the way to the Airport and dis
covered that all of [285] the students or all of the families
living in that area north of 28th Street actually lived closer
to Manual than they did to Cole.
Q. Than they did to— A. East. I am sorry. —than
they did to East. And, the type of measurement was the—
any route they would have to walk, the shortest possible
walking route or driving route by automobile or by bus.
Q. Did you conduct any further investigation? A. Yes,
I went to the Board of Education building to see what I
could find out about the criteria in terms of some written
document, and I secured a written document which spelled
out what the boundary changes would be. And I also copied
from a document that was on the board near the maps
the capacity for all of the schools involved, including en
rollment. And it showed the following: Manual, with a
capacity of 1600; enrollment, 1,066. East, with a capacity
of 2462, with enrollment of 2558. Gove, with a capacity of
936; enrollment of 883. Smiley, with a capacity of 1446;
enrollment, 1688. Morey, capacity 1478; enrollment of 1582.
I was told by Mr. Holme that this information was being re
leased to the Denver Post on the 16th of January, and on
the 16th of January a copy of that appeared in the Denver
Post as he had said.
Q. Did you make any further investigation? [286] A.
Well, at this particular point I began to analyze the data,
to make some determination as to whether the criteria that
they had spelled out, if they were really utilizing this cri
Lorenzo Traylor—for Plaintiffs—Direct
589a
teria. It seemed to me that at that particular point we were
not in a position to say to the School Board or to the School
Administration that, “You cannot make boundary changes.”
We agreed, at least I felt, that they had every right to do
this. But, it semed to me that if they were going to make
these and had good criteria, they should be followed. We
at that point scheduled a meeting at the Glenarm YMCA.
Q. What was the approximate—the date of that meeting?
A. That meeting was scheduled, I believe, for the 17th of
January.
Q. 1956? A. 1956, yes.
Q. And— A. And we invited to that meeting persons
from the School Administration and by telephone we called
Dr. Oberholtzer and Mr. Holme and invited them to attend,
indicating that we felt that the community had a right to
know what the criteria was and to raise questions about the
changes being proposed.
Q. Did you extend any other invitations? A. Yes, invi
tations went to members of the School Board, also, and
particularly to Mr. Traylor who had up to [2873 that point,
had shown, I think, the most interest, based on having met
with some of the people who had been involved.
Q. Did you personally invite a Mr. Ketehem? A. Yes,
Mr. Ketehem, who was in the Personnel Department, was
also invited by me in person. I telephoned him and invited
him to come to the meeting.
Q. And Mr. Bennett? A. No, Mr. Bennett was, I believe,
invited to a second meeting that we had later.
Q. When this meeting was held—
Was this meeting held? A. Yes. The meeting was held
on the 17th of January at the YMCA.
Q. And were representatives from the community there?
A. Yes, approximately 125 people from the community
attended.
Lorenzo Traylor-—for Plaintiffs—Direct
590a
Q. And who was there from the School District? A, No
one attended from the School District.
Q. What else occurred at that meeting? A. At that
meeting I made a presentation indicating that I had checked
some of the criteria and that it seemed that the School
District could be moving the boundaries only as far as the
movement of Negro population at that time. Because the
actions they had taken were not consistent with carrying
out the criteria. Many of the people there raised [288]
questions about it, and also they signed a petition—many of
the people there signed a petition requesting that the School
Board reconsider this and also hold more meetings.
Q. What was done with this petition? A. This petition
was delivered by Mr. Lajean Clark, who was the chairman
of our committee, to the Board president and was discussed,
I believe, on the following day at the School Board meeting
on the 18th.
Q. Were you present at the School Board meeting on the
18th? A. Yes.
Q. And you heard these discussions? A. Yes.
Q. What, if any, action did the School Board take that
night on the proposed boundary changes ? A. They agreed
to postpone any action, and some of them—at least two or
three, as I recall, said they felt perhaps more information
was needed and that further discussion should be had on
these.
Q. Did they postpone all action? A. As far as I know,
they did. I don’t recollect whether they took action at that
meeting on the Gove-Hill part of this. It seems to me that
occurred later on.
Q. What occurred subsequent to that January 18th meet
ing? [289] A. Another community meeting was planned,
and the fact that we had anticipated a larger crowd at this
Lorenzo Traylor—for Plaintiffs—Direct
591a
second meeting, it was scheduled for Manual High School
in the cafeteria. And again we invited Dr. Oberholtzer and
people from the School District to attend. And we particu
larly asked Mr. Holme to come out with his maps again to
tell us why the boundary changes were as being presented.
Q. And approximately how many people were at that
meeting! A. At that meeting it seems to me that there
were about 150 citizens present. We had—Mr. Holme was
there from the School District. Mr. Hindeman, Mr. Ket-
chem, Mr. Bennett. And fifteen school principals who had—
who were principals of schools in the area, and Mr. Frank
Traylor, the vice-president of the Board of Education, and
150 people, as I mentioned, or more.
Q. Did you present your findings from your investiga
tion at that meeting! A. Yes, but the order of the meeting
was such that Mr. Holme made his presentation first and
he made the presentation utilizing the maps, telling why
they had made the changes, again, discussing such things
as distances and transportation, and indicating that this
was the only thing that he had in mind, but also, he investi
gated the fact that only 150 students would be involved and
that he couldn’t understand why the [290] community was
so upset about that; that it wouldn’t affect that number
of students. He made a thorough presentation and then
responded to questions from the audience.
After this part of the meeting, I then presented a rebuttal
to what he had said and raised questions about many of the
points he had made.
[291] Q. Was this rebuttal based on the investigation
that you had conducted? A. Yes, I pointed out that by
this time the analysis that I had made had convinced me
that the proposed changes were discriminatory and I based
it on the following: I said that the schools that were over
Lorenzo Traylor—for Plaintiffs—Direct
592a
crowded were not being relieved of their overcrowdedness
and the schools with empty seats would still have empty
seats. For example, Smiley had an overcapacity of 242
students and Cole was under capacity by 371 students,
and, yes, the optional area line had been extended only
four blocks, four blocks away from Cole, and this corre
sponded more or less with movement of the Negro popu
lation.
Q. That is, that the area which would then be manda
tory to Cole had only been extended— A. Four blocks,
right, and that by extending this four blocks they picked
up thirty-six of the Negro students who attended Smiley,
leaving only ten Negro students in Smiley, and I raised
the question as to why the old optional area between these
two schools was ever placed five blocks from one school
and eighteen blocks from the other school, because the
optional area from Cole over to Smiley was eighteen blocks,
and wondered why they had ever permitted students liv
ing in this optional area to go to Smiley when Cole was
underutilized.
[292] Q. How far away from Cole might a student have
been who attended Smiley? A. A person could have trav
eled as much as thirty blocks to Smiley.
Q. And lived how far from Cole? A. Eight or nine
blocks.
Q. All right. A. I also pointed out that the school ad
ministration had not applied their criteria in this action
because they had not relieved overcrowding at Smiley and
they left a lot of empty seats at Cole, and I said in a sense
this movement was increasing segregation at Smiley and
also increasing segregation at Cole. I also pointed out
that Morey was under capacity by 196 students and that
what they were doing, they were creating more empty
Lorenzo Traylor—for Plaintiffs—Direct
593a
seats at Morey in order to fill empty seats at Cole, and
raised the question as to why they could not take the three
high schools together and create empty seats in all.
Q. Junior high schools? A. The three junior high
schools in question, and by doing this they would have
empty seats in all three junior high schools and have inte
gration in all three. I pointed out that the transportation
to Cole from the area—from the optional area as such—
Q. That is the area between York and Cole? [293] A.
Yes, that the transportation from this area was more con
venient to Cole than to Smiley, especially for those young
people who live north of 29th and 30th Street. The same
was true with Manual and East. East was over capacity
by 96 students and Manual had 534 empty seats, and the
movement of the line betwen these two schools relieved the
overcrowding at East by less than 50 students and left
almost 450 or more seats empty at Manual.
Q. Did you make any proposals for alternative boundary
lines? A. Yes, I pointed out that all of the students liv
ing north of 29th Street, all the way to the airport, lived
closer to Manual than they did to East, had better trans
portation coming into Manual than to East, and won
dered why they did not place the boundaries between the
two schools in such a way that it would bring in a large
number of white students into Manual to fill the empty
seats there, creating integration in Manual and at the
same time relieving the overcrowdedness in East and cre
ating integration there.
Q. Did you make a similar proposal with regard to Cole
and Smiley? A. Yes, I proposed that they take a look
at the three schools in question and come up with some
kind of lines between the three schools which would create
empty seats in all three, and by doing so they could create
Lorenzo Traylor—for Plaintiffs—Direct
594a
integration in all [294] three, more integration in all three.
I also asked the question as to why they were only moving
150 students at this time when the main reason given for
the changes were that they wanted to fill empty seats and
to relieve the overcrowdedness.
Q. Now, at this meeting on January 31, did the repre
sentatives of the School District agree to make any con
cessions to your point of view? A. No, there was no offer
of any concessions. Mr. Traylor said that they would take
a look at this and the presentations made at this meeting
and the questions raised by the people who had attended
and that we could be assured that the School Board would
give every consideration to this before they made a deci
sion.
Q. After this meeting on January 31, was any portion
of the proposal changed! A. Repeat that, please?
Q. Was any portion of the proposed boundary line re
drawn to your knowledge subsequent to the January 31
meeting? A. Yes, after that meeting the school district
held a series of small group meetings that took place early
in February, at which they discussed the proposed boun
dary changes with small groups. I attended a meeting I
believe on the 8th of February and I noticed at that time
that the maps had been changed, that they had now re
moved the stockyards [295] and the Smith-Holly area
from the maps which reduced the geographic size of the
Cole area from a large “L” type area to a smaller type
area, which was about two-thirds the size of the Smiley
area, and by doing this also for the Manual area, they had
a geographic area for Manual that appeared to be about
half the size of the East area.
Q. Did this change affect the considerations of capacity
that you have discussed earlier? A. No, because actually
Lorenzo Traylor—for Plaintiffs—Direct
595a
the area that they had removed from the maps did not
include any people, so it was just a matter of—it appeared
smaller on the map.
Q. Mr. Traylor, you have testified that you lived in the
2100 block on Vine Street. Are you able to say what other
Negro families lived in that area when you were there?
A. Yes, I had a neighbor was was Mr. Alexander, who I
believe is a judge here now. He was a next-door neighbor.
In the next block above us was Councilman Caldwell, and
it was interesting to note that in drawing the new boun
daries Mr. Caldwell had not been disturbed. In other
words, he remained in the optional Morey area and also
lived in the optional East area, East-Manual area.
Q. In the course of your investigation and the meetings
to which you have testified, did you become familiar with
other people who lived in the optional area between York
and Eace? [296] A. Yes, in fact, I knew many of the
people already, because in my activity with the Urban
League, I had been in contact with them quite frequently
on other matters relating to the League, so they were no
strangers.
Q. Did you come to know the racial composition of that
area? A. Yes, by 1956, the area west of York was pre
dominantly Negro. By this time, I would say, just about
all of the white families with children had moved from,
the area and at this particular point I don’t recall more
than one or two white families who lived to the west of
York.
Q. "What was the composition of the area when you first
arrived? A. "When I arrived in Denver in 1952, the area
east of Eace Street to York was predominantly white and
the Negroes had. moved up to about Eace, with the excep
tion of a few families, and I would say that York and Vine
Lorenzo Traylor—for Plaintiffs—Direct
596a
and the street—Gaylord, I guess it is—between the two
streets, was really where many of the Negres who could
afford to purchase homes were moving.
Q. Do you recall in this series of meetings that you
have described whether Councilman Caldwell was at any
of those meetings? A. Yes, I believe that Councilman
Caldwell was at both the meetings at the YMCA and also
at the—at Manual High [297] School and also in at least
one meeting we had with school officials at the Adminis
tration Building.
Q. And what is his race? A. He is Negro.
Q. Do you recall if at any of these meetings Senator
George Brown was present? A. Yes, I believe that Mr.
Brown was also at these committee meetings and was at
at least one of the meetings at the Board of Education
Building.
Q. When you discussed the capacity utilization of Man
ual High School, upon what figure did you base that ca
pacity? What was the figure that you had for 1956? A.
The figure that I had for 1956, well, were the figures that
I had secured from Mr. Holme, which stated that the ca
pacity was 1600, and that the enrollment was 1066.
Q. Now, had you had any occasion prior to this discus
sion beginning in 1956 to inquire into the capacity of Man
ual High School? A. Yes, in 1952, when I came to Denver,
there were discussions going on in small group meetings
throughout East Denver, meetings that had been encour
aged by the School District, to provide community par
ticipation in the development of Manual. There was dis
cussion then as to what size Manual would be, once it was
completed.
Q. That is the new Manual being constructed? [298] A.
The new Manual, yes.
Lorenzo Traylor—for Plaintiffs—Direct
597a
Q. And was the capacity of the new Manual discussed
at those meetings? A. Yes, and we received information
from the school officials which indicated that the capacity
might range anywhere from 1,000 to 1,250, and one of the
points they made was that they could not be sure about
this because they wanted to be sure that it was an out
standing high school, that it had the kind of space that a
new high school would have, that it would be a modern
high school, and I think at that time they said it was prob
ably the most modern school in the country and they
wanted to be sure to have enough laboratories and other
type facilities to make this really an outstanding high
school.
Q. Were boundaries also discussed at those meetings!
A. Yes, boundaries were discussed, because there were
many of us who were concerned about the fact that the old
Manual as such was predominantly Negro and we felt that
building of the new high school would provide an oppor
tunity for Manual to become integrated because with new
facilities and with a new look we felt that the white fami
lies who we felt had rejected the old Manual could not
resist coming in to the new school that the School Board
was saying was one of the best in the country.
Q. With whom were these discussions held? [299] A.
We met with various school officials, including Mr. Holme,
Mr. Keteham, school principals. Some of these meetings
were held at the old Manual. Some were held at Shotter
AME Church and some at private homes.
Q. Do you recall the approximate dates? A. These meet
ings took place in late 1952 and early 1953.
Q. And was this topic of boundaries for the new Manual
discussed at more than one or several of these meetings?
A. Yes, we discussed boundaries quite frequently and we
Lorenzo Traylor—for Plaintiffs—Direct
598a
were told that the school district had to take the overall
boundary problem in the future and certainly Manual’s
boundaries will be considered when this took place.
Q. What were you told would be the capacity of the
new Manual then? A. As I mentioned, we had figures that
ranged from 1,000 to 1,250.
Q. What were the figures you were given in 1956? A.
In 1956, we were given the figure 1,600, and I recall I said
to Mr. Holme at that time that I was quite surprised to
learn that Manual had a capacity of 1,600, because, remem
bering that we had talked about something around 1,250,
and he indicated that they had looked to the future, they
were concerned about providing for the [300] anticipated
population increase.
Q. Turning your attention back to the 1953 proposed
boundary changes, do you recall whether there was any
publicity on the meetings that you discussed? A. Yes,
beginning in late December and continuing through Feb
ruary, there were several articles in the Denver Post, and
fewer in the Rocky Mountain News, about the proposed
boundary changes.
Q. Handing you what has been identified as Plaintiffs’
Exhibits 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, and 344, can you identify
what those are? A. Yes, 339 is a page from the Denver
Post which includes, under the date of July 11,1956'—which
has an article called, “Schools Face Segregation Suit.”
Q. Before you testify as to what they say, if you can
just identify them, do you know where that newspaper
cilpping came from? A. Yes, this particular paper, which
is dated July 11, was mailed to me by Mr. Clark after I
had left Denver.
Q. All right, would you identify the others? A. 344 is
an article which states that, “Two Civic Groups Probe
School Racial Charge.”
Lorenzo Traylor—for Plaintiffs—Direct
599a
Mr. Creighton: Objection, Your Honor. He is
merely asked to identify, not read it.
The Court: Very well, just state what date it came
[301] out.
The Witness: The date is not on there, Your
Honor.
Q. Is that from your files? A. Yes,
Q. Was it kept in the same place that the others were
kept? A. Yes, I kept all of the news clippings that I took
from newspapers at the time.
Q. All right, what is the next one? A. The next is an
article from the Denver Post dated July 12, 1956.
Q. That’s 342? A. 343.
Q. 343, and the next one? A. The next one is from the
Denver Post, January 18, 1956, 342. The next is 341. It is
from June 21, 1956, Denver Post, and this is a copy of
the new school boundary maps in the Denver Post, Janu
ary 13, 1956.
Q. And that is Exhibit 340? A. 340, yes.
Mr. Barnes: I believe that the authenticity of the
exhibits has been stipulated to by the original de
fendants, and I offer them into evidence.
Mr. Creighton: Your Honor, it is true that we
have [302J have been able to agree that they are
true clippings from newspapers indicated. We ob
ject to the admission of all of them, generally, on
the ground that this is not the proper way to prove
the facts stated in a newspaper, if this is what they
are being offered for, and in particular on some of
these exhibits there are additional writing on them
not in the original clippings. In other words, the
objection is as to their competency.
Lorenzo Traylor—for Plaintiffs—Direct
600a
Mr. Brega: Your Honor, we have the further
objection that they state conclusions of the writer
and editorializing of the facts, if they be facts, and
are the rankest type of hearsay.
Mr. Barnes: These are not offered for the truth
but to show there was newspaper publicity at the
time of these meetings, to show there was publicity
of these boundary changes.
The Court: I will receive them for that circum
stantial purpose, going to whether the board and
the staff were mindful of these considerations at
this time. We are not taking them on any testi
monial basis.
(Plaintiffs’ Exhibits Nos. 339, 340, 341, 342,
343, 344 were received in evidence.)
Q. Mr. Traylor, turning your attention to your activi
ties on behalf of the Urban League, did you have any
thing to do with hiring, the proposed hiring, of Negro
teachers by the £3033 Denver Public Schools? A. Yes,
from the—almost from the time that I arrived in Denver
in March of 1952, I was in touch with the personnel office
for the school district for the purpose of trying to get
them to employ qualified Negro teachers and also to get
them to place Negro teachers already employed, those to
be employed, in schools outside of the Negro area.
Q. Did you meet with any representatives of the school
district to express your interest in this subject? A. Yes,
I met—in the four years that I was in Denver, I met with
Dr. Oberholtzer on several occasions, with Mr. Holms many
times more, and perhaps talked to Mr. Ketcham on an
average of once a week or more.
Lorenzo Traylor—for Plaintiffs—Direct
601a
Q. Would that be Mr. Holme, rather than Mr. Holms?
A. Holme, yes, sir.
Q. H-o-l-m? A. Yes.
Q. When you met with Dr. Oberholtzer, what did you
propose?
Lorenzo Traylor■—for Plaintiffs—Direct
Mr. E is: May we pin this time down, timewise?
He just said he met with him many times.
The Court: Yes, surely.
Q. Did you have specific proposals to make with Dr.
Oberholtzer? A. Yes.
[3043 Mr. E is: Same objection, if the Court
please.
The Court: The objection is that you have not
placed it at any particular time.
Mr. Barnes: I am sorry.
Q. Can you identify when you met with Dr. Oberholtzer?
A. At this time I can’t pinpoint any specific date, but I
met with Dr. Oberholtzer within the first three months
after I arrived in Denver to initiate discussions with him
as to the matters I mentioned.
Q. Where did you meet with him? A. At the school Ad
ministration Building.
Q. Who else was present? A. On the first occasion I
met with Dr. Oberholtzer alone. On another occasion I met
with him with the Urban League Committee.
Q. Who was that? A. That included the people I named
earlier, Mrs. Dickerson, Mr. Charles Cousins, I believe a
Mrs. William Grant, and other people I just can’t recall
now, but we had a committee of about seven or eight people.
602a
Q. And this meeting occurred early in 1952? A. The
committee meeting occured later in 1952. I met with Dr.
Oberholtzer alone—
Q. On the first occasion when yon met alone with him,
did you have specific proposals about hiring of Negro
[3053 teachers? A. Yes, we expressed the concern that
at that time there were less than thirty Negro teachers
employed in the Denver school system and I pointed out
to him that we had in the Urban League files many persons
who appeared to be qualified for teaching in the system and
that we felt that it was fair to give these people an oppor
tunity for employment.
Q. What qualifications did you point out that these peo
ple had? A. These people had college degrees with majors
in elementary or secondary education. Some of them had
master’s degrees. Others had—and some of these, too, had
years of experience in teaching in other parts of the
country.
[306] Q. What was Dr. Oberholtzer’s response? A. His
first response was that Denver was making progress, that
he felt that they had to move slowly; that they had to be
careful about this; that he was not sure that the white
community was ready to accept Negro teachers, and he
also expressed concern that he did not want any school
in the Negro area to become—to have a faculty that was
all Negro. And he was careful to point out that, at that
time, at Whittier they did not permit the number of Negro
teachers to reach more than 50 percent because they wanted
an integrated faculty. I pointed out to him that this did
double harm to the Negro applicants; the fact that they
would not hire Negro outside of the Negro area and then
limit the number they would hire in the Negro area meant
that equal opportunity was not even possible, even in the
second instance.
Lorenzo Traylor—for Plaintiffs—Direct
603a
Q. Now, were these same concerns discussed at the sec
ond meeting which you have described with the Urban
League Committee! A. Yes, many of these were discussed
and we got some of the same answers.
Q. Did you point out your concern in any other way
during the time you were here! A. Yes, I interviewed
more than 150 persons in the four years who were deemed
to have at least the minimum [307] qualifications required
by the school district. And all of these people were referred
to the Personnel Office of the Denver school district.
Q. How were they referred! A. They were referred to
Mr. Ketchum’s office. I had been to see Mr. Ketchum. I
had indicated our interest and our concern, and he had
said he wanted to cooperate, so he asked us to refer any
qualified persons to his office to get applications.
Q. How many had you referred, approximately, in the
time you were here? A. I would say in excess of 150.
Q. In this four-year period? A. Yes.
Q. And approximately were hired? A. Well, when I left
Denver in 1956 the number had increased from less than
30 to, I believe, 59 or 60. So in four years we had doubled
the number as such but the number started at less than
30. And all of these were still—were located in the so-
called Negro areas.
Q. Handing you what’s been identified as Plaintiffs’ Ex
hibit 410!, can you state what that is? A. This is an
Urban League fact letter, March, 1956.
Q. Was that letter prepared in your office? A. Yes,
this fact letter was prepared in the Urban [3083 League
office.
Q. Turning your attention to the article on Page 2 of
that letter, which discusses Negro employment in the
Denver Public Schools, where did the information for that
Lorenzo Traylor—for Plaintiffs—Direct
604a
article come from? A. This information came from the
Urban League files because we kept an up-to-date, day-by
day listing of Negro teachers employed in Denver, In fact,
any time the school district hired a Negro teacher I was
informed by the Personnel Office that they had hired one
person or two persons and where they were being placed.
Then, too, the fact that we had so few—that every time a
Negro was hired in the Denver system, it was news.
Q. Was it a part of your business, your job, to keep
track of these placements? A. Yes, I had the responsi
bility of keeping track of the placements because, as the
educational and vocational counselor I was concerned about
filling opportunities that might become available.
Q. Have you reviewed the list which is contained there
for the accuracy for the identification of the placement
of those teachers? A. Yes, I believe so. This would be
correct.
The Court: What is the exhibit number?
Mr. Barnes: 410, Your Honor.
[309] I offer Exhibit 410.
Mr. Creighton: No objection.
Mr. Brega: Your Honor, I believe the plaintiffs
must be offering the second page of the exhibit. I
believe the remainder of that exhibit has matters
which would not pertain to this proceeding and I
wonder if they want to offer the entire matter or
just—
Mr. Barnes: We are prepared to stand by the
whole document. We are concerned about offering
into evidence particularly that one article to which
he has referred.
Lorenzo Traylor—for Plaintiffs—Direct
605a
Mr. Brega: We don’t object to the second page,
but we don’t believe that the rest is material to this
proceeding.
Mr. Barnes: I think it’s accurate, Tour Honor.
The Court: Pardon !
Mr. Barnes: I think that’s accurate, Your Honor.
The second page is the part that is material to this
case.
The Court: Well, are you going to separate the
face sheet from the second page!
Mr. Barnes : I could do that.
The Court: It will be received then, 410.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 410 was re
ceived in evidence.)
The Court: Mr, Kerr will do it for you; putting
[310] the mark on the second page and return the
first page to you.
I’ll tell you what we can do. We can merely cross
out the first'page as being immaterial and that way
you can identify the document better.
Is that all right!
Mr. Barnes : That’s fine.
Q. Turning your attention to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 410, Mr.
Taylor, how many teachers—Negro teachers are shown
there to be in Cole Junior High School! A. Twelve.
Q. And how many in Smiley Junior High School, if any!
A. Smiley is not listed.
Q. Were there any in Smiley Junior High School! A.
No.
Q. Were there any in East High School! A. No.
Q. How many were there in Whittier Elementary School!
Lorenzo Traylor—for Plaintiffs'—Direct
606a
Mr. Brega: Your Honor, I object to this. This
is merely going through the exhibit and asking—
The exhibit speaks for itself.
The Court: Overruled. We will permit them to
point up the things. I assume it’s not going to take
too long.
[311] Q. You may answer. A. Eleven.
The Court: Where now!
A. At Whittier Elementary School.
Q. Mr. Traylor, do you know whether your wife applied
for a job in the Denver Public Schools? A. Yes, she did.
Q. When was that, if you know? A. In 1952, shortly
after we arrived in Denver. I came in March and she came
after school closed in New York City where she was teach
ing and it was during the summer—early summer of 1952.
Q. What kind of a school was she teaching in in New
York City? A. In a secondary school.
Q. Was she awarded a contract by the Denver Public
Schools after her application, if you know? A. No, she
was told that—
Mr. Brega: Object, if the Court please, unless we
establish that this witness was present, I believe it
would be hearsay because it would have to be what
she told him.
The Court: True, and I don’t see that one instance
of this sort has very much probative value, Mr.
Barnes.
[312] Mr. Barnes: All right.
Lorenzo Traylor—for Plaintiffs—Direct
607a
Q. I have one question to fill in a gap that I may have
left out, Mr. Traylor. Turning your attention back to the
1956 proposed boundary change, you indicated that you
thought that 36 of the Negro students in Smiley Junior
High School would be taken out of that high school by the
proposed change. Is that a correct statement of what you
testified! A. Using the number present at that time and
applying the boundary changes going into effect, we pointed
out that the 36 who lived on this side would be eliminated.
Q. Lived on what side! A. On this side of York; on the
west side of York. I do believe we were told by the school
district that those students already in Smiley would not be
affected but we pointed out that those same families could
no longer send children into Smiley, so the future result
would be the same.
Q. When did you leave Denver again! A. I left Denver
in May of 1956, I believe, and came back for a short visit
and then left.
Q. Had the boundary changes been accomplished by the
time you left! A. No, they had not, as I recall. They had
made decisions which affected Gove and Hill but no deci
sion had [313] been made, as I recall, on the other schools.
Mr. Barnes: No further questions.
Cross-Examination by Mr. Creighton:
Q. Mr. Traylor, you have mentioned frequent conversa
tions with Mr. Holme. Is that Mr. Peter Holme! A. Yes.
Q. Do you know whether he is now alive! A. I believe
he’s deceased.
Q. And also conversations with the then board member,
Mr. Traylor. Do you know whether he is now alive! A.
I do not, no.
Lorenzo Traylor—for Plaintiffs-—Cross
608a
Q. Mr. Traylor, in your testimony under direct examina
tion, you were referring to some notes, were yon not! A.
Yes, sir.
Q. When did you make those notes? A. These notes
were prepared recently from other notes I had in my file.
Q. What file is this? A. It’s a file that I kept which I
called school boundary material that I began collecting in
1955,1 suppose in the Urban League. It was a personal file
which included many of the exhibits yon have here.
Q. And did you bring that file with you? [314] A. I
have that folder, yes.
Q. As well as your notes prepared from your personal
file? A. Yes, but not all of them.
Q. Not all of your basic file? A. No, because some of the
material I presented here came from the Urban League file.
These were changes that I had kept in a personal file.
Q. Now, what was your initial duty with the Urban
League when you came in 1952 ? A. I was educational and
vocational guidance counselor and industrial relations sec
retary with the Urban League. I was responsible for trying
to develop equal employment opportunity for Negroes in
Denver through the Denver Urban League program and
also had the responsibility for interviewing people inter
ested in jobs in which we were trying to fill.
Q. Did your responsibilities and efforts extend beyond
the public schools so far as employment was concerned?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. The City and County of Denver? A. The City and
County of Denver, yes, private enterprise.
Q. Tramway? [315] A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you making efforts in all of these areas to get
the employers, as the case may have been, to employ more
Negroes? A. Yes.
Lorenzo Traylor—for Plaintiffs'—Gross
609a
Q. What kind of success were you having- in the area
with the City and County of Denver during that period?
A. I would say that we were having minimal success; not
as much as we thought we should achieve. I think the over
all atmosphere here was one of discrimination against
minority group people and one of the things we said quite
frequently to the City and County of Denver and to the
Board of Education was that you should provide leader
ship ; that, as a public employer, if you provide the leader
ship, that will help the private citizen come along.
Q. Are you suggesting that the public employers were
more responsive than private enterprise! A. I would say
on the whole, yes, with the exception of the school district.
Q. And what about the school district! A. The school
district did not move rapidly. In fact, we received what
I felt was a rather reluctant desire to move forward. As
indicated by the fact that in 1954, after the Supreme Court
decision, I had a meeting with the school board officials and
pointed out to them that £3163 now is the time for Denver
to integrate its schools, because leg*ally—
Q. Well, now— A. Let me finish, please. I felt that
legally that Denver had a responsibility, as the schools in
the South did, and that was discussed with them.
Q. Were you talking about employment? A. Employ
ment, integration, school boundaries, the whole thing, be
cause it all ties together.
Q. So you pointed that out in 1954 following the Supreme
Court decision? A. That’s quite true.
Q. Do you regard the increase from 30 to 60 in the years
you were here in the employment of Negro teachers accord
ing to your testimony minimal in terms of proportion?
A. I would call it somewhat less than minimal for the fact
that during that period we had a tremendous increase in
Lorenzo Traylor—for Plaintiffs—Cross
610a
terms of numbers of qualified people coming into Denver
and it was significant, the fact that many people coming
into Denver were what I considered to be middle-class
people, who came here with an educational background,
who came here with a desire to be a part of this community.
And I referred to the Denver Public Schools in the four
years I was here more than 150 people, and only, I would
say, less than 40 were accepted or even given an opportun
ity, [317] and that does not include many of the people
who did not through us, but came directly to the school
board for application.
Q. And you were in touch with Mr. Ketcham, I believe,
weekly during this period? A. Yes, any time we had a
person who had just finished college who was out here for
the summer, I would pick up the telephone and call Mr.
Ketchem and say, “I ’ve got a good person here in the office.
I’ll be sending him over.”
Q. Did you follow up to determine how many of the
people you referred actually completed applications? A.
Yes, in fact one of the things we did—we said to the people,
“When you go to the school district, report back to us and
let us know how they treated you. Let us know if you got
an application blank. Tell us who talked with you. Let
us know how you were received.” Because we had gotten
some complaints that when they did not get the right person
or that they were shunted aside and given some sort of a
short answer.
Q. Of course, part of your job was to put them in touch
with the right person, wasn’t it? A. That’s right, yes.
Q. Did you get reports back as to any failures to [318J
hire of those who applied? A. Yes, I would say that a
large majority of the people who went there would call in
and say—
Lorenzo Traylor—for Plaintiff&—Cross
611a
Mr. Brega: Just a minute. I object to the response
of what they said.
The Court: Do you object to it, too?
Mr. Creighton: No, that’s my question.
The Court: Overruled.
The Witness: Would you state your question
again, please?
Q. In your follow-up procedure did you get reports back
from the people you had sent over as to whether or not they
were hired? A. Yes, they would call in and say they had
received an application blank or they had been greeted
and they were told that there were no openings and they
would be contacted when they did have openings, and that
kind of thing. On a few cases, they had had a chance to
have a more in depth discussion at which time their back
ground may have been gone into and I would suppose that
some of the people who were eventually employed were the
persons that came out of the files that the school district
developed from the people we sent there.
Q. Now, were you sending people over at all times of the
year? [319] A. I would say, without question, because we
had applicants coming into the office right around the clock.
I would say—we had probably a larger number going over
in the late spring, early summer.
Q. But you were getting reports back that one reason
people you had referred were not hired at least at that time
was that there were no openings, is that correct? A. That
is correct. But we questioned that for the simple reason
that we also knew at that time that the school district,
especially during the early part of the year, they were re
cruiting in Texas, Oklahoma and Arkansas and other points
of the South because we had been informed that they were
Lorenzo Traylor—for Plaintiffs-—Cross
612a
leaving on recruitment trips and one of the questions I
raised over and over with Mr. Ketcham was the fact that
we had qualified people here in Denver. “Why not give them
a chance?”
And I often got the response that “We don’t have any
openings for Negro teachers because we’re not ready” in a
sense “to move them out of the Negro area.”
Q. Is that what Mr. Ketcham said? A. That’s right.
Q. Do you know whether Mr. Ketcham is alive? A. Not
that I know.
[3203 Q. Mr. Traylor, I don’t think you gave us the
date at least at the time you described the meeting at ■which
about 150 people appeared. It was in the Manual High
building, and you remember— A. That was January 31,
1956..
Q. All right, Mr. Traylor, you described the optional
area as an old optional area. Do you personally know how
long the Smiley-Cole optional area had been in existence
in the form it was in when you came here? A. No, I
don’t knowr the exact time it was in existence when I came,
but I do know that at my first look at it, it raised ques
tions in my mind, and that is I could not understand how
the School District could permit students who live within
four or five blocks of a school with empty seats to go
thirty-some-odd blocks to another school, and, of course,
right away it brought to my mind that this could have
been racial, and after making my check and after the
1956 incident I had no question in my mind that it was
discriminatory.
Q. In forming that conclusion of yours, did you check
for information regarding other optional areas in other
parts of the city? A. Yes.
Q. Were you aware that there were other optional areas
Lorenzo Traylor—for Plaintiffs'—Cross
613a
all over the city? [3213 A. Yes, I was. In fact, we took
a look at the optional area which was between Grove and
Smiley, which was a smaller area with very few youngsters
in it, and one thing we said to Mr. Holme—
Q. Where was that, please? A. North of City Park
here someplace. I am little hazy now, but it is to the west
of City Park. I am sorry, south of City Park and to the
east portion of that.
Q. And this was in the period of your investigation in
1955-56? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And did you find optional areas in the south part
of Denver! A. Yes, we found optional areas between—
Q. West part of Denver? A. I did not look at the
area on the other side of the river, other side of—what
is called—the other side.
Q. West of the Platte River and Cherry Creek? A.
Well, I am not—I don’t recall the names of these streets
now, but I am talking about the area that’s going toward
the mountains. We did not look at that area.
Q. Did you look at the south part of Denver? A. Yes,
if that includes Gove and Hill and parts of Morey.
Q. Well, how about south of Cherry Creek? Did you
E322] check for optional areas in that part of town? A.
Isn’t that a part of either Hill or Gove at that time? I
don’t know what you have here now. I mean, you may
have more junior high schools now, but would that not
have been in that, area at that time?
Q. I am just inquiring whether you checked south of
Cherry Creek for optional areas. Do I understand you did
not? A. Do I understand—
The Court: Well, we mil agree, I think. We mil
take a recess, about twelve minutes.
Lorenzo Traylor—for Plaintiffs•—Cross
614a
(The court recessed from 3:32 o’clock p.m. until
3:46 o’clock p.m.)
The Court: Mr. Creighton.
By Mr. Creighton:
Q. Mr. Traylor, when you were discussing your remarks
at the January 31 meeting with Mr. Holme and others,
you said you proposed, as I recall, as an alternative making
the area north of 29th at the senior high level mandatory1
Manual. Was that the proposal? A. No, I suggested
that in terms of .fair boundaries and in view of the criteria
that they had spelled out, that is distances between schools,
convenience of transportation, desire to integrate a school,
that a fair boundary line would be closer to go down 29th
or 28th Street to the airport, because all of those youngsters
lived closer to Manual, and [3231 I questioned why they
had ever been permitted to go to East.
Q. Now, was that the only specific boundary line you
proposed at that meeting? A. No, we suggested that there
were many things that they could consider. First, they
could just carry out the total action, the criteria that had
been laid out for these boundary proposals.
Q. Was that the only boundary change you proposed?
A. I just said no, because of what I am saying—
Q. Did you propose any specific boundary changes at
any other time ?
Mr. Barnes: May the witnes be permitted to finish
his answer to the prior question?
The Court: Yes, he may answer. ,
Lorenzo Traylor—for Plaintiff'&—Cross
615a
A. (Continuing) The suggestion—
The Court: You interrupted him. He had more to
say, I think.
A. (Continuing) The suggestion they carry out the cri
teria—
The Court: He wants to list the ones. You asked if
there were any others.
Mr. Creighton: Your Honor, I asked only with
respect to a boundary, and he started on other cri
teria. I think he was not responsive and going be
yond the question.
The Court: I can’t tell yet.
[3243 A. (Continued) If they carried out the criteria as
proposed, they would have new boundaries in several
schools, and we suggested that was one thing they might do.
That is, take total action, not take token action to eliminate
a few Negro kids. Fill all the empty seats, create equality in
terms of empty seats in the schools. Let East have some
empty seats also, not all of them being in Manual.
Q. You said that before, but was the 29th Avenue or 28th
Avenue proposal your only specific boundary proposal?
A. No.
Q. Hid you make any other specific boundary proposals
at the January 31 meeting? A. We said that there were
many things that they could do and the results would be
new boundaries that would create an integrated school
district. We didn’t spell out where the lines ought to be.
I merely made reference to the fact that if they were really
concerned about one element of the criteria, which was dis
tances to schools, that if they looked at their map they
Lorenzo Traylor—for Plaintiffs.—Cross
616a
would discover that for years they had permitted white
students who lived to the north of 28th to go into East when
they really lived closer to Manual.
The Court: I think you can well afford to not per
sist further with this question. I think we have the
answer.
Mr. Creighton: I think we have the answer. No
[325] further questions.
Mr. Brega: I only have a couple, Tour Honor.
Further Cross-Examination by Mr. Brega-.
Q. Mr. Traylor, had you had occasion to speak to the
Board prior to 1956 about boundary changes ? A. In 1952,
when I first came here, I mentioned that there were several
meetings we had regarding Manual High School, the new
Manual, and during that period and ’52, early ’53, we had
discussions with school personnel about boundaries for
Manual and the possibility of setting up boundaries at
Manual in connection with other schools so that there would
be integration in whatever school Manual was going to be
next to.
Q. Well, you were aware, then, of the problem that during
this time Denver was sustaining a rapid growth in student
population? A. I was aware of the fact that in one meet
ing we met with Dr. Oberholtzer and raised the question
about building some additional elementary schools in East
Denver and he told us at that time that the population was
going down, that they didn’t anticipate any further growth
in East Denver. We pointed out to him that Denver was
such an attractive place that there was going to be a pos
sibility of additional people coming into Denver to live,
especially [326] Negroes.
Lorenzo Traylor—for Plaintiffs—Cross
617a
Q. Was there a great influx of Negroes from outside of
Colorado in 1956! A. I wouldn’t say a great influx, but
quite a number, yes.
Q. These people settled in the north, northeast part of
the city for the most part! A. Yes, but you can probably
note that the number was probably not as great as may have
seemed because of the empty seats in Manual, the one school
Negroes could go to except a few in the East.
Q. You say it is the only one! A. One high school, ex
cept a few in East.
Q. Isn’t it a fact if they lived in the East attendance
area, they could have gone to East! A. Yes, sir.
Q. And if they lived in the South attendance area, they
could have gone to South! A. Yes, sir.
Q. Same with North! A. Yes, sir.
Q. During the time you were making your studies, were
you aware of the fact that during 1951 to 1955' there were
23 school buildings built in Denver! A. No, sir.
Q. Were you aware of the fact that between ’55 and ’56
[327] that the school population of Denver increased 5,000!
A. I have heard that figure.
Q, These create problems for school capacity and utiliza
tion! Now, during the time that this boundary change was
proposed for East-Manual, at the time of the proposal, East
was running over capacity, wasn’t it! A. That’s true.
Q. And one of the purposes of this area that was to be
ceded was to eliminate, to alleviate some students at East?
A. That’s correct, but we also wanted to know why they
didn’t want to eliminate—
Q. I did not ask you what you wanted to know. A. I am
answering your question, though.
Q. The— A. The question we raised—
Lorenzo Traylor—for Plaintiffs—Cross
618a
The Court: Hold up, just a minute. You will get
an opportunity to comment.
The Witness: I am sorry.
The Court: On redirect. This is cross-examina
tion, so limit your answer to the question asked.
The Witness: Okay.
Q. Now, at the same time that we dealt with this, we were
taking a piece off of Smiley and ceding it to Cole, were we
not, in ’561 [328] A. That’s correct.
Q. And at that time Smiley was over capacity, wasn’t it ?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And Cole was under capacity. Now, at the time that
you submitted your plan to the Board, it was your purpose,
was it not, to make the boundary changes for the sole pur
pose of increasing the Negro representation in the various
schools that you were interested in? A. That’s not true.
Q. Was that one of your main purposes? A. That was
one of the reasons, yes, sir.
Q. Now, when you sent the teachers over to be inter
viewed by the administration, do you have any knowledge
of how many applications were made in the year of 1956
to be teachers in the City and County of Denver School
District? A. No, I don’t.
Q. Do you know how many teachers that were not black
were turned down by the school administration ? A. I have
no way of knowing.
Q. Do you know that figure for 1955? A. No.
Q. ’54? A. No.
Q. ’53? [329] A. No.
Q. Now, during this period of time that you were in
Denver, you were aware, were you not, that the city and the
school district were co-terminus? In other words, they have
Lorenzo Traylor—for Plaintiffs—Cross
the same district. If Denver annexed a piece of property,
it automatically became a part of the school district? A. I
am not sure of that.
Q. Were you aware of the fact during this period of time
in the fifties and sixties that the area population of Denver
doubled and that the school district doubled during that
time? A. I know there has been a tremendous increase in
the population. I don’t know how much.
Q. Did you make any studies in that regard? A. We
took a look at the increase of the population we were con
cerned about.
Q. Just in that area? A. That’s right.
Q. Did you take any in the west side of Denver? A. No.
Q. Annexation in the south? A. No.
Q. Or in the east? A. No.
Q. Now, in your Exhibit 401—do you have that?
[330] The Court: You say the geographic area of
Denver doubled in what period of time?
Mr. Brega: I have the figures, 58 point square
miles and 98.
The Court: In what years ?
Mr. Brega: Prom 19—I will give the Court the
exhibit.
The Court: Oh, you mean—I didn’t mean to inter
rupt what you were doing.
Mr. Brega: I have it here, which will be offered at
a later time.
The Court: All right.
Q. Do you have 401? A. This is 410.
Q. Exhibit 410. Now, Mr. Traylor, considering the list
ing of Negro personnel which is on the right side of 410,
619a
Lorenzo Traylor—for Plaintiffs—Cross
620a
do you know what the racial breakdown of the Whittier
School was in 1956 at that time? A. I would say that it
was over 75 percent—maybe even higher—Whittier.
Q. All right, and what about Manual? A. Manual, as I
recall, was close to 75 to 85 percent.
Q. In 1956? A. Yes.
Q. Would you be surprised to learn that it was 42 [3313
percent? A. I would be.
Q. In 1956? A. I would be.
Q. You would be? A. I would be.
Mr. Brega: Do you have Exhibit 401?
Mr. Ris: I may have it here.
Mr. Brega: Do you have it?
The Court: His surprise is of no probative value,
as I view it.
Q. All right, let me hand you 401, so you can just check
with me. Do you know what the composition as far as the
races were of Cole in 1956? A. My impression was that it
was in the neighborhood of, as I said before, 70 to 80
percent.
Q. All right, 401 shows it was 40 percent. Now, was it
your impression and statement to the School Board that
they should not place Negro teachers in schools that were
predominantly -white? A. No.
Q. So you have no objection to the Negro teachers in 1956
at this time being throughout the school system? A. This
is what we wanted.
Lorenzo Traylor—for Plaintiffs—Cross
Mr. Brega: Your witness.
621a
£3323 Redirect Examination by Mr. Barnes:
Q. Directing your attention, Mr. Traylor, to Exhibit
401, is there any indication on that exhibit of the Hispano
enrollment? A. No, let’s see—I don’t see it.
Q. Is there any indication, therefore, on that exhibit of
the total minority enrollment at those schools? A. I can’t
tell from here, no.
Q. It is not on that exhibit, is it? A. No.
Q. Take your time to look at it, if you need to. A. Well,
this says Negro enrollment.
Q. So there would be no indication on that exhibit
whether or not the schools listed there are predominantly
Anglo, would there? A. No.
# * # # #
£348] * * *
Paul Klite (resumed).
Mr. Greiner : A few questions, Dr. Klite.
Redirect Examination by Mr. Greiner:
Q. In cross-examination by Mr. Ris, a number of fac
tors were listed by counsel which may or may not have
been [349] considered as criteria for boundary changes.
Do you recall that list of items which were considered? A.
Yes.
Q. Or might have been considered? I believe one of the
items which Mr. Ris did not mention was the question of
principal recommendations. Did any of these boundary
changes, do you know, have their genesis in recommenda
tions by principals? A. The Board minutes of 1952—I for
get the exhibit number—concerning the Harrington-Colum
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Redirect
622a
bine-Stedman optional zones indicated that the initiation
for these was the school principals.
Q. Also, in response to Mr. Ris’ cross-examination, Dr.
Klite, I believe you mentioned the fact that between, I
believe it was 1948 and 1956, the racial and ethnic data
developed by you and reflected in certain exhibits came
from what source? A. From the principals’ reports that
were made available to us by the defendants for those years.
These were membership enrollment and racial and ethnic
data collected from each school, each semester, by the prin
cipal.
Q. There were two reports, one for the first and one for
the second semester, is that correct? A. That’s correct.
Q. Now, and the principals also recommended boundary
[3503 changes in certain instances? A. Yes, the instance I
just mentioned.
Q. Now, Dr. Klite, do you know whether or not the princi
pals knew what the racial composition of their schools was?
A. Seemed likely that they did.
Q. Dr. Klite, you will recall testimony regarding the at
tendance area for Dove Junior High School? That was the
arm reaching eastward along East Colfax? A. Yes.
Q. That’s depicted in Exhibit 20? A. Yes.
Q. Does that arm still exist today or have the boundaries
of Gove been changed? A. They have been changed.
Q. Do you recall what schools, for example—what was
the elementary school north of Colfax that was picked up
in that corridor when it existed? Ashley? A. The western
portion was Ashley.
Q. And what junior high school does Ashley feed to, do
you recall? A. Smiley.
Q. You will recall on cross-examination by Mr. Jackson
that an error was discovered in Exhibit 376? A. Yes.
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Redirect
623a
[3511 Q. That pertained to what school, Denison, do you
recall? A. I believe it was Denison.
Q. Do you recall what the total enrollment is at Denison?
A. No, sir, I don’t.
Q. Do you recall whether Denison has been depicted by
the defendants as the twin of Barrett? A. That might be
the case.
Q. And Barrett is a small elementary school? A. Barrett
has a capacity of less than 500.
Q. Now, Doctor, with respect to Exhibit 376, would the
miscalculation or the inclusion of Denison in Exhibit 376
substantially affect its accuracy? A. There are approxi
mately 33,000 Anglo elementary students in Denver. If
Denison had 500 students that were all Anglo, this would
affect the percentage of Anglo indicated in Exhibit 376-R
bjr one and one-half percent.
Q. Do you happen to know what the capacity of Denison
is? A. No, I don’t.
Q. Finally, Doctor, if you would direct your attention
to Exhibit 83, which I believe was in front of you, on the
cross-examination by Mr. Jackson you were asked some
questions concerning the highest test scores and the third
quartile test [352] scores in certain selected schools, do you
recall that? A. Yes, I do.
Q. Doctor, turning first to the report contained in Exhibit
83, at the third grade level, what does that show for the
first quartile at Ashland School grade three? A. It shows
that, for example, in the words study skills test, the first
quartile percentile level is four.
Q. Four percent? A. Four percentile.
Q. What does it show then for the median? A. Twenty-
two.
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Redirect
624a
Q. What does it show for the third quartile? A. Thirty-
eight.
Q. And what about Barrett Elementary School? A. In,
for example, the language test, the Q-l score, the first quar-
tile, is two.
Q. What does the two mean ? A. It means that 25 percent
of the students are below that level.
Q. And what does the second percentile mean? A. It
means that 98 percent of the students nationally are above
that level.
Q. All right, would you turn your attention to Garden
Place in the third grade ? What was the Q-l score at Garden
Place? [353] A. The range on different tests—from lan
guage, the lowest value on the chart, the Q-l is one per
centile.
Q. And what is the Q-3? A. Twenty-two percentile.
Q. Now, with regard to Harrington Elementary School,
Doctor, what is the Q-l score at Harrington in the third
grade? A. Well, for the arithmetic comprehension test, the
Q-l is one percentile.
Q. And what is the Q-3? A. Twenty-eight percentile.
Q. By turning your attention to grade 5 in Exhibit 83
for Bryant-Webster, what’s the Q-l percentile of Bryant-
Webster? A. The lowest score is in Arithmetic Test 5,
where the Q-l is the fifth percentile.
Q. And what is the Q-3 in that test? A. Thirty-one per
centile.
Q. And, finally, Doctor, at grade 5 at Mitchell, what is
the Q-l percentile ? A. Mitchell has one of the lowest aver
age scores. The highest Q-l percentile is in paragraph
meaning. It is 9 percentile.
Q. What’s the Q-3 in that test? A. Thirty-four. The
lowest Q-l is in several subjects [354] tied at the third
percentile, science and arithmetic applications.
Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiff s—Redirect
625a
Q. What are the Q-3’s in those subjects? A. Sixteen and
twenty-one percentile, respectively.
Mr. Greiner: We have no further questions, Your
Honor.
Your Honor, I am sorry, I do have one other ques
tion.
The Court: All right.
Q. You were asked by Mr. Jackson as to the compara
bility of the tests administered every three years in the
triennial testing program. Do you recall those questions?
A. Yes.
Q. Referring to Exhibit 379, you will recall this morning
you read certain excerpts from Exhibit 379? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did any of those excerpts relate to comparisons being
made by the School District itself? A. Yes.
Q. And what were the nature of those comparisons, Doc
tor? A. As I recall, they were comparing the—
Mr. Jackson: I am going to object, if he can’t
recall what it is. If the exhibit contains it, let the
exhibit speak for itself.
[355] The Court: Well, he is trying to recall. Do
you remember?
The Witness: Yes, in the Baker 1956 test sum
mary, for example, is stated that there had not been
a 1953 test to compare with. In another part of that
exhibit under Morey it says that comparing the ’65
data with the ’62 data at Morey is difficult because
of a changing population, and in 1959 I think for
Cole it compared it to ’56 data.
Q. So, in other words, the school district did make com
parisons? A. Yes.
Paul D. Klite■—for Plaintiffs—Redirect
626a
Gerard P. Cavanaugh—for Plaintiffs—Direct
Q. Every three years? A. Yes.
Q. The current test with the prior year’s test? A. Yes.
Q. And the school district did find them comparable evi
dently? A. They made the comparison,
* * *
[3563 Redirect Examination by Mr. Jackson:
Q. Doctor Elite, in yonr perusal through Exhibit 83, just
a moment ago, where you were discussing various per
centile rankings at Ashland, Garden Place, Harrington,
Bryant-Webster and Mitchell, these are purely random
selections? A. No, sir.
Q. What were they? A. They were picked to show the
extremes, just as picking the range of one student at 99
percentile is an extreme.
Q. We found earlier this morning, Dr. Elite, in some
predominantly Anglo schools we had children achieving at
first percentiles? A. That’s correct.
Q. Meaning that 99 percent of the children in the United
States were above those? A. Well we didn’t know if it
was those or him or her.
Q. Well, those achieving in the first and 99th percentile?
A. That’s right, there is a wide range.
& # # * *
[371] * * *
Gerald P. Cavanaugh:, a witness called by and on behalf
of plaintiffs, having first been duly sworn, was examined
and testified as follows:
Direct Examination by Mr. Greiner:
The Court: Give us your name and address,
please.
62,7a
The Witness: Gerald P. Cavanaugh, 10601 West
35th Place, Wheatridge, Colorado.
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. Mr. Cavanaugh, are you presently employed by the
School District No. 1! A. I am.
Q. And what is your current occupation? A. Super
visor, Testing Services.
Q. And how long have you held that position! A. Since
January, 1967.
Q. Can you give us just a brief resume of your duties
and responsibilities as chief of the testing service? A.
The general responsibilities involve the assistance and
selection of tests, ordering of tests, distribution, in-service
education of teachers administering these tests; [372]
arranging for scoring of tests, reporting the results back
to buildings, publishing reports, and assisting faculties
in interpretation of results.
Q. Now, prior to January of 1967, were you also em
ployed by the Denver Public Schools? A. Yes, sir.
Q. In what capacity? A. Immediately preceding Jan
uary, 1967, I was acting principal, Lincoln Elementary
School. Prior to that I was supervising teacher assigned
to the Department of General Curriculum Services.
Q. Can you give us the dates of that tenure, please?
A. May I refer to my notes?
Q. Certainly. A. I was originally hired as a teacher
in the schools in March, 1949. I was assigned as a teacher
on special assignment to the Department of General
Curriculum Services, September, 1960. I was assigned as
a supervising teacher in the same department, August,
1962; acting principal, August, 1966; supervisor, January,
1967.
Gerald P. Cavanaugh—for Plaintiffs—Direct
6'28a
Q. Now, when yon were in the Department of Curriculum
Services, did your work there concern the administration
of tests? A. That was part of my responsibility, yes.
Q. Can you describe in a little more detail, please?
[373] A. My total responsibilities?
Q. Yis-a-vis testing. A.. I worked under the direction
of the Director of Guidance Counsel and Evaluation and
assisted him in a program of administering the testing
program similar to my present occupation.
Q. Now, does your current occupation—do you aid in
the administration of achievement tests in the Denver
Public Schools? A. Not actual administration but assist
ing teachers administering, yes.
Q. Does your office also supervise the ordering of tests
from the national publishers? A. It does.
Q. Is this done under your direction? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, how is it decided each year—and I will draw
your attention first to the annual testing program—how
is it decided which tests will be administered in the annual
testing program? A. We have teacher committees—I
should say just committees—which include teachers from
all grade levels. We also have principals represented on
these committees. I t’s approximately a one-third primary
teachers, one-third intermediate teachers, and one-third
administrators, [374] principals and assistant principals.
We discuss the programs that have preceded and tests
that are to become available on the market and make
recommendations to the instruction committees of the
schools as to the program that we feel should be followed.
The committees on instruction then act on these and then
make recommendations to the superintendent and his staff
as to whether this is the program that should be followed.
Q. In the development of the lists of tests which may be
used in the annual testing program, does that list include
Gerald P. Cavanaugh—for Plaintiffs—Direct
629a
alternate tests? In other words, does an individual school
have any discretion in the tests which will be administered
annually! A. Yes, some tests are optional.
Q. Is there always a list of mandatory tests which must
be given in each school? A. Yes.
Q. Now, ordinarily, Mr. Cavanaugh, a child in the
Denver Public Schools going from kindergarten through
the twelfth grade is tested approximately how often for
achievement? A. Under the present program for achieve
ment they are tested each year in the elementary schools;
once minimum in the junior high; once minimum in the
senior high. During survey years, we will possibly involve
[3753 youngsters in two testings in their junior high
experience or senior high experience.
Q. Now, how long has that current program which you
have just described been in effect? A. Two years. This
is the second year. There is one more year to go on this
particular program.
Q. Now, prior to the implementation of that program,
was the normal Denver Public School student tested more
often or less often than you have just described? A. It
has varied from year to year. At one time the history
of testing in Denver—there was considerable testing done
of children twice a year, beginning the year and at the
end of the year.
Q. Is there a variance at a particular grade level each
year in the annual program as to the subjects which are
tested for? A. Some of the subtests vary from battery
to battery, level to level. Yes.
Q. So, in any given year, in comparison to the previous
year the same subjects are not always tested, is that
correct? A. Not always, that’s correct.
[3763 Q. Now, approximately in the last, say, five to
seven years, Mr. Cavanaugh, how many different achieve-
Gerald P. Cavanaugh—for Plaintiffs—Direct
630a
ment tests have been administered in the Denver Public
Schools? A. We have relied primarily on the Stanford
achievement tests, the California achievement tests, and
the Iowa tests of educational development.
Q. Prior to 1950, did the district administer more tests
than the major ones which you have just described? A.
Not to my knowledge, no, sir.
Q. There was not a greater variety of tests employed?
A. I don’t believe so.
Q. Are you familiar with the triennial testing program?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When was that program instituted? A. 1950.
Q. What was the objective of that program, if you
know? A. I believe that the superintendent felt that it
was essential that we sample a large population within
the system, and it was recommended that we check all
youngsters at Grades 3, 6, 9 and 12, and evaluate curric
ulum at these particular levels.
Q. As opposed to the objective which you just [377]
described for the triennial program, what are the objec
tives of the annual program? A. Test results are re
ported back on the annual testing program and are
provided to the individual teachers for numerous reasons:
one, to evaluate curriculum, to evaluate teaching techniques,
to assist in the counseling and guidance of youngsters
and to assist in parent conferences. Basically, this con
stitutes the major—
Q. Are some of those same objectives or purposes em
ployed with respect to the triennial program; for example,
the use of counseling? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what about the use of the materials or the
test results in terms of parent-teacher meetings? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Now, it is my understanding that the annual testing
Gerald P. Cavanaugh—for Plaintiffs—Direct
631a
is done primarily in the fall of each school year ? A. This
was at one time the schedule, in the fall of the year, yes,
sir.
Q. Was that to enable you to make changes in curric
ulum that might be required by the test results for that
same school year! A. This was a part of it, yes, sir.
Q. Is that still the policy of the administration? A. No,
the major testing is done in the spring of [378] the year.
Q. So the curriculum changes are implemented in the
fall? A. That’s right, there is some time in the summer
months to study the results.
Q. Does the Denver Public School system—let me start
first with your office—use the results of the triennial
achievement testing for comparative purposes? Do you
compare the test results in one test year with the prior
year at particular schools? A. Within the office, from
time to time, yes.
Q. What publications does the Office of Testing or the
Denver Public School system publish with respect, first,
to annual test results? Is there any general distribution
of those test results publicly? A. To individual buildings,
the results are returned, but as far as a publication, no,
in the annual program.
Q. Now, you have before you what has been marked
for identification as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 82, entitled, “The
Denver Public Schools Look at Themselves.” Can you
identify that document for us? A. Yes, sir, this is a
publication of my office.
Q. And is that publication based upon the results of
a triennial test? A. It is.
[379] Q. For which year? A. 1968.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, I don’t believe that
this exhibit is in evidence at this point. We would
offer it on behalf of the plaintiffs.
Gerald P. Cavanaugh—for Plaintiffs—Direct
632a
Mr. Jackson: No objection.
The Court: It will be received.
Mr. Brega: No objection.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 82 was received
in evidence.)
Q. What year does that Exhibit 82 pertain to! A. 1968.
Q. I believe you said the triennial program began in
1950! A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you involved in testing in 1950 when the pro
gram was instituted! A. As a classroom teacher, yes.
Q. Did you participate in any of the decisions that led
up to the decision to begin the triennial testing program!
A. No, sir.
Q. So you were not involved with the Department of
Testing at that time! A. No, sir.
[3803 Q. Now, since 1950, for each of the triennial tests,
has a publication similar to Exhibit 82 been published
by the school district! A. It has.
Q. Now, would you refer, please, to Exhibit 82. As I
understand it—let me ask you first, does that exhibit give
any individual school data on achievement test results!
A. No, sir.
Q. What is depicted in Exhibit 82! A. Citywide results.
To elaborate a bit, the Grade 3 chart, for example, shows
the total picture and a bar graph of the test results of
7,358 youngsters taking the word-meaning test, for ex
ample. The same thing is true, numbers varying from
subtest to subtest, Grades 3, 5; farther back in the book
we get into Grade 11.
Q. Now, I believe you said that that exhibit is prepared
in your office! A. It is.
Q. Can you give us an idea of how many copies of Ex-
Gerald P. Cavanaugh—for Plaintiff s—Direct
633a
Mbit 82, for example, were printed! A. I don’t know
tbe exact number. I can give you an approximation.
Q. All right. A. Ten thousand.
[381] Q. Now, what is done with the triennial test re
ports such as 82? For example, is a copy of it distributed
to the principal at each school? A. It is.
Q. What about to each of the teachers in each school?
A. Yes.
Q. So, there is a copy made available to each teacher?
A. Yes.
Q. What about the distribution to, for example, parent-
teacher organizations? A. It is not a normal course of
action. They do request them, however, and they are sent.
Q. We have what? Around 4,000 teachers in the Denver
Public Schools? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And about 116 principals? A. Yes.
Q. What generally happens to the other 5,000 copies of
these reports? A. They are sent to other school systems
throughout the nation on an exchange basis. They exchange
similar publications with us.
Q. Now, I believe you said that the annual testing pro
gram does not produce an exhibit such as Exhibit 82,
[382] is that right? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, does the the administration, Mr. Cavanaugh,
have any policy with respect to requiring in each school
a meeting such as a parent-teachers meeting, at which
the results of the triennial program are reported to the
parents at a particular school? A. I know of no such
policy.
Q. Is it a practice? A. This is my understanding.
Q. Do you know? A. No, sir.
Q. Have you ever participated in such a program? A.
I have.
Q. But you don’t have any idea of how general such
Gerald P. Cavanaugh—for Plaintiffs—Direct
634a
programs are throughout the district? A. Not an. accurate
one, no, sir.
Q. Now, in the triennial testing program, Mr. Cav
anaugh, over the succession of the three-year periods are
the same children receiving these triennial tests? A. No,
sir.
Q. Why not? A. Because of the use of the Grades 3,
5, 9 and 11 on a three-year basis will not pick up these
individual kids for retesting over and over.
[383] Q. So, in each third year it is a different group
of children being tested? A. For the most part, yes.
Q. Is it possible, Mr. Cavanaugh, in the annual testing
program for a teacher to request that a test he adminis
tered that is on the list of approved tests for the annual
testing program? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What procedure is followed in that regard? A. The
request is made directly to my office.
Q. Is there any deviation from the standard tests ap
plied in the triennial program? A. No, sir.
Q. Those are completely standardized? A. Yes, sir.
Q. There is no discretion at the individual school level?
A. No, sir.
Q. You were a principal at Lincoln School during what
period of time? A. January, 1967, until August of ’67.
Q. During that period of time, did you receive the
results of a triennial test? A. ’67, no, sir.
Q. You did receive the results of an annual test?
[384] A. Yes, sir.
Q. As a principal in that particular school, Mr.
Cavanaugh, did you use the results of the annual testing-
in any kind of a group parent-teachers meeting? A. No,
sir.
Q. Has it ever been your practice while employed in
the Denver Public Schools to use the annual test results
for such group meetings? A. No, sir.
Gerald P. Cavanaugh—for Plaintiffs—Direct
635a
Q. What about the triennial test results? A. Yes, sir.
Q. When was the first such occasion, do you recall?
A. I don’t recall.
Q. Would it have been back in the early 1950s, for
example? A. I would have said in the ’60s.
Q. As a result of your receipt of the results of the
annual testing program at Lincoln School, did you au
thorize any changes in the curriculum at that school?
A. I did not.
Q. What was the racial composition of Lincoln when
you were there? A. Primarily Anglo.
Q. What factors did you consider in reviewing those
annual test results which led to your decision not to
[385] change the curriculum? A. Basically, it was my
feeling as a principal that the staff was doing a profes
sional job of instruction and were utilizing materials
appropriate to the subject and the results were basically
satisfying, in my own eyes.
Q. Now, you were a teacher in the Denver Public School
system during what period of time? A. 1949, when I was
first hired, until 1960.
[386] Q. Now, during that period of approximately
eleven years, Mr. Cavanaugh, during that time period, did
you as a teacher receive results of the triennial testing pro
gram in your school? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what use did you make of those test results as a
teacher? A. We reviewed, as a faculty, the results that
were sent back to us. We drew comparisons of our achieve
ment with those schools of the citywide picture.
Q. In other words, you would refer to an exhibit such as
82? A. Yes, sir. I did some of the self-evaluation as to
the type of job I felt I was doing as a teacher.
Q. What were your bases for that? The test results of
your children? A. This is right. And, these results in this
Gerald P. Cavanaugh—for Plaintiffs—Direct
636a
particular school were presented to the community and in
a parent-teachers association meeting while I was teacher,
Q. At what school was that? A. Smedley Elementary
School, 42nd and Shoshone.
Q. Were you at Smedley during that entire period? A.
I was.
Q. In evaluating your performance as a teacher, Mr.
Cavanaugh, did you take into consideration the level [387]
of expectancy which had been established for your par
ticular class? A. This was one of the criteria, yes.
Q. How was that level established, do you know? A. At
that particular time, if I recall correctly, it was a combina
tion of the I.Q. of the group and the time of the year that
the test was administered.
Q. Now, during that eleven-year period, according to my
arithmetic you would have received the results of three tri
ennial tests ? A. This is four, I believe.
Q. One in 1950? A. 1950, 1953, 1956, and, although I
was assigned to another job, I am sure I looked back at my
own experience in 1960.
Q. Now, do you recall whether in each of those four years
the results of the annual or the triennial testing program
were reported at a parents—a group parents’ meeting such
as you have described? A. Yes, sir.
Q. In each instance? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was the question of the level of expectancy explained
to the parents at these group meetings? A. Yes, sir.
[388] Q. Was it explained how that expectancy level
was determined? A. I don’t recall.
Q. Do you recall whether or not the parents of that meet
ing were told that expectancy levels might vary between
schools? A. Yes.
Q. What were they told in that regard? A. Just the ef
fect that the general ability of the group being tested was
used to set the expectancy. This is why our expectancy of
Gerald P. Cavanaugh—for Plaintiffs—Direct
637a
this school may appear different than the citywide expec
tancy.
Q. Now, with respect to your receipt of triennial test
results as a teacher, Mr. Cavanaugh, did you also receive
the triennial test results of any other individual school?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever seek such data for comparative pur
poses? A. No, sir.
Q. You were only concerned then with how your class
achieved in terms of the expectancy which had been set for
it? A. This was one of the criteria, yes.
Q. And the other criteria which you used was the [3893
average citywide achievement level? A. That was another
criteria, yes.
Q. What were the other criteria? A. My own profes
sional judgment as a teacher; what I thought the kids
should be able to do.
Q. Now, during that eleven-year period, then, you re
ceived no other comparative test results with respect to
other individual schools, is that correct? A. No, sir.
Q. Now, when you were a principal at Lincoln, did you
ever receive comparative test results with respect to
achievement in other individual elementary schools in the
district? A. No, sir.
Q. Was there any kind of a citywide composite published
on the basis of the annual testing program? A. No, sir.
Q. So, in evaluating the results of the annual testing
program, what were the criteria which you would, as a
principal use in evaluating the performance of your school?
A. Previous years’ experience with tests and test results.
Q. Were the same tests administered year to year? A.
Basically the same, yes.
[3903 Q. What other factors? A. Again, professional
judgment.
Gerald P. Cavanaugh—for Plaintiffs—Direct
638a
Q. So you had no citywide average to use as a guideline
at that point? A. This is right,
Q. Now, you took on your present position in January
of 1967? A. Yes, sir.
Q, And when was the next triennial test program ad
ministered? A. During the 1967-68 school year, spring of
1968.
Q. Now, as I understand it, Mr. Cavanaugh, every three
years a publication such as Exhibit 82 has been published
with respect to the triennial test results, is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And in each instance those publications give only the
citywide results? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, in the fall of 1968, was a. decision made to pub
lish comparative school data? A. The decision was reached
to publish the test results from each school in alphabetical
order for the grades tested.
Q. Now, prior to that decision, what had been the [391]
policy of the school administration? A. Comparative re
sults were not released to the general public. The indi
vidual school’s results and the citywide results were re
turned to the individual school alone.
Q. Were comparative test results given, for example, to
the Board of Education prior to the fall of 1968? A. No,
sir.
Q. Are you familiar with the reasons underlying that de
cision not to publish comparative data? A. It was the
philosophy of the administration at the time that this would
be detrimental to the esprit de corps.
Q. Did you participate in the decision leading to the pub
lication of comparative test results in the fall of 1968? A.
I played a minor part in it, yes.
Q. What factors were considered in the decision to
change the school administration’s policy? A. The open
Gerald P. Cavanaugh—for Plaintiffs—Direct
639a
records law which, was one of the reasons for giving this
consideration.
Q. Can you explain that, please? A. It was my under
standing that the state legislature passed a law—
Mr. Jackson: I ’m going to object to this £3923
witness’s characterization of the law. If he knows
what factors were considered in arriving at the de
cision, this is fine, but I would object to any editorial
comments, Your Honor.
The Court: Well, he can say, I suppose—if he
knows of his own knowledge that one factor was the
enactment of this law.
What are you objecting to? His description of
what it is?
Mr. Jackson: Yes, Your Honor. Any comments
on the law.
The Court: Well, you’re not going to have him
discuss in detail what the law provides, are you?
Mr. Greiner: No, Your Honor. I’m just interested
in how the law relates to the decision.
The Court: All right.
A. It was my understanding that on passage of this law,
that test results became public information. And in dis
cussing this with the administrative staff the decision was
made to release these figures from all schools.
Q. Now, as I understand it, the release of this information
did not include an individual student’s test result, is that
correct? A. This is right.
[393] Q. What types of results actually were released?
A. The interquartile distribution of scores for each subtest
administered at Grades 3, 5, 9 and 11.
Q. So no individual child’s test score was singled out
and published? A. This is true.
Gerald P. Cavanaugh—for Plaintiffs—Direct
640a
Q. What other factors were considered in making the
administration’s policy with respect to reporting compara
tive data ? A. I don’t know of the other considerations given.
Q. Now, do you recall, Mr. Cavanagh, that in the tri
ennial program administered in 1965 at the fifth grade level,
that there was a standardization employed as to the ex
pected level of achievement? A. A norm adjustment was
used at fifth grade level that year, yes, sir.
Q. As I understand it, the effect of that adjustment was
to standardize expectancy in all the schools at that particu
lar grade level, is that correct? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that was established at what? 5 point— A. 5.7.
Q. 5.7? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, did you participate in any parent group £394]
meetings wherein the results of the 1965 triennial test pro
gram was the subject of the parent group meeting? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Did you participate at any such group meeting at any
of the schools with the Park Hill area? A. Yes, sir.
Q. In January or February of 1966, can you identify the
schools where you spoke in Park Hill? A. No, sir.
Q. Do you recall any particular meeting? A. Stedman.
Q. And when did that meeting take place? A. I don’t
recall the date.
Q. Would it have been early in 1966? A. This is possible.
Q. About at what point in the school year do you receive
back the graded achievement tests in the triennial program?
A. We will start receiving them in the latter part of May
and this will continue through part of June. This is the
usual time.
Q. Now, the triennial test year was 1965, is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When was that test actually administered? [395] A.
April, I believe it was.
Q. Of 1966? A. No, of 1965.
Gerald P. Cavanaugh—for Plaintiffs—Direct
641a
Q. I see. Now, with respect to the meeting—was it Sted-
man Elementary School! A. This is one I recall, yes, sir.
Q. Was there anyone else present at that meeting from,
the school administration! A. Yes, Gil Kruder. I don’t
remember all the people that were there. The principal of
the school was there; some teachers, and members of the
community.
Q. Had this meeting been called for any particular pur
pose? A. I was told—
Mr. Jackson: Objection to what he was told. If
he knows he can answer.
The Court: Overruled.
A. The purpose of the meeting was to explain test results
to the community.
Q. Was this just a normal parents’ meeting? Was this
a special meeting called for that purpose? Do you know?
A. I don’t know.
Q. About how many parents were there? A. Two-thirds
of the auditorium was filled.
[3963 Q. Did you make a presentation to this parents’
group? A. I did.
Q. What was the nature of that presentation? A. Inter
preting triennial test results; Grades 3 and 5, for Stedman.
A comparison with the citywide picture.
Q. In the course of that presentation did you use any
audiovisual aids? A. I did.
Q. What were they? A. I used an overhead projector
with transparencies and I believe some 35-millimeter slides.
Q. Did those slides include pictures of the test results
at Stedman? A. They did.
Q. Did they also include pictures of the citywide test
results? A. They did.
Q. And were those results then compared? A. They were.
Gerald P. Cavanaugh—for Plaintiffs—Direct
642a
Q. What, if anything, was said, Mr. Cavanagh, with re
spect to the normalization or normalizing of the fifth grade
of that test year? A. At Stedman?
Q. Yes. [3973 A. There were questions from the audience,
the teachers, as to why this was done, what did it mean,
and which I attempted to explain to them.
Q. Did your presentation include an explanation of what
the effect of normalizing had been upon the Stedman
achievement scores ? A. I believe so, yes.
Q. What was that effect, do you recall? A. In comparing
test results with grade level of 5.7, grade points were added
to the actual achievement scores to bring about this com
parison.
Q. Did you get any audience response after you made
that explanation? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was that? A. Again, questions as to why this
was done and was it done citywide, did all schools have this
done.
Q. Was there any difference, Mr. Cavanagh, that you
were aware of in the effect of the normalizing process if
we were to compare, first, a low-achieving school with a
relatively high-achieving school? Can you explain to the
Court how normalizing might affect each of those schools’
achievement levels? A. The low-achieving school would
have grade points added to their actual scores. The high-
achieving school [398] would have grade points subtracted
from their actual scores.
Q. Now, in the course of your duties in the testing office,
Mr. Cavanagh, do you know whether or not your office
conducts any kind of an extensive survey of the testing
results in each of the schools of the district? In other
words, do you try to evaluate the performance of schools?
A. We do not.
Q. Do you make-other than the publications such as
Gerald P. Cavanaugh—for Plaintiffs—-Direct
643a
Exhibit 82, you don’t prepare any comparative analyses?
A. No, sir.
Q. Are yon aware in your office of whether or not in each
of the years in which tests are administered certain schools
constantly achieve at a low level? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How are you aware of that fact? A. All of the test
results come back through my hands.
Q. So they are observed? A. They are observed, yes, sir.
Q. Do you know, Mr. Cavanagh, whether there are certain
schools in the district which, for years, have been in fact
low-achieving schools? A. This is true.
[399] The Court: Before we leave this standard
expectancy approach, is there any other purpose—
What you suggested is that it minimizes the dif
ferences.
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: And it undermines the effectiveness
of the testing, I suppose, as a—■
The Witness: In my estimation, yes, sir.
The Court: Well, what is the justification for it?
The Witness: This was one way recommended by
the publisher for comparing test results from various
schools, high-achieving and low-achieving, with a
single reference point, that being the grade point or
the grade level at the time of the test to 5.7 in this
case, and the tables for doing this norm adjustment
were provided by the publisher.
[400] The Court: I still don’t see why they would
—what it would furnish. I mean, what the value of it
would be. I mean, they weren’t doing it for any
diabolical purpose, I don’t suppose.
The Witness: No, sir.
The Court: Well, then, why didn’t they just want
to present the raw results?
Gerald P. Cavanaugh—for Plaintiffs-—Direct
644a
The Witness: It is my understanding that the
publishers were recommending this type of approach
for the purpose of examining youngsters on a thinner
hand of expectancy. Basically, what this would do
would take the scores of schools at this level and the
scores of schools at this level and pull them into a
narrow perspective rather than having such diver
gence of scores, where you have a very low and a
very high, to compare between the two systems with
different expectancies. This involved adjusting ex
pectancy as opposed to adjusting scores.
The Court: Well, maybe I will see the purpose.
The Witness: This was used for one year, Your
Honor, and that’s it.
Q. It was also used only at one grade level, is that cor
rect! A. This is the only grade level for which this was
available.
[401] Q. I see, and that was the fifth grade? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. In the 1968 testing program, did the publisher also
make a normalizing procedure available? A. It was avail
able, yes, sir.
Q. Was there any discussion in the testing office in the
Denver Public Schools as to whether that would be em
ployed again in the 1968 tests ? A. None whatever.
Q. Had there been any discussion or evaluation of the
employment of the normalizing process in the 1965 tests?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Can you give us some indication of what was dis
cussed? A. Basically, it was found that this particular
way of reporting was not satisfactory in the eyes of the
teachers, the administration, the public, nor the office of
testing services.
Q. So, it was decided to drop it? A. Yes, sir.
Gerald P. Cavanaugh—for Plaintiffs—Direct
64:5a
Q. Would you refer just briefly to Exhibit 379, which are
the annual test reports, triennial test reports, excuse me,
the summary for Wyatt School, Grade 5—
Mr. Jackson: Excuse me, Your Honor, could I
inquire as to which exhibit we are on? I did not catch
[402] the number.
Mr. Greiner: This is 379.
Q. This is the 1965 report for Wyatt School, Grade 5, is
that correct? A. Yes, sir.
The Court: What year is that?
Mr. Greiner: 1965.
Q. Now, could you read what the summary is there for
Wyatt School? A. Yes, sir. “The grade placement chart
shows achievement well above the national norm by pupils
at all levels of ability. Most scores reflect the success with
which the staff is imparting basic academic skills. When
comparison is made with the national norm, the fifth graders
of Wyatt are well prepared to meet the academic challenge
in the sixth grade. The percentile chart reveals a relatively
low percentile XA. However, the median percentile scores
indicate that these pupils are achieving well above expec
tancy in most academic areas. Strengths are noted in social
studies, arithmetic applications and arithmetic concepts.
These results reflect a carefully planned program of in
struction for all levels of ability. The staff and community
may be well pleased with the results.”
Q. What community is referred to there? [403] A. Wyatt
Elementary School.
Q. The community served by that school? A. Yes.
Q. And is that the way the term “community” is used
throughout the triennial test reports? A. Yes, sir.
Gerald P. Cavanaugh—for Plaintiffs—Direct
646 a
Q. So, you equate the term “community” with whoever
happens to live in the school subdistrict attendance area?
A, Yes, sir.
[403] * * *
Cross-Examination by Mr. Jackson-.
Q. Mr. Cavanaugh, directing your attention again to the
1965 test program and the norm adjustment process that
was utilized in Grade 5, am I correct in understanding
that this process was utilized throughout the entire school
district for that particular grade that year? A. Yes, sir.
Q. It was not limited to any particular group of schools?
A. No, sir.
Q. You testified that the expected achievement in Grade
5 was established at 5.7? [404] A. Yes, sir.
Q. And how was that established? A. By the publisher.
Q. And by publisher, who do you mean? A. Harcourt-
Brace-World, Incorporated, New York.
Q. Is this the firm that publishes this test and from
whom you order it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. After you order the test from this publisher, do you
make any changes in it? A. The test itself?
Q. The test itself. A. No, sir.
Q. Now, at the same time did the publisher describe the
process by which these norm adjusters would be used? A.
This information appears in the manual for the adminis
tration of the test, which is sent to all teachers who will
administer the test.
Q. And was the same factor, the same adjustment fac
tor, applied uniformly throughout the school district? A.
To fifth grade, yes.
Q. How was that factor determined? A. By the pub
lisher’s table.
Gerald P. Cavanaugh—for Plaintiffs—Cross
647a
Q. And how did you. know which factors within that
table you would use at a particular school! 14053 A. The
median I.Q. for the group tested determines the factor to
be used. If I might explain the table, what it looks like,
on the left-hand side there is a column of I.Q. ranges, and
across the top of the column are the subtests, and then
next to the I.Q. range, under each column, is the factor
to be used in norm adjusting.
Q. Was there any school in Denver whose norm was
not adjusted? A. No, sir.
Q. And, again, this was because this was to comply with
the instructions and requirements of the test publisher, is
that correct? A. Yes, sir.
Q. At the same time, did the test publisher indicate that
this was an experimental program on their part,? A. No,
sir.
Q. Did they indicate to you the reason for the establish
ment of the norm adjustment process? A. No, sir.
Q. Is it possible to compare the 1965 fifth grade results
with any other test year without making some conversion?
A. No. sir.
Q. And is this because of the adjustment that was em
ployed in reporting the fifth grade test results for that
[406] year? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, the 5,7 grade level which was utilized as the
expected achievement, citywide, that was established, was
it not, by the fact that the test was being given in the fifth
grade in approximately the seventh month of the school
year? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that’s what the 5.7 refers to? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And is this the only consideration given for the
arrival at 5.7 as the expected achievement? A. Yes.
Gerald P. Cavanaugh—for Plaintiffs—Cross
648a
Q. Now, I believe you testified, Mr. Cavanaugh, that not
only the testing office but the school administration, the
principals, teachers, as well as community were all unhappy
with the effects of norm adjustment, is that correct? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. And this was not dropped at the insistence of any
particular school or any particular result that was achieved
thereby, but just because of the general ineffectiveness of
the program? A. Yes.
Q. Do you know whether or not at the same time that
[4073 the Denver Public Schools utilized the norm adjust
ment process for Grade 5 in 1965, any other school systems
in the country utilized it? A. I am not aware of any.
Q. And it is available or was available for 1968 but was
not utilized by your office? A. 'This is correct.
Q. I would like to direct your attention to Exhibit 83,
Mr. Cavanaugh, and in particular to that section of Ex
hibit 83 indicating Grade 5. Are the test results shown
in there in two different fashions? A. They are for Grades
3 and 5, yes.
Q. And they are shown in percentile bands as well as-—
A. Grade equivalence.
Q. —grade equivalence? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Directing your attention to the back of that exhibit,
immediately following the reporting of—the Iowa test, ed
ucational development, are reported in percentile. Imme
diately following that percentile ranking for the Iowa, test,
is other information contained within that exhibit? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Would you tell us briefly what this it? [408] A. We
referred to it as community information, listing median
Gerald P. Cavanaugh—for Plaintiffs—Cross
649a
family income, based on the 1960 census, mean class size,
daily attendance pupil-staff ratio and pupil mobility.
Q. And are those factors related to the schools in the
Denver system that were tested that year! A. Yes, sir.
Q. And how are they related, Mr. Cavanaugh, by alpha
betical listing? A. By rank order.
Q. What do you mean by rank order? A. From high
to low or from low to high, depending on the category
being considered.
Q. They relate to specific factors of the community in
formation section? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, in 1969, in the annual testing program, was a
citywide average furnished to each school?
Mr. Greiner: I am sorry, Your Honor, I did not
catch the year.
Mr. Jackson: ’69.
A. I don’t recall. We sent back listings for each school.
I believe we sent some for the city, but I really can’t say.
Q. I believe you testified that at the time that you
E409] were a teacher you did not receive any citywide
results at the annual testing program, is that correct?
A. This is right, yes, sir.
Q. Is that process still being followed? A. Yes.
Q. What was your main function in examining test re
sults for your students during the time that you were a
teacher? A. Well, again, the main reason for looking at
them was to do some self-evaluation and take a look at
what was being accomplished in teaching fifth and sixth-
grade youngsters. Using these results along with the other
criteria I have mentioned; I attempted to improve the
instruction within my own classroom.
Gerald P. Cavanaugh—for Plaintiffs—Cross
650a
Q. You were more interested in the achievement of your
pupils than in your standing in relation to the community
at large! A. Yes, definitely.
Q. We find throughout the exhibits which have been
introduced relating to testing various levels of expected
achievement for schools, depending’ upon the manner of
reporting, whether on a percentile band or grade equiva
lent band. How are these expected achievements arrived
at? A. Can I give a historical background of this, as to
how it developed?
[410] Beginning with the 1950 survey year, the expec
tancies were arrived at by examining the median I.Q. for
the group at the time that the test was administered, fol
lowing a basic formula, and this continued through the
years. The last reevaluation of the tables was in 1962,
and in 1968 we used the actual scores achieved by pupils
of similar I.Q. groups as the expectancies. Prior to ’68,
a single expectancy was arrived at. An example, a group
of youngsters at fifth grade with a given I.Q., the median
might have an expectancy of 5.3, so a line was drawn across
a bar graph at 5.3. This was the median. One year above
and one year below this established a band of expectancy.
This was the same for all subtests.
In ’68, we went to this national picture, where the ex
pectancies may vary from one subtest to the other, based
on the actual achievement of youngsters across the nation.
Q. Now, you read a moment ago, Mr. Cavanaugh, the
summary of the Wyatt results, Grade 5, in 1965, from
Exhibit 379? A. Yes.
Q. Now, did the results for Grade 3 of Wyatt in 1965
appear in that exhibit as well? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And was there any norm adjustment used in the
[411] third grade in 1965? A. No, sir.
Gerald P. Cavanaugh—for Plaintiff's—Cross
651a
Q. Now, the Grade 3 results at Wyatt in ’65 were re
ported as grade equivalencies, are they not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the test in 1965 had eight subparts? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. And at that time the median achievement of the stu
dents at Wyatt exceeded the expected achievement in six
of those eight subtests, did they not? A. In one, two,
three, four—
Q. Met or exceeded? A. Surpassed in five and met at
one in the median, yes.
Q. The upper band, for example, in Test 5, word study
skills, shows a Q-3 of 5.4, is that correct? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, there is no indication of any achievement above
that level on this graph, is there? A. No, sir.
Q. In terms of marking? A. No, sir.
Q. In fact, 25 percent of the students at Wyatt achieved
even above that level, did they not? A. Yes, sir.
[412] Q. And the same is true throughout the graph,
that 25 percent of the students were achieving at a level
higher than the upper portion of the bar? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And again, there was no norm adjustment used in
the third grade at that time? A. No, sir.
The Court: Who writes those glowing comments
about how good they are?
The Witness: Teachers are brought in during the
summer usually following the survey and are asked
to analyze these, write, and after writing they are
submitted to-—well, at the present time they would
be submitted to me from the 1968 survey.
* * * * *
Gerald P. Cavanaugh—for Plaintiffs—Cross
652a
Gerald P. Cavanaugh—for Plaintiffs—Redirect
[4133 * * *
Redirect Examination by Mr. Greiner:
Q. Mr. Cavanaugh, I thought you told me that the school
district does in fact compare test results from the triennial
program? A. I did.
Q. Are you saying those comparisons are invalid? A.
No, sir.
Q. What did you mean in answer to counsel’s question,
then? [414] A. He asked me—I believe the question en
tailed comparison year to year from the comparisons con
tained—-if different editions of the tests were used, and my
response was that it’s difficult to compare one edition of a
test with another such as M, I believe he said, in 1962 which
was the 1953 edition of the test, with the 1965 or 1968 edi
tions which are 1963 publications.
Q. Well, then, in reporting the results of tests such as
are reflected in Exhibit 379, are not such comparisons in
fact made by the school district? A. Comparisons are
made? Yes.
Q. From one— A. -—year to the next.
Q. One prior three year test to the current one? A.
This is true.
Q. Now, you mentioned the conversion-—that a conver
sion would be necessary, Mr. Cavanaugh, with respect to
the fifth grade achievement level of Wyatt in 1965. Calling
your attention to that fifth grade achievement level as re
ported in Exhibit 379, where is the—is it the mean achieve
ment or the median achievement? A. Median.
Q. All right. Where is the median achievement, for ex
ample, in word meaning? A. In word meaning, it’s at 6.9.
[415] Q. And the expectancy was 5.7, is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
653ai
Q. Now, if we were to convert that 6.9 score, Mr.
Cavanaugh, what would the result be? A. I don’t have
the tables available. I can give you an approximation if
that’s acceptable.
Q. Please do. A. Approximately 5.7—roughly 5.7 would
be my guess.
Q. Now, let’s take the next subtest, paragraph meaning.
The median reported there is 6.4, is that correct? A. Yes.
Q. And if you converted that score, what would the
median be? A. Again, an approximate one, 5.2.
Q. Then, let’s take another subtest. Arithmetic compu
tation. The median there is 6.0 as reported, is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And if you converted it as you have described, where
would it he? A. Somewhere between 5.2 and 5.4 would
be my guess.
Q. Now, you mentioned that the effect of normalizing,
Mr. Cavanaugh, was to in effect lower the reported achieve
ment at higher achieving schools and raise the reported
achievement at lower achieving schools, is that correct?
[416] A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the normalizing process was described to the
school district in advance of the administration of the test,
is that correct? A. I can’t answer that, I don’t know.
Q. When was the decision made to employ normaliza
tion? A. This I don’t know.
Q. Is it fair to say, Mr. Cavanaugh, that those actual
results were in fact predictable in advance? You knew
that’s what the effect would be, didn’t you? A. No, sir.
Q. Why not? A. I don’t believe so.
Q. Why not? A. Because in 1965 the new edition to
the test was used for the first time in the survey.
Q. Well, you knew that there were some schools that
Gerald P. Cavanaugh—for Plaintiffs—Redirect
654a
were achieving at a low level on the 1965—say, on the
1962 test, is that correct! A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is there any thing in the nature of the differences
of the composition of the 1962 test and the 1965 test that
would automatically change a school’s achievement level!
A. There were more subtests involved. Well, basically,
I would say that the 1965 test was a more exacting test.
You [4173 would anticipate lower scores at both ends of
the scale. The high achieving schools as well as the low
achieving schools.
Q. And I believe you have told us, have you not, Mr.
Cavanaugh, that from year to year there are particular
schools that always seem to come out on the low end of the
achievement totem pole, is that correct! A. Yes, sir.
Q. So you could sort of anticipate in advance what
schools those are going to be, can’t you! A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the same is true with respect to the higher
achieving schools! A. Yes, sir.
Q. Isn’t that right! A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, you mentioned with respect to Exhibit 83 that
there were certain factors in the background of that ex
hibit which were listed by rank order, is that correct!
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Does Exhibit 83 have any predecessor! A. No, sir,
not to my knowledge.
Q. That was the first time it was ever done, was it not!
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, you also mentioned the achievement levels at
[4183 Wyatt. Is Wyatt a minority school, by the way!
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was its racial composition in 1965, the year
we are focusing on! A. 1965! I don’t know.
Gerald P. Cavanaugh—for Plaintiffs—Redirect
655a
Q. Can you give us an approximation of what its racial
composition was? A. No, sir.
Q. Well, we have in evidence—there is in evidence,
Mr. Cavanaugh, Exhibit 243. This purports to give the
ethnic distribution at Wyatt in 1965. According to Exhibit
242 it was 12.9 percent Anglo; it was about 45.6 percent
Negro and 2.4 percent Anglo according to Exhibit 242.
The achievement levels at grade 3 for that school, Mr.
Cavanaugh, as reported by you—were they relatively
higher than they were at grade 5? A. With relation to
the expectancy, yes.
Q. Is this a typical situation? A. I would say yes.
Q. In these minority schools? A. Yes.
Q. The children achieve relatively better in the early
grades? A. Yes.
* =» # & #
£419] Recross-Examination by Mr. Jackson:
Q. Mr. Cavanaugh, Mr. Greiner alluded to high achieve
ment schools versus low achievement schools and the pre
dictability of the norm adjustment that would be made on
the 1965 test. The norm adjustments made for each school
were not based on the school’s prior history of achievement,
was it? A. No, sir.
Q. Did that enter into it at all? A. No, sir.
Q. Was it considered at all? A. No, sir.
Q. Was anything but the IQ distribution in the school
at the time the test was given utilized to arrive at the norm
adjustment? A. No, sir.
Q. That was the only consideration given? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the only factor used? A. Yes, sir.
Gerald P. Cavanaugh—for Plaintiffs—Recross
# # # # #
656a
Mary Morton—for Plaintiffs—Direct
[4203 * * *
M ary M orton , a witness called by and on behalf of
plaintiffs, having* first been duly sworn, was examined and
testified as follows:
Direct Examination By Mr. Barnes:
The Court: Please give us your name and address.
The Witness: Mary Morton, 1210 South High.
By Mr. Barnes:
Q. What is your race, Mrs. Morton? A. White, Cau
casian.
Q. What is your occupation? A. Elementary school
principal.
Q. Of what school? A. Of Montclair Elementary.
Q. And of Montclair Annex as well? A. Eight.
Q. For how long have you been principal at those two
[421] schools? A. This is the ninth year.
Q. Can you give us the location of those schools? A.
Montclair is at Eleventh and Newport. The Annex is at
Thirteenth and Quebec.
Q. Do you know the location of the Philips Elementary
School? A. Montview and Monaco, I think.
Q. About the corner of Monaco and Montview Boule
vards? A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell us whether the area is bounded by East
Colfax on the south, Kearney Street on the west, East
Sixteenth Avenue and Batavia Place on the north, and
Oneida Street on the east, if that was ever a part of the
Montclair school district? A. Yes.
Q. During what years was it a part of the Montclair
district? A. Around 1964, I believe, until—1968 was the
last year, I think.
657a
Q. The last school year was 1968-1989? A. Yes.
Q. That’s not this year, but the year preceding this one.
Was it a part of the Montclair school district in the year
preceding this one? [422] A. Yes.
Q. It was one of the areas affected by the preliminary
injunction, was it not? A. Yes.
Q. So that subsequent to that injunction or preceding that
injunction, it was a part of the Montclair district ? A.
From 1964 on, yes.
Q. Do you know what district it was in prior to 1964?
A. In the Philips area.
Q. Do you know what junior high school district that
area has been in since 1984? A. Smiley.
Q. Have you ever talked with the parents of children
living in this area about the junior high school their chil
dren should attend? A. Have I talked with them about it?
Q. Yes. A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall the names of these parents, some of the
ones to whom you talked? A. The Price family, the An
derson family, the Patton family.
Q. Might there have been a McClintock family? A. It’s
possible. I don’t remember the names of all [4231 the
children.
Q. This was during the period between the year 1964 and
the end of the last school year of 1969? A. Yes.
Q. Might there possibly have been other parents to whom
you talked concerning the junior high school their children
should attend? A. Either talked or communicated by
letter.
Q. Do you recall the race of the Prices and the Ander-
sons and the Pattons? A. Yes, the Prices were Caucasian.
The Andersens were Caucasian. And the Pattons were
Negro.
Q. And the McClintocks? A. I can’t remember.
Mary Morton—for Plaintiffs—Direct
658a
Q. Did you ever have occasion to initiate discussions
with parents of these four families or other families living
within this area about the choice between Smiley Junior
High School and the junior high school? (sic.) A. Will
you repeat the question?
Q. Can you give us the location of the Smiley Junior
High School, approximately? A. I believe 26th and Jas
mine. I am not certain.
Q. 26th and Kearney— would be approximately right?
A. It’s in that general area.
[424] Q. And the Hill Junior High School? A. Is it
Third and Clermont? Fourth and Clermont.
Q. At about Fourth and Clermont? A. Yes.
Q. Were the parents and children who lived in this area
that we have been discussing living closer to the Hill Junior
High School than to Smiley or vice versa? A. I never
investigated this.
Q. The area is located north of Colfax Avenue, is it not?
A. Yes.
Q. And Colfax Avenue is approximately at Fifteenth
Street as you go north from First Avenue, is it not? A.
Yes.
Q. And Smiley Junior High School is in the 25- to 2600
block going north? It’s located directly north of this area?
The Court: We can take notice of distances. That
needn’t be proven.
Mr. Barnes: All right, Your Honor.
Q. Do you recall whether Hill was predominantly an
Anglo school during the years 1964 to 1969? A. I would
say yes.
Q. Do you recall the racial composition of Smiley during
these years? [4253 A. I would say—I had no personal
contact with Smiley. I would say Negro probably.
Mary Morton—for Plaintiffs—Direct
659a
Q. Predominantly Negro! A. (Nods affirmatively.)
Q. What was the racial composition of Montclair and the
Montclair Annex for these years? A. Predominantly
Anglo.
Q. To which junior high school did most of the students
in the Montclair and Montclair Annex subdistrict go? A.
To Hill.
Q. Did you ever request from the pupil personnel depart
ment of the authority to permit the children of families
living in the area we have described to attend Hill? A. I
did.
Q. And were these requests granted? A. Yes.
Q. In the absence of the permission granted by these
requests to attend Hill, which school would these children
have attended? A. Smiley.
Q. Did all of the children living in the area attend Hill
and not Smiley pursuant to the permission that you re
quested? A. As far as I know, yes.
Q. In order to request this permission to attend Hill
[426] rather than Smiley, did you require the children to
furnish you with medical excuses? A. No.
Q. Or babysitter excuses? A. No.
Q. Did you discuss with these children the possible rela
tive merits of the attendance at Hill or Smiley? A. No.
Q. Did you discuss with them differences in curriculum?
A. No.
Q. Did you discuss with them the comparative distances
between the two schools? A. No.
Q. Were there documents such as curriculum guides sent
routinely to Hill Junior High School for the children liv
ing in this district? A. Curriculum guides?
Q. The curriculum choices that the children in the sixth
grade would make before they went to high school. A. The
junior high furnished us with cards for the children, to
Mary Morton—for Plaintiffs—Direct
660a
have their parents sign, which indicated the courses offered
and the parents could select with the child and the teach
ers’ counsel which courses he would like the child to have.
Q. And where were these cards forwarded after they left
[4273 Montclair for these children living in this area! A.
To Hill.
Q. Between the period 1964 to 1969, do you know how
many Negro families attending Montclair lived in this area
that we have been describing? A. No.
Q. How many do you recall? A. The Patton family is
the only one I ’m certain of.
Q. That’s the only family whose children you recall at
tending Montclair who were Negro? A. Oh, no, I thought
you were speaking within this small area.
Q. I was. I meant to be. A. That’s the only one I’m
sure of within that area.
Q. Between 1964 and 1969 approximately how many
Anglo students lived in this area who attended Montclair?
A. Are you speaking of all grade levels?
Q. Yes. A. This varied year to year. And this is only
an approximate guess; twelve to twenty, perhaps. I don’t
know.
Q. And these children when they left Montclair would
go where to junior high school? A. To Hill.
Q. And there would be about 12 to 20 each year that
would come out? [4283 A. No.
Q, How many would there be each year? A. The num
bers in the sixth grade, the least there ever were was one,
and the most was three or four.
Mr. Barnes: That’s all I have.
[4293 Cross-Examination by Mr. Ris:
Q. Mrs. Morton, how long have you been associated with
the Denver Public School District No. 1? A. Since 1941.
Mary Morton—for Plaintiffs—Cross
661a
Q. What was your first assignment? A. As a teacher at
24th Street School, which is now called Crofton.
Q. Where is it located? A. 24th and Arapahoe Street.
Q. What did you teach? A. Second grade.
Q. How long did you teach there? A. One year.
Q. What was its predominant racial characteristic? A.
Largely Hispano.
Q. Then where did you go? A. To Whittier School.
Q. What was your assignment? A. Second grade in the
beginning and then First.
Q. How long were you there? A. Until 1949.
Q. WThat was it predominantly? A. Negro.
Q. And then what was your assignment in 1949? £4303
A. I became an elementary coordinator.
Q. For how long did you do that? A. About five years.
Q. Is that on a citywide basis? A. Yes.
Q. That took you then to about 1954? A. Yes.
Q. And what was your next assignment that year? A.
As principal of Wyatt School.
Q. How long were you principal there? A. Two and a
half years.
Q. And what was the predominant racial characteristic
of Wyatt? A. It was Spanish and Negro predominantly.
Q. And after your termination of your assignment as
principal of Wyatt in ’56 what did you do ? A. I was sent
to Steck Elementary.
Q. How long were you there? A. Four years.
Q. And from there you went to Montclair in 1961? A.
Yes.
Q. So you have either taught or been a principal or
some association with the schools of varying ethnic and
racial composition? A. Yes.
£4313 Q. With regard to the so-called niches that plain
tiffs have referred to, I would refer you to Plaintiffs’
Mary Morton—for Plaintiffs•—Cross
662a
Exhibit 71, which purports to be a map of the northeast
section of Denver and showing various areas in yellow,
and with arrows going from those yellow areas. Do you
recognize those as being the results in that area of various
boundary changes made in 1964? A. Yes.
Q. And would you just mark where this particular area
is that we have been discussing this morning? Just put a
“M” on it if you will, please. A. Just over it?
Q. Yes. A. (Witness drawing.)
Q. All right, now, you have put a “M” just to the right
of the arrows. A. What is this? Is this Kearney here?
Q. Yes, Kearney, 209. A. Well, it should not'—it doesn’t
mean just right of the arrow, but—
Q. No, it is the enclosure in which the “M” is placed.
A. Eight, right. This area was changed—
Q. All right, but the enclosure with the “M”—there is
a little “x” ahead of it. I don’t know where that [4321
came from—but that is the area that we are discussing
now? A. Yes.
Mr. Ris: Mr. Kerr, could I have Exhibit 71. I am
sorry, I did this on our copy. Well, we don’t seem
to be able to find the original. With leave of Court,
may we conform the original when we do find it?
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, Exhibit 71 was one of
the exhibits marked for identification at the summer
hearing and not put into evidence, and 71 is not at
this point in evidence.
Mr. Eis: That may be the answer then. We will
have it so marked. Is it agreeable?
Mr. Greiner: I think we are talking about Ex
hibit 80 and 81, actually, Your Honor. Oh, you are
talking about 71?
Mr. Ris: Yes.
Mary Morton—for Plaintiffs—Cross
663a
Mr. Greiner: Oh, yes, 71 is in. I misspoke, Your
Honor. Sorry.
Mr. Ris: Well, we will conform it, if it is agree
able with counsel, when we find the original.
Mr. Greiner: Yes. Counsel, 71 is on one of these
boards right here.
Mr. Ris: All right.
Q. We now have the original, and I will ask you to
[4333 do it on the original, if you will, please. A. (Witness
drawing on exhibit.)
Q. Thank you. Mrs. Morton, the first year then that
you had students from this particular area wms the school
year 1964 and 1965, is that correct? A. I believe so.
Q. At the end of that school year, were you approached
by some pupil or his family about going to Hill rather
than to Smiley? A. The pupils expressed their wish to
me.
Q. Was this initiated by the pupils? A. Yes.
Q. It was not initiated by you? A. No.
Q. And what was the stated reason by these pupils? A.
They wanted to go with their friends.
Q. From the sixth grade at Montclair? A. From the
sixth grade at Montclair.
Q. And how did you consider that as a reason? A. I
considered it a logical and very understandable reason.
Q. All right. And, generally, insofar as the neighborhood
school concept as it had been applied in the past, was
that one of the elements that went into determining where
the pupils would go, that they would so far as possible stay
[434] with their own peer group? A. This varies from
junior high to junior high. It is a geographic chain but—
The Court: He means, generally speaking, one
of the values of the neighborhood school is that it
Mary Morton—for Plaintiffs—Cross
664a
maintains this association of a person with other
friends that were in his neighborhood and so on.
The Witness: I can’t speak for the reasons why.
The Court: Isn’t that what you are asking?
Mr. Ris: Yes, that’s exactly what I was asking.
The Witness: Why they are set this way—but I
would certainly assume that this would be a part
of the reason.
Q. You don’t know what all the elements are that go
into it? A. No.
Q. Now, did you then speak to the parents or communi
cate with the parents one way or the other, or did this
request come through the parents initially? A. The chil
dren—the first year, it came to me through the children.
Q. All right. A. I asked—I don’t recall the exact pro
cedure. This was some time ago.
Q. Yes. [4353 A. I made a contact with the parents
and asked, if this were possible, would they prefer that
the child go with their classmates to Hill or to Smiley.
Upon their decision then I made the contact with the pupil
records department or the pupil personnel.
Q. So, each of the instances, in each of the five years,
was your request then of the pupils and the parents? A.
Yes, at the same time I did request that the boundary of
the junior high be made to coincide with the boundary of
Montclair so that it would not isolate these one to three
or four children.
Q. And you say that in the various years involved from
’64 to ’69 there was never less than one or more than
four or five involved? A. Right.
Q. And was there any distinction made with respect to
the one Negro child? A. None.
Mary Morton—for Plaintiffs—Cross
665a
Q. Did the Negro child also, and her parents, request
that you initiate proceedings to have him or her go to
Hill also? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you do so? A. Yes, sir.
[436] Q. Was that request granted? A. Yes.
Q. As you made these requests to the Administration
Building, was the color or race or ethnic background of
these children disclosed? A. No.
Q. Were these requests in writing? A. Yes.
Q. And no reference to race or ethnic origin at all? A.
No.
Mr. R is: That’s all. Thank you, Mrs. Morton.
Further Cross-Examination by Mr. Brega:
Q. Mrs. Morton, did you have any racial or ethnic moti
vation in requesting these applications to Hill? A. Abso
lutely none.
* * * * *
[4 4 0 ] M a rlen e C h a m b er s , c a lle d a s a w itn e s s b y th e
p la in t i f f s , b e in g f i r s t d u ly sw o rn , o n h e r o a th te s tif ie d
a s fo llo w s :
The Court: Please take the witness chair, if you
will, please, and give us your full name and address
and occupation.
The Witness: My name is Marlene Chambers.
I live at 2905 South High, and I am a housewife.
Direct Examination by Mr. Greiner:
Q. Mrs. Chambers, do you have children currently en
rolled in the Denver Public School System? A. Yes, I do.
I have two children, both girls. One is a sixth grader at
Hallett and one is a fourth grader at Hallett.
Marlene Chambers—for Plaintiffs—Direct
666a
Q. Are those children participating in the Hallett
voluntary open enrollment program? A. Yes, sir, they
are.
Q. You live at 2905 South High? A. That’s right.
Q. Which elementary school district is that located in?
A. The Slavens area.
Q. Are you familiar with the origination of the Hallett
program, Mrs. Chambers? A. Yes, I am. Just before
the Christmas recess in £4413 1968, the school administra
tion sent home notices with some children at some schools,
explaining that the Board had approved on November 21
a new kind of voluntary open enrollment program.
Q. Mrs. Chambers, I am handing you what has been
marked for identification as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 413. Is
that the notice to which you have reference? A. Yes,
it is.
Q. And that was sent out from the schools? A. It was
sent home from University Park School December 17th,
I believe. At Slavens, they weren’t sent home until Jan
uary 2nd.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we would offer Exhibit
413 at this time.
Mr. Creighton: Your Honor, this is a new exhibit
and we haven’t seen it.
The Court: Well, just take your time, just so
you hurry up.
Mr. Creighton: I hope it is a short exhibit.
Your Honor, this exhibit appears to be the same
pages as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 36, previously admitted,
with the addition of a blank copy of Plaintiffs’ Ex
hibit 37-B without any writing on it. I have no
objection.
The Court: Very well.
Marlene Chambers—for Plaintiffs-—Direct
667a
Mr. Brega: No objection.
[442] The Court: It will be received.
(Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 413 was received in
evidence.)
Q. You said that some parents at the University Park
School had received the notice, an example of which is
Exhibit 413? A. That’s right.
Q. You were not then in the University Park district,
is that correct? A. No, sir.
Q. Were you contacted by University Park parents?
A. Yes, during—informally first by a friend, who notified
me of this possibility, but then during the Christmas vaca
tion I was called to a meeting which had been arranged
at the home of Carolyn Edder, and there were several
parents asked to attend this meeting from several south
and southwest school districts.
Q. Did such a meeting take place? A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall approximately when the meeting took
place? A. It was on December 30th, the Monday after
Christmas.
Q. What time of day did the meeting take place? A. It
was in the morning.
Q. Now, do you recall what schools were represented
at [443] that meeting? A. Not precisely, no. There were
several people there from several different schools. There
were—
Q. Can you identify the schools that you recall being
represented at the meeting? A. Ash Grove, Slavens,
University Park. I am not sure of the names of the south
west schools. There were two different southwest schools
at least there.
Marlene Chambers—for Plaintiffs—Direct
668a
Q. Were there any parents at the meeting from the
Hallett school! A. Not that I recall.
Q. All right, now, what was the subject of the meeting,
Mrs. Chambers! A. The subject was to decide whether
or not there was some way to make this voluntary open
enrollment program effective. You see, the form that had
been—the letter that had been sent home explaining the
plan—
Q. You are referring now7 to Exhibit 413! A. That’s
right, this exhibit—just explained the possibility if the
child’s enrollment in the new school would improve the
racial balance there and if space were available in the new
school requested, then a transfer might be effected, and
the purpose of this meeting was to find out if there was
some way to concentrate the volunteers to a particular
minority school, rather than sending the children [444]
out so that they would become fractional minorities in
their new schools, also to see if it weren’t possible to
actually desegregate some minority school by this joint
effort.
Q. Now, during the course of this meeting, did the
group decide upon a target school! A. Yes, they did.
Q. And what was that school? A. Hallett.
Q. Did you have an idea, Mrs. Chambers, of how many
volunteers you were going to need for the Hallett program?
A. Well, during the discussion that morning some of the
people present felt that the whole plan would be much
more attractive to many more white parents if they felt
that Hallett would become a majority white school by this
action, and so the possibility wras discussed of making all
of the answers conditional answers. That is, people would
fill out this form in a way that would say, “I will send
my child to Hallett, if Hallett thereby becomes a majority
Marlene Chambers—for Plaintiffs—Direct
669a
white school,” and in that case about 300 or 350 volunteers
would have been needed, both into and out of Hallett.
Q. Now, Exhibit 413, Mrs. Chambers, did that have a
deadline by which responses were to be returned to the
school? A. Yes, the date January 6 is given.
Q. Was that deadline a subject of discussion at this
parents’ meeting? [4453 A. Well, it was the subject of
concern, and during the course of the meeting we decided
to draw up a communication which could be sent to some
parents or to some schools which would explain our plan
and that we would take this communication to the office
of Lloyd Jones, who had sent out the original communi
cation.
Q. The original communication being Exhibit 413? A.
Right, Exhibit 413, and we would see if he could help us
get this information—our information distributed to
certain schools, and at the same time we would ask him
if it were at all possible to extend this deadline, which
was a very short time.
Q. And wras a proposed statement then drafted at the
meeting? A. Yes.
Q. I am handing you what has been marked for identi
fication as Exhibit 414 and ask if that is the statement to
which you have reference? A. Yes, it is.
Q. Has that been in your possession since it was drafted,
Mrs. Chambers? A. No.
Q. Where has it been? A. Carolyn Edder had in her
files.
Q. Rut you can identify it as the draft? [446] A. Yes.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, at this time we would
offer Exhibit 414.
Marlene Chambers-—for Plaintiffs—Direct
670a
Mr. Creighton: Again, we have not seen this be
fore, Your Honor.
The Court: Do you wish to see it!
Mr. Brega: I have already gone through it, Your
Honor.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Creighton: May I voir dire!
Voir Dire Examination by Mr. Creighton:
Q. Do I understand that this is a carbon of a letter
you wanted Mr. Jones’ office to send out! A. Right.
Q. And it would be signed by, as it states here, a group
of interested parents! A. At that time, yes. That was
the idea.
Q. In other words, this was your group’s letter that
you wanted Mr. Jones to send out! A. Well, it was our
suggested letter, yes.
Mr. Creighton: Well, we have no objection to the
exhibit being received.
The Court: It will be received.
(Exhibit No. 414 was received in evidence.)
[4471 The Court: I guess you have none, either!
Mr. Brega: I believe there is some handwriting
on the bottom. Is that yours!
The Witness: That is Mrs. Edder’s handwriting.
I think she wrote it there after it was rejected.
Mr. Brega: It wasn’t there at the time it was sub
mitted !
The Witness: No, it wasn’t on there at the time
it was shown.
Mr. Brega: I have no objection, Your Honor.
Marlene Chambers—for P la in tif fV o ir Dire
671a
Direct Examination by Mr. Greiner (Continued) :
Q. Mrs. Chambers, that meeting was on Monday, Decem
ber 30? A. That’s right.
Q. Did you then contact Mr. Jones? A. We contacted his
office and made an appointment that afternoon for four of
the people.
Q. Did a delegation from the group go down and talk
with Mr. Jones? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that was the afternoon of December 30th? A.
That’s right.
Q. Who was present at that meeting? A. Well, the dele
gation consisted of Mrs. Pat Samuel, [4483 Mrs. Diane
Gfreenspun, Mr. Craig Barnes and myself.
Q. And— A. And the person we met with was Mr. Lloyd
Jones.
Q. And can you tell us, please, what was said to Mr.
Jones at the meeting? A. Well, we explained to Mr. Jones
our concern for the success of a voluntary open enrollment
program which would lead to integration and the drawbacks
which we saw in the way the plan had been presented to
the schools or the children of the schools and to the parents,
and we suggested to him that he might like to consider the
idea that the group had had for making the voluntary open
enrollment an effective means of desegregating the schools
rather than kind of a shotgun approach.
Q. Did you have Exhibit 414 with you at this meeting
with Mr. Jones? A. I think so.
Q. Did you discuss 414 with Mr. Jones? A. We discussed
sending out a notice, yes.
Q. Did Mr. Jones make any comments regarding the
content of your proposed notice? A. No.
Q. All right, what else if anything was said by your
group to Mr. Jones concerning this idea of a target program
Marlene Chambers—for Plaintiffs—Direct
672a
at Hallett ? Did you discuss the condition of conditional
[4493 transfers? A. Yes, we discussed the question of con
ditional transfers and—
Mr. Creighton: Excuse me, Your Honor, I don’t
understand conditional transfers.
The Witness: Well, our—
The Court: Hold up just a minute.
The Witness: Oh, excuse me.
The Court: Well, she has already explained it, I
believe, as a program that they conceived as a varia
tion of the original proposal whereby these transfers
would come about only on condition that they had a
large number of people to make a real impact on the
segregated school. That was my understanding.
Mr. Creighton: Yes, the reason I asked is there is
a traditional transfer meaning relating to a word of
art relating to the school system.
The Court: Well, this is in this context. The trans
fer would take place only if the school would become
predominantly Anglo, is that correct?
The Witness: That’s correct.
Q. What if anything did Mr. Jones say? A. Well, he said,
“As I understand it, if you don’t get enough people to
volunteer to make this a majority white school, then it is
no go?” And we said, “Yes, it is no go,” [4503 and he just
nodded his head, and that was that.
Q. Did you discuss with Mr. Jones any means by which
your proposed notice might be sent to the parents? A. Yes,
we asked him if it might be possible to send this notice out
through the school offices. We had selected six white schools
to concentrate the recruiting efforts in and we felt that it
Marlene Chambers—for Plaintiffs—Direct
673a
wasn’t unreasonable to ask the administration to circulate
some notice concerning the plan to the children in those six
schools.
Q. Did you discuss with Mr. Jones the total number of
such notices that might be required? A. No.
Q. Did you discuss with Mr. Jones the identity of the
schools which you had selected? A. Yes.
Q. And there were six such schools? A. Right.
Q. Now, what if anything did Mr. Jones say with respect
to your request that the notice be sent out through the
schools? A. He said that it might be possible. He seemed
to agree in theory that the plan was a good plan to concen
trate voluntary efforts in one minority school, but he did not
agree to send out the notices at that time.
[4513 Q. Did Mr. Jones make any suggestions as to
where your group should next go? A. He asked us if we
would meet with him and Howard Johnson and Dr. Keppe.
Q. And was such a meeting arranged? A. Yes, it was
for the following day.
Q. And did it take place then the following day? A. Yes,
it did.
Q. And who was present at that meeting? A. The same
four members of the delegation, Lloyd Jones, Howard
Johnson, and Dr. Keppe.
Q. Yvhere did the meeting take place? A. In Howard
Johnson’s office.
Q. Can you describe for us, please, Mrs. Chambers, what
went on then at that meeting? A. At that meeting Lloyd
Johnson—Lloyd Jones explained to Howard Johnson the
plan, if you want to call it the Hallett plan—told him what
sorts of things we were asking from the administration in
order to make it work and expressed the idea that he would
like to do this for us.
Marlene Chambers—for Plaintiffs—Direct
674a
Q. What was Mr. Johnson’s response, if any? A. His
immediate response was, “and leave town, Lloyd?” Because,
Mr. Jones wTas planning to go to a sabbatical shortly there
after.
Q. Mrs. Chambers, did you have Exhibit 414 with you at
[452] the conference with Mr. Johnson? A. Yes.
Q. Was Mr. Johnson given a copy of this proposed
notice? A. Yes, he next read the notice and I think as we
might have anticipated he objected to a number of the state
ments in the notice.
Q. What did your group say with respect to any of those
objections? A. Well, at each objection, we agreed that the
objection should be deleted from the notice, that the objec
tionable material should be deleted.
Q. Do you have any recollection as to what some of Dr.
Johnson’s objections were? A. Well, certainly—the pri
mary one was that there is a statement in this notice to the
effect that we do not believe that voluntary integration is
the proper way to integrate the schools.
Q. And he wished that deleted? A. He wished that de
leted, understandably.
Q. Anything else? A. Pardon me?
Q. Anything else? A. I can’t recall many of the other
ones. He did [453] object somewhat to the idea of a condi
tional response and that also is included in this letter. He
felt that the schools couldn’t accept a conditional kind of
response, and later in the discussion he did—we suggested
that perhaps parents might fill out this form conditionally
in any event, and he said—well, we asked him what would
happen in this case, and he said, well, these forms then
would be put at the bottom of the pile, and if there were
any room left they might or might not be processed. So, we
actually got no definite answer about the conditional re
sponse.
Marlene Chambers—-for Plaintiffs—Direct
675a
Q. What if anything did Dr. Johnson say about the send
ing of this proposed notice under the school auspices! A.
He said it was impossible even with the deletions that we
agreed to; that the schools could not do this because the
board had instructed the administration to inform the par
ents that voluntary open enrollment was available but they
had not instructed the administration to promote it.
Q. Now, Mrs. Chambers, I take it then, as a result of that
meeting that your notice was not sent out by the school
district? A. Certainly not.
Q. And what, if any, help did you receive from the school
administration in trying to implement the Hallett [454]
A. Well, we had asked for three different sorts of aids:
one was that the notice would be distributed through the
administration, and that was refused. We had asked that
the administration accept a conditional kind of response to
the form, and that was really noncommittal. And the third
thing we had asked for was an extension of time as far as
returning the forms so that the parents could have a little
more time to think over the possibilities of the plan. And—
Q. With respect to—pardon me. A. I was just going
to say, and the last request was granted. Mr. Johnson
agreed to a three or four-day extension of time at that
moment.
Q. Mrs. Chambers, in the course of your meeting with
Mr. Johnson and in discussing the question of getting notice
to the parents, did you also discuss the possibility of calling
parent meetings at the various target schools, recruiting
schools? A. I don’t believe that we did.
Mr. Greiner: No further questions, Your Honor.
Marlene Chambers—for Plaintiffs—Direct
676a
Cross-Examination by Mr. Creighton:
Q. Mrs. Chambers, I believe you said your initial talk
with Mr. Jones was on tbe 31st of December? A. No, our
initial talk with Mr. Jones was on tbe [455] 30th of Decem
ber.
Q. On a Tuesday? A. A Monday, isn’t it?
Q. Well, then, your meeting with your group was on
what day? A. On that same Monday, that same day.
Q. Tbe group met in tbe morning and you saw Mr. Jones
that afternoon? A. That’s right.
Q. That was the 30th? A. That’s right.
Q. Then the next day, December 31st, you— A. —met.
Q. Met with him? A. Johnson and Jones and Keppe,
the three of them.
Q. Now, when was the second semester to begin? A. I
think it was January 27th, but I ’m not absolutely positive.
Q. That date is reflected in the notice, is it not? A. I
don’t know.
Q. And didn’t you estimate that it would take some 350
children each way, given the size, I suppose, of Hallett, to
accomplish your objective of what—at least 50 percent—-
A. 350 would have been sixty percent. 300 would have been
fifty.
[456] Q. And that fifty percent of which school? A. Of
Hallett.
Q. And that was your objective? A. That was our objec
tive, yes.
Q. And Mr. Jones agreed that the idea of targeting in
on a school had merit, didn’t he? A. Yes, he did.
Q. And did he urge the meeting with Mr. Johnson the
next day? A. He asked us—he invited us to join him at the
meeting, yes.
Q. And so, by the time you met with Mr. Johnson, you
Marlene Chambers—for Plaintiffs—Cross
677a
would have had something like 27 days left before the
semester began? A. That’s right.
Q. Would this involve busing, given the locations of the
schools ? A. Certainly.
Q. Did you understand it would involve arrangements
for busing? A. Certainly.
Q. Did you understand it would involve shifting of rec
ords and coordination of children’s courses? A. Yes.
Q. Was there an actual risk that you might not achieve
[4573 your 300 each way? A. Of course.
Q. And we understand that if you did not achieve that
number, then—for your part, you didn’t want the program
to go forward? A. For my part personally, I did.
Q. But the group as a whole? What was its—- A. The
group as a whole had at that time determined it would not
go forward if the objectives were not met.
Q. So Mr. Johnson correctly understood that, if you
couldn’t get 300 each way in the next 27 days, of these
background and necessary arrangements of busing, cur
riculum, notification, and so forth, then the deal was off;
no go, you say? A. That’s right.
Q. What kind of a new deadline did you want for finding
out whether it was go or no go? A. Well, considering the
fact that the notices had not even been delivered to my
school yet, I felt that it would only—that it was only right
that there should be a few days at least for parents to
consider the new approach to the voluntary open enrollment.
Q. Well, how many days? What new deadlines did you
want ? A. We agreed at the time-—agreed to the three or
[4583four days which he suggested.
Q. Which would have been about the 10th of January?
A. Uh-huh, about the end of that week. January 6th was
a Monday; after school resumed on the 2nd, which was a
Marlene Chambers—for Plaintiffs■—Cross
678a
Thursday. And he agreed to accept the notices up till the
end of that week, which was the 10th, wasn’t it?
Q. Who is this, again? A. Mr. Johnson.
Q. Now, the notice reached the Hallett parents when?
Do you know? A. No, I don’t know.
Q. When did you hear of it from the Hallett parents?
Mr. Greiner: Pardon me, Tour Honor. Could we
have identified which notice counsel is talking about ?
The Court: The original notice, I assume, from the
school administration.
Mr. Creighton: Yes, I beg your pardon.
Q. The original notice of the VOE program, I believe
you testified you heard about from Hallett parents? A. No,
I heard about it initially from University Park parents.
Q. Excuse me. University Park parents.
And when was this? A. The notice—the notices, I believe,
were delivered to them on December 17th. I heard about it
by the following [459] Friday from a friend.
Q. Do you know of the date of the arrival of this notice
at any other schools besides University Park and Slavens ?
A. You mean the date that the notice arrived from down
town?
Q. Yes. A. Or the date it was given out to the children?
I’m not sure—
Q. The date that it reached the children, from them to
their parents? A. Yes, I do know. There were several
schools at which it was not delivered until after the holi
days.
Q. Where were these schools? A. Moore was one of them.
Q. Now, that’s not in your area, is it? A. I don’t know
what you mean by my area.
Q. Was Moore school included in your group of schools?
Marlene Chambers—for Plaintiffs—Cross
679a
A. In the group of six that we were trying to recruit, no.
Q. Any other schools you know about when the notice
arrived to the parents? A. Well, I’m not positive of the
names of the schools but I do know there was at least one
other school. It might have been Montclair, where it was
not delivered until after [4603 the holidays, because, special
arrangements had to be made for two or three schools—
they finally received an even more extended deadline.
Q. That was the Montclair School in your group of six?
A. No.
Q. So in your group of six schools, only your own school,
Slavens, got the notice through to the parents late in
December? Is that a fair— A. No, it is not. Slavens did
n’t receive the notice until January 2nd.
Q. Yes. A. And I’m not sure when the other schools
besides University Park received it.
Q. And, as you went through the objections that Mr.
Johnson raised to your proposed form of notice, what was
done about the provision in your proposed form of notice
of what you call the conditional response? A. I ’m not
sure that I understand the question.
Q. Did Mr. Johnson agree that that could be removed
from your notice? A. He asked that it be removed and
we agreed.
Q. And you agreed to that. Then, you made the counter
suggestion that all of the applications contain the condition?
Was that the arrangement? [461] A. No. At the outset of
the meeting our plan really was to cooperate as fully as
possible with the administration and secure their utmost
cooperation in order to make the voluntary open enrollment
plan a feasible opportunity for many people who otherwise
would not be willing to volunteer one child, you know, black
or white, into a school where that child might be the only
Marlene Chambers—for Plaintiffs—Cross
680a
member of Ms race. And whatever Howard Johnson said
about wishing to have something changed in our notice, we
were willing to agree with, because we wished to have some
notice to explain this plan sent out to the parents.
And I don’t really understand if I have answered your
question or not.
Q. Well, let me ask another then. Did you then, when he
agreed to take out, among other things, the conditional as
pects of the—
The Court: He didn’t agree to it. He suggested it.
Q. He suggested it and you agreed to it.
The Court: We ought to get these things moving
on the right—
Mr. Creighton: Beg your pardon.
Q. Then, in agreeing to Mr. Johnson’s suggestion that
that conditional statement in the notice come out, did you
then state that the request would be conditional; that that
[4623 would be part of your plan? A. I still don’t under
stand what question I ’m supposed to be answering. What
request do you mean?
Q. Well, Mrs. Chambers, Mr. Johnson went through your
proposed form of notice, did he not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And there were several items there that he felt could
not be contained in such a notice if it went out from the
district, is that right? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And one of them was that the program would not be
implemented unless certain—a certain level of participation
was achieved, is that right? A. One of the items that he
objected to was that.
Q. Yes, and he suggested— A. No, he did not. He didn’t.
Marlene Chambers—for Plaintiffs—Cross
681a
He objected to our having parents fill out these forms in a
conditional way. He wanted the parents to fill out, “Yes,
I ’m sending my child regardless of who else is going.” He
didn’t want to allow the conditional kind of response by the
parents.
Q. Eight. And was anything said at that meeting about
any school district policy regarding the sending out by the
school district of notices not originated by it, do you recall!
A. No, I don’t think that was the basis for his [463] objec
tion. The objection was that, in sending out the notice, the
administration would be promoting voluntary open enroll
ment for integration, not merely informing the parents that
there was such a plan.
[464] Q. And are you quoting Mr. Johnson? A. Yes, I
am.
Mr. Creighton: All right, you may examine.
Mr. Brega: No questions, Your Honor.
Redirect Examination by Mr. Greiner:
Q. Mrs. Chambers, who was Howard Johnson at the time
you were attending this meeting? A. He was the Deputy
Superintendent for the Denver Public Schools.
Q. And who was Dr. Keppe? A. Superintendent of In
struction, I believe.
Is that right?
Q. At what level? A. Citywide, at the elementary level.
Q. And who was Mr. Jones? A. Lloyd Jones at that
time was the Superintendent of' Elementary Education. Is
that—I am—I can’t remember exactly.
Q. Approximately how many parents did you want to
contact in the target recruiting schools, do you have any
idea? A. We wanted to contact them all.
Q. And do you have any idea how many that was? A.
No, I really don’t.
Marlene Chambers—for Plaintiffs—Redirect
682a
[465] Q. Do yon have a ball-park figure? A. Maybe
3,600. It is a ball-park figure.
Q. Now, you received no administration help in contact
ing the parents that you wanted to have contacted? A. No,
we had to arrange our own means of informing parents.
Q. Subsequently, were you in fact able to contact these
3,000 some odd parents? A. We probably didn’t contact
them all, but we did manage to inform most of them of
meetings. We had to—through the school community rela
tions committees of the PTA’s in these various schools, we
arranged very quick meetings, at which the program was
discussed.
Q. What was the total attendance of parents at those
meetings, do you recall? A. I really couldn’t say for sure.
I would say possibly 500 people.
Q. And do you recall whether or not your objective of a
predominantly Anglo school at Hallett was achieved? A.
No, it was not.
Q. About how many volunteers did you succeed in get
ting? A. I’m not absolutely sure how many Anglo volun
teers there were. I think it was in the neighborhood of 100
before a meeting which was subsequently held to decide
what possibilities were open to these volunteers at that
time, and many of [466] the initial volunteers conditionally
were at that time withdrawn, so that only 55 children parti
cipated in the program last January.
Q. That’s 55 Anglo children? A. That’s right.
Mr. Greiner: No further questions.
Recross-examination by Mr. Creighton:
Q. Mrs. Chambers, subsequent to the second semester of
the last school year, that is, subsequent to last January,
Marlene Chambers—for Plaintiffs—Recross
683a
this Hallett program has been supported by the school dis
trict, has it not? A. To a certain extent, yes.
Q. Hasn’t the school community relations office of the
school district made it a special part of its efforts? A. As
far as recruiting white children to Hallett and as far as
trying to recruit Negro children to leave Hallett, that’s
true, but as far as making the move attractive in either
direction, it is not true.
Q. What makes the move attractive? A. Well, I haven’t
been in court during the days that you have been going
over this, but most of the parents who were involved in the
Hallett plan who cared enough about integration to do
something about it in the schools believed quite strongly
that a segregated minority school is an [467] inferior
school.
Q. Mrs. Chambers, what my question was, what makes
this kind of program attractive to those involved? A. The
thing that makes it attractive is to improve the quality of
the school.
Q. And how is that done? A. Well, I assume one of the
ways of doing it, as far as many majority white parents
are concerned is to improve the quality of the materials
available for the children. There were many materials, for
instance, that were available to my children at Slavens that
were not available to them when they moved to Hallett.
Q. Now, is it the materials at the schools then that makes
this attractive? A. I think it makes it attractive to many
people, yes. I think the experience and quality of the staff
is also an important factor. Hallett happens to have pri
marily inexperienced teachers on its staff, not that that
makes them bad teachers in my view, but as is generally
true the inexperienced teachers are assigned to schools like
Hallett rather than to schools like Slavens.
Marlene Chambers—for Plaintiffs—Recross
684a
Mr. Brega: I am going to object. I don’t believe
that’s responsive and it is hearsay and drawing a
conclusion of the witness.
The Court: She is giving her viewpoint and, any
how, [4683 he has a right to pull this out if he wishes.
It is cross-examination. It is not for you to rescue
him, or me either. I mean, he is in on this. Let him
find his own way out.
Q. Well, in your view, Mrs. Chambers, younger teachers
are not necessarily poorer teachers? A. In my personal
view, yes, but I think in the opinion of many parents, no.
P alicia L e w is , called as a witness by the plaintiffs, being
first duly sworn, under oath testified as follows:
The Court: Please take the witness chair and state
your name and address, please.
The Witness: Palicia Lewis, 5301 East 36th Ave
nue, Denver, Colorado.
Direct Examination by Mr. Barnes:
Q. What is your occupation? [469] A. I am a teacher in
the Denver Public Schools system, Horace Mann Junior
High.
Q. Do you have children in the Denver Public Schools?
A. Yes, I do have.
Q. What are their names and grades and schools? A.
Lawrence Lewis, Jr., eighth grader at Kunsmiller.
Camelia, fifth grader at Moore.
Paul and Pamela, third graders at Moore.
Q. In what school district do you live? A. Smith Ele
mentary School District.
Palicia Lewis—for Plaintiffs—Direct
685a
Q. How did you learn of the voluntary open enrollment
plan when it was announced last year! A. A notice was
sent home by our son from Smiley Junior High School.
Q. About what time did you receive that notice? A.
Shortly before the Christmas holiday began.
Q. And did you fill in that form and return it? A. Yes,
we filled in the form, returned it to Smiley.
Q. And how did you return it? A. By our son.
Q. And that son is— A. Lawrence Lewis, Jr.
Q. About what time was that when you sent it back?
A. After the Christmas holidays, 2nd or 3rd of January,
sometime that week.
[470J Q. Hid you indicate a choice or did Lawrence in
dicate a choice of schools where he would like to voluntarily
enroll? A. Yes, he did.
Q. What was that choice? A. Hamilton Junior High
School.
Q. Was there a second choice? A. Hamilton Junior
High School.
Q. And a third? A. Smiley.
Q. After sending the notice back to Smiley Junior High
School, did you receive a response from the school? A.
No, sir, we did not.
Q. How long did you wait for such a response? A.
Maybe a week. I waited until some of the people I knewT
started—began receiving their responses. I had a niece in
Smiley and she received hers and her request had been
granted.
Q. Did you then subsequently inquire what happened to
your returned notice? A. I called the school and asked if
my request had been granted and I was referred to a Mrs.
Barnes. She indicated that the request had been received
but it had been denied.
Palicia Lewis—for Plaintiffs—Direct
686a
Palicia Lewis—for Plaintiffs—Direct
Q. What were the grounds given for its denial!
Mr. Brega: I am going to object to that, if the
[471] Court please.
The Court: Well, what’s the purpose of this, Mr.
Barnes?
Mr. Barnes: It is offered, Your Honor, to show
the state of mind of the school district and the condi
tions upon which denial was sent.
The Court: Who was the speaker ?
Mr. Barnes: I think the witness testified Mrs.
Barnes at Smiley Junior High School.
The Court: What position?
The Witness: Coordinator.
Q. Was she coordinator of the voluntary open enroll
ment? A. She was coordinator of the school.
Q. Were the requests in her custody, as I understand it?
A. This was the person to whom I was referred when I
asked the question.
The Court: Well, I think all of these individual
experiences are of limited probative value, frankly.
In other words, I don’t see how you can prove up the
policy. You get some indication of it, perhaps, but—
is that what you are trying to do ? Are you trying to
prove intent or motive or plan or scheme? Is that the
idea of this?
Mr. Barnes: It also is a partial explanation of the
failure of the voluntary open enrollment policy to
[472] integrate, Your Honor. This is very brief at
this point.
The Court: Well, is this offered as a policy of the
school board or just the—
687a
Mr. Barnes: No, it is not the policy of the school
board.
The Court: Well, it can’t be of much value to ns,
I do not suppose. You are just saying that there are
a number of obstacles to ever making this kind of a
program work, is that your idea?
Mr. Barnes: Yes, Your Honor.
The Court: All right, we will hear it then for that
limited purpose and overrule your objection.
Q. What did Mrs. Barnes say to you was the reason for
the denial of your request? A. She stated that only chil
dren who were already on buses to Smiley were being
bussed to Hamilton, would be accepted at the Hamilton pro
gram.
Q. And was your son already on a bus ? A. He was not.
Q. Where did Lawrence then go to school the second
semester? A. To Smiley.
Q. Went to Smiley? A. Yes.
Q. Mrs. Lewis, did you work last summer on the so-called
E473] Hallett Program? A. Yes, I did.
Q. Have you heard the testimony of Mrs. Chambers this
morning describing the initiation of that program? A.
Yes.
Q. Is that a program which you worked on last summer?
A. Yes.
Q. What was your responsibility in connection with that
program? A. We contacted parents throughout the city,
recruiting volunteers for the program, promoting class com
munity communication.
Q. Did you work out of an office in the Administration
Building? A. Yes, I did.
Palicia Lewis—for Plaintiffs—Direct
688a
Q. What was that office? A. School-Community Rela
tions office.
Q. What were the dates that you worked there on this
program? A. I worked from mid-August—about the 23rd
of June to mid-August, the 15th of August.
Q. Were you employed by the Denver Public Schools to
do this? A. Yes.
Q. Was there anyone else working in the School-Com
munity [4743 Relations office on this program? A. Yes,
there was one other person working full time, two people
who worked on it sometimes, three secretaries, one full time.
Q. And was it a part of your responsibility to publicize
the program to parents in the district? A. Yes.
Q. What were the various methods you used to try and
do that? A. We made phone contacts. We held coffees.
We had tours. We had picnics.
Q. WThen you contacted parents, did you attempt to ex
plain the details of the Hallett Program to them? A. Yes,
we did.
Q. What were the details which you related to them that
would make it attractive? A. We promised integration,
the first thing. Then they were promised, as the plan finally
developed, that a group of consultants would be provided
to go from Hallett School to the focal schools to define the
problems and to provide directions for working with them
and coping with them.
Q. Did you contact parents, both Anglo and Negro par
ents? A. Yes, we did.
[475] Q. And Hispano parents? A. Yes.
Q. And did you contact them in all areas of the city?
A. Practically, except north.
Q. To assist you in this effort, were there any other
people in the school administration? A. Many of the
Palicia Lewis—for Plaintiffs—Direct
689a
offices did work on this program. Mr. McWilliams worked
on it. Dr. O’Hare. Dr. Jones.
Q. Excuse me. Do yon recall what office Mr. McWilliams
was in? A. His office dealt with the assignment of
children in the voluntary open enrollment program.
Q. And Mr. O’Hare’s office? A. Dealt with pupil
services.
Q. And Mr. Jones’ office? A. Elementary education.
Q. And were you also assisted by Mr. Olander’s office?
A. Yes, for transportation.
Q. Did you also engage the assistance of volunteers
from the community? A. Yes.
Q. Approximately how many such volunteers did you
have helping you? A. Approximately 170.
[476] Q. And, altogether, with the work of the people
in the School-Community Relations office and your 170
volunteers, approximately how many citizens do you think
you contacted directly by phone and at meetings ? A. Two
or three thousand.
Q. Did you contact some of these people more than
once? A. Yes.
Q. What was the purpose of the subsequent contact?
A. Many people had additional questions to ask. I failed
to indicate we had a publication, VOE Dialogue, that went
to large—to a large number of people, and when they had
questions or if there were questions that arose at coffees
or meetings, that individual’s school chairman reported
to us, and we made contacts to—
Q. Did you identify any focal schools for Negro parents
to send their children to that would have the same at
tractiveness of the single Hallett School for the Anglo
parents? A. Attempts were made to do this.
Palicia Lewis—for Plaintiffs—Direct
690a
Q. What schools were identified? A. Ellis, Carson,
Slavens, Johnson, University Park—perhaps.
Q. And did you suggest that there was a possibility
that a Negro child who volunteered might be able to go to
[4773 one of these schools as opposed to any one of the
fifty elementary schools in the district? A. They were
given the freedom of choice. They were told these wTere
focal schools but their choice would be honored even if it
were any one of the thirty-four schools that were involved.
Q. This was offered as an additional inducement to
participate, was it not? A. Yes.
Q. How many new Anglos did this program—Would
you describe it as a two-month effort? A. It was an all
summer effort; June, July and August. I worked for two
months.
Q. How many new Anglos did you recruit to come into
Hallett as a result of your efforts? A. August 9th—I left
the 15th of August—the record showed 153 new Anglo
parents—children volunteered.
Q. And how many new Negro children did you recruit
to leave Hallett? A. Ninety-seven by that date.
Q. What was your goal for children into arid out of
Hallett? A. Five hundred into, five hundred out of.
Q. And would this have made Hallett a predominantly
Anglo school? [4783 A. Yes, it would have.
Q. Did you succeed? Apparently you did not. A. No.
Q. Do you think you would have succeeded given more
time? A. No.
Q. If you were given this coming summer to promote
the same program, would you expect that you would
succeed?
Mr. Ris: If the Court please, that’s pure specula
tion.
Palicia Lewis—for Plaintiffs—Direct
691a
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Do you know of any improvement in the voluntary
program at Hallett which could be implemented to make
it succeed? A. No.
Q. Mrs. Lewis, did you attend a meeting in January
of 1966 to consider overcrowding in Smith Elementary
School? A. Yes.
Mr. Eis : What year ?
Mr. Barnes: January, 1966.
Q. Did you have a child in Smith at that time? A.
Yes.
Q. Did you have more than one? A. Yes,
Q. Two? [4793 A. Two.
Q. Who else was present at that meeting? A. The
parents of Smith School community.
Q. Was there a large group? A. It was a pretty large
group, a couple of hundred.
Q. Where was it held? In the Smith School, in the
auditorium or the cafeteria? A. In the auditorium at
Smith School.
Q. Was there anyone there representing the school
district? A. Yes.
Q. Who was that? A. Mr. Howard Johnson was there,
Mr. dander was there.
Q. What was Mr. Johnson’s position at that time?
A. Deputy Superintendent.
Q. What was the approximate racial composition of
Smith at that time? A. It was predominantly Negro.
Q. Was there a discussion at that meeting of various
measures which might be taken to relieve the overcrowding
Palicia Lewis—for Plaintiffs—Direct
692a
at Smith Elementary School! A. Two measures were
discussed.
Q. Was Smith on double sessions at that time! A. Yes,
in the first grade. Kindergarten was on multiple sessions.
[480] Q. What were the measures which were discussed
to relieve overcrowding! A. Busing children out or
adding six mobiles.
Q. And the representative of the district—was that Mr.
Johnson! A. Yes.
Q. And he presented all these alternatives! A. Briefly,
yes.
Q. Did Mr. Johnson represent to what places the busing
might occur! A. Yes, a list of schools were given. I think
Olander gave them, not Mr. Johnson.
Q. Mr. Olander had the list! A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall any of the names of the schools! A. I
recall Crofton and Whittier and Ebert. The core city
schools were the ones I recall.
Q. What was the racial composition of those schools
at that time! A. Predominantly Negro; minority.
Q. Do you recall whether Mr. Olander offered to arrange
any busing to any part of the southeast Denver or south
west Denver area! A. I do not recall any.
Q. Were the parents at that meeting encouraged to
[481] express an opinion as to their choice between these
alternatives; mobile units and transportation! A. We
were given an opportunity to vote, yes.
Q. How was this vote conducted! A. By paper ballot.
Q. And did you yourself vote! A. Yes.
Q. How did you vote! A. I voted to have the mobiles
added.
Q. Did you make a decision as between mobile units and
Palicia Lewis—for Plaintiffs—Direct
693a
the particular schools which had been represented to you
with a choice? A. Yes, between the—
Q. Why did you make that decision? A. We had moved
just recently from the core city to have our children in
an integrated situation and Smith was an excellent school
and I did not wish to return to Ebert, where I had just
moved from.
Q. Smith was not itself integrated at that time, was
it! A. When I moved.
Q. When you moved there it was? A. Yes.
Mr. Barnes: That’s all I have of this witness.
Cross-Examination [4823 by Mr. R is:
Q. Mrs. Lewis, what year did you move to your East
36th Avenue address? A. 1962.
Q. When you were working during the summer of 1969
on the YOE program, you were a salaried employee of the
school district? A. Yes.
Q. And these other people, either full-time, or part-time
employees you mentioned, the secretaries—they were also
salaried ? A. Bight.
Q. And distinguishing them from the 170 volunteers?
A. Yes .
Q. With regard to the schools that were discussed in
the January of 1966 meeting, do you recall how many
schools were actually listed as receiving schools in the
busing? A. I don’t remember how many were listed.
I believe we were told there were—There were eleven
on the list.
Q. And you remember only the three in the core area?
A. I remember the ones that I recognized were in the
Palicia Lewis—for Plaintiffs—Cross
core area.
694a
Q. And those were the three schools you mentioned?
A. Yes.
Q. So there were eight schools then that you did not
[483] recognize and so it would have been outside of the
core area? A. Not necessarily. Those are the ones I
remember of the list, you know, that were called. And
I ’m not sure the entire list was called.
Q. Well, you had left the core city, so you knew what
schools were there. A. Right, but I don’t remember all the
schools that were called.
Q. Well, all of the eleven schools were not core-area
schools A. Perhaps not.
Q. In fact—that is a fact, is it not? A. I don’t remember
all of the schools.
Mr. Ris: That’s all.
Can I ask one other question?
Q. You indicated you voted for the mobile units. The
majority there voted for the mobile units, is that right?
A. Yes.
Cross-examination by Mr. Brega:
Q. Mrs. Lewis, were you present at the meeting of the
school board in January of 1966 when they voted to erect
the three mobile units? A. Perhaps so. I’m not certain.
Q. And you’re aware of the fact that that was voted
[485] unanimously by all members of the board at that
time? A. No.
Q. Do you think any voted against it? A. I don’t know.
Q. You just don’t recall? A. I don’t recall.
Q. Now, between September, 1968, and September, 1969,
do you know the change in racial composition at Hallett
under the Hallett Plan? A. State the dates again, please.
Palicia Lewis—for Plaintiffs—Cross
695a
Q. Between September, 1968, and September, 1969. A.
The Hallett Plan—there were about—I really can’t tell the
change in racial composition. I think there were about 36
white children who came in on the voluntary basis.
Q. Do you know that in 1968 Hallett was what? About
ten-percent white? A. Perhaps.
Q. And are you aware that in September of 1969, after
the program was in effect one year, the white percentage
was 38 percent? A. I don’t know the percentages. Perhaps.
Mr. Brega: Thank you.
Mr. Bis: May I ask one other question which is
still on cross?
[486J Cross-examination by Mr. Ris (Continued) :
Q. You said your goal was 500 in and 500 out. A. This
was the administration’s stated goal.
Q. And that was the absolute ultimate, if you could ac
complish that? A. Yes.
Q. And do you know what percentage that would make
of Anglos in Hallett at that point? A. The capacity of
Hallett is about 756. Or, 856, if you took the very maximum,
I think.
Q. Well, what I ’m getting at is—the goal of Mrs. Cham
bers in her group was—to get 60 percent Anglo in Hallett
would require 350 Anglos to go in, and to get 50 percent
Anglos would only require 300. A. Yes. This would per
haps be like 70-something percent.
Q. About 70 percent? A. (Nods affirmatively.)
Palicia Lewis—for Plaintiffs—Cross
Mr. Bis : Thank you.
696
Redirect Examination by Mr. Barnes:
Q. Mrs. Lewis, do you recall discussion by parents at
the meeting that you described in January of 1966 of the
alternatives that were presented to you by Mr. Olander and
[487] Mr. Johnson? A. Yes.
Q. And was the subject of the discussion the choice be
tween core schools and mobile units? A. Yes.
Q. And is it your recollection that you made a choice
between and were offered a choice between core schools
and mobile units? A. Yes.
Mr. Barnes : Thank you.
Recross-examination by Mr. Ris:
Q. You were not told that your children specifically were
going to go to a core school? A. We weren’t told which
schools they would be going to. We were told that “Your
children will be sent to schools where there is space avail
able,” and the schools were named. Some of the schools
that were named were schools we recognized with core city
schools.
Q, And some others that were named—you didn’t recog
nize, or you didn’t recognize as being the core city schools ?
You didn’t know where your children were going? A. We
did not know and we would not have known if we had
known where all the schools on the list were.
Mr. Bis: Thank you.
[488] Recross-Examination by Mr. Brega:
Q. Did they provide you with a complete list at that time?
A. Originally they did.
Palicia Lewis—for Plaintiffs—Recross
697a
Q. And they said these are schools that have space avail
able, or you can go where space is available? A. They
said children will be sent where space is available.
Mr. Barnes: We have nothing further of this wit
ness.
The Court: In other words, you couldn’t select the
exchange school?
The Witness: No, we could not, sir.
The Court: And I think what you’re expressing is
that there was a hazard that, even if there were non
core-city schools, that your children might be sent
to these—the core schools that you mentioned?
The Witness : That is correct, sir.
# # # * #
[490] * * *
M ildred B id d ic k , c a lle d a s a w itn e s s b y th e p la in t if f s , be
in g f i r s t d u ly sw o rn , on h e r o a th te s tif ie d as f o l lo w s :
The Court: Will you please take the witness
chair? State your name and address.
The Witness: 1 am Mildred Biddick. I live at 1901
East 13th Avenue.
Direct Examination by Mr. Greiner:
Q. Miss Biddick, how do you spell your last name? A.
B-i-d-d-i-c-k.
Q. Miss Biddick, were you ever a principal in the Denver
Public School System? A. Yes, I was principal at Pair-
view and Garfield from 1940 to 1951.
Q. Are those two separate structures? A. Yes.
Q. Were you principal of both of those schools at that
time ? A. Simultaneously.
Mildred Biddick—for Plaintiffs—Direct
698a
Q. Subsequently to 1951, were you also employed as a
[491] school principal? A. I was a, principal at Newlon
and Perry from 1951 to 1962.
Q. And, then, Newlon and Perry, those are two separate
school structures? A. Yes.
Q. With respect to the schools of Fairview and Gfarfield,
Miss Biddick, when you were principal there between 1940
and 1951, do you recall what the racial composition of those
schools was? A. Between 80 and 90 percent Hispano.
Q. And what was the racial composition of Perry and
Newlon schools between 1951 and 1962? A. 85 percent
Anglo, 15 percent Hispano, less than 1 percent Negro.
Q. Thank you. During your tenure as a principal at
Fairview or at Perry-Newlon, can you describe for the
Court what the practice was as far as the disposition of re
quests for students to transfer into your school or out of
your school? In other words, transfer from school to
school. A. During the early part of those years, forties and
early fifties, it was a very informal arrangement. Usually a
principal would call the principal of the other school and
indicate that here was a youngster whose interests would
be best served by going to the other school.
[492] Q. What sort of criteria were employed to make
that judgment? A. Oh, it might be the babysitter lived
over in the other school district. It might be that a young
ster had developed some emotional problems and would
profit by getting a new start in a different situation. It
might be a health reason.
Q. Now, did there come a point in time, Miss Biddick,
when that policy, that informal policy was changed? A.
Yes, toward the end of the 1950’s, there was a tightening up
of transfers, and at that time, while the transfer was still
made by the arrangement between the two principals, at the
Mildred Biddick—for Plaintiffs—Direct
699a
end of the school year their report, the annual report, had
to include the number of pupils who were not residents of
the school in which they were attending.
Q. Prior to the late 1950’s, had any such report been re
quired? A. No.
[493] Q. And to whom was that report sent? A. It was
sent to pupil personnel, which had charge of all such rec
ords.
Q. That was in the central school administration? A.
Yes.
Q. Now, from the time when you had to begin reporting
these transfers—these were transfers into your school, if
you were the reporting principal? A. Yes.
Q. After that time was the transfer policy further formal
ized, to your knowledge? A. Yes, and it was either in ’60
or ’61.
Q. And what was done at that time? A. At that time
there was a formal statement of policy as to the acceptable
reasons for transfer. And, if I remember, they included
court-ordered transfers, transfers recommended by a doc
tor or psychiatrist that had to do with the emotional dis
turbances and so forth; cases where a youngster was physi
cally incapacitated and stairs would be a hazard, something
of that sort. And cases where baby-sitters lived in another
school district.
Q. Miss Biddick, I’m handing you what’s been received
in evidence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 34. Would you look that
exhibit over, please, and see if you can identify it? A.
From my memory, this was developed after the [494] re
port of the special study committee. And 1 have not seen
it—
Q. That’s Policy what of the Board of Education? A.
Mildred Biddick—for Plaintiffs—Direct
700a
I t’s Policy'—You would ask me when I didn’t bring my
glasses.
Q. I’m sorry. It’s Policy 1226A. And that pertains to
the transfer of students from outside the subdistrict? A.
Yes.
# # * # #
[5383 * * *
G eorge E. B ardw ell , a witness called by and on behalf
of the plaintiffs, having first been duly sworn, was ex
amined and testified as follows:
Direct Examination by Mr. Greiner:
The Court: Please give us your name and ad
dress.
The Witness: George E. Bardwell, 2201 South
Harrison, Denver, Colorado.
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. Dr. Bardwell, you are the same Dr. Bardwell that
testified in the preliminary injunction hearing, is that
correct? [5393 A. I am.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we will be offering
Dr. Bardwell as an expert witness in the fields of.
statistics and probability analysis. We have pre
pared a resume of the doctor’s experience and edu
cation, being Exhibit 369. I wondered if counsel
wished us to go ahead and formally qualify Dr.
Bardwell or—
Mr. Ris: We will accept him as a witness in that
field, period, but not in any other field.
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
701a
The Court: Very well.
Mr. Greiner: Then 369 is accepted? We will offer
it in evidence.
The Court: It is received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 369 was re
ceived in evidence.)
Q. Dr. Bardwell, I am handing you what’s been marked
for identification as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 241. Would you
please identify that exhibit for us? A. Yes, this exhibit
shows the characteristics of pupil enrollment in Anglo and
minority schools selected for study in 1968.
Q. Was that exhibit prepared by you? A. Yes, it was.
Q. Doctor, how were the schools that are shown on
Exhibit 241 selected for comparative purposes? [540] A.
There are 21 Anglo elementary schools and 20 minority
schools. The selection process for the 21 Anglo schools
and 20 minority schools was based on a probability analysis
which was conducted as follows: That considering the
smallest school in the area—
Q. In the District? A. —in the District, it was deter
mined that had a probability of about one in one billion—
The Court: About what?
The Witness: —one in one billion, that this
amounted to a deviation on either side of the Dis
trict-wide average of approximately 60 percent; that
the school that had 90 percent Anglo enrollment
or more, or 30 percent Anglo enrollment or less,
comprised then a probability level or equivalent to
a probability level of about one in one billion. This
is approximately so.
George E. Barclwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
702a
Q. Doctor, what do you mean by a probability level of
one in one billion in terms of the racial composition of
more than 90 percent Anglo or less than 30 percent Anglo?
A. That means that the chances of a school departing from
the city average by more than the stated amount had a
probability of one in one billion or rarer.
* * # # #
George E. Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Voir dire
£5431 * * #
Voir Dire Examination by Mr. Ris:
Q. In considering the characteristics of pupil enrollment
and to arrive at this probability, you were considering the
racial composition of the City and County of Denver as a
[544] whole? That’s your starting point? A. That’s right,
sir.
Q. And then with that racial—first, where did you get
that? A. From the September report for 1968, which was
the ethnic and racial composition of students in the District.
Q. All right. Now, were you taking up the pupil popula
tion or the overall population? A. Well, there are two
figures that have to be used. One is the overall Anglo pro
portion for the District in the elementary schools in 1968
in the September report.
Q. You are talking about pupil population? A. Pupil
population. We are not talking about citywide population.
Q. All right. A. And those figures were determined
from the 1968 report.
Q. All right. A. Then the percentage Anglo composi
tion for each school was determined. The question was
then raised, given the Anglo proportion for a given school,
what is the probability that its racial composition could
703a
have arisen by chance if in fact students randomly were
distributed throughout the District.
Q. So, you are comparing each school racial composition?
[5453 A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the racial composition of that school? A. Yes.
Q. With the citywide racial composition of all students,
citywide, at that level? A. Yes, sir.
Q. In arriving at this, you do not take into consideration
residential patterns of the races? A. No.
Q. Your whole basis would assume in computing your
probability in the context of the school system that the
races are evenly scattered throughout the School District?
A. Randomly distributed.
Q. That’s one of your basic assumptions? A. Yes.
Q. Which isn’t a fact, we know. A. Of course, it isn’t.
Q. And you do not consider the actual boundary or
boundary changes ? A. That’s right.
Q. And you also don’t consider any assignments outside
of or transfers outside of the specific subdistrict? A.
That’s right.
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
[5483 * * *
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. Doctor, referring then to Exhibit 241, what does
that exhibit depict with respect to the proportions of
Anglo, Negro and Hispano students present first of all
in the 21 Anglo schools at the elementary level? A. At
the elementary level the 21 Anglo schools contain 30.9
percent of all Anglo students in the school.
Q. At the elementary level? A. At the elementary level.
These same Anglo schools have 2.8 percent—
704a
The Court: Go a little slower here now. This is
all brand new to me. I think counsel has had some
opportunity—some exposure to this before.
Now, the selected Anglo schools have this per
centage of Anglo population in them, is that right?
The Witness: On the basis of that probability.
The Court: Okay.
Q. And what percentage of all the Negro elementary
children in the District g*o to these selected Anglo schools,
Doctor? A. 2.8 percent.
Q. And what percent of the total Hispano elementary
£5493 school students in the District go to these 21 schools?
A. 3.2 percent.
Q. Now, Doctor, calling your attention to the 20 minority
schools depicted on Exhibit 241, what percentage of the
total Anglo students at the elementary level in the District
go to these minority schools? A. 3.8 percent.
Q. And what percent of the total of the Negro elemen
tary school students in the District go to these selected
minority schools? A. 83.9 percent.
Q. And what percent of the total of the Hispano elemen
tary school students go to these selected minority schools?
A. 39.7 percent.
Q. Now, does Exhibit 241 also depict those proportions
at the junior high school level? A. They do.
Q. Could you give us those proportions, please?
The Court: These are actual figures you’re talk
ing about?
The Witness: These are actual figures, Your
Honor, yes, sir.
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
705a
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
At the four Anglo schools—
Q. What are the four Anglo schools! [550] A. The four
Anglo schools are Hill, John F. Kennedy, Merrill and
Thomas Jefferson. The four minority schools are Baker,
Cole, Morey and Smiley.
Q. Could you then give us the proportions! A. At the
four Anglo schools, 40.6 percent of all Anglo students in
the School District attend those four Anglo schools. Sim
ilarly, 1.2 percent of all Negro students in the School
District attend those four Anglo junior high schools. And,
3.1 percent of all Hispano students in the District attend
those four Anglo schools.
Q. Now, turning your attention to the minority junior
high schools, what are the proportions! A. At the four
minority schools the percentage of all Anglo students in
the School District that attend those four minority schools
is 5.4 percent. The percentage of all Negro students in
the School District which attend those four minority schools,
86.8 percent. And the percentage of all Hispano students
in the District that attend the four minority schools is
31.0 percent.
Q. Now, does Exhibit 241 also depict similar information
with respect to the senior high school level! A. It does.
Q. What are the six senior high schools depicted on Ex
hibit 241! A. The three Anglo senior high schools, George
[551] Washington, John F. Kennedy and Thomas Jeffer
son. The three minority senior high schools are East,
Manual and West.
Q. And then turning your attention first to the three
Anglo senior high schools, Doctor, would you give us the
proportions contained in those three schools! A. The per
706a
centage of all Anglo students in the School District that
attend the three Anglo schools, 38.3. The percentage of
all Negro students in the School District attending these
same Anglo schools, 3.6 percent. The percentage of all
Hispano students in the School District that attend the
three Anglo schools, 2.7 percent.
Q. And then could you give us the data for the minority
senior high schools? A. At the three minority senior
high schools, 17.7 percent of all Anglo students in the
School District attend those minority schools. The per
centage of all Negro students in the School District that
attend the three minority senior high schools, 95.7 percent.
And the percentage of all Hispano students in the School
District that attend these three minority schools, 42.7
percent.
Q. Now, Doctor, did you compute individual probability
levels for each of these 41 schools? A. I did.
Q. I am handing you what’s been marked for identifica
tion as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 386 and ask you to identify that.
[5523 A. Exhibit 386 is a probability analysis that has
been made on a computer school by school for all the
elementary schools.
Q. Does it also include a probability analysis as to the
racial composition of each of the junior and senior high
schools? A. It does.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we would offer Exhibit
386.
The Court: I assume that this exhibit has been
brought forward as far as counsel are concerned,
before?
Mr. Greiner: Yes, Your Honor.
George E. Bardwell-—for Plaintiffs—Direct
707a
Mr. Ris: Could we have just a moment, Tour
Honor ?
The Court: All right.
Voir Dire Examination by Mr. Ris:
Q. Dr. Bardwell, is this probability analysis based upon
the same factors and omitting the same factors as we
discussed on Exhibit 241? A. They are.
Mr. Ris: We would object to it for the same rea
son as the objection I made as to 241.
The Court: Well, I just don’t know enough about
it to rule on it at this stage. I mean, I can’t—it
doesn’t tell the story on the face of it, I wouldn’t
say, particularly.
[553] Direct Examination by Mr. Greiner (Cont’d ) :
Q. Dr. Bardwell, referring your attention to Exhibit 241,
what is one of the elementary schools listed on 241? A.
Ash Grove is one of the 21 selected Anglo schools.
Q. Now, turning your attention to Exhibit 386, does
that exhibit contain a separately computed probability
analysis for that school? A. It does.
Q. And it shows the range or the probability that Ash
Grove would have of racial composition—that it in fact
has, is that correct? A. That’s right, it does.
Q. And how was that computed, Doctor? A. Based upon
the size of Ash Grove, containing 801 students in 1968; the
probability that its racial composition could have arisen
by chance is one in ten to the hundredth power.
Q. Now, does Exhibit 386 contain similar calculations
for each of the schools in the School District? A. It does.
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—-Direct
708a
The Court: 1 think it would be of some value to
us to know what information you proceed on in
arriving at this result. What do you feed into this
computer in order to get this?
[554] The Witness: All right.
The Court: At this stage I think it would be of
some value, you know.
The Witness: Excuse me?
The Court: At this stage I think it would be of
some value for us to know this.
The Witness: All right.
The Court: What are the factors which contribute
to this conclusion?
The Witness: The assumption, Your Honor, that
was made in this particular case is that we raise the
question as to the departure of each school’s Anglo
composition from the city average.
Q. Now, at the elementary school level what range of
departure did you use? A. 62.8 percent is approximately
the average Anglo proportion for the entire District.
Q. And at the elementary schools ? A. At the elementary
school level.
Q. How did you arrive at the 90 percent Anglo or less
than 30 percent Anglo? A. In order to be most conserva
tive, that is, all probabilities that would have been calcu
lated would have been rarer than one in one billion, the
smallest school in the District was used as a guide to estab
lish the deviation from [5553 the city proportion. That
deviation was approximately 30 percent.
Q. Now, what does that mean in terms, Doctor, of the
approximately 62 percent Anglo racial composition of all
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
709a
elementary school students in the District? What do you
do with that 60 percent? A. This roughly meant that a
school that had an Anglo proportion of 90 percent or more,
or a school-—an elementary school that had an Anglo pro
portion of 30 percent or less would have constituted a cri
terion for classification of those schools into the 21 Anglo
schools and the 20 minority schools. A school, therefore,
that had an Anglo composition 30 percent or less would
have fallen into the 20 minority group of schools. A school
that had an Anglo composition of 90 percent or more would
have fallen into the group selected for study at the 21
Anglo schools.
Q. Now, at the junior high school level, did you use that
same less-than-30-percent Anglo, more-than-90-pereent An
glo standard? A. This would have been given for the
junior high schools and senior high schools.
Q. Why? A. Because the size of each school, the small
est school for the junior high school is considerably larger
than the smallest school in the elementary group. Similar
consideration [5563 applies to the senior high schools,
where the minimum sized school for being most conserva
tive in this estimate is considerably larger than for the
elementary schools.
Q. Now, besides the smallest sized school at the junior
and senior high school levels, did you take into account the
Anglo composition at the junior high school level through
out the District, for example? A. Yes, we did.
Q. And is that different than the Anglo composition at
the elementary school level? A. It is, about 10 percent
more.
Q. So it is what throughout the District, the Anglo
composition of the junior high schools? A. Roughly 70
percent.
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
710a
The Court: Which?
The Witness: Roughly 70 percent.
Q. Did you also take into account with regard to the
senior high schools the District-wide Anglo proportion in
the senior high schools? A. Yes, we did.
Q. Did that differ from the junior high schools? A. It
did.
Q. What was it? A. Roughly 75 percent.
Q. Then taking these two factors, the minimum school
[557] size and the percent Anglo composition at that level,
what did you do in computing the probability of racial
composition, first of all, of the selected junior high schools?
A. Exactly the same procedure was used as in the case of
the elementary schools. A percentage deviation from the
citywide average was calculated.
Q. Now, what was the percentage—You have stated it
was more than 90 percent Anglo or less than 30 percent
Anglo at the elementary level. What was it at the junior
high school level? A. I think it’s roughly 18 percent.
Q. So a school which was more than what percent Anglo
was selected? A. 90 percent.
Q. And a school which was less than what percent Anglo
was selected at the junior high school level? A. It would
be about 55 percent.
Q. And then what were the ranges at the senior high
school level? A. Senior high schools were roughly 15 per
cent in either direction. 15 percent from the City average
of roughly 75, which would make it 90 percent.
Q. And a school of more than 90 percent Anglo? A.
More than 90 percent Anglo and in the other case less than
60 percent.
George E, Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
711a
[5581 Q. Now, in each instance at the elementary, the
junior and the senior high school levels, Doctor, taking
into consideration the actual racial composition of the se
lected school, did the probability ever become greater than
one in one billion ? A. By all means. The one in one billion
is a very conservative estimate of what this probability
would have been for every single school.
Q. For example, referring to Exhibit 241, would you
select a junior high school? A. Yes, let us select Cole.
[5593 Q. All right. And then referring to Exhibit 386,
have you computed the actual probability at Cole? A.
Yes.
Q. And what is it? A. The probability that Cole’s racial
composition could have arisen by chance alone is the astro
nomical figure of one in ten to the 554th power.
Q. And what’s another junior high school listed on Ex
hibit 241? A. Morey.
Q. And what is the probability of Morey’s actual racial
composition? A. The probability that Morey’s actual per
centage Anglo could have deviated from the city proportion
by the amount that it actually did, that probability is one
in ten to the 146th power.
Q. Now, with respect to the senior high schools, one of
the senior high schools selected was East! A. East.
The Court: What is your definition of chance?
The Witness: Excuse me, sir?
The Court: What is your definition of chance?
I mean, what is the difference between volitional
action and chance? I think we ought to have some
definitions before we go very far on this, so we
know what he is talking about.
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
712a
[560] The Witness: Yes.
The Court: What is your conception of pure
chance ?
The Witness: Of pure chance?
The Court: Yes.
The Witness: Well, Yonr Honor, even from a—
The Court: As opposed—what would be the other
elements ?
The Witness: As something more common! All
right.
The Court: What would non-chance be?
The Witness: Non-chance? A statistical — the
statistician, I think, has a. standard for that, and
he would generally conclude that anything that oc
curs with a probability of 65 times in a hundred
approximately, that this is a non-chance occurrence.
In other words, we would expect this sort of thing.
The Court: What produces the non-chance occur
rence, according to your conception and your knowl
edge?
The Witness: In my view, sir, there would be a
number of factors that would contribute to an as
signable cause that would be outside of the chance
calculation that we have made here, that we can
actually assign a cause to it.
Would you like me to elaborate on my opinion of
what these are?
The Court: I just want you to state what your
[561] conception is.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, I think I may be able
to help the Court by asking the witness whether or
not Exhibit 386 purports to make any judgments as
to cause. A. None at all.
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
713a
Q. That 386 simply eliminates chance as cause! A. It
is an attempt to measure the probability that a school’s
racial composition could have occurred, the actual composi
tion that it did have, and that, from a statistical point of
view, if this chance is remote enough, then one would have
to say that there are non-chance causes that contribute to
the racial composition of that school.
Q. But 386 doesn’t reflect any of these non-chance causes!
A. It does not.
Q. Nor does it attempt to identify any of them, is that
correct! A. That’s right.
Mr. Greiner: In other words, Your Honor, the
question—
The Court: The chance then means an occurrence
without the intervention of any positive or affirma
tive force, just falling from the skies!
The Witness: Well, these probabilities are so
rare, Your Honor, and in fact so astronomically
small, in [5623 my experience I have never been in
a position prior to this time of calculating probabili
ties that were so remote and that I would simply
have to conclude on the basis of that analysis that
there were causes that contributed to that racial
composition of each one of these schools that, by
even the remotest stretch of the imagination, could
not have occurred by chance.
The Court: All right. By chance is by chance,
but we will just be patient now and listen. At least
the next five minutes, we promise not to interrupt.
Mr. Greiner: We are offering Exhibit 386, Your
Honor, which simply purports to show the individual
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
714a
probability calculations for each school in the dis
trict as described.
The Court: Well, we will take that over the ob
jection of the intervenors in order to get this picture.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 386 was re
ceived in evidence.)
Q. Dr. Bardwell, we have already in evidence in this case
exhibits which give for the school district as a whole at
the elementary school level the ethnic distribution by num
ber and percentage of the pupils in the school district.
Now, have you also prepared exhibits which purport to
show the ethnic distribution in, first of all, the 20 minority
schools and the 21 Anglo schools depicted on Exhibit 241?
[5633 A. I have.
Q. I hand you what has been marked for identification
as Exhibits 249 through 252, and could you identify those
exhibits for us, please? A. Yes. Exhibit 249 is the ethnic
distribution of pupils for the 20 minority schools for the
years 1963 through ’68.
Exhibit 250 is the ethnic distribution expressed as a per
centage for the 20 minority schools for the years 1963
through ’68.
Exhibit 251 is the ethnic distribution of pupils for the
21 Anglo schools expressed as a number of students for
the years 1963 through 1968.
Exhibit 252 is the ethnic distribution of pupils expressed
as a percentage for the years 1963 through 1968.
Q. For which schools? A. For the 21 Anglo schools.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, the authenticity of Ex
hibits 249 through 252 has been stipulated to as far
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
715a
as their accuracy is concerned and we would offer
them in evidence at this time.
Mr. Ris: If the Court please, just a couple of
questions on voir dire.
Voir Dire Examination toy Mr. Ris:
[564] Q. Dr. Bardwell, this group of exhibits, 249 to 252,
inclusive, in turn are based upon Exhibits 241 and 386, are
they not?
Exhibits 241 and 386 are your foundation exhibits? A.
That’s right.
Mr. Ris: By reason of the objections made to
those two exhibits, we would object to these two as
not having the proper foundation. Other than that,
we have no objection to their admissibility and we
are going to have a whole group of exhibits, I pre
sume, at the elementary and senior high level along
the same line and with the same foundation. Is that
correct, Mr. Greiner?
Mr. Greiner: Well, I don’t know what counsel
means by foundation, Your Honor. The source of
the figures in these exhibits comes from the computer
print-outs that are already in evidence.
I take it what counsel is referring to is the compo
sition of the sample being reflected in the exhibits,
if that’s what he objects to.
Mr. Ris: Well, with respect to the numbers on
these exhibits of Anglos, Negroes and Hispanos, we
do not question the accuracy of those numbers, not
at all.
The Court: You are objecting to the purpose for
which this is being offered?
George E. Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Voir Dire
716a
Mr, Ris: Well, the figures shown on here are
£565] not disputed, by again, the relationship goes
back to the two earlier exhibits, and by reason of
the inadequate foundation on those, they taint these
exhibits, and that’s really our only objection. It re
lates back to those other exhibits, and with respect
to the other print-outs you have then, and since they
have the same relationship, we are going to have
continuing objection, and yet I can just make them
now as to the whole series of junior high and senior
high that you are going to offer, first, ethnic, and
then, I presume—
Mr. Greiner: Faculty.
Mr. Ris: Faculty and so forth.
The Court: These reveal actual compositions of
these individual schools?
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: Elementary, Junor High—
Mr. Ris: Yes, sir, and we don’t question these
figures for the composition. Just the going back to
what they are comparing to.
Mr. Brega: We have no objection to these exhib
its, Your Honor.
The Court: The exhibits will be received, 249
through 252.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 249, 250, 251
and 252 were received in evidence.)
[566] Direct Examination by Mr. Greiner (Continued):
Q. Now, Dr. Bardwell, with respect to the comparison
of the 21 Anglo schools and the 20 minority schools as to
their racial composition, have you prepared a chart which
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
717a
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
illustrates the data contained in Exhibits 249 through 252?
A. Yes.
Q. And is that Exhibit 253? A. This is Exhibit 253.
Q. And what does 253 purport to depict? A. It depicts
the percentage Anglo in the 20 minority schools and the 21
Anglo elementary schools for the years 1963 through 1968.
Q. And is Exhibit 253 then based on the data in Exhibit
241 through 252? A. That’s correct.
The Court: This is a graphic study?
The Witness: Yes, this is a graphic depiction of
the materials that are in the preceding exhibits that
are on your desk.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we would offer Exhibit
253 at this time. I believe the authenticity of the
exhibit again has been stipulated to.
Mr. Bis: That’s correct. Our objection would
merely go back to the same as before.
[567] The Court: Do you have any objection?
Mr. Brega: No objection, Your Honor.
The Court: Exhibit 253 is received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 253 was re
ceived in evidence.)
Q. Calling your attention then to Exhibit 253, Doctor,
what does that exhibit show as to, first of all, the Anglo
population over this time period in the Anglo schools? For
example, in the year 1964, what percentage of the Anglo
students in the elementary schools of the district were in
these Anglo schools? A. Percentage Anglo students that
were in the 21 Anglo schools in 1964, around 90 percent—
excuse me, 95 percent.
Q. And what was it, for example, in 1966? A. In 1966,
718a
somewhat less. I would estimate from the reading of the
chart it would be around 92 percent.
Q. And what was the last year depicted on the exhibit?
A. 1968.
Q. And what is the percentage by 1968? A. I would
estimate on the basis of the intersection of these two lines
it would be about 92 percent.
Q. Now, what similarly is shown with regard to the 20
minority schools on the exhibit? A. In the case of the
20 minority schools for comparable years, in 1964 I would
estimate about 15 percent. In [5683 1966, I would estimate
about 13 percent, and in about 1968 I would estimate about
the same amount.
Q. Thirteen? A. Ten percent.
Q. Ten peicent. That’s ten percent of what? A. This
would mean, in the 20 minority schools selected for study,
that that racial composition of those 20 minority schools
in 1968, for example, was ten percent Anglo.
Q. Now, similarly, Doctor, have yon prepared exhibits
with respect to the pupil ethnic distribution in the selected
junior high schools? A. Yes, I have.
Q. Calling your attention, Doctor, to what’s been marked
for identification as Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 280 through 283,
would you please identify those exhibits? A. Exhibit 280
is a computer print-out showing the ethnic distribution of
pupils by number of pupils for the four selected minority
junior high schools.
Exhibit 281 is the ethnic distribution expressed as a per
centage of the four minority junior high schools selected
for study.
Exhibit 282 is the ethnic distribution of students by num
ber of students for the four selected Anglo junior high
schools for the years 1963 to ’68.
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
719a
The preceding two exhibits also cover the years [569]
1963 through ’68, for the four selected Anglo junior high
schools.
Q. Referring to Exhibits 280 through 283, Doctor, what
is the source of the figures set forth in those exhibits! A.
The source of these figures of the computer printouts have
been submitted as exhibits covering all junior high schools,
and I am sorry that I don’t know the exhibit number.
Q. And the figures depicted on Exhibits 280 through 283
are the actual figures for the school years indicated! A.
That is correct.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we would offer Exhib
its 280 through 283.
[570] Mr. Ris: We do not dispute the figures.
We object to it for the same reasons as we objected
to Exhibits 249 through 252.
Mr. Brega: Same objection.
The Court: They will be received, 280 through
283.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 280 through
283 were received in evidence.)
Q. Doctor, have you also prepared a chart which illus
trates the information covered by Exhibits 280 through
283! A. We have.
Q. Is that Exhibit 284! A. That is Exhibit 284.
Q. Was that exhibit prepared by you! A. Yes, sir.
Q. And does it in fact reflect the information in Exhibits
280 through 283 ! A. It does.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, this is another exhibit,
the authenticity of which has been stipulated to, and
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs-—Direct
720a
we would offer it in evidence at this time.
Mr. Ris: Same objection.
The Court: The number on that one ?
Mr. Greiner: Exhibit 284, Tour Honor.
Mr. Brega: Same objection.
The Court: It will be received.
[571] (Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 284 was
received in evidence.)
Q. Exhibit 284 depicts what, Dr. Bardwell? A. Shows
the percent Anglo students for the years 1963 through ’68
for the selected four Anglo junior high schools.
The Court: This is percentagewise?
The Witness: Percentagewise, that’s right, sir,
and the percent Anglo students for the selected mi
nority schools.
Q. All right. And the first year depicted on Exhibit 284,
Dr. Bardwell, what was the percent Anglo composition in
the Anglo junior high schools? A. Very nearly 100 per
cent.
Q. And what was it in the selected minority junior high
schools? A. Approximately 30 percent.
Q, And by 1968, Doctor, as depicted in Exhibit 284, what
was the Anglo percentage in the selected Anglo schools?
A. 1968, the percentage is roughly 98 percent.
Q. And what was it in the minority schools? A. For the
minority schools, the percentage is roughly 17, 18 percent.
The Court: Now, this is the year ’68?
The Witness: 1968.
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
721a
Q. Next, Dr. Bardwell, have you prepared exhibits [5723
showing the ethnic and racial composition of the selected
senior high schools? A. Yes.
Q. I have handed you what has been marked for identi
fication as Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 309 through 312. Could you
identify those for us for the record. A. Exhibit 309 shows
the ethnic distribution of students by number of students
for the years 1963 through ’68 for the three selected minor
ity senior high schools. Exhibit 310—
Q. Does that show the same information? A. Shows the
same information except as a percentage.
Q. All right, 311. A. 311 is the distribution, ethnic dis
tribution of students by number, for 1963 through ’68 for
the three selected Anglo senior high schools.
Q Then is 312 the same thing but expressed as a percent?
A. 312 is exactly the same, expressed as a percent.
[573] Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we would offer
Exhibits 309 through 312 at this time.
Mr. Eds: We wish to make the same objection as
to Exhibits 249 through 252.
Mr. Brega: Same objection.
The Court: 309 through 312 will be received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 309, 310, 311
and 312 were received in evidence.)
Q. Doctor, similarly, have you prepared a chart w’hich il
lustrates the information contained in Exhibits 309 through
312? A. Yes, we have.
Q. Is that Exhibit 313? A. This is Exhibit 313.
Q. Does Exhibit 313 accurately depict the information
contained in Exhibits 309 through 312? A. It does.
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
722a
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we would offer 313.
Mr. Ris: The same objection as to 309 through
312.
Mr. Brega: Same objection.
The Court: It will be received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 313 was re
ceived in evidence.)
Q. What does Exhibit 313 show as to the Anglo [5743
percentage in the Anglo senior high schools as of 1964? A.
1964, the percentage Anglo students in the selected schools
was very close to 98 percent.
Q. And what does it show in that year as to the per
centage Anglo students in the minority schools? A. It
would appear to be close to 55 percent.
Q. Then, calling your attention to the year 1968 as de
picted on Exhibit 313, what is the percentage shown there
for the Anglo schools? A. The Anglo percent—
The Court: What was that figure in the minority
school?
The Witness: Yes, roughly 55 percent.
For 1968 the percentage Anglo students for the
selected Anglo schools would be approximately 96
percent.
Q. And what is shown as to the minority schools? A.
For the minority schools the percentage Anglo students
would be approximately 40 percent.
Q. Now, Doctor, have you prepared exhibits with respect
to the certain elements with regard to the faculty? And first
of all, in the elementary schools of this district? A. Yes,
we have.
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
723a
Q. I have handed you what’s been marked for identifica
tion as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 254 through 257. Calling your
attention first to Exhibit 254, what does that exhibit purport
[575] to depict? A. This depicts the ethnic distribution
of the faculty by number for the years 1964 through 1968
for the selected minority schools.
Q. And then Exhibit 255 is the same information but
expressed as a percentage? A. That’s correct.
Q. Then what is 256? A. 256 is the ethnic distribution
of the faculty by number for the years 1964 through 1968
for the 21 selected Anglo schools.
Q. And then Exhibit 257 is the same information but
expressed as a percentage, is that correct? A. That is
correct.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we would offer Exhibits
254 through 257 at this time.
Mr. Ris: If the Court please, this gets into a
different field not involving pupil segregation and
we would therefore object to these exhibits and to
the further line of evidence pertaining to faculty
on the grounds of the lack of materiality.
The only position that I can recall at the moment is
the Cook County case in which the ethnic distribution
of faculty was deemed by a court to be a major fac
tor and that involved virtually 100 percent of a racial
minority [576] school which was also approximately
one hundred percent, and this does not—this not
being the case in Denver, we don’t think it’s material.
So we would object to not only the exhibits but
all the exhibits and testimony pertaining to ethnic
distribution of faculty and would further object to
this for the same reasons as we objected to 249 and
252.
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
724a
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
The Court: What’s the purpose of this offer for
the record?
Mr. G-reiner: For the record, Your Honor, the
exhibits depict the overall racial composition of the
faculty throughout the school district as a whole.
Those exhibits are already in evidence. And they
establish, for example, that at the elementary school
level, as I recall there was about 90-percent Negro
faculty throughout the school district. What these
exhibits tendered now show is that in the minority
schools there is, we contend, a disproportionate con
centration of minority faculty—
The Court: This goes then to the character of
the evidence being offered in so-called minority
schools ?
Mr. Greiner: This goes to the question of intent,
Your Honor, and it shows, we believe, that the school
district has assigned—
The Court: Your offer—-you’re offering it— [577]
That’s what I really asked you. —insofar as it
sheds some light on the state of mind of the school
board?
Mr. Greiner: Yes, Your Honor. It shows that the
administration has consciously assigned minority
teachers to these minority schools. There is no, I
think, as the Court recalls, there is no neighborhood
faculty policy and you can’t explain the dispropor
tionate concentration of these minority faculty in
minority schools on any basis of adventitious geog'-
raphy. This is, we contend, a clear example of as
signment on the basis of race and lends credence,
we believe, to the overall contention that the school
district has intentionally created and maintained
725a
these minority schools. Furthermore, the concentra
tion of minority faculty in a minority school simply
confirms—
The Court: Okay. We will receive these based
upon your statement that they are offered for the
purpose of showing that there exists a process of
classification that is conscious.
Mr. Greiner: Thank you, Your Honor.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 254, 255, 256
and 257 were received in evidence.)
Q. Dr. Bardwell, with respect to Exhibits 254 through
257, have you also prepared a series of exhibits showing
the faculty experience at these selected minority and Anglo
[578] schools?
The Court: What number is this?
Mr. Greiner: Kef erring now to Exhibit 259 through
262.
A. Exhibit 259 is a tabulation computer print-out showing
the experience of the faculty in terms of number of teachers
for the 20 minority schools for the years 1964 through 1968
according to whether or not that faculty person has no
Denver Public Schools experience; whether they are on
probation.
Q. What does probation mean, Doctor? A. That means
less than three years of experience. And those teachers
that have ten or more years of experience.
In addition to that, the median years of Denver Public
Schools experience is shown for each, of these minority
schools.
Q. How was the median years’ experience calculated?
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
726a
A. The median years’ experience was calculated by taking
the distribution of experience of all teachers in each one
of these schools and calu.culating that year which divides
the faculty in terms of its experience in half.
Q. Then what does the next exhibit depict? The same
information expressed as a percentage, is that correct? A.
That is correct.
Q. And then the next exhibit is what? [5793 A. The
next exhibit is 261 and this shows the faculty experience
by number for the 21 Anglo elementary schools with the
same classifications of experience as previously mentioned
for the years 1964 through 1968.
Q. Then the next exhibit is what number? A. The next
exhibit is 262.
Q. Does it reflect the same information except expressed
as a percentage? A. That is correct.
Mr. Greiner : Your Honor, we would offer Exhibits
259 through 262 at this time.
Voir Dire Examination by Mr. Ris:
Q. Dr. Bardwell, you know from other evidence that has
already been brought into this case that a substantial per
centage of newly-employed teachers have had experience
in other school districts, do you not? A. Substantial per
centage ?
Q. Yes. A. (No answer.)
Q. Are you hung up on the word “substantial”? A. I
sure am.
Q All right. That there is a percentage of newly-em-
plojmd teachers in the Denver school system who have had
previous teaching experience? [580] A. I agree.
Q. Do you recall what that percentage is? A. No, I do
not.
George E. Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Voir Dire
727a
Q. Would 30 percent refresh your recollection? A. Not
necessarily.
Q. Pardon? A. It wouldn’t, no.
Q. Well, whatever the percentage is, you have not taken
that into consideration in your computations here at all,
have you? A. That’s quite correct.
Q. So when you’re talking- about experience, if a teacher
here taught ten years in some other system and then was
hired in Denver, that’s not reflected here at all? A. That
is correct.
Q. So that’s not shown in your ten or more years? A.
That’s correct.
Q. I t’s not shown in your median years ? A. That’s cor
rect. That information we were unable to get by race.
Q. Whether you were able to get it or not, it’s not in
there? It’s not in your computer prog-ram? Eight? A.
No, it’s not in there.
Mr. Bis: We have no objection to the mathematics
[5813 as they’re shown on that, but we would have
the same objections that we have made to the 252
through 257 and 249 through 252.
Mr. .Brega: Same objection, Your Honor.
The Court: The objections will be overruled.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 259, 260, 261
and 262 were received in evidence.)
Direct Examination by Mr. Greiner (Continued):
Q. Doctor, I neglected to ask you with respect to the
previous sets of Exhibits—have you prepared a chart which
reflects the information contained in Exhibits 252 through
257? A. Yes.
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
728a
Q. What’s the number of that exhibit! A. Exhibit 258.
Mr. G-reiner: Your Honor, we would offer Exhibit
258 at this time.
Mr. Eis : Same objection as to Exhibit 254 through
257.
The Court: Very well. We will receive 258.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 258 was re
ceived in evidence.)
Q. Doctor, calling your attention to Exhibit 258, what
does 258 depict ? [582] A. 258 depicts by percent minority
school teachers located in the minority and Anglo schools
selected for study for the years 1964 through 1968.
Q. Now, in the first—the first year depicted is 1964? A.
That’s correct.
Q. What is shown for the minority teachers in the Anglo
schools? A. In 1964 there ŵ ere approximately two per
cent of the teachers in the 21 Anglo schools that were minor
ity teachers.
Q. What was the percentage of minority teachers in the
minority schools? A. Around 28 percent.
Q. Do you recall, Doctor, in 1964 what the percentage
of Negro teachers was, districtwide, at the elementary
school level? A. I don’t know. I would have to consult a
previous exhibit.
Q. And by the year 1968, Doctor, what was the percentage
of minority teachers in the Anglo schools selected? A.
In 1968 the percentage of minority school teachers in the
21 Anglo schools was approximately that in 1964, around
two percent.
Q. And what was the percentage of minority faculty in
George E. Bardtvell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
729a
[5833 the selected minority schools by 1968? A. About
22 percent in the minority schools.
Q. Doctor, with respect to Exhibits 259 through 262,
which have been received in evidence, relating to teacher
experience in the elementary schools, have you also pre
pared a series of charts which graphically depict the infor
mation in those tables? A. Yes, we have.
Q. Handing you first what’s been marked for identifica
tion as Exhibit 263, can you identify that for us, please?
A. Yes, this shows by percent of total teachers in those 21
Anglo schools and 20 minority schools those with no Denver
Public Schools experience for the years 1964 through 1968.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we would offer 263 at
this time. I believe, again, the accuracy of the figures
shown on 263 has been stipulated to.
Your Honor, we are going to first identify this
whole series of exhibits because counsel has indicated
his objection would be the same to all of them.
The Court: Good.
Q. The next exhibit is 264. Would you tell us what Ex
hibit 264 depicts, Doctor? A. 264 is a graph showing for
the 20 minority schools and 21 Anglo schools the percent
of all teachers in those [584] schools that are so-called
probationary for the years 1964 through 1968.
Q. And then Exhibit 265 depicts what, Doctor? A. 265
shows for the same two groups of schools the Anglo and
minority schools, for the years 1964 through 1968, the per
centage of all teachers in those schools with ten or more
years of Denver Public Schools experience.
Q. And then Exhibits 266 depicts what? A. 266 shows
for the same set of years, 1964 through 1968, for the same
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
730a
two groups of schools, the median years of Denver Public
Schools experience at elementary schools for the 21 Anglo
schools and 20 minority schools.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we would offer Ex
hibits 263 through 266 at this time.
Mr. Ris: To which we would make the same ob
jections as to 259 through 262 from which they were
taken.
The Court: Do you object?
Mr. Brega: Same objection.
The Court: Very well. 263 through 266 are re
ceived at this time.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 263, 264, 265
and 266 were received in evidence.)
Q. First of all, calling your attention, Doctor, to Exhibit
266, that is the exhibit Avhich depicts the median years’ ex
perience? [585] A. That’s correct.
Q. In 1964 what was the median years’ experience in
Anglo schools ? A. Approximately eight years’ median ex
perience.
Q. What was it in the minority schools for that year?
A. Approxmiately three.
Q. And in the year 1966, what was the median years’
experience of teachers in the selected Anglo schools? A.
Approximately nine years.
The Court: What year are you talking about?
Mr. Greiner: 1966, Your Honor.
Q. What was it in the minority schools? A. Approxi
mately four.
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
731a
Q. And then, in 1968, what was the median years of
teacher experience in the selected Anglo schools? A. Ap
proximately nine and a half.
Q. And what was it in the selected minority schools ? A.
Approximately four.
[586] Q. Calling yonr attention next, Doctor, to Exhibit
265, which depicts teachers with ten or more years of
Denver Public School experience, in 1964, Doctor, what
was the percentage of such teachers in the selected Anglo
schools? A. Approximately 41 percent of the teachers
had ten or more years’ DPS experience.
Q. And what percent of teachers in 1964 in the minority
schools had such experience? A. Approximately 15 per
cent.
Q. And by 1968, Doctor, what percentage of teachers in
the selected Anglo schools had ten or more years DPS
experience? A. About 45 percent.
Q. And what was the percentage of such experienced
teachers in the selected minority schools? A. Approx
imately 18 percent.
Q. Calling your attention, Doctor, to Exhibit 264, deal
ing with probationary teachers in the elementary schools
selected, what does that show the 20 minority schools’
percentage of probationary teachers as of 1964 was? A.
Roughly 45 percent of all the teachers in those 20 minority
schools were on probation.
Q. And what is the percentage in the selected Anglo
elementary schools? A. Approximately 22 percent.
Q. Now, by 1968, Doctor, what percentage of the teachers
[587] in the minority schools were probationary accord
ing to Exhibit 264? A. About 47 percent.
Q. And what percentage of the teachers in the selected
Anglo schools were probationary teachers? A. About 25
percent.
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
732a
Q. Next, calling your attention, Doctor, to Exhibit 263,
which depicts teachers with no previous DPS experience
in 1964, what percentage of the teachers in the selected
minority schools had no previous DPS experience! A.
About 14 percent.
Q. And what was the comparable percentage in the se
lected Anglo elementary schools? A. About six.
Q. Turning your attention to the year 1968, by that
year what percentage of the teachers in the minority
schools had had no previous Denver Public School ex
perience? A. About 24 percent.
Q. And what was the comparable percentage in the se
lected Anglo schools? A. Ten percent.
Q. I am handing you what has been marked for identi
fication, Doctor, as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 267. Can you iden
tify that for us? A. Yes, Exhibit 267 shows a comparison
between the E588] 20 minority schools and Traylor El
ementary School in terms of the median years of teacher
experience.
Q. Is that for a given year, Doctor? A. Yes.
Q. What year? A. 1968.
Q. Why was 1968 selected? A. That was the year in
which Traylor opened.
Q. Why are you using Traylor in this comparison? A.
Well, it happened to be a school that opened very re
cently and happened to be a fairly large school. It is a
school in southwest Denver, and it appeared to be rather
unusual that an elementary school opening in 1968 would
have a median year of teach experience of 11—
Mr. E is: Pardon me.
Mr. Greiner: Don’t read the figures yet, Doctor.
Mr. E is: That’s comment and opinion by the wit-
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
733a
ness involving educational matter. I move that part
be stricken.
The Court: Sustained. He asked him why he
picked out Traylor, and I think he already answered
it, anyhow.
Mr. G-reiner: All right, Your Honor, we wmuld
offer at this time Exhibit 267.
Mr. Ris: No objection, except again going back
to reference to the 20 minority schools, which takes
us back to the objection we made to Exhibits 249
through 252.
[589] Mr. Brega: Same objection.
The Court: Exhibit 267 is received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 267 was re
ceived in evidence.)
Q. Referring your attention to Exhibit 267, in the year
1968, what was the median years’ experience of teachers
in the selected 20 minority schools? A. Approximately
four years.
Q. What was the median years’ experience in Traylor
elementary school when it opened! A. Over eleven and
a half.
Q. Doctor, with respect to the junior high school faculty,
have you prepared a similar set of exhibits showing the
ethnic distribution of the faculty expressed as a percent
and a number in the selected Anglo and minority junior
high schools? A. We have.
Q. And what are those exhibit numbers, please. A. Ex
hibit 285 shows the faculty by number for the years ’64
through ’68 for the four minority junior high schools. Ex
hibit 286 is a similar tabulation by percentage for those
minority schools. Exhibit 287 is the distribution of the
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
734a
faculty by ethnicity for the four Anglo junior high schools
for ’64 through ’68.
Q. That’s expressed as a number? [5903 A. Expressed
as a number.
Q. And Exhibit 288 is the same data expressed as a
percentage? A. That’s correct.
Mr. Greiner: Tour Honor, we would offer Ex
hibits 285 through 288 at this time.
Mr. Ris: Same objections as to 249 through 252
and 254 through 257.
Mr. Brega: Same objection.
The Court: The objection will be overruled; Ex
hibits 285 through 288 are received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 285 through
288 were received in evidence.)
Q. Doctor, similarly, have you prepared a chart which
purports to depict the information contained in Exhibits
285 through 288? A. We have.
Q. Is that Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 289? A. Plaintiffs’ Ex
hibit 289.
Q. And that purports to depict what? A. It shows the
percentage of minority school teachers in the selected
minority schools and selected Anglo schools for 1964
through ’68.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we offer Plaintiffs’ Ex
hibit 289.
[591] Mr. Ris: Same objection as to 249 through
252 and 254 through 257.
The Court: Exhibit 289 will be received.
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
735a
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 289 was re
ceived in evidence.)
Q. Doctor, calling your attention to Exhibit 289, in the
year 1964, first of all, with respect to the minority schools,
what does Exhibit 289 show as to the percentage of
minority school teachers in the minority junior high schools
selected? A. Twenty percent of the teachers were minority
teachers in those schools.
Q. And what about the percentage of minority teachers
in the selected Anglo junior high schools? A. About 2
percent.
Q. Now, by the year 1968, Doctor, what wms the per
centage of minority teachers in the minority junior high
schools? A. Approximately 25 percent.
Q. It had increased then since 1964? A. Prom 20 per
cent to 25.
Q. What was the percentage of the minority teachers
in the selected Anglo junior high schools? A. Approx
imately 3 percent.
Q. Doctor, have you also prepared a similar set of [592]
exhibits with respect to faculty experience in the selected
junior high schools? A. That’s correct.
Q. And handing you what has been marked for identifi
cation as Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 290 through 293, I ask you
if you can identfy those for us. A. Exhibit 290 is a dis
tribution of the faculty by number, having various cate
gories of experience, for the years 1964 through ’68.
Q. What are the categories depicted on the exhibit,
Doctor? A. Categories of experience are No Denver Pub
lic School Experience, Those Teachers that are on Pro
bation, and Those that have Ten or More Years of Ex
perience, and the Median Years of Teacher Experience.
George E. Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
736a
Q. This then is the same information previously shown
for the selected elementary schools? A. That’s correct.
Q. And Exhibit 290 depicts it as a number, is that cor
rect? A. Exhibit 290 depicts that information as a num
ber.
Q. And Exhibit 291 depicts it by percent? A. That is
correct.
Q. And what does Exhibit 292 depict? A. Exhibit 292
depicts the same information for the [593] four Anglo
junior high schools.
Q. And Exhibit 293 depicts it just as a percentage, is
that correct? A. The same information as a percent.
Mr. Greiner: We offer Exhibits 290 through 293
at this time, Your Honor.
Mr. Ris: Same objection as to 254 to 257 and
249 to 251.
Mr. Brega: Same objection.
The Court: The objections will be overruled. Ex
hibits 290 through 293 will be received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 290 through
293 were received in evidence.)
Q. Now, Dr. Bardwell, similarly, have you prepared a
series of charts illustrating the information contained in
Exhibits 290 through 293? A. Yes.
Q. First of all, handing you what has been marked for
identification as Exhibit 294, would you state, please, what
that purports to depict? A. It shows the graph of the
percentage of teachers with no Denver Public School ex
perience in the junior high schools that have been selected
for study for the years 1964 through ’68.
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
737a
Q. All right. Then, next, Doctor, is what has been [594]
marked for identification as Exhibit 295. Would you de
scribe, please, what it purports to be. A. It is a graph
for the percentage of probationary teachers in those two
groups of junior high schools for the years 1964 through
1968.
Q. Next is what has been marked for identification as
Exhibit 296. What does 296 depict! A. Shows the per
centage teachers in the two groups of schools, Anglo and
minority schools, those teachers with ten or more years’
DPS experience.
Q. Finally, Doctor, Exhibit 297 depicts what? A. It
shows the median years of teacher experience for the two
groups of selected junior high schools for 1964 through
’68.
Mr. Greiner: Tour Honor, we offer Exhibits 294
through 297 at this time.
Mr. Ris: Same objections as to Exhibits 290
through 293.
Mr. Brega: Same objections.
The Court: The objections wall be overruled. They
will be received in evidence. This is 294—
Mr. Greiner: Through 297.
The Court: They will be received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 294 through
297 were received in evidence.)
[595] Q. Calling your attention, first, to Exhibit 294,
which depicts teachers with no previous DPS experience, in
the year 1964, what was the percentage of such teachers in
selected minority schools? A. Approximately 18 percent.
Q. And what was the percentage in the selected Anglo
schools? A. Approximately 15 percent.
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
738a
Q. By 1968, Doctor, what was the percentage in the se
lected minority schools? A. Approximately 33 percent.
Q. And what was it in the selected Anglo schools? A.
Approximately 15 percent.
Q. Approximately the same in the Anglo schools in
1968 as it was in 1964? A. No. Oh, in the Anglo schools,
yes.
Q. And what was the comparison between ’64 and ’68
in the minority schools? A. Minority schools, 18 percent
in 1964, compared to about 33 percent in 1968.
Q. So, it increased? A. It increased.
Q. Next, Doctor, Exhibit 295, with respect to probation
ary teachers in the selected junior high schools, minority
junior high schools, in the year 1964?
C596J The Court: 'VVhat’s this subject matter?
Mr. Greiner: This one is probationary teachers,
Your Honor.
A. 1964, for the minority schools, percentage is approx
imately 48 percent.
Q. And what was the comparable percentage in 1964 in
the selected Anglo junior high schools? A. About 36 or
37 percent.
Q. Now, by 1968, Doctor, what was the percentage of
teachers in the selected minority schools who were proba
tionary teachers? A. About 62 percent.
Q. And what was the percentage that year in the se
lected Anglo schools? A. Approximately 33 percent.
Q. Next, Doctor, calling your attention to Exhibit 296,
depicting teachers with ten or more years’ DPS experience
in 1964, what percentage of the teachers in the selected
Anglo schools had ten or more years’ DPS experience?
A. About 31 percent.
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
739a
Q. And what was the comparable percentage that year
in the selected minority schools ? A. About 12 percent.
Q. Calling your attention to the year 1968, in the year
1968 what percentage of the teachers in the selected [5973
Anglo schools had ten or more years’ experience! A.
About 35 percent.
Q. And what was the comparable percentage in the se
lected minority schools! A. Ten percent.
Q. Finally, Doctor, with respect to Exhibit 297, which
depicts median years of teacher experience in selected
junior high schools, in the year 1964, what was the median
years’ experience in the selected Anglo schools! A. Ap
proximately 4.6 years.
Q. And what was the median years’ teacher experience
in the minority schools that year? A. About 2.6 years.
Q. Now, by the year 1968, Doctor, what was the median
years’ teacher experience in the Anglo schools? What was
the percentage ? A. Not the percentage. Number of years.
Q. Pardon me, number of years. A. 5.6 years in the
case of the Anglo schools.
Q. What was it for the selected minority schools? A.
About 1.7.
The Court: I think we will take our morning re
cess now.
(The Court recessed from 10:58 o’clock a.m. until
11:10 o’clock a.m.)
[5983 (Following a recess, the trial resumed at
11:17 a.m.)
Mr. Greiner: May plaintiffs proceed, Your Honor.
The Court: Yes.
George E. Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
740a
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
By Mr. Greiner-.
Q. Dr. Bar dwell, have you also prepared a series of
exhibits pertaining to the ethnic distribution of faculty
in the selected senior high schools? A. We have.
Q. Handing you what’s been marked for identification
as Exhibits 314 through 317, I ask you if you can identify
those, please? A. 314 is the distribution of faculty by
ethnicity for the years 1964 through 1968 for the selected
senior high schools.
Q. Which kind of senior high schools ? A. East, Manual
and West.
Q. Those are the minority senior high schools? A.
Those are the minority senior high schools.
Exhibit 315 is exactly the same data expressed as a
percentage.
Q. Then Exhibit 316? A. Exhibit 316 is the distribu
tion of faculty by number for the selected Anglo senior
high schools for the years 1964 through 1968'.
Q. 317 depicts the same data as 316 except expressed
[599] as a percentage, is that correct? A. That’s correct.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we offer 314 through
317 at this time.
Mr. Ris: Same objection as to 249 through 252 and
254 through 257.
Mr. Brega: Same objection.
The Court: The objections will be overruled.
They will be received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 314, 315, 316
and 317 were received in evidence.)
Q. Doctor, have you also prepared a chart depicting
741a
the distribution of faculty in the selected senior high
schools? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Handing you what’s been marked for identification
as Exhibit 318, I ask you to identify that? A. 318 shows
a comparison of the Anglo schools selected for analysis
and the minority schools selected for analysis on the basis
of the percentage of minority school teachers for 1964
through 1968.
Q. And that is based on data that has just been received ?
A. That’s correct.
[600] Mr. Greiner : Your Honor, we offer Ex
hibit 318.
Mr. B is: Same objection as to 314 through 317.
Mr. Brega: Same objection.
The Court: Overruled.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 318 was re
ceived in evidence.)
Q. Dr. Bardwell, calling your attention then to Exhibit
318, in 1964 what was the percentage of minority school
teachers in the selected minority senior high schools? A.
About seven percent.
Q. And what was the percent of minority school teach
ers in the selected Anglo senior high schools? A. About
two percent.
Q. Now, about 1968, Doctor, what was the percentage
of minority school teachers in the selected minority schools ?
A. Twelve percent.
Q. Did it increase then from 1964? A. Yes, it increased
from approximately seven to twelve percent.
Q. With respect to minority teachers in the selected
George E. Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
742a,
Anglo senior high schools, what was the percentage in
1968? A. About one and a half percent.
Q. It had decreased since 1964? A. It had.
Q. Next, Doctor, have you prepared a similar set of
[601] exhibits depicting faculty experience at selected
Anglo and minority senior high schools? A. We have.
Q. Handing you what’s been identified as Exhibit 319
through 320, would you identify those for us, please? A.
319 shows the distribution of faculty by number at var
ious experience categories for the selected minority senior
high schools for the years 1964 through 1968.
Q. And 320 expresses the same data in terms of per
centages? A. That’s correct.
Q. And 321 expresses the same data in numbers for the
selected Anglo schools? A. That’s correct.
Q. And 322 expresses it as a percentage for the selected
Anglo schools, is that correct? A. That’s correct.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we offer 319 through
322.
Mr. Ris: Same objection as to 249 through 252;
254 through 257.
Mr. Brega: Same objection.
The Court: Overruled.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 319, 320, 321
and 322 were received in evidence.)
Q. Doctor, similarly, have you prepared a series of
[602] charts depicting the information as shown on 319
through 322? A. We have.
Q. Handing you what’s been marked for identification
as Exhibit 323 through 326, and I will ask you to identify
each of those, please. A. Yes, Exhibit 323 is a percentage
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
743a
analysis for the years 1964 through 1968, showing teachers
with no Denver Public Schools experience for the selected
senior high schools.
Q. And then the next one is 324. What does that show!
A. That shows a similar analysis for probationary teach
ers.
And 325 shows a similar analysis for teachers with ten
or more years of Denver Public Schools experience.
And Exhibit 326 shows a comparison of the median
years of teacher experience for the two selected groups
of senior high schools for the years 1964 through 1968.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we offer Exhibits 323
through 326 at this time.
Mr. R is: Same objection as to 319 through 322.
Mr. Brega: Same objection.
The Court: Overruled. They will he received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 323, 324, 325,
and 326 were received in evidence.)
[603] Q. Calling your attention first to Exhibit 323,
Doctor, in 1964 with respect to teachers with no prior DPS
experience, what was the percentage of such teachers in
the selected minority senior high schools! A. About ten
percent.
Q. What was it in the selected Anglo senior high schools ?
A. Slightly less than five percent.
Q. Now, by 1968, Doctor, what was the percentage of
teachers with no prior DPS experience in the selected mi
nority senior high schools?
The Court: What year is this?
Mr. Greiner: 1968.
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
744a
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
A. About 16 to 17 percent.
Q. And what was the percentage of teachers with no
prior experience in the selected Anglo schools? A. About
seven and a half percent.
Q. Next, Doctor, with respect to Exhibit 324, and deal
ing with probationary teachers, in 1964 what was the per
centage of probationary teachers in the selected minority
senior high schools ? A. About 30 percent.
Q. And what was it in the selected Anglo senior high
schools in 1964? A. Approximately 16 percent.
[604] Q. And then by 1968, Doctor, according to Exhibit
324, what was the percentage of probationary teachers in
the selected minority schools in 1968? A. About 35 per
cent.
Q. What was the percentage in the selected Anglo senior
high schools? A. About 19 percent.
Q. Next, Doctor, Exhibit 325 dealing with teachers with
ten or more years’ experience, in 1964 what percentage of
the teachers in the Anglo schools had ten or more years
of DPS experience? A. About 46 percent.
Q. And what was the percentage of the selected minority
senior high schools? A. About 41 percent.
Q. Now, about 1968, Doctor, in the selected Anglo senior
high schools what was the percentage of teachers with
ten or more years’ DPS experience? A. About 51 per
cent.
Q. And what was the percentage in the minority schools ?
A. About 36 or 37 percent.
Q. So it had decreased somewhat in the minority schools ?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Finally, Doctor, with regard to median years of ex
perience in the selected senior high schools, in 1964 what
745a
[605] was the median years’ experience in the selected
Anglo schools? A. Nine years.
Q. What was it in the selected minority schools in 1964?
A. Abont seven years.
Q. Now, by 1968 what was the median years’ experience
in the Anglo schools? A. Abont ten years.
Q. And what was it by that time in 1968 in the minority
schools? A. Abont six.
Q. So it had declined slightly? A. That’s correct.
Q. Between 1964 and 1968, is that right? A. That’s
correct.
Q. Next, Doctor, have yon prepared a series of exhibits
purporting to show the building facilities at the selected
elementary schools? A. We have.
Q. Handing yon what’s been marked for identification
as Exhibits 268 and 269, can you identify those for us,
please? A. 268 is a recapitulation of the state of the
building facilities for the selected minority elementary
[606J schools.
Q. What data is depicted on that exhibit? What are
the columns? A. The first column indicates the date of
original construction of the building. The second set of
columns indicates the additions, construction dates of the
additions. The next column indicates the capacity, the site
size in acres, and the next column indicates the number of
acres per hundred students.
The next one is the number of classrooms, the number
of mobile units, library rooms, kindergarten rooms, the
capacity of lunchrooms, physical education rooms, audi
torium capacity, and whether or not that particular school
had a swimming pool.
Q. Now, what does 269 depict? A. 269 depicts exactly
the same information for the chosen 21 Anglo schools.
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
746a
Mr. Greiner: Yonr Honor, we would offer Ex
hibits 268 and 269 at this time.
Mr. R is: Subject only to onr objection to 249 and
252, we have no other objections.
Mr. Brega: Same objection, Your Honor.
The Court: Yon don’t presume that quality ed
ucation is dependent upon physical facilities, I take
it!
Mr. R is: We will get into that later, but—
[607] The Court: I’m asking him.
Mr. Ris: I ’m sorry. I thought you were asking
me.
The Court: If you want to answer it, I ’ll hear
you.
The Witness: Yes, that’s correct.
The Court: You do presume that there is a re
lationship between physical facilities!
The Witness: We’re simply presuming the in
formation to show the differences between the two
sets of schools in terms of their physical facilities,
that’s right.
The Court: I suppose the quality of the faculty,
though, is really much more—a much more impor
tant element, isn’t it!
The Witness: Am I entitled to answer that! I
think you’re right, sir.
The Court: Do you want to answer now!
Mr. Ris: No, I just want to make an observation
here for the record, if I may. Ultimately we’re go
ing to object to this whole line of questioning per
taining to building for the same reason as we stated
with respect to the teachers and basically for the
same reason that the Court indicated or the basis
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
747a
for the question to the witness, that this is a ques
tion pertaining to pupils and the racial and ethnic,
and that the age of buildings and that type of [608]
facilities are too remote.
So, frankly, I wasn’t going to make any objection
to the whole line of questioning inasmuch as the
Court has permitted the matter to come in on the
teachers, but we do ultimately contest all of this tes
timony for the same reason as stated on the teachers.
That’s our position.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 268 and 269
were received in evidence.)
[609] The Court: We will keep it in mind.
Mr. Greiner: I believe, Your Honor, that that
would go to the weight of the evidence rather than
to its admissibility.
Mr. Ris: I would agree in view of the Court’s
previous ruling it would.
The Court: We will receive them.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 268 and 269
were received in evidence.)
Q. Dr. Bardwell, have you prepared a chart which com
pares certain of the factors described in Exhibit 268 and
269? A. We have, yes.
Q. Exhibit 270 has been marked for identification, and
this purports to depict what? A. It shows a comparison
between the 20 minority schools and the 21 Anglo schools
in terms of the acres per 100 students of the school sites
for the year 1968.
Q. And then what has been marked for identification as
Exhibit 271 purports to depict what, Doctor? A. It de
George E. Bardwell-—for Plaintiffs—Direct
748a
picts the average age of the original structure for the two
groups of schools selected for analysis.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we would offer Ex
hibits 270 and 271 at this time.
Mr. E is: In addition to our grounds of objection
on 268 and 269, we submit that this is so remote, so
irrelevant, [6103 as not to he admissible at all with
respect to the issues in this ease.
The Court: Well, I can’t tell at this stage. You
are offering this to show that there is a classification,
a recognized—or a classification, conscious or sub
conscious, even in terms of physical facilities; is
that right?
Mr. Greiner: Yes, Your Honor, in terms of the
disparity between the schools being compared.
The Court: All right, we will receive them then,
270 and 271.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 270 and 271
were received in evidence.)
Q. Doctor, with respect to Exhibit 270, what does it
demonstrate with respect to the acres per 100 students,
first of all, of the 20 minority schools? A. Twenty mi
nority schools, the average number of acres per 100 stu
dents is slightly less than one-half.
Q. And what does it show for the compared 21 Anglo
schools? A. About eight-tenths.
Q. Of an acre? A. Of an acre per hundred students.
Q. Exhibit 271 depicts what? A. This depicts the aver
age age of original structure, comparing the 20 minority
schools to the 21 Anglo schools.
George E. Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
749a
[611] Q. What is the average age of the structure for
the 20 minority schools! A. Approximately 50 years.
Q. And what is it for the selected 21 Anglo schools! A.
Twenty-five years.
Q. Doctor, have you prepared a similar composite of
the building facilities at the selected junior high schools!
A. We have.
Q. That’s Exhibit 298 and 299! A. Correct.
Q. Does it show the same data as the prior building
facilities exhibits! A. They do.
Mr. Greiner: Tour Honor, we would offer Exhibits
298 and 299, pertaining to the comparison of junior
high school building facilities at this time.
The Court: This goes to the same—
Mr. Greiner: Same data, Your Honor.
The Court: -—category!
Mr. Bis: Same objection as to 268 and 269.
Mr. Brega: Same objection.
The Court: Overruled. Received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 298 and 299
were received in evidence.)
Q. Have you also prepared charts, Doctor, with respect
[612] to the average number of acres and the age of orig
inal structure at the compared junior high schools! A.
We have.
Q. Exhibit 30Q-A treats the average number of acres—•
A. Per hundred students, that’s right.
Q. And what has been identified as Exhibit 300 depicts
the average age of the original structures! A. That’s
right.
George E. Bard-well—for Plaintiffs—Direct
750a
Mr. Greiner: Yonr Honor, we would offer Ex
hibits 300 and 300-A at this time.
Mr. Eis: Same objection as to Exhibits 270 and
271.
Mr. Brega: Same objection.
The Court: Overruled.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 300 and 300-A
were received in evidence.)
Q. Doctor, with respect to Exhibit 300-A, what does it
depict as to the average number of acres per 100 students
in the selected minority schools? A. A little bit less than
six-tenths of an acre per hundred students.
Q. What is shown on the exhibit with respect to the se
lected Anglo schools? A. Approximately .7 acres per hun
dred students.
Q. With regard to the average age of the original struc
tures shown in Exhibit 300, what is the average age for
[6133 the selected minority junior high schools? A. Ap
proximately 37 years.
Q. And what is it for the selected Anglo junior high
schools? A. Approximately 10.
Q. Then, finally, Doctor, with respect to the senior high
school building facilities, have you prepared a composite
exhibit with respect to the selected minority and the se
lected Anglo senior high schools? A. We have.
Q. And what has been marked as Exhibit 327 depicts
what? A. It shows the building facilities classified by
various characteristics of the structure and site for the
three selected minority senior high schools.
Q. And Exhibit 328 depicts the same data for the se
lected Anglo schools? A. That’s right.
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
751a
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we would offer Ex
hibits 327 and 328 at this time.
Mr. B is: Same objection as to 268 and 269.
Mr. Brega: Same objection.
The Court: This is the swimming pool evidence?
The Witness: Excuse me, Your Honor?
The Court: This is the swimming pool evidence
here?
The Witness: That’s right.
[6143 The Court: We will receive these.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 327 and 328
were received in evidence.)
Q. And, finally, Doctor, with regard to this computerized
data, have you prepared charts based upon Exhibits 327
and 328 depicting certain of the aspects of facilities at
these selected senior high schools? A. We have.
Q. And Exhibit 329 purports to depict what? A. It
shows the average number of acres per hundred students
for the minority schools compared to the Anglo schools that
were selected for study.
Q. And Exhibit 330 depicts what? A. The average age
of the original structure for the same two groups of schools.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we would offer Ex
hibits 329 and 330 at this time.
Mr. Bis: Same objection as to 270 and 271.
Mr. Brega: Same objection.
The Court: Overruled; they will be received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 329 and 330
were received in evidence.)
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
752a
Q. Doctor, with respect to Exhibit 329, the average
acres per 100 students, what is shown as to the average
acres per 100 students for the minority schools selected?
[615] A. For the minority schools it is approximately .07
acres per hundred students, and. in the ease of the Anglo
schools it is about .15.
Q. All right, and then referring to Exhibit—
The Court: What’s that last number you gave?
The Witness: .15.
Q. And what was it for the minority schools? A. .07.
Q. And with regard to Exhibit 330, the average age of
the original structure shown for the minority schools is
what? A. About 33 years.
Q. And for the selected Anglo schools? A. It is about
seven years.
Q. Doctor, I am handing you what has been marked as
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 240. Would you please identify that
exhibit for us. A. Yes. Exhibit 240 shows the location
of the 20 minority schools and the 21 Anglo elementary
schools that have been selected for study in the preceding
analyses.
Q. Those are the schools shown on Exhibit 241? A.
Yes, the schools which are minority are shown in blue
and the Anglo schools are shown in red.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we offer Plaintiffs’
Exhibit 240 at this time.
Mr. B is: It accurately reflects 241 ?
[616] Mr. Greiner: Yes.
Mr. Bis: So our objection to this would be for
the same reasons as 241. Other than that, we have
no question as to its accuracy.
George E. Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
753a
Mr. Brega: Same objection.
The Court: The objections are overruled.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 240 was re
ceived in evidence.)
Q. Next, Doctor, I am handing you what has been marked
for identification as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 346. Can you iden
tify Exhibit 346, please! A. Yes. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 346
compares the enrollment to the capacity for junior high
schools for 1962 through ’68, where the minority schools
are the minority schools selected for study in the preceding
analyses and the Anglo schools are Hill, Merrill and Jef
ferson. And it shows this comparison for the years ’62
through ’68.
Q. What is the basis—
Mr. Ris: Excuse me just a moment, could I see
that!
The Court: What number are we on now? What
number is that?
Mr. Greiner: No. 346.
Mr. Ris: If the Court please—excuse me, you
haven’t offered it yet.
Mr. Greiner: That’s all right.
[617] Mr. Ris: Sorry.
Q. Doctor, what are the three Anglo junior high schools
depicted on Exhibit 346? A. Hill, Merrill, and Thomas
Jefferson.
Q. What is your basis for selecting those three junior
high schools? A. Those schools had a constant capacity
over the period 1962 through ’68, and they are the same
Anglo schools that were selected for the study among the
Anglo junior high schools in the proceeding analysis.
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
754a
Q. Now, 273 purports to depict the total capacity of
Hill, Merrill and Thomas Jefferson? A. That’s right.
Q. What is the source of the capacity data depicted on
Exhibit 346?
Mr. Bis: I am going to object to that until the
exhibit is admitted.
The Court: Overruled.
Mr. Greiner: I am laying a foundation for the
exhibit.
The Court: Go ahead.
Q. What is the source of the capacity data! A. Exhibit
24.
The Court: Exhibit 24?
Mr. Greiner: Yes, which is in evidence, Your
Honor, [618] from the summer hearing.
Q. What is the source of the enrollment data as depicted
on Exhibit 346? A. The enrollment data are taken from
the preceding exhibits that have been introduced here.
Q. With respect to what? A. With respect to enroll
ment.
Q. I am handing you what is in evidence as Exhibit
273, Doctor. Is that one of the sources you have refer
ence to? A. Yes, that’s correct.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, at this point we would
offer Exhibit 346.
[6193 Mr. Creighton: May I voir dire, Your
Honor ?
George E. Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
755a
Voir Dire Examination by Mr. Creighton :
Q. Dr. Bardwell, your capacity figures came from Ex
hibit 24, you said? A. That’s right.
Q. And that is the August 1967 Planning Report for the
bond issue that year? A. That’s right, sir.
Q. Did that give capacities for any other area than that
particular school year, 1966-67? A. Except that one can
infer the information about the capacities from the year
in which there were additions to the school, and not follow
ing 1968, no.
Q. Did you use such inferences in determining* capacities
for other years than 1966-67 ? A. Those figures are taken
directly from Exhibit 24 which shows the capacity of the
school building in the year 1967. It also shows the year
in which there were additions to the plan, and these then
would show that there had been for those schools since
1962 no changes in the capacity of the schools.
Q. Now as to membership, you used the principal’s esti
mate of ethnic data; is that right? A. That’s correct.
[620] Q. And you did not use the September principal’s
report used in all the school districts’ capacity planning?
A. That’s correct.
Mr. Creighton: Your Honor, we have checked this
with the capacity data and the inferences he has
used and with the enrollment data from the source.
It accurately reflects those sources of information.
We do make an objection to the exhibit itself be
cause it involves this classification of minority
schools, again, the same objection we have been mak
ing.
George E. Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Voir Dire
756a
Mr. Brega: The same objection.
The Court: May I see it, please!
Mr. Creighton: Tour Honor, I have one farther
qaestion of this witness.
The Coart: Go ahead.
Q. Was a janior-senior high school involved in that ex
hibit, Dr. Bar dwell! A. That’s right.
Q. How did yoa get the membership of a janior-senior
high school! A. Contacted the office of Mr. Crowley, who
at that time sapplied the enrollment for me in the years
I needed it and in addition to that gave me the racial com
position of those janior high schools.
Q. In other words yoa soaght information breaking oat
[621] those three years of the janior high from that six-
year school! A. Yes, becaase the asaal report that comes
oat in September combines the janior and senior high
school enrollment nsnally ander the senior high school.
So, one has to then have supplemental information in order
to break oat the janior high school component of the
school.
Q. This is not then an instance where yoa arbitrarily
divided the janior-senior high school in half to get yoar
janior high membership! A. No, althoagh I can add,
that as a rale of thamb, from the school administration—
and this was the advice that was given to me—that this is
very close to the trnth.
The Coart: We will receive 346.
(Whereapon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 346 was re
ceived in evidence.)
George E. Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Voir Dire
757a
Direct Examination by Mr. Greiner (Cont’d ) :
Q. With reference, Dr. Bardwell, to 346, the thick, green
line on the exhibit depicts what? A. It shows the com
bined capacity of—
Q. Pardon me. It depicts what? A. The capacities of
those three-year schools, and those are the Anglo schools,
Hills, Merrill and Jefferson, and—
Q. And the thin green line depicts what? [622] A. The
enrollment of those three schools from the years 1962
through 1968.
Q. Now, with respect to the red lines, what does the
thick red line depict? A. It shows capacity for the se
lected minority schools in the years 1962 through 1968.
Q. What does the thin red line depict? A. It shows the
enrollment in those minority schools for the same period
of time?
Q. Now, first of all, Doctor, directing your attention to
the Anglo schools depicted on Exhibit 346, and first of all,
the thick green line, does that indicate any increase in
capacity at those three junior high schools over the time
period depicted? A. No, it does not.
Q. Does it indicate an increase in the student enrollment
at those three high schools? A. It does.
Q. What was the student enrollment, approximately, in
1962 as shown by Exhibit 346? A. Approximately 3,800.
Q. And by the year 1968, Doctor, what had that enroll
ment increased to? A. About 5,000.
Q. Now, drawing your attention to the minority schools,
[623] Doctor, was there any change in the capacity of the
minority schools over this time period? A. Very slight
increase in 1966.
Q. Do you recall what that increase related to? A. The
addition at Smiley.
Q. Now, with regard to the enrollment at these selected
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
758a
minority schools, Doctor, what was the enrollment in 1962
as depicted by Exhibit 346? A. About 5,100.
Q. And what was the enrollment as of 1968 in these
minority schools? A. Slightly less than 4,500.
Q. Now, again referring to Exhibit 346, Doctor, in each
instance there is a gap, is there not, between the thick line
and the thin line in each color? A. There is.
Q. What does that gap represent? First of all, with
respect to the green line in the Anglo schools, what does—
take the year 1964, for example. A. In 1964 the enroll
ment in those Anglo schools was about 4,500 compared to
a capacity of about 4,000.
Q. So there was an over enrollment then of approxi
mately 500 students? A. That’s correct.
Q. Now, what was the situation at that point in time
[6243 at the minority junior high schools? A. In 1964
the enrollment in those minority schools was approximately
5,000 students, while the capacity was 5,500.
Q. Is there then a relationship depicted in Exhibit 346
between the undercapacity of the minority schools and the
over-enrollment at the majority schools? A. Yes.
Q. What is that relationship? A. By and large the num
ber of students exceeding the capacity in the Anglo schools
was about the same as the number of seats available in the
minority schools for those same years.
Q. Now, you have already given us the data as to 1964.
Is the situation the same in 1966 as depicted by the ex
hibit? A. Yes, roughly.
Q. What was the overcapacity or the over-enrollment
at the Anglo schools in 1966? A. About 1700.
Q. What was the degree or the number of undercapacity
for the minority schools in that year? A. About 1,000.
Q. Pardon me? A. About 1,000.
Q. And in the year 1968, what was the over-enrollment
at the Anglo schools? [625] A. About 1,000.
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
7.59a
Q. And what was the under-enrollment at the minority-
schools? A. About 1,000.
Q. Doctor, do yon know whether during the years 1962
through 1968 there were any new junior high schools built
by the School District No. 1? A. Yes, there were.
Q. When was the first such school built? A. John F.
Kennedy was built in 1966.
Q. Do you recall what the capacity was of Kennedy
when it opened? A. About 2100, the combined junior high
and senior high school. It would be about 1,050 for just
the junior high.
Q. Then was there another junior high school opened in
1968? A. Yes.
Q. What was that? A. Hamilton.
Q. And do you recall what the capacity of Hamilton was?
A. 1200.
Q. Now, is there another junior high school currently
under construction or authorized? A. Yes.
Q. What is that? £626] A. Place.
Q. Do you recall what the capacity of Place will be?
A. 1200.
Q. Do you recall when Place is scheduled to open? A.
1971.
Q. Doctor, you have on the podium in front of you what
is in evidence as Defendants’ Exhibit D, which we have been
referring to as the Gilberts Plan. A. Yes.
Q. The Gilberts plan was published in what year, Doc
tor? A. 1968.
Q. Is there a projection shown in the Gilberts plan as
to their expectancy as to what’s going to happen to junior
high school enrollment? A. Yes.
Q. Would you tell us, please, what page in Exhibit D
you’re referring to. A. A written presentation appears on
page 13, and graphs showing the membership trends and
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
760a
estimated trends through the year 1970 are shown on the
page following page 13.
Q. Now, with respect first to the graphs which you have
just described, what does the graph show as to the pro
jected junior high school enrollment, Doctor? A. That it
will remain fairly level for the next several years at ap
proximately 21,000.
£6273 Q. And 21,000 was the level as of what school
year? A. As of 1966, approximately.
Q. And how far into the future does that projection ex
tend? A. 1970.
Q. Now, is there any narrative on the preceding page
describing their estimate of projection? A. There is.
Q. Would you read that, please. A. “School District
No. 1, Denver Public Schools, with a pupil membership in
1968 of 96,848 pupils, is coterminous with the City and
County boundaries. Enrollment in the schools grew rapidly.
7.4 percent per year during the 1950 to 1960 decade. Less
rapidly during the period 1960 to 1965, and now is remain
ing about constant. Estimates point to a stabilized school
membership for the next several years. However, Denver
has room to grow, and its school population should con
tinue to increase at a gradual rate. For a number of years
the school population in Denver has increased annually at
each school level until recently when the citywide elemen
tary membership began to stabilize, secondary school mem
berships appear to be leveling oft since increases in these
years are small.”
Membership trends are shown in the accompanying graph
which I have just related.
[628] Q. Doctor, do we have any other evidence of
what in fact has been happening to enrollment at the
junior high school level? A. Yes, we do.
Q. Handing you what’s in evidence as Exhibit 274, what
does Exhibit 274 show with respect to the total junior high
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
761a
school enrollment? A. That from 1967 to 1968 there was
a decrease of approximately 100 students in total enroll
ment for all junior high schools in the district,
Q. Doctor, I am also handing you what has been marked
for identification as Defendants’ Exhibit S-l. Can you
identify that for us? A. Yes. This is the report of the
estimated ethnic distribution of pupils, classroom teachers,
and other certified and classified personnel for September
26, 1969.
Q. That is then for the current school year? A. For
the current school year.
Q. And these are the School District figures? A. That’s
correct.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we offer Defendants’
Exhibit S-l at this time.
Mr. Creighton: Your Honor, this might be termed
a joint exhibit. It is the update of Exhibit S from
the last summers’ hearing, giving this fall’s ethnic
estimates. No [629] objection.
Mr. Brega: No objection.
The Court: It is received.
(Whereupon, Defendants’ Exhibit S-l was re
ceived in evidence.)
Q. Referring to S-l then, Doctor, what has happened to
the junior high school enrollment this school year com
pared to the prior school year? A. In 1969, for this school
year, that enrollment is 19,736.
Q. What was it in the prior school year according to
Exhibit 274? A. It was 21,599. There has to be then an
addition to that of the contribution of John F. Kennedy
and Thomas Jefferson.
Q. We’re talking now about enrollment? A. That right.
Q. What happened to the enrollment to the junior high
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
762a
schools between this school year and last school year! A.
It appears to have decreased.
Q. By about how much? A. A few hundred students.
Q. Now, with respect to the elementary school enroll
ment, Doctor, which will eventually be feeding into these
junior high schools, I am handing you what is in evidence
as [6301 Exhibit 243. What does 243 show with respect
to the total elementary school enrollments in the District?
A. 243 shows that the elementary school enrollment in
Denver has been declining every year since 1963.
Q. What was it, for example, in 1963? A. In 1963
the elementary enrollment was 57,199.
Q. What was it in 1968? A. 54,586.
Q. Referring to S-l, what is it this year? A. This year
it is 54,498, or a drop of about 100 students.
Q. Next I am handing you, Doctor, what has been marked
for identification as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 247. Can you iden
tify that for us, please. A. Yes. That is a depiction of
the enrollment versus the capacity for all junior high
schools in the District from 1962 to 1971.
Q. What is the source of the enrollment and capacity
data on Exhibit 347? A. The enrollment—the capacity
information came from the same source as the preceding
exhibit, namely, Exhibit 24, and the enrollment information
came from previous exhibits that have been submitted here.
Mr. Ris: No objection.
[6313 Mr. Brega: No objection.
The Court: 347 is received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 347 was re
ceived in evidence.)
Q. Doctor, calling your attention to Exhibit 347, first
of all, the thick green line on that exhibit depicts what?
A. Capacity.
George E. Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
763a
Q. Now, in 1968 you show the overall capacity of the
junior high schools increasing; is that correct? A. That’s
correct.
Q. And what accounts for that increasing? A. The
building of John F. Kennedy in 1966.
Q. Pardon me. I misspoke. It’s the year 1966? A. Yes.
Q. And then you show another increase in capacity in
the year 1969; is that correct? A. That’s correct.
Q. What does that depict or reflect? A. That reflects
an increase in capacity of junior high schools coming
from the building of Hamilton.
Q. And then finally in 1970 you have projected another
increase in capacity in the junior high schools. That re
flects the opening of Place; is that correct? A. That’s
correct.
Q. Now, the thin green line on Exhibit 347 depicts [6323
what? A. Shows the enrollment in all junior high
schools in the District in 1962 to 1968.
Q. Now, in 1966, Doctor, is there a gap between the
the thin green line and the thick green line? A. There is.
Q. Does that gap denote overcapacity or undercapacity
at that point in time? A. ITndercapacity.
Q. By approximately how many spaces? A. I would
say about 500.
Q. So in 1966 there were 500 seats not utilized in the
junior high schools? A. That’s right.
Q. What was the situation in 1968 with regard to en
rollment versus capacity? A. A slight increase in the
gap. The capacity exceeding the enrollment by this time
by about 600 students, I would judge.
Q. Now, Doctor, if we were to extend the thin green
line based on the data which we have now contained in
S-l as to the actual 1969-70 enrollment, would there also
be an excess of capacity for this chool year? A. There
would.
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
764a
Q. And yet, Hamilton was also opened during that
time period; is that correct? [633] That’s correct.
Q. So the capacity was increased even further? A.
That’s right.
Q. And so the underutilization was increased even more;
is that correct? A. That’s correct.
[634] The Court: When did the trend reverse?
In ’66?
The Witness: About ’66, when the enrollment
started to turn down.
The Court: They probably had all these new
schools in the planning or development stage, land
acquired and so at that point?
The Witness: Well, except for Hamilton, which
I would say was built in ’68. Its planning must have
come at a time when the projection of enrollments
was pretty clear at that point.
The Court: But, up until ’66, there was an up
ward trend ?
The Witness: That’s right.
The Court: And apparent need for additional
capacity?
The Witness: That’s correct.
Q. Was that true, Doctor, when they were planning
Place? A. No, sir.
Mr. R is: I am going to move to strike that. He
hasn’t testified as to when they were planning Place.
Q. When were they planning Place?
Mr. R is: If you know?
The Court: Do you know?
The Witness : As to when they planned the space?
[635] Mr. Greiner: Place.
Mr. Ris: Place.
George E. Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
765a
The Court: Place Junior High School.
A. I am not certain.
Q. So, the enrollment started dropping1 off in 1966?
A. Yes, it did.
Q. Do you know whether they were planning Place in
the year 1966? A. I can’t—
Mr. Brega: I believe he already said he didn’t
know, and that would answer the question.
The Court: True.
Mr. Greiner: All right. We will find out from
the other witness, Your Honor.
The Court: All right.
Q. Dr. Bardwell, I have placed here on the board Ex
hibit 390, purporting to show elementary schools under-
capacity by more than ten percent in the year 1968. Was
this exhibit prepared by you? A. Yes, it was.
Q. And what is the source of the data depicted on Ex
hibit 390? A. The exhibit showing pupil enrollment. In
fact, Exhibit 243.
Q. Now, what do the blue circles—
[636] The Court: 243?
The Witness: 243, yes.
Q. What do the blue circles purport to depict on Ex
hibit 390? A. The blue circles show those schools that
have a predominantly minority enrollment that are under
capacity by more than ten percent.
Q. And then what do the red circles purport to depict?
A. The red circles are—show the locations of those schools
which are predominantly Anglo in 1968, but were under
capacity by more than ten percent.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we offer Plaintiffs’
Exhibit 390.
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
7 6 6 a
Mr. E is: May I ask what your criteria for deter
mining minority or Angio for this purpose!
The Witness: Yes, simply the racial composition
of that school in 1968 according to the principal’s
reports, whether or not that enrollment was greater
than 50-percent Anglo or not.
Mr. Eis: Well, now, your previous definition was
that it was Anglo at the elementary level if it was
over 90-percent, wasn’t it!
The Witness: Our definition here for this purpose
was to indicate—I am not talking about segregated
schools. I am simply talking about the predominant
ethnic characteristic [637] of that school in 1968.
It has nothing to do at all with probability analysis.
Mr. Eis: Well, we have been discussing all the
rest of the morning Anglo-minority by these per
centages you previously testified to. You are aban
doning those percentages on this exhibit and this is
solely on the basis of 50-percent Anglo?
A. That’s correct, just a predominantly Anglo or minority
school.
Mr. Eis: All right. So we have that understood.
Also, you are lumping Hispano, Negro, orientals or
any other ethnic group in the non-Anglo!
The Witness: As minority.
Mr. Eis: For this purpose!
The Witness: That is correct.
The Court: You don’t have any objection! It has
been offered, I take it?
Mr. Greiner: Yes, Your Honor, it has.
Mr. E is: So far as we know, it is accurate.
Mr. Brega: No objection.
The Court: It will be received, Exhibit 390.
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiff's—Direct
767a
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 390 was re
ceived in evidence.)
Q. Next, Doctor, I will call your attention to the first
overlay, which has been designated as Exhibit 390-A,
[638] and ask you what 390-A purports to compare? A.
It shows the transportation pattern for the elementary
schools between various areas of the school district and
the individual receiving schools for 1968.
Q. Doctor, what is the source of your transportation
data? A. The transportation data was obtained from the
principals’ reports to the transportation department in
1968.
Q. And the red lines depict what? A. Simply show that
a certain number of students were transported from one
area of the city to a particular school.
Q. Pardon me, Doctor. The red lines, do they have any
thing to do with numbers? A. They have nothing to do
with numbers. They just simply show that—show the ex
istence of certain students being transported between var
ious geographical areas of the city.
Mr. Greiner: All right, Tour Honor, we offer
390-A.
The Witness: I might add—-
Mr. Greiner: Just a moment, Doctor.
The Witness: All right.
Mr. Ris: May I ask a couple of questions?
[639] Voir Dire Examination by Mr. Ris:
Q. Mr. Bardwell, I have got a document that is not an
exhibit and it purports to be a transportation report for
a five-year period, and I believe this was made available
to you under discovery, was it not? A. You mean this?
Q. Yes. A. Yes.
George E. Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Voir Dire
7 6 8 a
Q. And in this is a chart, membership report of pupils
from other subdistriets or outlying areas? A. Yes.
Q. Is this chart the basis for that overlay! A. That is,
yes.
Mr. R is: Frankly, we haven’t had an opportunity
to check against the chart, but for present purposes
we don’t know that it is not accurate, so I can’t ob
ject on that ground. We can probably check it over
the noon hour, so I presume it can be admitted at
this point, and if we find anything wrong with it
over the noon hour I will take it up in cross-examina
tion.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Brega: I object. It is not material. The
transportation has not been set forth for any par
ticular reason and the particular schools don’t show
anything except E640] a generalization by this wit
ness.
The Court: This is designed to show the extent
to which there is transportation furnished?
Mr. Greiner: That’s correct, Your Honor, and also
to depict the sending and receiving areas of that
transportation, and the combination of 390 and 390A
—my next series of questions will simply bring out
the fact that there are students being transported
past schools which are undercapacity to schools fur
ther distant.
The Court: That’s the purpose of this, then?
Mr. Greiner: Yes, Your Honor.
The Court: Overruled, it will be received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 390-A was re
ceived in evidence.)
George E. Bar dwell—for Plaintiff s-—Voir Dire
769a
Direct Examination by Mr. Greiner (Continued):
Q. Now, Dr. Bardwell, you said that the blue circles on
Exhibit 390 depicted what? A. Those were the—those are
the schools that have more than a 50-percent minority en
rollment and are undercapacity by more than ten percent.
Q. And the red circles are the Anglo schools which have
more than ten percent overcapacity? A. Undercapacity.
Q. So that all schools shown—
[641] The Court: Are you maintaining here that
the transportation is used to maintain segregation,
that transportation is employed in order to avoid
integration?
Mr. Greiner: The latter, yes, Your Honor, that
certain students are bused past schools with space
in them to schools further distant.
The Court: The inference you draw is that it
would be more feasible to drop them off?
Mr. Greiner: At the closest school.
Mr. Brega: If the Court please, we are doing that
under the preliminary injunction.
Mr. Greiner: This is 1968, of course. This is
prior to the preliminary injunction.
Mr. B is: Is the direction of travel indicated there
at all?
Q. Can you answer that, Doctor? A. Yes, one can infer
that because the receiving points of any one of those lines
must wind up at a school, so that would be the terminal
point of that transportation route.
Q. There is no arrow as such on each line? A. There
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
is no arrow.
770a
Q. Doctor, could you leave your stand there for a mo
ment and go over to the exhibit?
For example, Doctor, with respect to Moore Elementary
£6423 School, do you find that? A. Yes, Moore Elemen
tary School.
Q. Now, the red dot indicates— A. It is predominantly
Anglo, using the criterion of 50 percent, and. that it is
more than ten percent undercapacity.
Q. Are there some students from Northeast Denver de
picted there being bused into Moore? A. Yes, this is
Smith Elementary School and these students shown by
this somewhat spider web set of lines emanating from
Smith show the students, groups of students, that are
being transported out of Smith to various schools in the
area.
Q. Now, does the red circle, Doctor, show the under
utilization of Moore before or after the busing shown from
Smith? A. After.
Q. So, there is some busing from Smith, and yet there
is still some capacity at Moore, is that correct? A. That’s
correct.
Q. Now, is there yet more busing from Smith depicted
on Exhibit 390-A? A. There is.
Q. Does some of that transportation go right past Moore
Elementary School? A. That’s right.
[6431 Q. To what schools? A. Here would be a case
in which this longer line from here to here represents the
transportation from Smith to Doull. This transportation,
for example, from here to here, shows the transportation
from Smith to McKinley.
Q. For example, the transportation from Smith to Mc
Kinley, that goes right past another underutilized Anglo
school, is that correct? A. That’s correct.
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
771a
Q. What is that school? A. It happens to be Steele.
Q. All right, and there is transportation down to Asbury
School, depicted by a line? A. That’s correct.
Q. Does that transportation also go past underutilized
Anglo schools? A. That’s correct.
Q. I think you can resume your seat, Doctor.
Now, Doctor, did the data which you studied, which was
the basis for 390-A, did it also depict the numbers of
students being transported? A. Yes, it does.
Q. And have you created an exhibit which purports to
geographically show the numbers of students being trans
ported on a scale? [644] A. Yes.
Q. And is that Exhibit 390-B? A. Yes.
Q. And what then is the source of the information de
picted in 390-B? A. The same source, the principals’ re
ports on transportation to the transportation department.
Q. Now, the yellow lines on 390-B depict what? A. The
yellow lines show the transportation of students from mi
nority schools to various parts of the district, and the
green lines show the transportation of students from pre
dominantly Anglo areas of the city to the receiving* schools.
Q. I note, Doctor, there are differences in the thicknesses
of the lines on Exhibit 390-B, is that correct? A. Yes.
Q. What does a thin—is there supposedly represented
there some comparison in terms of numbers? A. Yes, the
thinner the line, the smaller the number of students in a
group going to a receiving point, and the thickness of the
line indicates the extent of the number of students in
roughly a linear fashion so that, if we take a particular
yellow line, one of the very thin ones, as representing, let’s
say, 50 students, then by comparing that to another line
whose thickness is twice as large, then [645] that would
indicate the transportation of 100 students.
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
772a
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we offer 390-B at this
time.
The Court: Is this as of the year 1968?
The Witness: Yes, that’s right.
Mr. Ris: I don’t know how it can be checked. We
have no objection to it as of now.
Mr. Brega: We make the same objection as to
390-B, Your Honor.
The Court: 390-B will be received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 390-B was re
ceived in evidence.)
Q. Doctor, I call your attention to the yellow lines which
emanate from Northeast Denver, and you testified that
those yellow lines depict what? A. Those yellow lines
indicate the transportation of minority students to various
parts of the city.
Q. Now, there is a large, thick yellow line up here in
the northeast quadrant of Exhibit 390-B. A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that depicts transportation into what school? A.
Garden Place.
Q. Now, the green lines down here in the southeast quad
rant of Exhibit 390-B depict what? Transportation of
Anglos? [646] A. Yes.
Q. From one Anglo school to another? A. No, from
areas of the city into Anglo schools that are receiving
school. Generally, these are from annexed areas that do
not have at the present time a school.
Q. Does some of the transportation indicated in green
also reflect the transportation of Anglos from overcrowded
Anglo schools? A. That’s correct.
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
773a
Q. Now, looking at Exhibit 390-B, Doctor, are the num
bers of minority students being transported, say, the batch
size of the minority students being transported, comparable
in any manner to the batch size of the Anglo students
being transported?
Mr. Bis: I am sorry, what size?
Mr. Greiner: Batch.
Mr. Bis: B-a-t-c-h?
Mr. Greiner: Yes.
Mr. B is: I don’t know what that means.
Mr. Greiner : Just the size of the group being
transported.
A. In the case of the minorities’ so-called batch, as you
call it, it is considerably smaller than the batch for Anglo
students.
Q. We don’t know from Exhibit 390-B how many buses
[6473 are involved in any one of those lines? A. No, we
do not.
Q. So there may be a single bus that transports a group
of students to several schools, is that correct? A. It could
be, yes.
Q. But the thickness of the line does depict the number of
students that are actually received in the receiving school,
is that correct? A. That’s correct. I might add in anwser
to your previous question—
Mr. Brega: Just a moment. Now, you have an
swered the question. If he wants more, he will ask
it.
The Witness: All right.
# # * # #
George E. Bardivell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
774a
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
[648] * * *
Q. Dr. Bardwell, before leaving Exhibit 390-B, does Ex
hibit 390-B show the average number of students per group
in this busing? A. Yes, it does.
Q. And can you read the exhibit from where you’re sit
ting? A. Yes, I can.
Q. For the minority students, Doctor, what was the aver
age number of students in the minority student group ? A.
Twenty-nine.
Q. And what was it for the Anglo students being bused?
A. Sixty-seven.
Q. Now, that 29 figure as to minority students—-
The Court: What kind of grouping is this?
Q. How did you compute that, Doctor? A. If one de
termines a total number of students that were in a bused
group, add all of those up and then divides by the number of
groups involved, then this would be equivalent to saying on
the average there are about 30 minority students as a group
that are being bused from one location to another.
Mr. B is: May I ask—-is that the same as a batch?
[649] The Witness: A batch. All right.
Q. Dr. Bardwell, is there a large group of minority stu
dents being—or students at least being bused into Garden
Place? A. Yes.
Q. Do you know whether or not those are in fact minority
students? A. Most of them are minority students.
Q. Where do they come from? A. They are coming from
the Stapleton project north of the city and are being bused
into Garden Place.
7 7 5 a
Q. And that’s a housing project up here? A. Yes, it is.
Q. Is that group of 500 minority students included in
this 29-per-group average? A. They are.
Q. And if you took those 500 out, what would the group
average be? A. The average batch size this time would
be dropped to a figure very close to ten.
Q. All right now. Does Exhibit 390-B also show the
total number of minority students being transported in
1968? A. Yes.
Q. And what is that figure? A. 1,184.
[650] Q. And have you computed the percent of the
total minority population therefore being bused in 1968?
A. Yes, approximately 6 percent.
Q. And then with regard to Anglos being bused in 1968,
Doctor, what is the total number of Anglo students being
bused? A. 4,369.
Q. Now, have you computed a percentage or a proportion
of the total number of Anglo students who are riding buses?
A. Yes.
Q. What is that? A. 13 percent.
The Court: The percentage of Negroes being
bused—this is minority or just Negroes?
The Witness: The minority would include the—
The Court: The Hispanos ?
The Witness: —the Hispanos as well.
The Court: What is that percentage?
The Witness: The percentage was 6 percent. Six
percent and 13 percent.
The Court: You say they were moving them from
Stapleton to Garden Place?
Mr. Greiner: The Stapleton housing project.
The Court: Oh.
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
776a
Q. Dr. Bardwell, have we been furnished with racial
[651] and ethnic data for the school year 1961-1962, first
of all? A. Yes, we have.
Q. And is that data reflected in Exhibit 398? A. It is.
Q. And then we have also been supplied by the defend
ants with racial and ethnic data for the 1962-1963 school
years? A. We have.
Q. Is that depicted in Exhibit 399? A. It is.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we would offer 398 and
399 at this time.
[6523 Mr. Bis: No objection.
Mr. Brega: No objection.
The Court: Yery well, 398 and 399 are received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 398 and 399
were received in evidence.)
Q. Dr. Bardwell, I would like to next call your attention
to a question of the dropout data concerning the minority
schools, and handing you what has been marked for identi
fication as Exhibit 400 and Exhibit 400-A, can you identify
first for us Exhibit 400-A? A. Exhibit 400-A is an expla
nation of definitions and calculations for dropout studies
which are conducted by the Colorado State Department of
Education.
Q. And by whom is 400-A published? A. By the Colo
rado State Department of Education, Division of Guidance
Services.
Q. Would you identify Exhibit 400, please. A. 400 is a
summarization of the dropout information for September
1968 for Denver’s junior high schools and Denver’s high
schools, published by the Colorado Department of Educa
tion.
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
777a
Mr. Greiner: Tour Honor, at this time we would
like to offer Exhibits 400 and 400-A.
Mr. Bis: If the Court please, with respect to 400
and 400-A, we admit the authenticity, that these are
documents [65.33 from the Colorado Department of
Education.
As to the accuracy, there has been no foundation
laid as to the accuracy of any of the columns of
figures that are on here, and for that reason we ob
ject to Exhibit 400.
Mr. Brega: Tour Honor, we make the further
objection that the information contained in the ex
hibits is not shown to be material or probative in
this issue.
Mr. Griener: Tour Honor, if I might comment on
the objections, first of all, Exhibits 400 and 400-A
have been given to the defendants quite some time
ago. I thought that they were going* to check the
accuracy of the figures, but they apparently have
not.
Secondly, as to the probative value of the exhibits,
the dropout data is offered to show two things: One,
the extremely high dropout rate which obtains in
the minority junior and senior high schools, ap
proaching at sometimes rates of some 80 or in ex
cess of 80 percent, and, secondly, to compare those
dropout rates, Tour Honor, in the minority schools
with the dropout rates, which are much lower, which
pertain in the predominantly Anglo schools.
In our view, it is simply another indicia of the
educational opportunities which are afforded by the
minority schools.
The Court: Does this 400-A contain any comments
about the matter you mentioned?
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
778a
[654] Mr. Greiner: It is strictly explanatory as
to how the State—what formulas the State uses in
computing the figures which are reflected in Exhibit
400. There is no editorial comment.
Mr. Brega: May I ask if these two exhibits are
taken out of the descriptive report by the State!
The Court: Have you seen them!
Mr. Brega: Yes, but I can’t tell—
The Court: This is a narrative type report, or this
is a columnar type of report containing figures and
information.
Mr. Brega: Well, have these been taken out of
the annual Colorado report filed!
The Witness: Both of these are given as separate
documents by the Colorado State Department of
Education for anyone who wishes them.
Mr. Brega: The record should also reflect that I
have never had a copy of those shown to me before.
We further object.
Mr. Ris: I also direct the Court’s attention to
the fact Exhibit 400-A is dated 1963 and Exhibit
400 is dated 1968, and there is nothing to tie them
together.
Q. Are the formulas in 400-A still used today! A. Yes.
Mr. Brega: I will object to that. That calls for
[655] hearsay.
The Court: What’s the source of your information
on that!
The Witness: Those two pieces of information
were gotten from the technical people at the Colorado
State Department of Education, and the definitions
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
779a
and calculations used in computing the dropout rates
for all the schools in the State, that document relat
ing to how they calculate the dropout rates, the defi
nitions of the dropout rates, have been in existence
since 1963, and the document is still distributed on
that basis as their current method for calculations.
The Court: Very well, the objections will be over
ruled and 400 and 400-A are received for whatever
value they might have. I confess that their material
ity is somewhat limited, as I see it.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 400 and 400-A
were received in evidence.)
Q. Directing your attention first to Exhibit 400-A, does
400-A describe the formula for calculating both a projected
dropout rate and an annual dropout rate? A. Yes, it does.
Q. Now, referring your attention to Exhibit 400, does
that exhibit also reflect calculations of an annual dropout
rate and a projected dropout rate? A. It does.
[656] Q. Doctor, what is a projected dropout rate? A.
Projected dropout rate is designed to answer the question,
as an example, what percentage of our seventh graders
would drop out before completing high school if the hold
ing power conditions that exist that year continued?
Q. Is the projected rate then a cumulative rate? A. It
is.
Q. What about the annual rate? A. Annual rate is
simply based upon the dropout data for that particular
year.
Q. Deferring then, Doctor, to Exhibit 400, what is the
projected dropout rate for Cole Junior High School in
1965? A. 12.6 percent.
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
780a
Q. And what senior high school does Cole feed into, do
yon know? A. Manual.
Q. And what is the projected dropout rate for Manual in
1965? A. 64.8.
[657J Q. Now, Doctor, using those two dropout rates,
can you advise us as to what—out of a hypothetical 100
students entering the seventh grade at Cole, how many of
them might be expected to graduate from Manual?
Mr. Brega: Your Honor, I would like to make a
further objection on that and that even assuming
the validity of the exhibit we don’t believe this is
anything more than speculation.
The Court: Well, I have indicated that, but I
think their relevancy is quite limited because there
are many other factors that can explain dropouts,
I mean, obvious ones, other than the quality of the
school or, as you say, its power to hold the student
individually. But, I am going to take the evidence
anyway. It may shape up.
A. If you take a hypothetical 100 students beginning Cole
Junior High in the seventh grade, at the end of that junior
high school experience these dropout data would say that
there would be approximately 87.4 of those children that
would graduate so to speak from Cole. Then, upon enter
ing Manual those that are left, 87.4, we would expect 64.8
percent of those 87 students to stop out before completing
Manual. The net effect of this would be that of the 100
students beginning Cole in the seventh grade, we would find
that but 31 percent or 31 of those students would be gradu
ated from Manual.
[658] Q. Now, Doctor, does Exhibit 400 also depict the
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
781a
dropout rates at Anglo schools as well as minority schools?
A. It does.
Q. Doctor, I am handing yon what’s been marked for
identification as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit, first of all, 219, which
purports to be a boundary map. Can you identify it for us,
please? A. Yes, this is a map showing the boundaries in
1961 for Cole, Morey, Baker, Byers, Gove, and part of Hill
Junior High Schools, together with the option zones of
attendance.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, the authenticity of Ex
hibit 219 has been stipulated to. We will offer it in
evidence at this time.
Mr. Bis: No objection to 219.
Mr. Brega: No objection.
The Court: It will be received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 219 was re
ceived in evidence.)
Q. Doctor, you mentioned the optional areas. Could you
describe them, please, and—as they are depicted on 219?
A. Yes. On the north there is an optional area between
Morey and Cole, roughly bounded by 17th Avenue and 22nd
Avenue, and between York and the downtown area. On the
west there is an optional area between Baker and Morey
bounded roughly by Broadway and, oh, Clay Street. On
the south there [659] are two optional areas, one between
Morey and Byers; another between Morey and Hill; and
on the extreme east there is an area that is an optional
area between Gove and Morey. This depicts then the at
tendance areas for these schools around Morey in 1961.
Q. Doctor, have you computed the capacity of the junior
high schools, Morey, Byers and Cole? A. Yes.
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
782a
Q. I hand you what’s been marked for identification as
Exhibit 224 and ask you if you can identify that. A. 224
is a chart showing the capacity utilization in 1961 and 1962
for Morey, Cole and Byers.
Q. And what is the source of the data reflected on Ex
hibit 224? A. In the case of capacity for each of these
schools, that has been taken from Exhibit 24. With regard
to the enrollment in 1962 for Morey, Cole and Byers, this
was taken from Exhibit 20. For 1961 the enrollment for
these same three junior high schools was taken from an
other exhibit that has just been introduced.
Q. And that was either 397 or 398? A. That’s correct.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we would offer Plain
tiffs’ Exhibit 224 at this time.
Mr. B is: No objection.
[660] Mr. Brega: No objection.
The Court: It will be received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 224 was re
ceived in evidence.)
Q. Dr. Bardwell, in 1961 what does Exhibit 224 show the
capacity to have been at Morey Junior High School? A.
At Morey, 1200.
Q. And what was the capacity at Byers that year? A.
1200.
Q. And what was the capacity at Cole that year? A.
1,725.
Q. Now, in 1962, Doctor, were there boundary changes
proposed with respect to these three junior high schools?
A. Yes, there were.
Q. Have you prepared an overlay exhibit which reflected
the boundary changes which were ultimately adopted? A.
Yes.
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
7 8 3 a
Q. And what is your source of that information? A.
The source of this information is again Exhibit 20.
Mr. Greiner: Tour Honor, at this time the plain
tiffs would offer Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 220, being the
overlay showing the proposed boundary changes.
Mr. Eis: No objection.
Mr. Brega: No objection.
The Court: Very well. It will be received.
[661] (Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 220 was
received in evidence.)
Q. Doctor, would you describe for the Court, please, the
boundary changes proposed, which are depicted on Exhibit
220? A. Considering first the northern area on the north
of Morey, the optional area that was there before, it was
proposed to assign the students from there to Morey. In
addition to that, on the north of that optional zone, having
the width of about four blocks, that area was also proposed
to be assigned to Morey, the optional area on the west.
The Court: This north was the—an optional area
with Cole?
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: And on the west it was—
The Witness: On the north of that optional area
was an area that had previously been assigned to
Cole. And that’s roughly between 22nd Avenue and
26th Avenue.
Q. That is the area immediately north of the northern
cross-hatched area? A. That’s correct; on the west the
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
784a
area that was formerly optional between Baker and Morey,
the proposal was to assign that directly to Morey.
Mr. Bis: Just a moment. Could we straighten
that out, please, Mr. Bardwell. I think you said that
extended [662] from Broadway to Clay Street. It
is actually from Broadway to Elati; is it not?
The AYitness: Well, it’s a rough boundary.
Mr. Bis: Well, Clay Street is clear on the other
side of the river.
The Witness: Excuse me. It is Elati.
A. The southern portion, the optional area between Morey
and Byers, the proposal was to assign that optional area
entirely to Byers. In addition, the area that was optional
between Morey and Hill, except for a small pocket on the
east, it was proposed to assign that to Byers. In addition
to that, a two-block strip between 6th Avenue and 8th Ave
nue from approximately Bace Street to Broadway, the
proposal was to assign that to Byers. That area had for
merly been in Morey. Then, there was a small area just
east of Cheeseman Park, which contained about eight
blocks, which was formerly Morey. The proposal was to
assign that also to Byers.
Q. Now, Doctor, have you also prepared an overlay
reflecting the census data as to the racial composition of
the areas which were assigned, first, from Cole to Morey,
and then the areas which were assigned from Morey to
Byers? A. Yes, we have.
Q. And what is the number of that exhibit? A. The
number of this exhibit is 220.
Q. Now, what is the basis for the racial information
[663] contained on that exhibit? A. These data were
taken from the enumeration statistics of the census in 1960.
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
785a
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we offer Exhibit 222,
being the overlay.
Mr. Ris: Merely stating that the figures on here
were taken from the census data is certainly not a
sufficient foundation. We object to it for that reason.
If he had census data applied to each one of those
blocks, if that’s what his—if that’s what he deter
mined, fine, let’s get the foundation in. If he’s using
something else, we’d like to know. But, just saying
he got it from the census data is not sufficient.
The Court: All right. We will ask him to explain
a little more.
Q. Can you explain, please, Doctor, to the Court and
counsel, how, first of all, the blue area depicted on Exhibit
222 was calculated?
Mr. Ris: Which is that?
Mr. Greiner: That’s the northern area.
A. If we examine the data from the Bureau of Census by
enumeration districts and these enumeration districts are
very small, usually six-block areas, for each of those small
enumeration districts there are certain kinds of racial
data and economic data. Those data were used in compil
ing the [664] percentage non-white in 1960 for the area
on the north of Morey and on the west; those areas that
were directly assigned to Morey.
Q. Now, Doctor, the blue area which you have just de
scribed, that’s not broken out by particular enumeration
districts, is it? A. Not on this exhibit, but it was com
piled from the use of enumeration districts.
Q. Is the percentage given there for the blue area an
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
786a
average! A. I t is an average for all the enumeration dis
tricts that are included here in blue.
Q. And how is that average computed! A. By simply
assuming the total number of non-whites in those districts
that comprise this area and dividing that by the total num
ber in all enumeration districts for I9601.
Q. And then how did you compute the percentage re
flected in the yellow area on the south of Morey in this
overlay! A. Exactly the same way.
Q. You took the racial composition of— A. Of each
enumeration district, and, of course, weighted that by the
total number of people in each enumeration district, and
that gave us then the average for that yellow area on the
south that was assigned to Byers.
Mr. Greiner : Your Honor, we would again offer
[665] Exhibit 222.
Mr. Ris: May I voir dire, please!
The Court: Yes.
Voire Dire Examination by Mr. Ris:
Q. Now, your figures, Dr. Bardwell, pertain to the peo
ple who were going to be reassigned by the subdistrict
boundary changes as of the opening of school in Septem
ber, 1962, right! A. Yes.
Q. And you were using no figures from 1962 at all, is
that correct! A. That’s correct, not to draw those boun
daries.
Q. You were using 1960— A. 1960.
Q. And you made no studies, no determination, as to
what population mobility there was between the 1960 cen
sus and Sepember, 1962! A. We did not.
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Voir Dire
787a
Q. Secondly, this north part, particularly from. 17th
Avenue to 26th Avenue, was an area in transition, was it
not, at that time, or do you know? A. What do you mean
by in transition?
Q. Racially, that it had been predominantly white, or
portions of it; the northern portions and southern portions
[666] of that area were transitional to a certain extent
from white to black. A. That is correct.
Q. But you did not investigate and had no figures avail
able to you as to what transition had taken place in the
two and a half years or the two years between the census
and September, 1962? A. No, we did not.
Q. Also, in that area, were you aware that from block
to block there was a very substantial difference in many
instances racially? A. Oh, absolutely.
Q. That was not reflected except by enumeration dis
tricts? A. That’s the smallest possible subdivision for sta
tistics one can get, so in that sense we have not shown it
enumeration district by enumeration district, but the aver
age has been compiled on the basis of those enumeration
districts.
Q. I understand, but you have no data as to the exact
racial composition, block by block, at that time. A. Not
block by block.
Q. Also, your enumeration district did not correspond
with this particular area north of 17th Avenue either, did
they? You had some that were entirely within the area
but you had others that overlapped on the north and west?
[667] A. In the case of north and west, there were a couple
of enumeration districts which were not co-extensive with
the boundary there. These are very few in number. And
in the case of the southern portion, in the entire enumera
George E. Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Voir Dire
788a
tion district, it was white, so to assign any part of it
would he perfectly correct to assign all of it white.
Q. But insofar as to what extent there had been a
change from white to non-white during the two-year pe
riod, you have no idea? A. No.
Q. Also, did you attempt to determine to what extent
the non-white were Hispano? A. One can get an estimate
of that. It is not an official publication that you-—I mean,
these are not contained officially within the statistics of
the enumeration district data, no.
Q. So, you have no figures then as to what these minori
ties consited of or the non-whites consisted of? A. Oh,
yes, what they consisted of—Negro and Oriental. Non
white does not include Hispano.
Q. It does not? A. No, it does not.
Q. Well, in many of your figures here today you have
used Hispano as being equivalent to non-white, have you
not, minority? [6683 A. No, sir, this is the first time the
term non-white has ever been used in any of our exhibits,
and the reason that one is forced to use that is that this
is the only information from the enumeration district
data from the Bureau of Census which pertains to a par
ticular minority..
Q. Just so we have our terms correct, Dr. Bardwell, in
some of your figures this morning, when you were talking
about Anglo and minority, did minority in those instances
include Hispano? A. Minority includes Hispano, that’s
correct.
Q. So, for some purposes Hispanos are minorities and
other purposes they are Anglo?
Mr. Greiner: I object to that as mischaracteriz-
ing what the witness’ testimony has been. The wit
George E. Bardivell—for Plaintiffs—Voir Dire
7 8 9 a
ness now is testifying as to what the census data
terminology is, not our exhibit terminology.
The Court: We will let him answer.
Q. Will you answer the question now, please? A. Will
you repeat it?
Mr. Bis: Will you read the question?
The Eeporter: “So, for some purposes Hispanos
are minorities and other purposes they are Anglo?”
A. (Continued) As far as the Bureau of Census material
is concerned, they are classified as whites.
Q. I am talking about your testimony generally from
[669] when you started testifying this morning. A. The
testimony this morning includes in the minority category,
not nonwhite minority. Hispanos.
Q. But, now, is there any distinction between Anglo and
white? Maybe we better determine this. A. Well, the Bu
reau of—
Mr. Greiner: Pardon me, Your Honor, in what
respect?
The Court: His mind.
Q. In his mind, or in your testimony at any time? A.
Yes, the white category in the Bureau of the Census does
include Hispano and—of course, if that information were
available separately, it would have been broken down. It
is impossible to do here. In the case of the school district
data, that information is much more detailed and it is pos
sible then to go ahead and talk about Anglo students as
not including Hispano.
George E. Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Voir Dire
790a
Mr. Ris: We object to Exhibit 222 for the reason
that there is insufficient foundation to show that the
racial background on this exhibit is based upon
sufficient foundation as of September, 1962.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, in view of the fact that
the racial composition north of Morey in 1960 was
in a state of transition, I believe that all the voir
dire has established is that this exhibit understates
the minority composition of the area north of Mo
rey, and if it is inaccurate, it is in fact [670] in
accurate in favor of the defendants.
Mr. Ris: That may be counsel’s conclusion, but
that’s not the evidence, and we are only going on
what’s in evidence before the Court.
The Court: Objection overruled. It will be re
ceived.
(Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 222 was received in evi
dence.)
Direct Examination by Mr. Greiner (Continued):
Q. Dr. Bardwell, have you also prepared an exhibit
which purports to depict the ethnic composition of Morey,
both before and after the boundary change? A. Yes, we
have.
Q. That’s Exhibit 223? A. Yes, that’s correct.
Q. And what is the source of the data included or re
flected on Exhibit 223? A. The source of the data on Ex
hibit 223 are estimates made by us as to the enrollment
at Morey and its racial composition in 1961, at the time
of the boundary change. These were derived from a study
of the enumeration districts themselves.
Q. And can you explain to the Court how that estimate
was derived? A. Yes, detailed statistics on the age group
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
791a
of children living in the enumeration districts which were
assigned to [6713 Morey and those assigned to Byers, the
calculations using those age group data—
Q. What was the age group, Doctor! A. The age group
data in this ease is ten—the whole group is ten to fourteen.
Q. And then what was done with that age group data!
A. That age group data then were classified according to
whether the census indicated it was a nonwhite or a white.
That’s all we could get. Further, imposed upon this were
certain data that were available, not by enumeration dis
trict, but by census tracts, which gave the Spanish-sur-
named population for that area.
Q. These census tracts are larger georgraphic areas?
A. The census tracts are larger.
Q. Anything else that was taken into account in com
piling this estimate! A. No, that’s all.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we at this time offer
Exhibit 223.
Voir Dire Examination by Mr. Bis:
Q. I am sorry, Dr. Bardwell, did you say that these
percentages are from enumeration districts of the cenus?
A. Yes, they are based upon the enumeration districts
from the census, that’s correct.
[672] Q. These are broken down by Negro, Hispano,
and Anglo! A. That’s correct.
Q. Will you tell us how you got this then, when the
last exhibit we were discussing had only White and non-
White? A. It was possible for the construction of Ex
hibit 222, in showing the racial composition, non-White
and White, for the areas transferred to Morey and trans
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Voir Dire
792a
ferred out of Morey in 1962, to come up with a precise
indication of what the non-White composition was. How
ever, for purposes of determining the three racial cate
gories or ethnic categories for enrollment purposes, those
data are not sufficient, and one has to then use supple
mental information from the census obtained by census
tract to give us an estimate of what the Hispano or Span-
ish-surnamed aged population is in that particular area.
The Court: Why do you have to go through all
of these round-about—
The Witnes: Well, you see, Your Honor, non-
White includes—
The Court: I mean, the school records just
didn’t—
The Witness: No, that’s right.
The Court: —show it at all?
The Witness: And we had to make a similar esti
mate in 1962 because of the unavailability of the
same information.
Q. Dr. Bardwell, 1961, is that for the 1961-62 school
year? [673] A. Yes, sir.
Q. And 1962 is for the ’62-63 school year? A. That’s
right.
Q. You have the statistics for that available in your own
Exhibits 398 and 399, did you not? A. We had total en
rollment.
George E. Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Voir Dire
Mr. E is: May I have Exhibit 398 and Exhibit 399,
please?
Mr. Greiner: I think they are still at the bench.
The Court: Yes, here they are.
793a
Q. All right, referring to the junior high part of 398, is
that for the school year 1961 and ’62? A. May 1st of that
year, that’s correct.
Q. It would be for that year, would it not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And Morey shows a membership of 900? A. That’s
right.
Q. And with 135 Negroes, or 15 percent, right? A. That’s
what this exhibit shows.
Q. Well, isn’t that your exhibit that you identified be
fore? A. Yes, with regard to membership.
Q. And, so, for ’61, then, instead of 12 percent Negro
at Morey for that year, it would be 15 percent, according
to Exhibit 398? [674] A. Bight. I would assert that the
exhibit here showing the racial composition of the Morey
membership, May 1st, 1962, are hunchback estimates on
the part of the principal, not shown by actual count, and,
therefore, in order to check the reliability of the school
district’s estimates of the racial composition at Morey it
seemed desirable to get an independent estimate. The
independent estimate is 71 percent, as we have shown
here, and 12 percent and 17 percent.
Q. And that's why you went and did your assumption
and inferences and so forth? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Based on 398, it would be 12 percent instead of 15
percent Negro? A. Yes, sir.
Q. If you also look at the same exhibit, it would be 65
percent Anglo rather than 71 percent Anglo? A. That’s
correct.
Q. And the range would be 20 percent, which you have
Hispano, but actually it would be 15 percent Hispano and
5 percent Oriental? A. That’s correct.
Q. Now, with respect to 1962, you offered Exhibit 399
showing racial distribution this morning by your own tes
timony, did you not? A. I ’m sorry, I will have to—
George E. Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Voir Dire
794a
[675] The Court: What’s that? The Board of
Education—
Mr. Ris: This is a racial distribution by schools
and years. That would be the school year ’62 and
’63.
Q. Do you have that before you? A. No, I don’t.
Q. I am sorry, I thought you did. Here it is. A. Yes.
Q. And that is racial data for 1962-63 as of January 24,
1963 ? A. Right.
Q. And there it shows Morey having a Negro popula
tion at that time of 27.99 percent or 28 percent rounded
off, right? A. Right.
Q. Instead of 33 percent, according to your figures? A.
That’s right.
Q. And Anglo is 49 percent rather than 45 percent,
right? A. That’s right.
Q. And the Oriental and Hispano combined would be 23
percent? A. That’s right.
Q. So that would change your curve substantially on
Exhibit 223, would it not? A. No.
[676] Q. If you use those figures? A. No, it wouldn’t.
Mr. R is: Well, may we mark this? I don’t want to
make it your exhibit, but I would like to make it
223-A, just for identification.
Mr. Greiner: All right.
Mr. R is: Make it 223-A, but make it a defendants’
exhibit for identification, please.
The Court: You realize you are going to confuse
us?
Mr. Ris: That really wasn’t my object, to con
fuse the Court.
George E. Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Voir Dire
795a
[677] Q. I now hand you a paper that has been marked
Exhibit 223-A, and what appears to be black lines, would
be the curve shown here, according to your figures. Eight?
A. (Nods affirmatively.)
Q. And in red would be according to the reference to
398 and 399? A. That’s correct.
Q. And red is substantially more level than the other,
is it not? A. Well, in 1961 it was a 65-percent Anglo
school by your figures.
Q. I ’m not saying that—
Mr. Greiner: Could the witness be allowed to finish
the response?
The Court: Do you have something else you wish
to say?
The Witness: Excuse me, Judge?
The Court: Do you wish to say something fur
ther?
The Witness: Yes, I would.
The Court: Had you finished?
The Witness: No,
The Court: Go ahead.
Mr. Eis: Sorry.
A. The general picture for both of these analyses would
show generally the same thing, that in 1961 the [678] com
position of the student population was 65 percent by your
analysis and 71 percent by mine. In 1962 this, by your
figure, would be 49 percent Anglo and mine would show
45. The point of it is that it went from a 65-percent Anglo
school at the most conservative to a 49-percent Anglo
school—
Q. I understand, but, it’s a more level curve than yours,
was my question. Is that correct? A. Yours is, yes.
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Voir Dire
796a
Mr. Ris: Thank you. I offer in evidence 223-A.
Mr. Brega: Just a minute. Are you admitting
223?
Mr. Ris: As to its accuracy, yes.
No, I’m not admitting that. I ’m admitting this
in contrast with—
Mr. Griener: I ’m somewhat confused as to this
procedure.
Mr. Brega: We will object to 223 before we get
to the A part.
Mr. Greiner: As I understand it, 223 is being
offered as part of the voir dire examination on—I
mean 223-A is being offered as part of the voir dire
examination on Exhibit 223.
Mr. Ris: All right. I ’ll get back to—I got off the
point, I admit, on voir dire examination Yes. £6793
But I object to 223 for the reason that there is
a wholly insufficient foundation because of all the
Mickey Mouse that the witness did with the census
figures and the estimates, particularly after his last
testimony with respect to the last exhibit, that there
was no breakdown as he has shown here, and that
it’s substantial, and in variance with the plaintiffs’
own exhibits that he identified this morning and ad
mitted this morning. So I don’t think that there is a
sufficient foundation for Exhibit 223.
The Court: Well, I don’t see the necessity for
it, if the figures are available—
Mr. Greiner: Could I have the witness explain
why he didn’t believe the available school district
figures were in fact accurate, Your Honor?
The Court: Yes.
George E. Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Voir Dire
797a
The Witness: In the first place, the figures for
1962 do not cover the opening of school on Septem
ber 1st of 1962. And because of that, they show
instead the racial composition, estimated racial com
position in January of 1963. And, therefore, in
order to show the precise character of the change
in the racial composition at Morey, it seemed most
desirable to construct estimates which were very
easy to make and should be quite reliable as of the
beginning of the opening of school after the boundary
change in September of 1962, and that’s precisely
what was done.
[680] The Court: Did you check that out; that
223 with the figures that were available in January,
1962?
The Witness : We have had those for many, many
months. And in fact, much of our IBM tabulation
is based upon the best available data in terms of
racial breakdown that we can get for appropriate
periods. Here was a case where the time period
seemed—it seemed was important; to talk about
September of 1962 and those figures simply were not
available.
The Court: What is the difference? Are the dif
ferences susbtantial?
The Witness: No.
Mr. Greiner: They are illustrated, Your Honor,
by 223 as compared to 223-A, which has been created
by Mr. Bis.
Mr. Bis: I wasn’t under oath, I ’ll admit.
The Court: I don’t see very much variance here,
Mr. Brega. It seems to me that they are pretty well
in line.
George E. Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Voir Eire
798a
Mr. Brega: My position is not that 223 is better
put that 223-A or vice versa. It’s that the foundation
laid for 223 is not appropriate, by the witness’s own
testimony in his estimate. I t’s contrary to his own
exhibit which he has offered into evidence. He based
other testimony on the exhibit which he now says he
didn’t think was reliable in [6813 certain instances.
Mr. Greiner: I believe that’s inaccurate, Your
Honor.
The Court: I t’s a highly educated estimate, if it
is an estimate.
We will take it.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 223 was received
in evidence.)
Mr. Greiner: Could we have a ruling on 223-A
also?
The Court: We will take that. That will show as
Defendants’ Exhibit 223-A, is that right?
Mr. Greiner: That’s correct.
(Whereupon, Defendants’ Exhibit 223-A was re
ceived in evidence.)
Direct Examination by Mr. Greiner (Continued):
Q. Now, Dr. Bardwell, you also have in front of you
Exhibit 224, do you not? A. Yes, I do.
Q. In the school year 1961, in other words, the year
before the boundary change went into effect, what was the
capacity utilization at Morey? A. Seventy-five percent.
Q. And what was the capacity utilization at Morey [6823
after the boundary change? In other words, in 1962? A.
Seventy-six percent.
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
799a
Q. And at Byers Junior High School in 1961, what was
the capacity utilization? A. Just about 88 percent.
Q. And what was it after the boundary change in the
school year 1962? A. Ninety-three percent.
Q. And at Cole Junior High School, what was the capac
ity utilization in 1961 ? A. About 104 percent.
Q. And what was it in 1962 ? A. Ninety-six percent.
Q. Now, with respect to the racial composition of Morey
Junior High School, referring to Exhibit 223, what does
that exhibit show with respect to the racial composition in
1961 prior to the change? A. Seventy-one percent Anglo,
17 precent Hispano and 12 percent Negro.
Q. And what was the racial composition estimated in
the school year—
Mr. B is: I’m sorry. I ’m lost. What are we read
ing from now?
Mr. Greiner: 223. That famous exhibit.
Mr. B is: Oh, all right.
[683] Q. —for the school year 1962, Doctor? A. 1962,
45-percent Anglo, 22-percent Hispano, and 33-percent
Negro.
Q. What percent of Anglos were there at Morey prior
to the boundary change ? A. Seventy-one percent.
Q. And what percent after the boundary change?
A. Forty-five percent.
Q. Beferring to the area between Morey and Byers as
depicted on Exhibit 220, the area that was assigned from
Morey to Byers, do you know, Doctor, whether or not that
area was closer to Morey or to Byers? A. The area on
the north—to the north of 6th Avenue, that entire area
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs-—Direct
800a
that was assigned to Byers was closer to Morey than it
is to Byers.
Q. Finally, Doctor, I am handing you what’s been
marked as Exhibit 221. Can you identify that exhibit
for us? A. Yes. This shows the boundaries for Morey
and they are adjacent to Cole, Baker, Byers and Gove
after the boundary change in 1962.
Q. That simply shows the results after the change?
A. That’s correct.
Q. What optional areas if any remained? A. The only
optional area was the area between Morey and Gove that
was bounded by Detroit and—well, the street [6843 be
tween St. Paul and Adams.
Mr. Griener: Your Honor, we offer Exhibit 221.
Mr. B is: No objection.
Mr. Brega: No objection.
The Court: It will be received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 221 was re
ceived in evidence.)
[6843 * * *
Cross-Examination by Mr. Ris:
Q. Dr. Bardwell, the various computer print-outs that
were introduced into evidence this morning—those were
all under either your direction or supervision? A. They
were.
Q. You prepared the program? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, with regard to the probability factors that you
discussed this morning and with segregation limits that
you used in your selective minority schools and selected
Anglo schools, if I recall correctly your segregation limits
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Cross
801a
were this: with respect to the elementary school, the ele
mentary school was segregated if the Anglos in that school
■were more than 90 percent or less than 30 percent? A,
That’s right, sir.
[685] Q. And in the junior high, an Anglo school in your
segregation limits was segregated if it had 90 or more
than 90 percent Anglos? A. That’s right.
Q. Or less than 55 percent Anglos? A. Yes.
Q. And that the senior high school, a senior high school
was segregated under your definition if it had more than
90 percent Anglo? A. This is right.
Q. Or less than 60 percent Anglos? A. This is right.
Q. So, if a high school had 55 percent Anglo it was still
a segregated school? A. Excuse me. Come again with
that question.
Q. I mean, it was an Anglo school. It was not segre
gated? A. It was not segregated— What was your ques
tion?
Q. All right. In a senior high school, a school was Anglo
and not segregated if it had at the high school level more
than 90 percent Anglo? A. Uh-huh.
Q. If it had less than 90 percent Anglo, then what? A.
It would depend on how low it was.
Q. Say it was 85. [686] A. If it was 85, that would not
be considered—
Q. It would not be a segregated school? A. That’s right,
according to that criteria.
Q. For 55, what would it be? A. Segregated.
Q. A segregated school? A. Yes.
Q. If it were 59 rather, it would be a segregated school?
A. That’s right.
Q. And these figures work both ways, either to establish
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—-Cross
802a
it as a minority school or an Anglo school? A. Yes, that’s
correct. That’s quite right. And then, you—
Q. Pardon me? A. Let me explain. Suppose we were
to visualize for a moment that students in this school dis
trict were in a salt and pepper shaker and that you shook
the contents of that at each school according to the number
of students that are in this school and, if the composition
of that salt shaker corresponds to the districtwide propor
tion of Anglos, you would expect when you build up each
school in that way there would be a random, distribution
of percentage Anglos at each school. What this analysis
then amounts to is that, if we now examine the racial com
position percent Anglo at a [687] given school and calcu
late the probability that that racial composition could have
arisen by chance, then these are the figures that we are
going to talk about when we talk about probabilities.
Q. But these are the figures upon which you made all of
your print-outs, with reference to the elementary school
level, the junior high school level and the senior high school
level? A. That’s correct.
Q. And with those percentages in mind? A. That’s
right.
Q. Reflecting back over the previous six years? A.
That’s correct.
Q. When you talk about minority schools and the ethnic
characterization or the age of the buildings and so forth,
your whole testimony then is predicated upon these per
centages when you’re talking about 21 Anglo schools and
20 minority schools? A. Yes. I would suspect that what
ever criterion was used, whether or not we used teachers,
whether we used buildings or other indicia or what might
constitute segregation, I don’t think our results would be
a great deal different.
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Cross
803a
Q. Well, I am asking you what your basis was for coming
up with these various schools? [6883 A. That’s right.
Q. Now, with referenceto Exhibit 250, do you have that
there ? That’s your pupil ethnic distribution, elementary,
print-outs. A. 250?
Q. Uh-huh. A. I’m sorry. I don’t.
Q. It’s a print-out table, Dr. Bardwell.
The Court: Here it is.
Q. Do you have 250 now? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, that’s a print-out from your computer, right?
A. That’s right.
Q. And this shows the ethnic distribution of pupils in
your 20 minority schools? A. That’s right.
Q. And these are the same 20 schools that you have dis
cussed throughout your discussion on minority versus
Anglo, right? A. That’s correct.
Q. Now, first of all, this shows a total number of stu
dents over in the right-hand column for the various years,
1963 to 1968, correct? A. Correct.
Q. And they vary from a low of 13,270 to a high of
[689] 14,972? A. That’s correct.
Q. Now, then, you have the percentage breakdown of
Anglo and Negro. You do not have Hispano in there
anywhere, do you? A. That’s correct.
Q. Is it correct then that Anglo in this sense means
Caucasian? A. A non-Negro, non-Hispano, non-oriental,
according to the classification of the school district.
Q. So then, under Negro do you have solely Negroes?
A. That’s correct.
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Gross
804a
Q. You do not have Hispano? A, It is not shown on
this chart—on this table. One wonld have to refer to the
preceding exhibit, 249, where the spacing on the computer
print-out simply did not allow space to add that informa
tion again.
Q. So, in addition, on Exhibit 250, 251, 252, for example
—I beg your pardon. 250 and 252, you merely show the
Anglo and the Negro and the percentages? A. Yes, that’s
correct. 249 gives you the comparable figures here for the
Hispano in terms of number of students.
Q. Now, referring to your 1968 column, you show the
percentages of Negroes in all of the 20 minority schools,
right? [6903 A. That’s correct.
Q. And the percentage of Anglos throughout are all, I
think the highest one is 29 percent? A. That’s right.
Q. So that come under your own percentage of your
segregation limits, that a school is segregated if it has
less than 30 percent Anglo at the elementary level? A.
Yes, that’s right. I might add that, if you look at the
entire distribution of the percentages for Anglo and en
rollment for all of the elementary schools, there is quite
a gap after 30 percent.
Q. So then on all of your maps, rather your print-outs
and your charts throughout your discussion of the ele
mentary schools as to pupil ethnic distribution, teacher
experience, teacher probation, teach median, teacher ten
years and plus, age of schools, acre per hundred pupils,
and so forth, it is all based on these figures, right? A.
That’s correct.
Q. And you do that, going back to 1963? A. That’s
right.
Q. Now, will you take a look at 1963 on Exhibit 250.
A. Yes.
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Cross
805a
Q. Boulevard School had 40.2 Anglos, is that right?
A. That’s right.
Q. And that’s 14 points above your 30-percent cutoff,
[6913 is it not? A. But you failed to mention that in
1963 the racial composition of the district itself was far
different than the racial composition of the Anglo in 1968
and therefore one would have to go through the entire set
of computations again if one were to calculate similar
probabilities or similar indicia of segregation for 1963.
Our figures here are based upon the selection of schools
based upon 1968 data only.
Q. But your representation in your charts and all at
tempt to show what the relationship was in the 20 minority
schools in 1963, does it not? A. This was just a con
venient means of identifying the school in 1968 and trac
ing the behavior of that school over the period of time
under analysis.
Q. I understand that, but you did go back to 1963 and
on your charts you showed what the conditions were? A.
That’s correct.
Q. But under your own segregation limits, Boulevard
was not segregated, not a segregated school in 1963? A.
No. I can’t say that, because that segregation limit in
1968 is conditioned by two things: one, the size of the
school, the number of students enrolled, and number two,
in order to find out where we start subtracting and add
ing, the amount of deviation depends upon the percentage
Anglo composition in any given area.
[692] Q. All right, well, then, in Exhibit 249, you had
your total population for Boulevard? A. Yes.
Q. And at that time in 1963, you had 180 Anglo, no Ne
gro, and 287 Hispano? A. Right.
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Cross
806a
Q. So you knew what your population was! A. That’s
correct.
Q. Well, then, yon are relating 1968 figures on your in
dex or your segregation limit back to 1963 when you had
a completely different picture! A. When we analyzed the
period 1963 to 1968, the whole methodology here is based
upon simply the identification of a school and its segre
gated status according to probability in 1968.
Q. Yes! A. What that school happened to have been
prior to that time is merely for purposes of comparative
information as to what happened to those 20 minority
schools over that period of time.
Q. May we look at Hallett on Exhibit 250! A. Yes.
Q. In 1963, it had an Anglo population of 66.4! A.
That’s right.
Q. And it was still above your 30 percent in 1964! [6932
A. That’s right.
Q. Going back to Boulevard, it was above your 30 per
cent limit in 1963 and 1964 and 1966, was it not! A. That’s
correct.
Q. Bryant was above it in 1963 and 1964! A. Correct.
Q. Smith was above it in 1963 and 1964, and Wyatt was
above it in 1963, ’64, ’65 and ’66! A. Right.
Q. But you never went back to figure what the segrega
tion limits would be in ’63! A. No.
Q. And in fact Hallett was a percentage of 66 Anglo at
that time and would probably not have been a minority
school under your minority classification, would it! A. I
don’t know whether it would or not. I have not made the
computations for the preceding year. It is very likely that
a school may change over that period of time from one
condition to another, as it obviously has here.
Q. Well, I would ask you then in 1963 of your 20 minority
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Cross
807a
schools under your own segregation limits if two, four, six
were above your segregation limits, were above your limits
in 1963, out of those twenty! A. I haven’t counted them
up. I presume that would be one—•
[694] Q. And five would be above your limits in 1964?
A. Yes, sir.
Q, And two in 1965 and two in 1966? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And those schools with those limits at that time were
reflected in all your various charts you made? A. They
can’t be.
Q. Aren’t they? Aren’t they all twenty—for example,
take your Exhibit 263, where you show the experience
curve for experience of elementary school teachers, experi
ence in the Denver Public Schools. That’s based on 1963,
’65, ’66, ’67, ’68 for the same schools? A. Exactly right.
Q. And some of which were not minority schools under
your segregation limit in earlier years ? A. That’s correct.
Q. Let’s take a look at the high schools, Exhibit 310, Dr.
Bardwell.
The Court: Do you have it? A. I have it.
Q. Find it, sir? A. Yes.
Q. All right, now, this Exhibit No. 310 sets forth the
ethnic distribution of pupils in your so-called three minority
high schools percentagewise for the years ’63 to ’68, right?
[695] A. That’s right.
Q. All right, now, your overlimit, for percentagewise in
high schools—a high school was segregated if it had less
than 60 percent Anglo?
Mr. Greiner: For what year? I believe that should
be established, if the Court please.
Mr. R is: ’68.
George E. Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Cross
808a
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Gross
A. ’68?
Q. Eight, then yon denominated those as your three
minority high schools and worked back from that and back
to ’63 in working np your charts and statistics ? A. That’s
correct.
Q. Now, in ’63, what was the Anglo population at East
High? A. 83 percent.
Q. So, at that point it was above your 60 percent level?
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, I believe counsel is
attempting to add apples and oranges. The witness
has testified repeatedly that there is no 1963 range
established. I object to the improper characteriza
tion of his testimony.
The Court: Well, he may cross-examine. To be
sure, he said that he used the year 1968 for making
or for selecting the several schools. Rightly or
wrongly, he did. I assume this line of questions is
designed or seeks to undermine some of his analyses
with respect to buildings and teachers.
[696] Mr. Ris: Exactly, yes, sir, that’s the sole
purpose of it.
The Court: I also assume that these schools, most
of them at least, were marginally segregated, or
well on their way during these years. I mean, I don’t
suppose there was substantial—
Q. Well, East High was 82 percent in 1963, the first
year in your charts here?
The Court: 82 percent Anglo ?
Mr. R is: Yes, sir.
A. That’s right.
809a
Q. And the same year, West was 69 percent? A. Bnt
yon are omitting again, if I might remind you, that the
segregated status of the school is not simply the matter
of measuring its percentage Anglo composition in a par
ticular year. It must have two additional ingredients. Num
ber one, the size of the enrollment in that particular year,
and also the percentage composition of the entire school
district.
Q. Well, that very well may he, Dr. Bardwell, and I don’t
want to argue. I am just trying to get at your basis, be
cause, for example, in Exhibit 323, where you again have
experience of senior high school teachers, you begin with
1964 to show a difference between so-called minority schools
and so-called Anglo schools? [6973 A. That’s correct.
Q. And you start right off with East and West as being
two of those? A. Right.
Q. Which were in the year 1964, if we look at Exhibit
310, East was then 71 percent Anglo and West was then
62 percent Anglo, were they not? A. Right. I simply
might add that if those schools had been left off, according
to your analysis, the gap between Anglo and minority
schools would have been appreciably wider than what you
see.
Q. Did you run any other programs on anything else
omitting those schools ? Did you run any programs on your
computer omitting those schools? A. I made some calcula
tions, but there were no computer programs.
Q. All right, Doctor, on your various diagrams you have
merely shown the curves for your minority schools and
your Anglo schools? A. Yes.
Q. You haven’t shown any information citvwide on any
of these? A. No.
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—•Cross
810a
Q. Citywide invariably would come somewhere between
here? [698] A, That’s correct.
Q. For statistical purposes in some of the evidence that
has come in here previously, medians have been widely used
in comparison with medians. A. Yes, sir.
Q. These various charts that you have shown for ethnic
composition, experience of teachers and so forth, have you
not done any of those as compared to medians, just the
high or the two extremes under your theory? A. No, in
fact, it would not be possible to involve a median on most
exhibits there, because that happens to be a percent and
they just aren’t—they don’t belong on the same scale,
because they would be two different kinds of things, apples
and oranges.
Q. But if you showed the all-city on these various charts,
the deviation between the average all-city in the minority
and the Anglo would be substantially narrower, would it
not? A. Quite right.
Q. But, if you were doing this on a statistical basis, on
a disinterested basis, you would normally show that on
all-city, would you not, on a thing of this nature? A. No.
Q. Say, for the planning office of the City and County of
Denver, you show all-city and then extremes? [699] A.
No, by no means. It depends upon the kinds of graphical
display, the purposes of the analysis. The purpose of that
analysis is simply to compare two groups of schools, and
that is what was done.
Q. All right, now, Dr. Bardwell, this morning you iden
tified and were admitted into evidence the various print
outs that you had before you, from which you made the
charts? A. That’s right.
Q. Then, as you were testifying as to the approximate
percentages you were just reading off the charts, is that
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Cross
811a
right? A. That’s correct. I did not have the others at
my fingertips.
Q. Pardon? A. I did not have the other exhibits at my
fingertips.
Q. Well, you had them there? A. No.
Q. You didn’t? A. I had the charts here. I was reading
the figures from the scale on either the left or right and it
would have had to be an approximation, let’s say, within a
half percent.
Q. Well, as I followed you, Dr. Bardwell, I found sub
stantially more than a half percent in some instances with
reference to the printouts. Now, the printouts are E700J
accurate figures? A. They are.
Q. And if there is a variation between the printouts and
the charts you made in a curve, the printouts would govern,
would they not? A. Absolutely.
Q. I mean, I could spend an hour going through and
pointing out your variances off the charts, but if you will
concede that much I will save that much time. A. I hope
you can point those out to me so I—
Q. Well, there were some that were 2 or 3 percent off,
but as long as we have the other evidence there, we won’t
take time to do so.
Now, with regard to Your Exhibit 267, which was the
teacher experience, mean teacher experience between Tray
lor and the minority schools, you didn’t take into considera
tion in preparing that chart that any new school that opens
is invariably staffed with a certain percentage of experi
enced teachers as a cadre to open that school? A. That’s
right, quite but the percentage for Traylor School was
far above the percentage existing in the minority groups
of schools, and they had been open a very, very long time.
George E. Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Cross
812a
Q. I understand. You know what a cadre is, in opening
a new institution1? [7013 A. Yes.
Q. Now, with regard to your figures pertaining to age
of the various buildings, again in that instance you have
used averages rather than medians? A. Yes.
Q. Did you compute the medians for those ages? A.
Yes, I did, in a couple of instances.
Q. Did you compare any exhibits showing the average
as to ages of the various schools, minority and Anglo?
A. My comment is that from a statistical point of view
the median is an appropriate measure of statistics to be
used when the information itself is very highly skewed,
and in the case of the teacher data, year after year, those
data are very highly skewed. And other information con
cerning buildings and so forth, the average is not highly
skewed and therefore the average is more appropriate.
The Court: It is time for our afternoon recess.
(The court recessed from 3:30 o’clock p.m. until
3:40 o’clock p.m.)
[702] (Following a recess, the trial resumed at
3:48 p.m.)
By Mr. Bis:
Q. Dr. Bardwell, with respect to your statistics on the
age of the buildings, you considered only the date of the
original construction on those buildings? A. That’s cor
rect.
Q. Did you put into your computer any factors pertain
ing to additions to the buildings ? A. I did not.
Q. Did you put into your computer any factors pertain
ing to the type of modernization to any of the buildings?
A. No.
George E. Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Cross
8 1 3 a
Q. Or as to the type of maintenance performed on the
buildings! A. No.
Q. So your figures were solely based on the original
construction dates? A. That’s correct.
Q. And you didn’t attempt to make any differentiation
insofar as the factor going into your computer with re
spect to the area? A. Age of the area of the city!
Q. Yes. For example, the older parts of the city as
compared to the newer parts of the city? That didn’t go
into your computer ? A. No.
[703] Q. Nor the fact that Denver minorities very often
are clustered in some of the older areas, construction-wise?
A. No, that’s right.
Q. Now, with regard to your Exhibit 390 and various
overlays, you referred to the fact that some of those lines
from the northeast, particularly to southwest, went right
past other schools that were still under capacity according
to your figures? That is, as the crow flies? Eight? They
would go right past it? A. That’s correct.
Q, And you didn’t mean that as a bus driver would follow
through streets and so forth, that they would necessarily
go right past it? That was a figure of speech, is that right?
A. That’s correct. However, I think that a bus route that
would depart very far substantially from an indicated line
as the crow flies would probably not be a terribly efficient
bus route.
Q. You identified previously some charts you got from
the school district. You have gone through many records
yourself of the school district, have you not? A. That’s
right.
Q. You and Dr. Klite worked together in this regard?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Now, 398, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 398 and 399 show racial
distribution of students by various categories and [704]
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—-Cross
814a
school by school. You have studied these from time to
time, have you not? A. That’s correct.
Q. And you found these charts beginning in 1962 and up
to the present time in the school records, did you, similar
to these? A. Yes.
Q. Showing racial distribution? A. That’s right.
Q. And you did not find any charts similar to these from
1961 back to 1947, did you? A. Only for particular schools.
Q. On a very limited basis ? A. Very, very limited basis.
Q. Now, with regard to this Exhibit 400, the dropout
exhibit, you were referring to the projected dropout rate
of Cole for 1965 and 1966 as being 12.6, right? A. That’s
correct.
Q. Now, two years later, 1967-68, it’s down to 7,0? A.
I would have to take a look at the exhibit, please.
Q. All right.
Mr. Ris: Exhibit 400, please, Mr. Kerr.
The Court: Here it is.
A. That’s correct.
Q. So between the 1965-1966 school year and the 1967-
1968 [7051 school year, the projected dropout rate from
Cole had dropped from 12.6 to 7.0? A. After it increased
from 1966 from 12.6 to 13.6.
Q. Then it dropped to 7.0? A. That’s right.
Q. And Manual had a similar—went from 64.8 to 66 and
then down to 57, right? A. 67. You’re rounding it on the
short side. It should be 67 percent dropout rate for Manual.
Q. All right, 64.8 from 1965 to ’66. The next year up to
66.8, the following year down to 57.0? A. That’s correct.
Q. And that’s the last figure we have? A. That’s cor
rect.
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Cross
815a
The Court: Those aren’t your figures anyway, are
they ?
The Witness: No, sir. These are the Colorado
State Department of Education calculations.
The Court: Did you verify them or check them
out? Do you think they’re accurate and reliable?
The Witness: I convinced myself that they were
reliable in terms of the calculations that were actually
made. We did not examine the individual data com
ing from the individual grades submitted by the
school district.
Q. Now I will hand you Exhibit 405, which has previ
ously [706] been introduced and which is a study of Pupil
Population, School Boundaries, Transportation and School
Buildings dated February 1962. You’re acquainted with
that volume, are you not ? A. I am.
Q. And with regard to your testimony concerning the
capacity and attendance at the junior high school con
struction of new schools, if you would look at page 19,
please, that gives the estimated pupil membership, at the
junior high level within the then-existing school district
boundaries before the 1962 boundary changes, does it not?
A. That’s right, in 1960 actual membership, I don’t know
when that refers to except 1961.
Q. All right. And this chart gives the adjusted building-
capacity for each of the schools? A. That’s right.
Q. And in the 1961 actual membership? A. That’s right.
Q. That projected membership for the various schools
without the boundary changes here? A. That’s correct.
Q. Then if you will turn to page 31, this gives the ad
justed building capacity for the junior high schools with
the 1961 actual membership. And does this give the esti
mated membership for the following years assuming the
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Cross
816a
proposed [707] boundary changes were made in 1962?
A. That’s what the title states, yes.
Q. At that time the Byers school—Byers, for example,
1961, had an actual membership of 1,094, right? A. I
don’t know where you’re reading that figure.
Q. 1961 actual membership for Byers. A. 1961 for By
ers?
Q. Yes, 1,094. A. Oh, that’s right, yes.
Q. And the projected then after the boundary change,
1,122, correct? A. That’s right.
Q. And would that remain substantially level, 1966 mem
bership at 1161? A. That’s right.
Q. That’s fairly level for that number of students, is
it not? A. Well, if that’s level, then it’s also as level if
we’re talking about 1961 actual membership compared with
1962, because the difference there is only 28 students and
in case of—in the case of 1963 to 1963 it is 16 students.
From 1963 to 1964 you’re talking about 56 students. Seems
to me that is the level all the way across.
Q. What is the difference between 1961 and 1962? A.
1961 is 16 students and 1962 is nothing more than [708]
28 students.
Q. And then it goes up to 1138? A. Bight.
Q. 1194? A. Bight.
Q. And then begins to drop? A. That’s right.
Q. And Morey, they anticipated going from 894 with a
capacity of 1170 in 1961, right? A. That’s right.
Q. And bringing it up to capacity by roughly 1964? A.
Yes, that’s what these figures show.
Q. And by 1966 it would be over capacity by what?
50 pupils ? A. There is considerable difference between the
figures that actually took place.
Q. Oh, I understand, sir. A. I just wanted to remind us
of that.
George E. Bard,well—for Plaintiffs—Cross
8 1 7 a
Q. But these were the figures that everyone was operat
ing under in 1962, and not on your printouts after the fact?
A. Well—
Q. Isn’t that correct? A. No, I would have to take issue,
simply because if you examine your own report on May
3rd, 1962, with regard to the membership at Morey and
at Byers and Cole, they are [709] quite different.
Q. As to the actual membership? A. That’s right.
Q. In 1962? A. That’s right.
Q. In May? A. In May.
Q. But what we’re referring to here is 1961. And, it’s
a variation between 1961 and 1962. And, this shows a
projection for 1962. A. Well—
[710] Q. This shows projection for ’62? A. I would as
sume that 1961 actual membership is that membership for
the school year 1961.
Q. What document are you referring to in May— A.
398.
Q. With respect to projections, however, you were aware
that they were doing some projecting? A. Oh, yes.
Q. All right, now, your figures are not a projection, but
they are looking back and going back to taking actual fig
ures over the subsequent years up to the present time or
through ’68, is that correct? A. I would like you to re
peat that, please.
Q. Well, all I am saying is that the figures, the projec
tions here, are predictions. A. That’s correct.
Q. And your figures are putting through a computer ac
tual attendance figures and all information the last five
or six years? A. Yes.
Q. And those computers—all I am saying is that the
computer printouts were not available to the board and
administration in 1962. A. No, but the information they
had available in Exhibit 398 apparently was available to
the board.
George E. Bardwell—■for Plaintiffs—Cross
818a
[711] Q. Does that tell anything about what’s going to
happen in 1963 or 1964 or 1965? A. Of course not.
Q. All right, and the various charts, the various print
outs, and then the charts you have made and so forth for
the years ’63, ’68 and so forth, those are after the fact?
A. Yes.
Q. As you prepared for this trial? A. Yes.
Q. You mentioned that in the ’62 boundary change there
was one area east of Cheesman Park that was assigned to
Byers. Now, is that the area that was immediately to the
south of what used to be known as Mount Calvary Ceme
tery? A. That’s correct.
Q. And is now Botanical Gardens? A. That’s correct.
Q. It runs a block and a half, I believe, from 8th Avenue
to just a little north of 9th Avenue to where you get to
the Botanical Gardens area? A. Yes, that’s correct.
Q. And that’s the only part that was made—that’s what
you had reference to when you said an area east of Chees
man Park had been assigned to Byers? A. Yes, in addi
tion to the area on the south.
* * * * *
[7191 * * *
Redirect Examination by Mr. Greiner-.
Q. Dr. Bardwell, when you selected the schools identified
in Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 241, the 41 elementary schools, the
junior high schools there depicted, senior high schools,
their racial composition was the sole criteria that you
used, was it not? A. That’s correct.
Q. Now, the other exhibits that have been put into ev
idence based on the computer printouts, they involve such
things as percentage of probationary teachers, and those
exhibits show that there is a correlation of the percentage
of probationary teachers in a school and race, do they
not? A. That’s correct.
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs’—Redirect
819 a
Q. And the same thing holds true, the same correlation
with respect to teachers with no prior DPS experience?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And also teachers with ten or more years’ experience,
is that correct! [720] A. That’s correct.
Q. And schools with high median years experience, there
is also a correlation with race, is there not? A. That’s
correct.
Q. So we didn’t start out each time with each one of
those categories which I just mentioned and select a new
group of schools, did we? A. No, the relationship be
tween these is very highly correlative with race and very
persuasive in terms of that subdivision.
Mr. Greiner: I have no further questions.
Mr. Ris: I have nothing further.
Mr. Brega: I have nothing, Your Honor.
The Court: Undoubtedly, you have a reason for
using 1968 as the determinative year?
The Witness: It is the most current year.
The Court: Presently, as far as this lawsuit is
concerned, right?
The Witness: Yes, this was the whole matter of
looking at that school in terms of what would be
needed to change its racial composition, based upon
probability analysis, was a part of it—in a sense
looking ahead.
# # * # #
George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Redirect
820a
Robert L. Medley—for Defendants—Direct
[752] * * *
R obert L. H edley , a w itn e s s c a lle d b y a n d on b e h a lf o f
d e fe n d a n ts , h a v in g f i r s t b e e n duly s w o rn w a s e x a m in e d
a n d te s t i f ie d a s fo l lo w s :
Direct Examination by Mr. Creighton:
The Court: Give us your name and address,
please.
The Witness: Robert L. Hedley, 1775 South
Ames, Denver, Colorado.
By Mr. Creighton-.
Q. Mr. Hedley, are you employed by School District No.
1 of the City and County of Denver? A. I am.
Q. When were you first employed by the School Dis
trict? A. In 1951.
Q. And you have been employed continuously since that
time? A. Yes, sir, I have.
Q. What was your first assignment in that employment?
A. As a teacher.
Q. Where was that? A. At Cole Junior High.
Q. What was the date of your next assignment? A.
1955.
Q. And where was that? [753] A. As a teacher at
Schmitt Elementary School.
Q. Then your next assignment? A. Next assignment
was Planning Services at the Administration Building as
a teacher on special assignment.
Q. What date was that? Was that in 1961? A. Yes.
Q. And what time of year that year? A. That was in
the fall of the year, September.
Q. What were your initial duties when you were as
821a
signed, to Planning1 Services? A. My initial duties were
to help in the preparation of graphic materials for presen
tation to staff members and board meetings and to assist
in preparing reports for Planning Services at that time.
Q. At that time who was your immediate superior? A.
Dr. C. E. Armstrong.
Q. And what was his position or title? A. He was
Executive Director of Business Services at that time.
Q. Was he in turn under an assistant superintendent at
that point? A. Yes, he was.
Q. Who was that? A. Graham Miller.
Q. What was Mr. Graham Miller’s title? [754] A. He
was Assistant Superintendent for Business Services.
Q. Then did Business Services include at that time
Planning Services and Engineering? A. Yes.
Q. And you were in Planning Services part of that time?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Was that administrative structure changed there
after? A. Yes, it was.
Q. When was that? A. I believe in 1963 when Mr.
Miller retired, that division was split into two parts.
Q. What were those two parts? A. One part remain
ing Business Services and the other becoming Division of
Planning and Engineering.
Q. Were those both headed by the Assistant Superin
tendent? A. No, they were split. Dr. Armstrong was one
Assistant Superintendent and Mr. Ed Olander was the
other assistant.
Q. But they were both Assistant Superintendents? A.
That’s correct.
Q. Both heads of these two departments? A. Bight.
£7553 Q. And Mr. Olander was head of Business Ser
vices, was he? A. Yes, sir.
Robert L. Hedley—for Defendants—Direct
822a
Q. And Engineering and Planning Services remained
then under Dr. Armstrong? A. That’s right.
Q. And how long did that administrative arrangement
last? A. It lasted until the present time. It’s still the
same.
Q. And you have been in Planning Services the entire
time since you were assigned there? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was your title or assignment changed since your
initial assignment to Planning Services? A. Yes, I have
been changed two times; approximately a year and a half
as a teacher on special assignment, and then to coordinator
for two years, and then to supervisor, which is my present
classification.
Q. What year—when did you become coordinator? A.
About 1963 or 1964.
Q. And when did you become supervisor? A. 1965.
Q. And that is your present assignment? A. That’s
correct.
[756] Q. In the summer of 1962 did you have any
function or role in connection with the efforts and work
of the Special Study Committee? A. Yes, I did.
Q. Briefly what were those? A. We prepared some
graphic presentations for the use in their report that they
were going to give to the Board.
Q. Did those include representation of census data?
A. They did, yes.
Q. Did those ultimately appear in the appendices of the
report of that committee? A. Yes, they did.
Q. When you became coordinator what were your basic
duties at that point in 1962—or 1963? A. In those years
I still maintained the responsibility of preparing graphic
presentations, and I also was introduced to the responsi
bility of furniture program for the Denver Public Schools.
Robert L. tledley—■for Defendants—Direct
823a
Q. Did you have any responsibility for maps? A. Yes,
I did.
Q. When did that responsibility begin? A. In 1962.
Q. And what was that responsibility? A. It was my
responsibility to prepare all boundary maps during the
summer, but specifically in July, on a base [7573 map that
was acquired from the City and County of Denver, and
to make sure that all changes were made that were di
rected to be changed, and that all boundary maps were ap
proved by the appropriate official and presented to the
schools in various administrative offices for the following
school year.
Q. Now, this work was done in July of each year? A.
That’s correct.
Q. What sort of information aside from the base map
that you have mentioned did you use for determining what
the boundary map the following year would look like? A.
All those changes that were approved and adopted by the
Board were put on there.
Q. Put on where? A. On the new map.
Q. Well, how did you get that information? How did it
come to you? A. It came to me from my superior, Dr.
Armstrong.
Q. Then you prepared the map, did you? A. That’s
correct.
Q. Did any of your superiors approve this map? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Who was that? A. Through the years it was Mr.
Howard Johnson, and the last year it was Dr. Armstrong.
Q. So you prepared the map from information from
the C7583 head of your department and sent the prepared
map back for final approval by the head of your depart
ment or Mr. Johnson? A. Uh-huh.
Robert L. Hedley—for Defendants—Direct
824a
Q. At the time you commenced to prepare these maps,
as you have described, in 1962, were there other maps in
the files of the District for prior years! A. Yes, there
was.
Q. What maps were there! A. I found in the record
that we had master copies of the School District’s maps for
1960.
Q. Did you have one for 1961! A. Yes, we did.
Q. Well, have you found at any time official maps prior
to 1960! A. Yes, I found the 1956 base map, which also
included the changes for 1957.
Q. When did you find that map! A. Just, oh—in the
past three or four months.
Q. And in 1956 when that map was prepared, whose re
sponsibility was it for preparing it! A. Engineering Ser
vices.
Q. And where did you find that map! A. That was in
their files.
Q. Could you find any other maps for the period prior
to 1960 from Engineering Services! [7593 A. No, sir.
Q. And did your Planning Services file show any! A.
None.
Q. Now, 1962, when you took on this responsibility for
maps, did you do anything further in connection with
organizing the records and files of your department re
garding the boundaries! A. Yes, sir, I started to main
tain a written description of all boundaries and develop
ing those into three sets, elementary, junior and high.
And then through the years I had this responsibility, I
always kept master maps of each year that were responsi
ble for preparing these maps.
Q. These boundary records—are they kept by you in
your department now! A. Yes, they are.
Robert L. Hedley•—for Defendants—Direct
825a
Q. What did you say the annual distribution of each
new year’s map was, Mr. Hedley? A. Every elementary
school, junior and senior high, and the administrative
offices.
Q. Mr. Hedley, if you would step down and get a map
marked for identification as Defendants’ Exhibit A A and
mount it on the easel.
Mr. Creighton: Your Honor, is this a suitable
place for all concerned! We thought it might be
better on this side near the witness stand. Is it
suitable with other counsel!
[7603 Mr. Greiner: I believe so.
Q. Now, directing your attention to the map marked for
identification Defendants’ Exhibit AA, did you prepare
that, Mr. Hedley! A. Yes, I did.
Q. Was there an official map in existence—is there an
official map in existence for that year? A. No, sir.
Q. And that year again is what? A. 1936.
Q. What base map have you used for that exhibit? A.
The base map here is a 1956 base map.
Q. Is that the earliest base map you could find? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Have you shown the limits of the School District on
that map? A. Yes, the limits in 1936 in the School Dis
trict in the City and County of Denver is indicated by a red
line.
Q. And where do you get that information? A. This
information was obtained from our annexation maps,
which we received from the City and County of Denver
Planning Office.
Q. You keep annexation maps current and complete in
your files? A. Yes, sir, I do.
Robert L. Medley—for Defendants—Direct
8 2 6 a
[7613 Q. Have you also shown the boundaries of the
junior high school subdistricts in 1936! A. Yes, sir, they
are indicated by the dark black lines.
Q, Now, is the black line consistent with your modem
map! A. Yes, as you will see, when we go through here,
they all show in the dark black lines.
Q. Does that base map show schools not in existence in
1936? A. Yes, these schools outside of the District in
those years are shown with a red “X” over them. It means
they did not exist, and also within the City and County
they did not exist, schools and sites.
Q. Mr. Hedley, in the absence of an official map for that
year, how have you determined where to place the sub
district boundaries! A. We have the main 1921-26 Super
intendent’s circulars that describe the junior high bound
aries and what elementary schools they included, and we
also used the 1932 elementary boundary line description
circulars that were in that same group.
Q. Are they maintained in your boundary books? A.
Yes, they are.
Q. These descriptions, are they set forth in words in a
descriptive form? [7623 A. Yes, they are.
Q. And how are junior high school boundaries defined
in the circular you referred to? A. Basically, they say
that the pupils that will attend a certain junior high school
will be from a certain elementary subdistrict and its op
tional areas.
Q. Now, did you have any information on the ele
mentary districts then? A. Yes, I did for 1932.
Q. ’36? A. ’32.
Q. And where was that information? A. That was in
the circulars.
Robert L. Hedley—for Defendants—Direct
827a
Q. Was the 1932 data unchanged until 1936? A. Yes,
sir, that’s correct.
Q. Then you used the elementary data and the descrip
tion in the circular to establish the boundaries, is that
correct? A. Of the elementary schools, and they in turn
helped describe the boundaries of the junior high schools.
Q. Let me interrupt a moment, Mr. Hedley. For the
record, I believe you said your “X’s” are red. They are in
fact what color? A. Excuse me, they are green.
Mr. Creighton: Your Honor, the defendants offer
in evidence Exhibit A A.
[763] Mr. Greiner: No objection, Your Honor.
The Court: We will take it. Exhibit AA is re
ceived in evidence.
(Whereupon, Defendants’ Exhibit AA was re
ceived in evidence.)
Q. Mr. Hedley, have you shown in addition to the sub
district boundaries optional areas? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many optional areas were there at the junior
high level in 1936? A. In 1936 there were thirteen op
tional areas as indicated here with the blue “Optional” and
the schools to which they were optional.
Q. Did every junior high school have an optional area?
A. Yes, sir, in this case, they did.
Q. Did everyone have two of them? A. In most eases,
they had two optional areas, in some cases three.
Q. Now, Mr. Hedley, up in the upper left-hand corner,
in the northeast or northwest corner of the District, what
junior high school is that? A. This is Skinner Junior
High.
Robert L. Hedley—for Defendants—Direct
828a
Q. How have you indicated that? A. It is located with
the blue line and the rectangular form around the school.
[764] Q. That’s just to locate the school? A. Indicate
where the school is within that district.
Q. Did Skinner have optional areas? A. Yes, they had
two, one in this location here, which was optional between
Skinner and Horace Mann, and one down here which was
optional between Lake, Skinner and Mann.
Q. A three-way option? A. That’s correct.
Q. And those are respectively on the northwest and
northeast corner of the Skinner subdistrict? A. That’s
correct.
Q. Then, moving to Mann, in addition to the Skinner
option, did it have others? A. It had this large optional
area here to the east, which was optional between Mann
and Cole.
Q. And that extended to the— A. The city limits on
the north.
Q. And on the— A. 17th here, approximately 17th
Street.
Q. And was the river involved in that boundary? A.
Yes, this river is indicated here.
Q. And then moving on to Cole. A. Located here.
Q. What other optional areas besides the Mann area did
it have? [765] A. Cole had these three optional areas:
Here, one between Cole and Smiley; this one, three-way,
Cole, Smiley and Morey; and this one, which was optional
between Cole and Morey.
Q. Those are generally on what side of the Cole dis
trict? A. This would be on the east and on the south.
Q. Then, Cole, Smiley—this brings us to Smiley. In
addition to the Cole option, what other optional area did
Robert L. TIedley—for Defendants—Direct
829a
Smiley have? A. We have this large optional area here
between Smiley and Gove.
Q. Generally, on what side of the Smiley district? A.
It was on the southeast side of the district.
Q. And did that extend to the city limits? A. City
limits, taking out Lowry Air Force Base.
Q. You have eliminated the Lowry area from your
boundaries? A. That’s correct.
Q. Even though it was technically in the city limits? A.
Bight.
Q. Then, Smiley optional to Gove, move to Gove—did
Gove have other optional areas? A. Gove was here. Gove
had this optional area between Morey and Gove, besides
this large one here.
[766] Q. And that generally was on what side of the
Gove district? A. This was south, and then the small one
down here, which was optional between Morey, Gove and
Byers.
Q. That was south of the river? A. South of the river,
yes.
Q. Does that indicate that the mandatory Gove area was
quite small compared with its total size? A. Yes, that
area was approximately this location.
Q. And because of the distance to the bench, please out
line the total boundaries of the Gove area, including its
optional areas. A. Including its optional areas, it would
be this area here.
Q. Then, the Gove-Byers optional leads us to—or,
rather, Gove-Morey leads us to Morey. Did it have other
optional areas? A. Yes, as indicated before, we had the
optional between Morey and Byers, Morey and Gove, and
Morey and Cole.
Robert L. Hedley—for Defendants—Direct
830a
Q. Then, moving on to Byers, in addition to the one
yon mentioned with Morey, what others did Byers have?
A. Byers had the one that was optional between Byers
and Grant, and then the three-way, Baker, Byers, and
Grant.
Q. Was there another one for Byers that yon previously
mentioned? E7673 A. Just the small one here.
Q. Then I think you have mentioned then that Grant
had two optional areas that year. A. Yes, Grant had this
one with Byers, and then the three-way with Baker, Byers
and Grant.
Q. And that leads to Baker. Did Baker have any other
optional areas? A. Baker was here, and they had this
large optional area to the west that was optional between
Lake and Baker.
Q. Generally, across the Platte River? A. That’s cor
rect.
Q. Extending to the city limits? A. To the city limits
on this side.
Q. All right, would you please get before us on the
other easel, Mr. Hedley, Exhibit AB?
Mr. Hedley, this purports to represent what subject and
what years? A. This is a senior high school boundary
map for 1936.
Q. What is your source and method for the preparation
of that map? The same as the 1936 junior high map which
is AA? A. Yes, sir, they were. We want to determine—
Q. Excuse me, Mr. Hedley, the circular which was the
source for junior high maps, how does it describe the
senior high boundaries? In terms of what? [768] A.
Those attendance areas for the senior high would include
those junior highs and their optional areas and name the
Robert L. Hedley—for Defendants—Direct
831a
junior liigh. schools that would attend that senior high
school. In some cases, it gave elementary schools.
Mr. Creighton: Defendants offer Exhibit AB.
Mr. Greiner: Could I inquire of Mr. Hedley,
Your Honor, as to whether there are any estimates
containing Exhibit AB?
The Witness: No, sir, there is not. It is directly
from the circulars.
Mr. Greiner: Were there any estimates on A A ?
The Witness: No, sir.
Mr. Greiner: We have no objection, Your Honor.
The Court: Exhibit AB is received.
(Whereupon, Defendants’ Exhibit AB was re
ceived in evidence.)
Q. Mr. Hedley, have you adopted the same convention
on AB as on AA with respect to showing the city limits
and, therefore, the School District limits, the red line, and
the same convention with your green “X’s” as to the
schools that were not in existence at that time? A. Yes,
they are the same.
Q. And you are consistently using- a black line to de
lineate the subdistrict boundaries and the optional por
tions thereof? [769] A. That’s correct.
Q. How many high schools were there in 1936? A.
There would be five high schools.
Q. And how many optional areas were there? A.
Basically, there were six optional areas.
Q. Do you have a different convention here for locating
the high schools? A. Yes, I have circled the high schools
with the blue marking that you see here.
Q. Taking North High School, how many optional areas
Robert L. Hedley—for Defendants—Direct
8 3 2 a
did it have? A. North had this optional area here and
this one to the east, between North and West, North and
Manual.
Q. And moving on to Manual, in addition to the one
with North, did it have another? A. Yes, it had this
optional area here, East and Manual.
Q. Generally to the south and east. A. To the east,
that’s correct.
Q. And that takes us around to East. Did it have any
other optional areas besides the one with Manual? A.
Yes, it had the one with Manual and also one with East,
West and Manual; and East, West and South, on the south
and west of the district of East.
Q. And that moves around to South. Did it have any
other optional areas? A. Yes, it had the one to the north
that was optional [7703 between South and West, and the
one we mentioned before, East, West, and South.
Q. And, finally, completing the circle, West has how
many? A. Had this one here, North and West. This one,
East, West and Manual; and the West and South.
Q. And it had yet another, didn’t it, that year with
South and East? A. This one here. It actually had four.
Q, Yes. A. No, the three, this one, this one and this
one—total of four.
Q. Yes. All right, Mr. Hedley, would you bring out
Exhibit AC and will you put it over AB, so that AA and
AC will be side by side?
Mr. Hedley, directing your attention to the map marked
for identification Defendants’ Exhibit AC, which is labeled,
“Junior High, 1955,” did you prepare that? A. Yes, sir,
I did.
Q. And did you have an official map for 1955? A. No, I
did not.
Robert L. Hedley—-for Defendants—Direct
833a
Q. What is the base map for that! A. The base map
is the 1956 base map.
E771] Q. You used the base map for the year immedi
ately following; is that correct! A. That’s correct.
Q. Now, how did you go about, Mr. Hedley, preparing a
map for 1955 using the 1956 base map? A. We used the
1956 junior high map to construct our boundaries for
1955. We also used our boundary line description books
with the information that was available there and in some
cases Board minutes.
Q. Now, do your boundary books show any change, for
example, or—what change if any is shown in your bound
ary books and by these two maps in the—
Let me withdraw that question, Mr. Hedley, and ask
you first—Did you use the same dimension of black line to
delineate subdistricts and— A. Yes.
Q. —and optional boundaries! A. Yes.
Q. Are optional areas especially represented on this
particular map! A. The optional areas on this map are
shown in the cross-hatch and underlined—with the schools
underlined in blue.
Mr. Creighton: The defendants offer in evidence
Exhibit AC.
[772] Mr. Greiner: May I inquire, Your Honor.
Voir Dire Examination by Mr. Greiner:
Q. The western boundary, Mr. Hedley, of this optional
area between Cole and Smiley—you show—what streets
are these! A. These are not streets. They go down alleys
here. This is Franklin and High. This is Columbine dis
trict, and this at that time was the Adams Street district—
The line we were discussing is Franklin, and the line going
Robert L. Medley—for Defendants—Voir Dire
834a
down the middle of the block between the two streets and
on the north here—we get to 29th and 28th, and it splits
that block.
Q. And then just north? A. Then it goes over and
splits this block between Race and High, and then it goes
down the middle of the street up here.
Q. What is your source for that line, that western line?
A. This was in 1936 circulars—it indicated that the Adams
Street, which is Harrington here and Columbine district
was optional district between East and Manual, and Cole
and Smiley. And the line has remained the same.
Q. You looked at what between 1936 and 1955? A.
School Board minutes, which indicated that there were no
secondary changes in this area.
E7733 Q. So Exhibit AC then depicts the western bound
ary as it was in 1936? A. That’s correct.
Mr. Greiner : No further questions. We have no
objection, Your Honor.
The Court: AC is received.
(Whereupon, Defendants’ Exhibit AO was re
ceived in evidence.)
Direct Examination by Mr. Creighton (Continued):
Q. Now, Mr. Hedley, comparing Exhibit AC which is
the junior high situation in 1955 by your map and Exhibit
AA which is the 1936 situation, nineteen years earlier,
were there any changes in the Cole-Smiley junior optional
areas? A. This small change here in 1955 is all Morey-
Cole. And here, there was an optional area between Cole,
Morey and Smiley.
Robert L. Hedley—for Defendants—Direct
835a
Q. Any other changes in the— A. The east end of the
Adams Street district then which was extended out here
beyond the Park Hill Golf Course was cut back to Colorado
Boulevard, which included the Park Hill Golf Course.
Q. And by 1955, Mr. Hedley, were there optional areas
in all four quadrants of the city? A. Yes, sir.
[774] Q. Where were they? A. Skinner Junior High
has two optional areas between Horace Mann and Skinner.
This one between Lake and Skinner, and the one that we
have mentioned working around Gove. Gove had this one
that was optional between Morey and Gove. This one—
Morey and Gove. And, then Morey had one optional be
tween Morey and Byers, and this one, Morey and Cole that
we mentioned. And this one was Morey and Baker. This
optional area was Byers and Merrill at that time. This op
tional area was Byers and Kepner. This one was Baker,
Byers and Kepner. This one was Baker and Lake.
Q. Count up the number of separate optional areas. A.
I think there were eleven.
Q. That’s in 1955? A. That’s correct.
Q. Now, Mr. Hedley, would you get in front of us Ex
hibit AD and let’s put that over AA so that we have AC
and AD side by side.
Directing your attention, Mr. Hedley, to the map marked
for identification Defendants’ Exhibit AD, did you pre
pare that? A. This was—
Q. Did you prepare it? A. I prepared the map, yes.
Q. Did you have an official base map for that? [775]
A. Yes, this was the official base map in 1956.
Q. Now, have you changed the delineation of boundaries
from the base map? A. They are still indicated with the
dark black line here.
Robert L. Hedley—for Defendants—Direct
836a
Q. That’s the line that—that line has been widened but
of course not the location? A. That’s correct.
Q. And aside from that change, what other changes have
yon made to the base map, that is, have yon added orange
lines for example? A. This actually is a new boundary
line here indicated by an orange line.
Q. The orange lines then indicate new boundaries? A.
Yes.
Q. "What point in time? A. This was in January 1956.
Q. And the arrows—the blue arrows indicate what? A.
This means that Hill, a new school, opened in January of
1956, and it means these areas were assigned to Hill. These
areas were assigned to Gove here.
Q. On that date? A. That’s correct.
Mr. Creighton: The defendants offer Exhibit AD.
Mr. Greiner: No objection.
[776] The Court: Very well, AD is received.
(Whereupon, Defendants’ Exhibit AD was re
ceived in evidence.)
Q. Now, Mr. Hedley, referring to Exhibit AD, was Hill
a new junior high school at that point? A. Yes.
Q. And that was January 1956? A. Correct.
Q. What former subdistricts—junior high subdistricts
yielded territory to make up the Hill district?
Mr. Greiner: Could we have it identified in point
of time, please, Your Honor?
The Court: I think we are in 1956.
Mr. Creighton: I believe we’re in January.
The Witness: January of 1956.
Robert L. Hedley—for Defendants—Direct
837a
A. The southern part of the Gove district which was here
in 1956 is assigned to Hill, and this small part of the
Morey district which was the Ellsworth Elementary sub
district was assigned to Hill. Then this northern part of
Gove above the black dotted line which was Smiley is now
assigned to Gove. And, that part south of the black dotted
line was in Gove and it still is Gove.
Q. What were generally the west and south boundaries
of Hill when it opened in January 1956? A. The south
boundary here was the river and city £777] limits, which
is the Town of Glendale here, and approximately Cook and
Steele Streets on the west.
Q. How about the east? A. On the east it was the city
limits again taking out Lowry Field.
Q. And on the north? A. On the north, approximately
17th Avenue here up to 11th Avenue here.
Q. What do the black lines mean? A. The dotted black
lines indicate the boundary in 1955 which appears on that
map.
Q. You’re referring now to AC? A. Yes, sir.
This dotted line here (referring to AD) was the optional
area between Gove and Morey.
Q. You’re referring to the arrow south of the Hill site?
A. This is correct.
Q. Now the new Gove line indicated in orange you said
generally—how did it run? A. The northern line is up
here. It came down Montview and then down to 17th
Avenue and out to and includes the Ashley district.
Q. Ashley elementary? A. Ashley elementary school.
Q. Now, Mr. Hedley, according to your records and files,
[778] are those the only junior high changes made at that
point in time, namely, January 1956? A. Yes, that’s cor
rect.
Robert L. Hedley—for Defendants—Direct
838a
Q, Please bring out Exhibit AE.
You now have Exhibit AE on the easel along with AD,
do you not! A. That’s correct.
Q. Directing your attention to Exhibit marked Defen
dants’ Exhibit AE, did you prepare that! A. Yes, sir, I
did.
Q. Does it purport to represent junior high school
boundaries in September of 1956! A. That’s correct.
Q. You had an official base map for that year, did you
not! A. I did.
Q. And have you again made the subdistrict boundaries
in solid black! A. That’s correct.
Q. And have you again indicated optional areas by
hatching in blue lines ? A. That’s correct.
Q. Now, have you carried over to this map AE, the
January 1956 changes appearing on Exhibit AD? A. Yes,
we indicated the dotted orange line as to those [779]
changes that were made in 1/56.
Q. By that do you mean January 1956? A. That’s cor
rect.
Q. And does this show other changes effective prior to
September 1956? A. Yes.
Q. What is that? A. This change here—the optional
area between Cole and Smiley, this area west of York
Street, was assigned to Cole Junior High, part of it being
Smiley; part of it being the optional area between Morey
and Cole.
Mr. Creighton: Defendants offer in evidence Ex
hibit AE.
Robert L. Hedley—for Defendants—Direct
839a
Voir Dire Examination by Mr. Greiner:
Q. With respect to the Cole-Morey optional zone, Mr.
Hedley, is any portion of that estimated? A. This area
here?
Q. Yes. A. No, sir.
The Court: This was given to Cole? This had
been an optional area?
The Witness: This was optional here. From the
dotted line south through here was optional between
Morey and Cole. This area was optional up here
between Cole and Smiley. Both [780] areas were
given to Cole.
Q. This red line here depicted that runs— A. That’s
a new boundary.
Q. That runs on what street? 22nd? A. 21st.
Q. And that corresponds with this black line on Exhibit
AC? A. Yes, extended through there.
Mr. Greiner: No objection.
The Court: Very well, Exhibit AE is received.
(Whereupon, Defendants’ Exhibit AE was re
ceived in evidence.)
[781] The Court: That wasn’t related to the
opening of Hill, was it?
The Witness: That was not, no, sir.
The Court: It was the Gove and Smiley boundary
changes that you have already described that came
out of the Hill opening, I take it?
The Witness: That’s correct.
Robert L. Hedley—for Defendants—Voir Dire
840a
Direct Examination by Mr. Creighton (Continued):
Q. All the changes, Mr. Hedley, shown on Exhibit AE
occurred between January and the following September,
the same year, is that right? A. That’s right, all these
changes occurred in 1956.
Q. Mr. Hedley, let’s set down the junior high maps, for
the moment, and get at Exhibit AF. A. (Witness put ex
hibit on easel.)
The Court: Any objection to AF?
Mr. Greiner: We would like to take a look at it,
Your Honor. We didn’t have copies of these.
The Court: All right, go ahead.
Mr. Creighton: I would like the record to show,
Your Honor, that as fast as these were prepared,
counsel came over and looked at them at the work
shop where they were in preparation.
The Court: Well, we will give him another peek
[782] at them.
Mr. Greiner: Just one question, Mr. Hedley. The
western portion of the optional zone down in the
southwest corner of this optional zone between East
and Manual, how did you determine the western
boundaries of that?
Mr. Creighton: Excuse me, counsel is referring
to Exhibit AF?
Mr. Greiner : Yes.
The Court: Eight.
The Witness: We referred to the 1951 elementary
boundaries, Wyman School.
Mr. Greiner: And what was the basis for conclud
ing that there was a coextensiveness there?
Robert L. Hedley—for Defendants—Direct
841a
The Witness: Usually, in the past, that the bound
ary lines would always follow the same boundary
line of an elementary school, so we just estimated
that that’s what it followed.
Mr. Greiner: So, that line then is an estimate?
The Witness: That’s correct.
Mr. Greiner: I t is not reflected in any board
minutes?
The Witness: That’s right.
Mr. Greiner: With that understanding, Your
Honor, we have no objection to AF.
The Court: Exhibit AF will be received.
[783] (Whereupon, Defendants’ Exhibit AF
was received in evidence.)
Q. Mr. Hedley, does Exhibit AF then purport to show
the senior high school boundaries in 1955? A. That’s
correct.
Q. And what base map did you use? A. This is a 1956
base map.
Q. And it shows three senior high optional areas, does
it not? A. That’s correct, this one here optional between
East and Manual, this one optional between South, East
and West.
Q. And what’s the north line of the South-East-West
option? A. This line here is 6th Avenue and the small
optional area here between South and West.
Q. And what’s the south line of the three-way South-
East-West option? A. This is it, Cherry Creek.
Q. So, it extended from 6th on the north down to the
Cherry Creek and all the way out to the city limits? A.
That’s correct, taking out Glendale.
Robert L. Hedley—for Defendants—Direct
842a
Q. Then there was a relatively small one? A. Small
one here between South and West.
Q. Let’s get before us, Mr. Hedley, one we formerly
[7843 discussed, which is Exhibit AB, and let’s put it
alongside. A. (Witness put exhibit on easel.)
The Court: Is that the year ’35?
Mr. Creighton: ’36, Your Honor.
The Court: ’36.
Q. Mr. Hedley, if we put Exhibit AB alongside Exhibit
AF, can one compare the senior high schools and their
optional areas as between 1936 and 1955? A. That’s cor
rect.
Q. Has the optional East-West-South area persisted
during that period? A. Yes, it is basically the same, ex
cept the city limits in this particular area.
Q. In ’55? A. Has been extended in 1955, where it was
here in 1936.
Q. And how about the optional area between Manual
and East? How do they compare? A. Here in 1955, it
was smaller than it was in 1936, this area here east of
Colorado Boulevard being dropped off and this area west
of this area being diminished to this line that we indicated
a while ago.
Q. And the— A. The other—
Q. Mr. Hedley, the first portion of the optional [785]
Manual-East you mentioned as being taken off the same as
the junior high, and that is the Park Hill Golf Course
area? A. That’s correct.
Q. All right. Now, Mr. Hedley, if you will set down
those two exhibits and please bring up Exhibit AH. I beg
your pardon, AG, and please put AP alongside it.
Robert L. Hedley—for Defendants—Direct
843a
Directing your attention to the exhibit marked for iden
tification Defendants’ Exhibit AG, Mr. Hedley, did you
prepare that exhibit? A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. And did you have an official map for that year? A.
This is the official base map, 1956.
Q. Have you again made the subdistrict lines in solid
black? A. That’s correct.
Q. And have you added anything else to that base map,
official map? A. We have shown the changes that took
place in here.
Mr. Creighton: Defendants offer in evidence Ex
hibit AG.
Mr. Greiner: Did you find the board minutes, Mr.
Hedley, that show the change in the boundaries in
the East-Manual optional area which are illustrated
between a comparison of AG with AF?
[7863 The Witness: I believe the board minutes
indicate that it gave this optional area, described
optional East and Manual, said all other areas west
of this area and York Street would be assigned to
Manual.
Q. And that’s depicted by a dotted line on AG, is that
correct? A. Yes, that’s the old optional part.
Mr. Greiner: We have no objection, Your Honor.
The Court: It will be received.
(Whereupon, Defendants’ Exhibit AG was re
ceived in evidence.)
Q. Well, now, we can set those down, Mr. Hedley, and
move on to AH, please.
Robert L. Medley—-for Defendants—Direct
844a
The Court: Is that the last one!
Mr. Creighton: I regret to say we have a number
more.
The Court: During the recess, why don’t you
show these all to Mr. Greiner and we will receive
the whole works and we don’t have to go through
this.
There is no point—do you want to do it?
Mr. Creighton: We have a litle comment, much
less on the later maps.
The Court: You can comment all you wish. I do
not see why they should be all identified, if you can
agree.
Mr. Creighton: We will discuss it.
[787] The Court: We will take about a twelve-
minute recess.
(The Court recessed from 3:27 o’clock p.m. until
3:45 o’clock p.m.)
[788] (Following a recess, the trial resumed at
3:50 p.m.)
The Court: Can we receive all of these maps?
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we have reviewed maps
AF, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, BA, BB, BC,
BD, BE, and BF, and while we may have some
minor differences of opinion as to the correctness
of some of those, that can be brought out on cross-
examination. And subject to that, we have no ob
jection.
The Court: Very well, we will receive all of them.
(Whereupon, Defendants’ Exhibits AF, AI, AJ,
AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, BA, BB, BC, BD, BE
and BF were received in evidence.)
Robert L. Redley—for Defendants—Direct
845a
The Court: What are we supposed to infer? That
these boundaries are historical and that they are
long-standing—
Mr. Creighton: Yes, sir.
The Court: Since 1935, at least; and that they
have no diabolical significance at all! Is that it?
Mr. Creighton: These maps are offered to show
the history of—
The Court: Or, have I overstated it?
Mr. Creighton: I think that’s a fair statement,
Your Honor.
May we proceed, Your Honor!
The Court: Yes.
[789] By Mr. Creighton:
Q. At the recess, Mr. Hedley, we were discussing this
Exhibit AE, which is the junior high map for 1956 showing
the situation that September and showing changes made
since the previous year.
Mr. Hedley, let me show you Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 333,
which is the Superintendent Oberholtzer’s recommendation
to the Board of Education on June 20th of 1956 and show
ing the board action thereon. Did you refer to that por
tion of the board minutes among others in preparing these
maps? A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. Does that show the board action which changed among
other things the optional Smiley-Cole area effective Sep
tember that year? A. That’s right.
Q. And does that Exhibit 333 also show that that pro
posal was made in January of 1956 along with the propo
sals shown on this Exhibit AE affecting Hill and Gove
and Smiley on the side? A. That’s correct, both propo
Robert L. Hedley—for Defendants—Direct
846a
sals, at the same time, one effective one time and one the
other.
The Court: May I see that?
What’s the exhibit number?
The Witness: Exhibit Number AE.
The Court: Do you want this back?
Mr. Creighton: No, Your Honor. I don’t need it
[790] now.
Q. Mr. Hedley, you can be taking down the junior high
maps.
Mr. Creighton: Your Honor the balance of the
A series, AH through AO, of course has been re
ceived and on two or three of these we would like
Mr. Hedley to comment.
The Court: Surely. You go right ahead.
Q. Mr. Hedley, calling your attention to Exhibit AH,
does that show the senior high boundaries in 1960? A.
Yes, they do.
Q. Were new high schools opened that year? A. Three
new senior high schools, George Washington, Thomas Jef
ferson and Abraham Lincoln, all opened in September,
1960.
Q. Does that show the location of those new schools?
A. (Indicating.) George Washington, Jefferson, and Lin
coln.
Q. And does it show the areas assigned to those new
schools? A. Yes, this area designated—
Q. That is shown by what? By your blue arrows? A.
Yes, these arrows here.
Q. And your orange lines indicate the new boundaries
Robert L. Hedley—for Defendants—Direct
847a
that were established in connection with those schools, does
it? [791] A. That’s correct.
Q. Very well. Set that aside, please.
The Court: Now, all of this had to go to East
and South before? Lincoln had been West, is that
right?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
Q. What high schools were directly affected by those
openings, Mr. Hedley? A. I expect South was affected
by Jefferson and East by Washington. The dotted black
lines here indicate the old boundaries between East and
South. And when George Washington was opened, this
was the boundary established; all of this area fed into
Washington. This optional area, C, which was optional
between East and Washington. This area in the south dis
trict was cut off here and this area went to Thomas Jef
ferson.
Q. Was that a junior-senior high school at first? A.
Yes, s ir; this was the old boundary line here between South
and East. And the optional area, D, West, Lincoln and
South—this area indicated by this orange line is the new
Lincoln Senior High.
The Court: Well, South had had a part of that
Lincoln ?
The Witness: Yes, sir, the south boundary went
over into here. This area was optional at that time
and now the new boundary is here.
[792] The Court: Thank you very much.
Q. Now, just leave those there, Mr. Hedley. We will
just move from one easel to the other as we go.
Robert L. Hedley—for Defendants—Direct
8 4 8 a
Exhibit AI shows, doesn’t it, junior high boundaries in
1961? A. That’s correct.
Q. And all of this series from now on that I have pre
viously mentioned, Mr. Hedley,—these are official maps?
A. These are all official maps.
Q. And you have added on the official maps certain
legends, have you not? A. Correct.
Q. On this Exhibit AE, your blue lines with the tails
marked with an arrow indicate what? A. These areas
were annexed to the city during that year and then they
were assigned to that particular school, this being Kuns-
miller and this being Merrill, and this was the boundary
change indicating these two were assigned down here to
this district, which was Hill.
Q. All right. And that year, in 1961, the junior high
level_how many optional areas were there across town?
A. I think we still have—twelve.
Q. Exhibit AJ, Mr. Hedley, shows junior high boun
daries in 1962 the following year, do they not? [793] A.
That’s correct.
Q. And again the same legend that you have shown
boundaries—boundary changes and annexations? A.
Eight.
Q. And this shows a total of how many boundary changes
at the junior high level that year? A. We have one here,
this would probably be considered one, three, four, five,
six, seven, eight and nine.
Q. And broken down by individual areas, even more than
that? A. Yes.
Q. You have how many arrows there showing changes?
A. These are school assignments, three here; four, five,
six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, four
teen—nineteen.
Robert L. Hedley—for Defendants-—Direct
849a
Q. Nineteen boundary changes at the junior high level
in 1962? Did that occur in all parts of town? A. Yes.
Q. And there was one annexation there? A. Right. Col
lege View was annexed and assigned to Kunsmiller.
Q. Let’s move on to Exhibit AK. AK shows senior high
boundaries in 1962, the same year as the previous exhibit,
does it not? A. That’s correct.
[7943 Q. And how many separate boundary changes oc
curred at the senior high level that year? A. Eight.
Q. And there was one annexation there then? A. Again,
College View, which went to Abraham Lincoln.
Q. On the maps, AJ and AK, taken together, show the
boundary changes at the secondary level effective in 1962,
is that right? A. That’s correct.
Q. Let’s look at AL.
The Court: These are junior highs in 1965?
The Witness: 1963.
Q. I think, Mr. Hedley, you could move AL over so we
can see AM.
[7953 Q. I first call your attention to Exhibit AL. That
is a junior high map for 1963, is it not? A. That’s correct.
Q. Again, it shows annexations and boundary changes
since the previous year? A. Right, new annexations, one
boundary change.
Q. How many annexations were there? A. There were
one, two, four, five, six, seven, eight, this one being small,
and nine.
Q, Is that the last one Inspiration Point? A. That’s
correct.
Q. Now, directing your attention to Exhibit AM, now,
this shows junior high boundaries the following year, 1964,
does it not? A. That’s correct.
Robert L. Hedley—for Defendants—Direct
850a
Q. And, then, what were the boundary changes that
year? A. We had one boundary change down here.
Q. That’s between what and what? A. Between Thomas
Jefferson and Merrill Junior High. And a boundary change
here between Hill and Gove. The optional area to Gove,
and a boundary change—you remember this was all op
tional—was put into three schools, to Cole and to Smiley,
to Gove, this part being Gove before and now to Smiley,
and this part being Gove before and now to Smiley.
Q. All right. Let’s move that aside and show AN, which
E796 3 is the senior high situation for the same year, 1964.
A. 1964, that’s correct.
Q. And you have the same annexation, of course, that
year? A. That’s correct.
Q. And how many boundary changes, senior high level,
that year? A. This boundary change here, which was this
part East and this part was optional before.
Q. You are referring generally to the Ashley district?
A. That’s right.
Q. And that was put where? A. Into George Washing
ton.
Q. What about the optional area north of City Park,
at the senior high level? A. The optional area here was
split into two schools, and this part to the west going to
Manual and this part on the east going to East. This was
a boundary change with these two areas going to East.
Q. Now, following the secondary changes in 1964, Mr.
Hedley, were there any optional areas left? A. No op
tional areas were assigned to definite schools.
Q. At both levels? A. That’s correct.
Robert L. Hedley—•for Defendants—Direct
The Court: This is Exhibit-
[7973 The Witness: AN.
851a
Q. All right, let’s put up AO, please. This is a junior
high map for 1965, is it not? A. Correct.
Q. And was there a new school that year? A. John F.
Kennedy was new that year.
Q. Is that a junior-senior high school? A. Junior-sen
ior high school.
Q. So that had twelve grades in the area shown? A.
That’s correct.
Q. And how many annexations were there effective that
year? A. There was one, two, three, four—these are
small,—five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve,
thirteen, fourteen.
Q. Fourteen annexations? A. Montbello—
Q. Was there a deannexation? A. Yes, the Fort Logan
area was deannexed that year.
Q. All right, Mr. Hedley, let’s set these down and get
out the B series.
Mr. Hedley, this whole B series, BA through BF, are
official maps, are they not? A. That’s correct.
Q. And in particular, Exhibit BA shows elementary
[7983 subdistricts in September of 1959, does it not? A.
That’s correct.
Q. Did you actually have a map which spoke as of that
date? A. No.
Q. What did you work from? A. This was constructed
from a 1960 base map.
Q. And did you merely eliminate the changes which
were effective that year? A. Yes, we eliminated three
new school areas to show the way it was in 1959, September.
Q. Now, move that aside and let’s show Exhibit BB
alongside. Exhibit BB shows elementary subdistriets in
September of 1960, does it not? A. That’s correct.
Q. And that’s an official map for that year? A. Right.
Robert L. TIedley—for Defendants—Direct
8 5 2 a
Q. What have you added to that? A. The three new
schools, elementary, opened up that year. This one here,
Denison and Barrett and Fallis.
Q. And in orange yon show there are new boundaries?
A. New boundaries indicated in orange.
Q. Those schools were in all parts of the city, is that
right? A. Yes.
[799] Q. Denison being on the— A. Southwest, on the
city limits here.
Q. And Fallis being— A. On the east city limits.
Q. Now, referring to Denison, are you familiar with the
sites of the schools in the city, Mr. Hedley? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is it part of your responsibility to be familiar with
schools and their sites? A. That’s correct.
The Court: Just where is Denison located?
Q. Describe it by street, please. A. Jewell here to the
south and Yates on the west side here, and it is a vacant lot
to Sheridan on the west, Yates being on the east, Jewell on
the south.
Q. Sheridan is the city limits? A. Yes.
The Court: Will this serve the extreme southwest?
The Witness: Southwest area, right here.
Q. And from these two exhibits, Mr. Hedley—
The Court: Where is Traylor?
A. Traylor was not in at that time, sir.
The Court: I mean, where would it be in relation—
Th Witness: It is here.
Robert L. Medley—for Defendants—Direct
853a
The Court: I see.
[8003 Q. In annexed territory to the west! A. That’s
correct.
The Court: All right.
Q. What subdistrict was the Denison district carved out
of! A. Force and Doull. This part north of the dotted line
was in Force. The part south was in Doull.
Q. All right. Were there any changes in optional areas
that year, since the previous year? A. The optional area
here became part of the Barrett district.
Q. Previously, the portion of the Barrett district on
BB beneath the dotted line have been optional? A. Op
tional between Barrett and Park Hill.
Q. How many other optional areas were there in at that
time? A. One, two, three, four—nine.
Q. Nine? A. Yes, sir.
Q. The next year, 1960, how many did you have? A.
Nine here. There would be nine here and ten here, because
we eliminated “I” here.
Q. It is your testimony that in 1959, in the fall of the
year, there were ten optional areas? A. Yes, sir.
E801] Q. And nine the following year? A. Correct.
The Court: There have been before Barrett was
built ten, is that correct.
The Witness: That’s correct, sir.
Q. Now, please move BB over and show BC. BC shows
elementary districts the next year, does it not? A. 1961,
that’s correct.
Q. And you have shown in the usual form the changes
since the previous year? A. That’s right.
Robert L. Medley—for Defendants—Direct
854a
Q. And annexation? A. That’s right.
Q. And annexation, of course, would be the same as
shown on the secondary maps, would they not? A. Yes,
they are, except they were specially assigned areas, so there
were no arrows drawn.
Q. What do you mean by specially assigned area at the
elementary level? A. Students living in this area, when it
was annexed, were accommodated at the nearest school with
available space, transportation provided.
Q. So that unlike at the secondary level, Mr. Hedley, the
specially assigned areas will go to a number of different
schools? [8021 A. That’s correct.
Q. And how many boundary changes were there effective
in 1961 ? A. This would be considered three, two different
schools.
Q. How many arrows do you have, is my question. A.
Sixteen.
Q. In 1961?
The Court: There were sixteen at this place in
that year?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
Q. And are they all over town? A. Yes, they are.
Q. And how many optional areas were in existence that
year?
Robert L. Hedley—for Defendants—Direct
The Court: There had been ten the year before?
The Witness: Eleven this year. There were nine
in 1960.
The Court: Nine ?
The Witness: There were eleven here.
The Court: Two more created?
855a
The Witness: That’s correct. Well, actually, there
were three, the Ashland-Columbia, Valverde-Ban
num, and Lincoln-McKinley.
Q. And you have shown those new optional areas by
underlining the legend? [803] A. That’s correct, “J ”
being Ashley-Columbine and “K” being Yalverde-Barnum
and the Lincoln-McKinley being “L”.
Q. So the new optional areas in 1961 you have not shown
on the map proper but on the legend, is that right? A.
That’s correct.
Q. All right, let’s go to BD. Exhibit BD shows elemen
tary subdistricts in the fall of 1962, does it not? A. That’s
correct.
Q. And were there any annexations that year? A. The
whole College Yiew annexation, but the school was annexed
with the annexation.
Q. The school came with that annexation? A. That’s
correct.
Q. How many arrows indicating changes do you have in
1962 ? A. Thirty-two.
Q. Are those all over town? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were there any new optional areas created that year?
A. No, sir.
Q. Optional areas that year are lettered and shown in
the legend? A. That’s correct, A, B, C.
Q. So that there were three optional areas that year?
The Court: Added to the others ?
[8043 The Witness: No, total of three.
The Court: Just a total of three?
The Witness : That’s correct.
Robert L. Hedley—for Defendants—Direct
856a
Q. And those three were where, Mr. Hedley? A. A was
optional between Harrington and Columbine; B between
Park Hill and Stedman; C between McKinley and Lincoln.
Q. All right, and those optional areas are generally in
all parts of town? A. Yes, north and south.
Q. All, right, let’s move on to BE.
The Court: Where did you say they were, just two
in northeast Denver?
The Witness: A, B and C, north and south.
The Court: Okay, go ahead.
Q. Now Exhibit BE shows elementary subdistrict bound
aries, September, 1963, does it not? A. That’s correct.
The Court: This is BE?
Mr. Creighton: Yes, Your Honor.
The Witness: BE.
Q. And in the legend do you show the optional areas?
A. Yes, optional A, B and C again.
Q. Same three from the previous year? A. Same three
from the previous year.
[8053 Q. Were there annexations that year? A. Yes,
this West Bear Yalley, Bear Valley Heights, Centennial
Estates, or Centennial Acres, this, south and north, and
this.
Q. Again, those were assigned to various schools and
transportation was used? A. That’s correct.
Q. To provide them with the schools? Does that showr
just one boundary change? A. One boundary change here.
It was from Eagleton to Barnum, south of 6th Avenue.
Q. And west of the Platte River? A. That’s correct.
Robert L. Hedley—for Defendants—Direct
8 5 7 a
Q. All right, the next map is BF. Mr. Hedley, this shows
elementary subdistrict boundaries, 1964. A. That’s cor
rect.
Q. And do you show in the usual way your boundary
changes and the new boundaries? A. That’s correct.
Q. Would you please count the number of arrows indi
cating separate boundary changes? A. Nineteen.
Q. Are you including those in the south part of town?
A. Excuse me, 21.
Q. All right, and those changes occurred in the north
[806] part of town and the east part of town and the south
part of town. A. That’s right.
Q. Finally, BF. A. This is BF.
Q. Let me ask you about optional areas, Mr. Hedley.
The legend doesn’t show optional areas. This is 1964? A.
That’s correct.
Q. Were optional areas done away with? A. They-were
all assigned to specific schools.
Q. And the same thing happened at the secondary level
that year? A. That’s correct.
Q. All right, that’s the last of your elementary series.
# = & # # #
[840] * * *
George L. B r o w n , J r ., a witness called by and on behalf
of plaintiffs, having been first duly sworn, was examined
and testified as follows:
Direct Examination by Mr. Greiner:
The Court: Please give us your name and address.
The Witness: George L. Brown, Jr., 3451 East
26th Avenue, Denver, Colorado.
George L. Brown Jr.—-for Plaintiffs—Direct
858a
George L. Brown Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct
By Mr. Greiner-.
Q. Mr. Brown, when did yon move to Denver! A.
June of 1950.
Q. Subsequent to June of 1950 were you employed by
The Denver Post! A. I went to work for The Denver
Post in June 1950 as a staff writer.
Q. Can you describe what you did in that capacity? A.
My first duties as a staff writer for the Post involved a
series of surveys and studies of both the minority [841]
and the majority communities to make some determina
tions of racial attitudes; whether or not there was a feel
ing of racism in the majority communities, and what the
minority communities believed about the majority and
what sort of attitudes generally there were in the total
community.
Q. You wrote a series of articles? A. Yes.
Q. When were those articles published, do you recall?
A. First series in 1951; another in 1952, ’53, ’54, ’55, and
then skipped a couple of years, in 1957.
Q. Now, in June of 1955 did you assume political office?
A. Yes, I was appointed to the House of Representatives
in June of 1955.
Q. What area did you represent? A. At large. The
total community of Denver.
Q. Then did you subsequently run for election to the
House of Representatives? A. No, I ran for election to
the State Senate in the primary in September of 1956.
And then was successful in the general election to the
State Senate in November of 1956, again, elected at large
from throughout the city.
Q. Then have you subsequently run in subsequent elec
tions for the Senate? A. I was re-elected at large in 1960;
859a
elected in 1964 from a district of northeast Denver with
out opposition in [8423 either the primary or the general,
and re-elected to represent that same general district in
1968, again without opposition.
Q. Now, in the course of your political representation,
Senator Brown, have you had occasion to meet with mem
bers of the black community? A. Yes, on numerous oc
casions.
Q. Have there been any major issues which have come to
your attention from the black community? A. I think the
primary concern throughout my whole political career and
also during the time that I was writing for The Denver
Post, in the black community was the availability and op
portunities for an equal education experience for black
youngsters. This has always been in my opinion the pri
mary concern. We had occasions when we talked about
housing and about employment, but also the main issue run
ning through it was education.
Q. Now have you had or do you not have children in
the Denver Public Schools? A. Yes.
Q. Can you describe where those children went to school?
A. My first daughter attended school first at Wyman when
we lived at 1870 Vine. We moved to 3120 Steele Street
in 1957. My daughter attended a few days at Columbine
and then since we lived in an area that was an optional
for Columbine and Park Hill, she started being bused to
Park Hill. [8433 She then attended for a brief period of
time school at Whittier and then at Smiley, East High
School, and now in college.
The other youngsters, one of them started at Barrett
and went there two years and then was transported by bus
under the open enrollment to Carson School. The next
George L. Brown Jr.-—for Plaintiffs—Direct
860a
youngest attended both Barrett and Carson. And the
youngest has always attended Carson.
[844] Q. That was under, first, limited open enroll
ment? A. First, limited open enrollment, and then under
the voluntary open enrollment, and then this year under
whatever they call this scheme.
Q. Now did you participate, Senator Brown, in any
of the discussions surrounding the proposed boundary
changes between Manual and East High Schools in Jan
uary and February of 1956? A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell us, Senator Brown, what the attitude
of the community was toward Manual when first opened
in 1958?
George L. Brown Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct
Mr. Brega: I am going to object to that as calling
for speculation and conclusion of the witness, Your
Honor.
The Court: I am inclined to agree. I don’t know
how he can sum it up in that manner.
Mr. Greiner: Well, Your Honor, I think—•
The Court: It is conclusory. He is not really
giving his observations. If he wishes to relate any
particular conversation for circumstantial value,
why, he could do that.
Mr. Greiner: Well, Your Honor, I think that
there are two points here. One is that I believe
the foundational questions have established that
this witness has been intimately involved in know
ing and receiving the views of his constituents,
even, first of all when he was gainfully [8451 em
ployed as a reporter. That was his job, to go out
and seek what the community was thinking.
861a
Secondly—
The Court: Does this pertain now to the bound
ary changes!
Mr. Greiner: Yes, Your Honor.
The Court: Only?
Mr. Greiner: And what we will establish, Your
Honor, I think, is a clear exception to the hearsay
rule, because what we seek here to establish is a
state of mind.
The Court: Oh true, if you have got the con
versations, but this is second degree or three degree
hearsay, because he is seeking to sum up a com
munity attitude, you know, himself, and give it to
us, and it is a time of evidentiary matter that can
be absorbed by any lay person. And so I think
he ought to give us the details, rather than his
own conclusions as to results of his survey.
Mr. Greiner: All right.
Q. Senator Brown, you recall when the new Manual
opened in 1953? Did you have any discussions with mem
bers of the black community? A. Yes.
Q. Which revealed their attitudes toward the new
Manual? A. Yes, a number of discussions with various
people, who had at that point great pride in the fact that
Manual was—
[8463 Mr. Ris: Just a moment, if the Court
please, I think the answer is becoming non-
responsive, and he is again drawing generalities
as to what the various people may have said. We
will object to it on that ground.
The Court: Well, we have had some evidence
that there was a great deal of pride in the building
George L. Brown Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct
862a
of this new building and hope and aspiration with
respect to its becoming a good educational institu
tion. I don’t know who gave it now, hut I think
we did have some.
Mr. Greiner: I think it is also in the exhibit
entitled, “The New Manual,” Your Honor, which is
in evidence.
The Court: So, he may go ahead so far.
A. (Continued) Numerous discussions expressing great
pride in Manual and certainly the expectations of what
it would become as an educational institution.
Q. What were the factors mentioned to you! A. Factors
in regard to the pride and the reason why!
Q. Yes. A. A feeling that it was, one, a new facility,
that it would encourage faculty persons from throughout
the majority community to want to teach there. It would
give the school administration an opportunity to better
furnish a quality curricula. It would give an opportunity
for the school administration to help build within the
youngsters attending that school a kind of pride that
hadn’t always been there in [8473 the past.
Q. Now, by January of 1956, Senator, had you had any
further conversations regarding the new Manual, and, if
so, what did they indicate!
Mr. Ris: Object.
Mr. Brega: Object.
The Court: Sustained; you are going to have to
get more definite than that if it is going to be of
any value to us.
George L. Brown Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct
863a
Q. Senator Brown, did yon in fact have subsequent
conversations regarding the community’s attitude toward
Manual? A. Yes, in January of 1956, there were a series
of meetings in the black community, wdiere persons were
expressing concern that Manual was not living up to what
had been expected, that in fact the school administration
by the drawing of boundary lines was tending to make
Manual exactly what it wasn’t hoped that it would be.
We met in a series—like I say, a series of sessions. On
January 10, 1956, a group of state representatives met,
after having learned that the school administration had
planned some boundary lines for Manual and East and
Smiley and Cole, which is our opinion would have two
effects of segregation. It would affect the—it would
segregate the black students in Cole and Manual, segre
gate the white students in East and Smiley.
Q. Did the representatives—
[848] Mr. Brega: Just a minute. Your Honor,
I move the answer be stricken on the objection
previously made that it is a conclusion of the wit
ness and speculation.
The Court: Overruled.
Q. Did those representatives subsequently write a letter?
The Court: You mean state representatives?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
Q. Subsequently write a letter addressed to the Denver
School Board, Senator Brown? A. Yes, sir.
Q. I hand you what has been marked for identification
as Exhibit 338-A, and ask you if you can identify that as
George L. Brown Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct
864a
the letter written. A. Yes, that is the letter that was
written by us and signed by us, addressed to Mr. Isadore
Samuels, who was then president of the Denver School
Board.
George L. Brown Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we offer Exhibit 338-A.
The Court: Have counsel seen it?
Mr. Greiner: Yes.
Mr. Ris: We agree to the authenticity of that.
The Court: May I see it, please? Do you object
to it being received in evidence?
Mr. Ris: No, sir.
The Court: All right, it will he received.
[8493 (Whereupon, Plaintiffs Exhibit 338-A
was received in evidence.)
Q. Senator, there is in evidence Exhibit 338. Was Ex
hibit 338 written is response to Exhibit 338-A? A. Yes,
it was, and addressed to me, signed by Mr. Frank A.
Traylor, who was vice-president of the Board of Educa
tion at that point, who indicated that he was responding
to the communication from us because of the illness of
Mr. Samuels.
Q. Now, you mentioned a concern about this proposed
boundary change, Senator Brown. What were the factors
which you were considering personally? Were you making
any comparison at all, for example, between Manual and
East?
The Court: Are you going to introduce this other
one?
Mr. Greiner: It is in evidence, Your Honor.
865a
The Court: Oh, is it ?
A. I am sorry?
Mr. Greiner: Bead the question, please.
Mr. B is: It is a leading question. Could we have
it rephrased, please?
Q. Senator Brown, what factors were you considering,
if any, with respect to the comparisons between Manual
and Bast? A. Yes, we have looked at the fact that Manual
had not £850] received the more experienced teachers,
as had been hoped. The quality of the curricula had not
improved in comparison with other high schools. The
dropout rate was still high and declining. Even the name
had its negative connotations, and there was a strong-
feeling in the black community that Manual was being
regarded by the Administration as a substandard secon
dary type school, that the quality schools were in the
other parts of the city, and that comparison seemed to
stand out very markedly when you looked at Manual
and East.
£851] Q. Now, what then was the concern, Senator
Brown, about a proposed boundary change between
Manual and East? A. We had looked at Manual when
it was called new Manual and had watched the drawing
of the new boundary line about a block east of the school
and had recognized that this took into no consideration
the fact that Manual was not going to be filled to capacity
when East High School to the east and south was already
at a hundred percent capacity. It said a lot of negative
things to the black community. It said here, that that
was an effort to make sure that Manual remained the black
George L. Brown Jr.—for Plaintiff's—Direct
866a
school and that as few as possible numbers of black
children would he admitted to East.
Q. Now, that was in 1953; is that correct! A. 1956.
Q. When Manual opened— A. 1953, yes, when they
established the boundary. Then in 1956 the new drawing
of the boundaries was only a few blocks still to the east,
obviously with no regard to the very factors that Mr.
Traylor had listed in his letter as to the reasons for the
drawing of the boundaries.
Q. Do you recall what the north-south street was at
which the eastern boundary was proposed? A. York.
Q. Do you recall whether or not, Senator Brown, there
was any dividing line at that time between the white and
black [852] communities? A. Yes, and this gave us added
support to our feeling that it was an obvious effort to keep
Manual as a black school.
Q. Where was that dividing line? A. About York
Street. There were very few families east of York at
that period of time, although it was an indication that
the black community was moving that way and indications
to us that the line would be expanded as the black com
munity filled in those neighborhoods.
Q. Now, where were yon living at the time of the
proposed boundary change? A. In 1956 I was living at
1870 Vine.
Q. And that is an area southwest of City Park? A.
Yes, southwest of City Park.
Q. Was that an optional area, do you recall? A. Yes,
and much to my concern, so much that I expressed it to
Dr. Oberholtzer—
The Court: Optional in what respect?
George L. Brown Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct
867a
Q. Between what schools? A. Optional, that young
sters could go either to East or Manual High Schools.
And, I expressed a concern because in that same op
tional area which was drawn in as an old box, the only
two black elected officials in Denver lived there. Arid
it said to us that they were saying to the black community,
“We’re £8533 going to fix it so that your elected officials
can escape from what we consider obviously a bad-—”
Q. Who was the other elected official! A. Mr. Elvin
Caldwell who lived at 21st and Race; city councilman.
Q. Now, did you attend any meetings, Senator Brown,
first of all, in the black community— A. Yes.
Q. —where alternatives were discussed as to the then
proposed boundary change? A. Yes, a series of meetings
in the black community in early January. I attended a
meeting at the Glenarm YMCA where we invited members
of the School Board and School Administration to attend
to give us first hand the kinds of things that Mr. Traylor
later said in his letter and also to allow us to present the
alternates that Mr. Lorenzo Traylor and Mr. La jean Clark
had drawn up with quite a bit of work and time.
Q. Do you recall what those alternate proposals were?
A. Yes, it was to extend Manual east, north of City Park.
Q. That would be east of York Street? A. Yes, over
to Colorado Boulevard, at least, and maybe even further.
The logic was that the bus lines that ran from that direc
tion all went down west right past Manual. The only
bus connections to East at that period of time were £8543
either you went to Colorado or you walked over to 22nd
or you went to York and you transferred in both cases.
It just seemed logical that the flow of traffic and the move
ment of people would have been from that direction into
Manual. It was also shorter than over to East. The ob
George L. Brown Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct
868a
vious reason for not drawing it was that the families that
lived in that area then were predominantly white.
Q. What, if anything, was discussed concerning the
capacity utilization of the two schools ? A. It was pointed
out that even in 1956 Manual still was under capacity and
East was over, and that the optional areas and every
thing did little or nothing to improve that situation. Yet,
in his letter—the letter from Mr. Traylor—he had in
dicated that the lines were drawn because of the over
crowding of some schools and the availability of room
in others. And this line didn’t fit either requirement.
Q. Now, do you recall then a meeting that was held
in the cafeteria at Manual High School? A. Yes.
Q. When did that take place? Can you place it in point
of time, for example, with reference to Exhibit 338-A or
338? A. Around—I’ll have to think through this now.
I t was prior to—No, it was after the letter. After the
letter.
Q. After you had written the letter A. Yes.
E855] Q. Was it after you had received the response
which is 338-A? A. Yes.
Q. Was it still in the month of January, do you recall?
A. Yes, still in the month of January, and the Board
had not taken any action in one way or the other in regard
to the boundary lines.
Q. Now, there was a Board meeting on January 18th
of 1956, as I recall. Is it your recollection that it was
prior to that meeting? A. Yes.
Q. Now, do you recall who was present at that meeting?
From the School Administration? A. Mr. Peter Holme.
I don’t remember whether it’s doctor or mister Hender-
man; Dr. Oberholtzer; Frank Traylor. I don’t remember
George L. Brown Jr.—-for Plaintiffs—Direct
869a
what other school administration people were—I think
there were some.
Q. Was Lorenzo Traylor at that meeting? A. Lorenzo
Traylor and La jean Clark, both with very elaborate sets
of maps that made a lot of sense.
Q. Were you present at that meeting? A. Yes.
Q. Can you describe for us what occurred at the meet
ing? First of all, how many persons were in attendance?
A. Oh, several hundred. I can’t remember the exact
[856] figure anywhere close. The cafeteria was filled with
persons from the black community who were obviously
concerned and felt that the school ought to do more con
sideration before adopting the proposal that had been
given to the School Board by the school administration.
Q. Did the members of the school administration ex
plain the reasons behind the proposed change? A. Yes.
Q. What did they say, do you recall? A. They used
the same kind of reasoning about long-term considerations
when drawing their plan; that they had to look to the
future; they had to look to what the future population
and the student population and the like, and where they
might be able to place schools in order to come up with
their lines. And it completely wiped out any thought about
looking at the situation as it then was and then—and
trying to do some things that made a lot of sence for the
youngsters who were in school right then.
Q. Well, in the long term as they described it, did they
project that Manual would be filled to capacity? A. I’m
sorry. I don’t recall.
Q. Anything else that you recall from that particular
meeting? A. A number of us went from there with the
strong belief that once again the school administration
George L. Brown Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct
870a
and the School Board [857] had demonstrated beyond
doubt that there was little concern about drawing any
kind of pattern then or in the future that would help
create an integrated school situation in Denver.
Q. Now, did you subsequently then attend a meeting
at the Administration Building? A. Yes.
Q. When did that meeting take place? A. A few days
after the one at Manual. I met with some of the same
people and I think Lois Heath was also at that one.
Q. She was a member of the School Board? A. A
member of the School Board. And, once again, we went
away with the same feeling; that we were wasting our
time and that some people would be a lot happier if we
just decided to give up and not come back. It was also
during that series of meetings—a clear indication to me
that the School Board wasn’t about to do anything until
as late as possible in that school year, recognizing that
whatever the community could muster by way of dis
agreement with what they would do, would probably die
out over the summer months since the School Board went
into recess and wouldn’t meet again until sometime in
September.
Q. Now, during this same period of time—and by that
I mean January, February, March of 1956—were there
meetings taking place in the black community? [8583 A.
Throughout the black community, and as more and more—
Q. Did you attend those meetings? A. A number of
them. As more and more people because aware of what
was happening and aware that their dreams for Manual
certainly were not going to be realized, and I think a
lot of us reached the same position that I had, that selfishly
we had to come up with a plan that would bring white
George L. Brown Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct
8 7 1 a
youngsters into Cole and into Manual or else there would
never be a quality education program there. We could
talk about it and work for it but until there was some
incentive for the School Board wanting to do something
about it and put money in facilities and whatever else is
necessary—needed for a quality program, that they would
never do it unless we were able to mix the youngsters
of all colors.
Q. Why did you equate the presence of white youngsters
with quality education? A. At that stage of the game
I had not had the benefit of having attended several
conferences where I later learned from experts in the field.
But, at that stage it was strictly selfish. I felt that if
black youngsters were to get a full opportunity for an
equal educational experience, that the only way they
would get it would be that there would be white young-
ters there who would be taken care of and as a result
of them being taken care of the black youngsters would
also have the same opportunity of being taken care of.
[859] Q. Now, during that same period of time, Senator
Brown, were you aware of any change in attitude with
respect to the realtors who were selling property in that
area? A. Yes.
Q. Did you receive a telephone call? A. A number
of telephone calls.
Mr. Brega: Just a minute. I am going to make
a preliminary objection, Your Honor. I believe the
question itself calls for a hearsay answer.
The Court: Well, he said he received a phone call.
We can go on and check it out a little further at
least, and see what he’s getting at.
George L. Brown■ Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct
872a
Q. You said you received a series of telephone calls?
A. Yes, we lived at 1870 Vine. We were the first black
family to move into that neighborhood. And shortly after
we moved in we started receiving calls from realtors,
people from real estate agencies indicating to us—-
Mr. Brega: Just a moment, Your Honor. I’ll
object to any conversation on the other end of the
telephone call.
The Court: What do you propose to show?
Mr. Greiner: I propose to show, Your Honor,
that at the time these boundary changes were being
discussed in the community, that the real estate
activity was such that realtors were calling people
living in that neighborhood, including Senator
Brown, who they didn’t happen to know was black,
and [860] encouraging- them to leave the neighbor
hood because it was going to be the next target
of Negro migration.
Mr. Brega: Well, there is additional objection
besides being hearsay—you can’t presume that
upon the School Board.
The Court: Quite true.
Mr. Greiner: This is simply to give the back
ground—
The Court: I don’t believe they are trying to do
that.
Are you?
Mr. Greiner: No, Your Honor. Simply—I think
it might help the Court in understanding what was
going on at that time, what the total picture was.
Mr. B is: May we join our objection with the
interveners. This is wholly irrelevant.
George L. Brown Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct
8 7 3 a
The Court: Sustained. I feel it is somewhat
remote, quite apart from its general and conspiracy
quality. And I think also that the evidence is fairly
well established that this migration occurred, and
when it occurred, and I think it was very apparent
that—to everyone in the community, what was going
to happen. So I don’t think—I don’t see that it
needs any—
Mr. Greiner: We only offer it, Tour Honor, for
the point of proximity and for the inference of there
in fact being a causal relationship between what
the School Board [8613 does vis-a-vis boundaries
and how that affects the affected community.
The Court: Well, I think—he could testify to
what was actually occurring in this community that
he has just described, what he saw. I see no reason
in objecting to that.
Q. Senator Brown, what in fact was happening in this
neighborhood? First of all, I believe you have said you
were the first Negro family in that area? A. Yes.
Q. And what happened subsequent to the boundary
change? A. More black families moved in. The popula
tion at Wyman, which was the elementary school in that
area, began to change. The boundary lines in fact were
later expanded to put that area into Cole and Manual,
even more so. Until finally—
The Court: I think he was really directing his
attention to Vine Street, for example,—Why did
the white residents start moving out.
The Witness: Yes.
George L. Brown Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct
874a
[862] Q. Between Vine and York, essentially! A. Yes.
Q. Then, as I understand it, Senator, in June of 1956,
the boundary change was passed, is that correct! A. Yes.
Q. Did yon have any meetings with members of the
black community to discuss the fact of the change! A.
Yes, and, like I say, it was during a period of great
frustration and concern, even more so, if that were pos
sible, that the school board had demonstrated again that
there was no concern for our feelings or for our desires
for integration.
The Court: Let me ask you this, in 1956, prior to
January of ’56, you had this optional area with the
East High-Manual area!
A. Yes, sir.
The Court: What was the effect—and that was
eliminated, I assume, by the school board!
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, I think it might help
if he were to identify on Exhibit 204 the optional
area where he lived and which he had reference to.
The Court: Well, what I was interested in know
ing was whether the elimination of this optional area
affected the composition of Manual in any degree.
Mr. Greiner: Well, I think—there are two [863]
optional areas, Your Honor.
The Court: Could I ask him, please, about this
one particularly!
The Witness: What was the question, Your
Honor.
The Court: Whether the elimination of this
optional area between East and Manual affected the
composition of Manual at all!
George L. Brown Jr.-—for Plaintiffs—Direct
875a
The "Witness: It merely made it that much more
black and it-—like I said earlier, the interesting
thing is they moved from this one to wipe out this
area in here, which had become predominantly black,
as optional, so that those youngsters went to
Manual. They somehow left this little square—
The Court: Where is that now!
The Witness: And that’s the square that goes
between 21st, York—and it goes over to Franklin,
and there were white families still living in that
little square, plus, as I said, the only two black
elected officials lived in that square, and—
The Court: That continued to be optional?
The Witness: That continued to be optional, but
the other areas that had been wiped out as optional
now became predominantly black and now became
all Manual, rather than as before optional between
the two schools.
The Court: Well, what it resulted in was that
C8643 certain students who had been going to East
had to go to Manual?
The Witness: Some black students who had been
going to East now had to go to Manual, and the
result was that it still maintained the option for
those youngsters who lived north of City Park,
who were predominantly white.
The Court: But none of them attended Manual?
The Witness: None of them had attended Manual
before. I t just gave them the same opportunity.
Q. The optional area, Senator Brown—
The Court: Well, you are not saying that the
elimination of the optional area had any significant
George L. Brown Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct
876a
effect as far as segregation is concerned? It just
was a demonstrated attitude?
The Witness: Demonstrated an attitude and, yes,
it did further segregate youngsters, because the
youngsters who lived in the area optional before
could have gone to East and had a more integrated
situation. Now they had to go to Manual, which
was not integrated to any degree at all.
The Court: All right, go ahead.
Q. Did you subsequently move from your Vine Street
address? A. Yes, in about 1957, we moved to 3120 Steele.
Q. Do you recall what elementary school subdistrict
that was in? [8653 A. We lived in the optional area for
Columbine and Park Hill. The line for Columbine was
down the middle of Steele Street and the area east of
the line was optional between the two elementary schools.
The Court: Between Columbine and what other?
The Witness: Park Hill.
The Court: Park Hill.
Q. Do you recall what the racial composition of your
neighborhood was at that time on Steele Street? A. On
Steele Street it was integrated. We were the first black
family in the 3100 block. There were black families on the
west side of Steele. There were black families living in
other areas around us, but as far as our own block, we
were the first family into that particular block, and the
area was at that point still a number of white families.
I can’t tell which was more predominant, but there were
still a number of white families with children living in
that area.
George L. Brown Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct
877a
Q. Do you recall what the racial composition of the
neighborhood was immediately east of Steele, say, be
tween Steele and Colorado Boulevard! A. Predominantly
white.
Q. Now, this then was an optional area between Park
Hill and Columbine! [8663 A. Yes.
Q. And do you recall what the racial composition of
Columbine was in 1958! A. I don’t have those figures,
I am sorry.
Q. Do you recall what the racial composition of Park
Hill was! A. I can tell—I can say that both schools—
that Columbine was predominantly black and Park Hill
predominantly white. I don’t have the percentages.
Q. And did you have a daughter who was then attending
elementary school! A. Yes.
Q. And what elementary school did she attend! A. She
went a few days to Columbine and then was bused to Park
Hill.
Q. How long did that busing continue, do you recall!
A. I suppose until Barrett was constructed and opened.
I am not sure.
Q. And that was in 1960! A. Yes.
Q. And then she was assigned to what school! A. To
Barrett.
Q. Now, Senator, were there any discussions in the black
community concerning the location of the new elementary
school which ultimately became Barrett! [867] A. Yes,
a number of discussions, because the location—-
Q. Pardon me, but when did these first begin to take
place! A. In 1959 when we first learned of the school’s
plans to build Barrett and possibly build a junior high
just north of Barrett.
George L. Brown Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct
878a
Q. And this was at what location? A. Barrett at 29th
and Jackson to Colorado, and the junior high was pro
posed over on a section of land that was closest to 32nd
and Colorado.
Q. All right. What was discussed at these meetings
concerning Barrett? A. The size of Barrett indicated,
and it was smaller than other elementary schools that
were being put up at that time, the size indicated to us
that Barrett was going to he predominantly white from
the day it opened.
Q. Predominantly white? A. I mean black. I am sorry.
Prom the day it opened. Its eastern property line became
its boundary line, and that was Colorado Boulevard. The
area that was proposed for it and finally became its area
was predominantly black. It was just obvious from the
beginning that it was to be another black elementary
school and that there would be little or no effort made to
draw a line that would draw from its enrollment of white
students who lived on the other side of [868] Colorado
Boulevard.
Q. That would be on the east side? A. East side of
Colorado Boulevard.
Q. Were these concerns made known, Senator, to the
school administration? A. Yes, a number of times.
Q. How? A. The meetings with Dr. Oberholtzer, those
persons on the staff who had charge of drawing boundary
lines, with members of the school board.
Q. Do you have any particular recollection of any meet
ings which you personally participated in? A. Yes, one
in the basement of Lajean Clark.
Q. Was there a representative of the school board
there? A. I don’t remember.
George L. Brown Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct
87:9 a
Q. Do you recall attending any meetings of the Board
of Education1? A. Yes, a number of meetings during that
period.
Q. Was Barrett a subject of discussion in those meet
ings? A. Barrett was a matter of discussion and usually
Mr. Clark very eloquently pointed out all our feelings
about what was being planned.
Q. What was the response of the board?
[869] Mr. B is: Do you have some idea—we are
talking now about a two-year period, and we would
object unless there is some identification of the
period.
Q. Can you identify approximately when these meetings
took place? A. Oh, in the fall of ’59.
Q. Do you recall how long the subject of Barrett was
under consideration by the school board? A. I don’t,
Q. I am sorry, I believe you were interrupted, Senator.
You were describing what the administration’s response
at these school board meetings. A. The response was
that they couldn’t go across Colorado Boulevard because
it was a busy thoroughfare. The response was that they
had to look at the immediate situation and they had to
draw lines to take care of that immediate situation, and,
therefore, Barrett was being established and built where
it was to handle the immediate situation, which was a
complete reversal from what we had been told back in
1956 when they were drawing boundary lines and con
sidering the schools, because at that stage they were tell
ing us that everything had to be a long-range view and
that they had to look to the future and it was just—well,
as far as we were concerned, a lie, and once again a
George L. Brown Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct
880a
demonstration that there was no concern for the real
problem.
[870] Q. Did yon say, Senator, that the question of
Colorado Boulevard as the boundary line was discussed?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. And what alternate or alternative, if any, was sug
gested by the black community at these board meetings
with respect to where Barrett’s boundary line was to be
established? A. Well, first of all, we questioned whether
or not Barrett should be built there at all, and then we
said, “If this is the ease and you have got the land pur
chased and plans under way, then you should draw the
boundary lines of the school on purpose to make it an
integrated school on opening day.” This was not done.
Q. What would that have required in the way of eastern
boundary line for Barrett? A. Some areas across Col
orado Boulevard, to the east.
Q. Do you recall, Senator Brown, when the school board
published for the first time comparative data on achieve
ment levels in the various Denver Public Schools? A.
Yes, I do.
Q. Where there any discussions in the black community
concerning the reported achievement levels in the black
schools? A. Very much, because the—for the first time,
it showed that we had been saying and what we knew
would—in fact, we didn’t need studies to tell us—is that
the [8713 black schools were not of the same quality as
the white schools, that the teaching, the facilities, the
whole ball of wax just wasn’t up to par when compared
with what was happening in other parts of the city.
Q. Now, do you also recall, Senator, the fact that in
about 1964 the school administration began placing mobile
units in the schools at Northeast Denver? A. Yes.
George L. Brown Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct
881a
Q. Did you participate in any discussions concerning
the placement of these mobile units! A, Yes.
Q. When did these discussions take place! A. I think
the first mobile units were proposed in March of ’64 or
were put up in March of ’64. At that stage there were
none in Northeast Denver. Plans were revealed early that
spring about putting some mobile units in Northeast
Denver, starting in September, and I think in September
of ’64 there were roughly—I think there were about
twelve throughout the city and eight of them were then
in Northeast Denver. This showed us that the school
administration was doing its darndest to make sure that
space was made available for black youngsters in North
east Denver, rather than using transportation or what
have you as they were using in other parts of the city
to take care of youngsters who were already overcrowding
facilities or facilities where there were no £8723 facilities.
At that stage, the black community was reaching that
position where we felt that maybe we ought to possibly
go along with things like this.
Q. Things like what! A. Efforts to try to improve
the number of spaces in the community, once again holding
out the hope that with these there would come the other
things that go for quality, that maybe we wouldn’t have
integration because that appeared to be a losing fight, but
that we could come up with enough good services, good
facilities, good teachers, do away with the teachers that
were expressing feelings of serving their time in the
Northeast community, that we could do something about
the dropout rate, we could do something about bettering
the achievement test scores and the like, and certainly
hoping to do something about the environment in those
George L. Brown Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct
882a
schools, which at that stage was very poor, for a youngster
wanting to achieve and wanting to grow in maturity.
Q. Senator, at that time was this feeling in the black
community which you have just described uniformly held?
A. What do you mean by uniformly? You will have to
define that.
Q. Were there any other views in the black community
concerning these mobile units? A. Yes, there were obvi
ously people in the community still holding out for integra
tion, still hoping that the [873] fact that there was good
faith and nobody was saying that mobile units were a good
substituted for good adequate classroom space, but if we
didn’t get the mobile units maybe the school administration
and school board would be forced to do the kind of things
which would move those youngsters into situations which
would then automatically achieve a better integration in the
total system.
Q. What kind of alternates then were those people seek
ing? A. Transportation, obviously, as a means, and I think
as probably the only means—well, not the only, because
we were also then talking about some redrawing of bound
ary lines, which would also have the same effect between
schools that were on the fringes of the black community,
and in those two strips, hoping to bring in effect more inte
gration.
Q. Now, you will recall also, Senator, that the policy of
limited open enrollment was implemented in 1964. A. Yes.
Q. Now, do you recall any discussions in which you par
ticipated concerning the community’s reaction to limited
open enrollment?
Mr. Ris: If the Court please, we are going to
object to this. He has already indicated on this
George L. Brown Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct
883a
other matter that there were varying opinions and
various thinking by the community, and I think the
Court can even take judicial notice [874] of that, and
unless we get into the various categories of opinion
held by the community, I don’t think it is proper or
right for this man to attempt to say that there was
one expression or one feeling within the community
that applied to everything there. It just isn’t the
facts of life.
Mr. Greiner: Well, Your Honor, I believe that
would be an appropriate subject for cross-examina
tion, if counsel thinks there was a division in the
Community.
The Court: I think it is pretty difficult for him
to just generally paint a picture of what the reaction
was. It puts them at a disadvantage in terms of
cross-examination.
I would suppose that only a few really saw the
significance of it, anyhow, and perhaps analyzed it
to a degree that they sawT some infirmities and limi
tations. I mean, I just don’t see where it has much
probative value.
If he could describe what he observed, what he
saw, what the system undertook to do and what it
failed to do, he could do that as an observer.
I think the objection is it is an effort to psycho
analyze the community at any particular time, and
say, “Well, this was their attitude,” you know. Who
can do this?
And it is not competent evidence.
Mr. Greiner: All right.
The Court: And in this kind of a case, I think
[8753 there should be some liberality about receiv
ing it. You know, I don’t think we ought to have a
George L. Brown Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct
8 8 4 a
strict adherence to the Rules of Evidence and I have
indicated that, but it is kind of difficult to justify re
ceiving evidence which is of this type.
Mr. Greiner: Fine. We can certainly take that
route, Tour Honor.
The Court: One witness says, “Well, this is the
community attitude.” I would suppose that, if it is
like many other community attitudes, and I ’m not
referring to the black community, the vast majority
of the people don’t have any attitude at all. They
just kind of—until it becomes more acute and starts
hurting them, they just are kind of—you do have
the vocal minority. They have viewpoints, because
they are interested. That’s about how it works ordi
narily. I don’t know. I would suppose that is about
the same here, maybe.
Q. Senator, did you have occasion to observe after limited
open enrollment was implemented, first of all, what was
happening with respect to Negro participation in the limited
open enrollment program? For example, did you yourself
participate in it? A. Yes, the limited open enrollment
started in 1964, at about the same time that the school board
eliminated all optional areas. It then became a vehicle for
allowing two [876] things to happen, neither of which
called for or had anything to do with integration.
Mr. Brega: I am going to object to this, Tour
Honor. There hasn’t been any foundation laid that
he has any knowledge other than his own particular
case. If he is going to try to summarize—■
The Court: He has been making surveys all these
years. That’s how I think he can describe what he
George L. Brown Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct
885a
saw, and lie has been vitally interested in it. He is a
community leader. I don’t see why he can’t tell what
he observed.
The objection will be overruled. Go ahead.
Mr. Bis: May I join in that objection and also
point out to the Court that his own testimonj^ was
that his last survey was 1957, and this is some seven
years later?
The Court: Well, he didn’t say he retired from
interest in it at that point? I didn’t notice that he did.
Anyway, we will note your objection. Go ahead.
A. (Continued) Still remaining a member of the black
community in 1964 and still an elected official, at that stage
still a writer for the Denver Post, I saw that many white
people were using limited open enrollment as a vehicle of
escape. They may then have lived in a district or a neigh
borhood where there was a predominantly minority school,
but they could use limited open enrollment to transport
their youngster to a school far removed from that locality.
[8773 It also had the effect among black families in that
limited open enrollment, since the student had to furnish his
own transportation, was restricted to those parents who
could afford to send their youngsters, and this meant that if
black families were to participate they had to fall into that
middle income, more affluent category. The youngsters from
the poorer families were then forced to remain at the all-
black school, so, in effect, this further diluted the population
or the enrollment of the black school, in that you then not
only had youngsters being segregated by color but also for
a large degree by economics, and it, in my opinion and obvi
ously from the results, showed that those schools were that
George L. Brown Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct
886a
much worse off than they had been before limited open
enrollment was started.
[878] Q. Now, did you also have occasion—You may
recall, Senator Brown, that the program of voluntary open
enrollment was instituted, I believe it was in January,
1968. Did you have any occasion to observe the operation
of the voluntary open enrollment program! A. Yes. I
had had an opportunity in 1967 to attend a race and edu
cation conference in Washington, D.C., sponsored by the
U.S. Civil Rights Commission, and talked with school repre
sentatives from other cities that had started voluntary open
enrollment plans and had listened to how their administra
tions had done positive kinds of things in working- with the
families in the minority areas; working with the families
at the receiving schools; working with teachers at the re
ceiving schools; working with the students at the receiving
schools; counseling and the like. None of this was really
done in Denver,
There was no encouragement. In fact, a number of
parents were counseled against taking part in the volun
tary open enrollment—
Mr. Brega: I ’m going to object to that and move
that it be stricken unless he was present or can
show some basis for having this knowledge other
than hearsay himself.
The Court: He said he was there, didn’t he!
The Witness: Yes, parents were talking to me at
this stage.
[879] Mr. Brega: That’s what I object to, Your
Honor. Unless he was there—
The Court: What is this leading to! That’s the
important consideration, I suppose.
George L. Brown Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct
887a
Mr. Greiner: I think the question, Your Honor,
really goes simply to the administration’s support or
lack of support for its own program of voluntary
open enrollment; what the administration did and
did not do with respect to the implementation of
voluntary open enrollment, and my next question
would bring out that the witness—
The Court: Where did he get the information!
From what he saw!
Mr. Greiner: Well, the information on the possible
program came from this conference which the wit
ness has described which took place in Washington.
The Court: True.
Mr. Greiner: My next question will establish that
these ideas were then presented to the school board.
The Court: All right. Go ahead.
Q. Have you finished describing, Senator, the types of
supportive programs which you learned about in the Wash
ington, D.C. conference? A. With the exception of one
other. We were told that where those schools had commun
ity relations divisions, those divisions were strengthened;
the persons working in those £880] divisions were given
more authority to move into schools and to help in difficult
decisions.
Q. All right now. Subsequent to your return from Wash
ington—the Washington conference, Senator, did you have
occasion to discuss what you had learned at the conference
with represenatives of the school board? A. Yes.
Q. Can you identify for us when that happened? A. The
spring-—early in 1968. Mrs. Noel was there. Fred Thomas
was there. And we discussed with—I can’t remember
exactly who all took part in all the discussions but I had
George L. Brown Jr.-—for Plaintiffs—Direct
888a
some discussions with Dr. Gilberts. I had one discussion
with Howard Johnson. I was present when Mr. Thomas
made some remarks before the school board. I’m not sure
of the date of that.
Q. Would that also have been early in 1968? A. Tes,
I ’m sure it was.
Q. Well, in the course of these discussions, were the sup
portive programs which you have described, described to
the school board? A. Tes. In fact-, I brought back with
me all the papers that had been presented there at that
conference and I turned them over to members of the school
board; asked that they read through them, and return them
to me when they were finished. I know Dr. Amesse read
them all. I don’t [881] know who else on the school board
took advantage of the fact that the papers were available
and that they could have read them.
Q. Well, what was the board’s response, if any, to your
suggestions ? A. There was no—nothing that I can testify
to that was really done in that positive fashion to make this
program a value—voluntary open enrollment work for in
tegration. There were— In fact, I think the main thing is,
it wasn’t so much as what was done as what was not done
at that stage.
Q. And then subsequent to the implementation of volun
tary open enrollment, Senator, do you recall the circum
stances surrounding the passage of Eesolution 1520, 1524
and 1533, starting first with the passage of the Noel resolu
tion? A. Tes.
Q. Now, did you have occasion to discuss with members
of the black community the resolutions both—well, first,
when they were being proposed? A. Tes.
Q. And what was the nature of these discussions? A.
Some of the black community expressed great desire to give
George L. Brown Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct
889a
the school administration one more chance at integration.
There were others in the black community who had already
fallen off of that wagon of reason and had [882 3 decided
that there was no hope. But during that stage of the game
they took the position that they would say nothing, hoping
to give Mrs. Noel and members of the school board who felt
likewise an opportunity to maybe get a positive program
going.
Q. Now, were these the same attitudes reflected, if you
know, Senator Brown, with respect to the school board
election which followed the passage of these resolutions?
A. Yes, the black community felt that two candidates were
running in support of integration and decided that these
would be the two candidates that they would support and
endorse. Again, that faction of the black community that
had given up on integration decided to remain silent, to
give some support but not to do things that would cause
the other side to have any kind of incidents or the like that
they could use to first push their position. The election
results showed overwhelmingly that the black community
wanted integration because those two candidates carried
very heavily in Northeast Denver.
Q. What then did you observe as the effect of the results
of that election? A. For the first time in my residence in
Denver, the black community responded more as a unit
than ever before, feeling that, if there was to be anything
done for their youngsters, they had better get out and
make sure it [8833 was done. For that vast number of
people that Your Honor talked about earlier who fit into
that category of apathy with little or no concern, began to
come out in the black community and to stand together,
and there were several thrusts then that were started:
first, there were black citizens who felt that they had to
George L. Brown Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct
890a
do something to demonstrate to the rest of Denver what
they could have had had they voted for integration and
transportation and whatever else was needed for it, and
started putting together hopefully plans for what they
called a free school, a school that could demonstrate what
could be accomplished. The advantages of an integrated
situation. Then there were those who felt that this took
care of—and by the way, there were people working in all
areas, too, then there were those who felt that this took
care of only some of the youngsters, that the bulk of the
black youngsters were going to be put into the neighborhood
school situation There were going to be black neighborhood
schools and that “we should do all we could to make sure
that the facilities were at the toppest possible grade” That
the teachers were the best possible teachers; that black ad
ministrators were used to the utmost in Northeast Denver,
hoping to get as much as possible out of integrated—I mean
out of neighborhood black schools
Then there was still a third thrust of those [884] citizens
who felt that “Okay, you can go your way on those other
two routes, but the only way that we can be assured of
getting those things in our schools is outside the established
system of a school board and a school administration, com
pletely separated from the community” And they started
working, hoping to bring about community control at those
schools where there would be people elected to the school
board in those vicinities There would be better utilization
of parents in controlling what happened to their youngsters.
Then there was still a fourth thrust of those persons who
said, “To heck with the whole system; to heck with their
school building; the only answer for many youngsters today
who are already forced out of the system is that we come up
and create something that is not integrated; that is black—
George L. Brown Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct
891a
that is black pride only.” And these were the store front
type operations.
In all cases, in all fonr cases, integration was not the
outstanding- factor anymore in the black community. In
all cases they were hoping to build on a feeling of black
pride and to instill a sense of wanting to achieve in black
youngsters.
Q. After the election, Senator, can you say whether or
not there remained from your observations and from your
description of these four movements, did there remain any
[8853 longer an attitude in favor of integration? A. A
very small part. I think the black community—those who
doubted the existence in Denver of white racism no longer
had such doubts. Those who felt, however, again the same
feeling that a number of us had had many years ago, that
the only way that those youngsters were going to get it
was to be in a situation where there were white youngsters
there, too, so that as an indirect benefit they could get
it because it wras given to the white youngsters. And then
those that were holding out for integration and still saying
that’s the only way possible.
Q. Well then, Senator, you have been describing in your
testimony a period which began in the early ’50s and really
ended in March or April of 1969. During that period of
time do you recall any gestures by the school administration
which in your mind demonstrated the administration’s con
cern for the equal educational opportunities for minority
children? A. Numerous indications of concern for white
youngsters. I frankly cannot honestly point to any cases
where the same concern was given to youngsters who were
black or brown. No, I can’t, not really.
Q. What about the three resolutions which were passed?
A. Passed under duress; passed only after the black com
George L. Brown Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct
892a
munity, with a number of good white friends, standing and
[886] demanding that noses be counted; passed even know
ing that some members of that school board who supported
it were going to probably suffer when they came up for
reelection, as they did; passed at a time when there were
obvious efforts being made to see what they could do even
then to circumvent the results. Because, as plans were
drawn to implement those resolutions, there were obvious
shortcomings in them. For example, we went to Dr. Gil
berts and asked that “If you’re going to come up with a
plan of integration under these resolutions, why not go to
some school other than Barrett, because Barrett is located
in a middle-class black community? Why, also, not include
those youngsters who went to Gilpin?” And in this way,
so far as we were concerned, have a more meaningful kind
of plan for integration. So that, even though the school
board passed the resolutions, I am not able to point to any
real strong positive indication to the black community or
those of the white community who favored it that this was
the—what they really wanted to do.
Q. And then after the board election even those resolu
tions were rescinded? A. Yes. And it’s during that same
period of time when we asked about why not Gilpin. I t’s
rather hard for those of us in the black community to accept
what is told us as to the reasons why things aren’t being
done. We were [887] told that Gilpin could not be a part
of a plan of integration because the school administration
didn’t have enough buses to transport those youngsters in
a cross-transportation situation. We asked that they im
mediately go out and look to the private community, look
to other areas for the possibility of leasing buses. So, if
this was the only reason for not doing it, then maybe by
leasing and purchasing and looking at the federal govern
George L. Brown Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct
893a
ment for buses, that maybe they could make the program
that much more desirable for us.
We were told in a few days that this wasn’t possible; that
there just weren’t any more buses available in Denver.
I was very interested to read after someone unfortunately
burned buses, that they could find 23 in the community to
take up for that lack.
Mr. B is: Objection. This has no significance to
this.
The Court: Sustained.
Mr. Greiner: We have no further questions.
* * # * *
£980] * # *
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Direct
Lois H e a t h J o h w soh , called as a witness by the defen
dants, being first duly sworn, on her oath testified as fol
lows :
The Court: Take the witness chair, please, and
please state your name and address.
The Witness: Lois Heath Johnson, 1955 Glencoe.
The Court: You may proceed.
Mr. Bis: Thank you, sir.
Direct Examination by Mr. Ris:
Q. Mrs. Johnson, we have to establish a few things for
the record that we can see. You are the Anglo or white
race, are you not? [981] A. Yes.
Q. And do you have any objection to telling us how old
you are, please? A. Sixty-four.
Q. Prior to being known as Mrs. Lois Heath Johnson,
were you known as Mrs. Lois Heath? A. Yes.
894a
Q. Under that name, were you a member of the Board
of Education, School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado?
A. I was.
Q. Did you go to school as a youngster in Denver? A.
Yes.
Q. What school did you go to? A. Well, I went to Broad
way Latins School, which has long been gone, and I went
to Thoren Gove Junior High School and South Denver
High School. I graduated from there.
Q. You graduated from South High? A. Yes.
Q. Did you have a college education? A. I went to the
University of Denver and graduated there.
Q. In what year, with what degree? A. 1927 with a
A.B.
Q. What was your major and what were your minors?
A. I had a double major, one in sociology and one in [982]
English. History was a minor.
Q. Following your graduation, were you employed? A.
At the Colorado General Hospital.
Q. What did you do at Colorado General? A. I was a
medical social worker.
Q. Over what period of time? A. Approximately three
years.
Q. Could you outline your history since then as to what
you have done outside of the home? A. Well, I left Colo
rado General Hospital upon my marriage and when I had
a family I was not a full-time worker at any time, but I did
volunteer social work straight from that time and through
World War II. During World War II I was at American
Red Cross in charge of the volunteers in what was then
called The Home Service Department.
Q. Is that the Denver Chapter of the Red Cross? A.
The Denver Chapter. Later it became the Metropolitan
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Direct
895a
Chapter and I was involved with the organization of the
total volunteer group there. I did volunteer work at Cath
olic Charities at one time. After my first husband’s death,
I went back to work and I became an employee of Head
Start in Denver.
Q. What year was that, please! A. That was in 1965,
’66, I think.
Q. In what capacity did you serve under or within the
[983] Head Start Program! A. Well, I was a social
worker and then was assigned as head social worker to
the public schools group.
Q. What did you do, very generally, in that position!
A. Worked with the supervision of other social workers
and in organizing the program for the parent groups.
Q. All right, how did you happen to get into the school
board matters, just generally? A. Well, I had been work
ing with Bed Cross and as a fund raiser, and in this man
ner became rather well known, I suppose, in the commu
nity, and I had been active civieally, and a group of people
asked me if I would run. They called it a citizens’ com
mittee at that time.
Q. Were you interested in education? A. Yes, but I had
never been actively involved as a teacher or in this manner.
Q. Do you have some children? A. Two, a boy and a
girl.
Q. Were they educated in the Denver Public Schools?
A. Denver Public Schools.
Q. What schools did they attend ? A. Park Hill, Smiley
and East.
Q. Where do you now live ? A. 1955 Glencoe.
Q. That’s in the Park Hill area? [984] A. Yes.
Q. How long have you lived in the Park Hill area? A.
All of my adult life, and I grew up there, too.
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Direct
896a
Q. When did you assume—strike that, please.
Were you subpoenaed to appear here today? A. Yes,
I was.
Q. When did you assume your duties on the Board of
Education? A. 1951.
Q. In May of that year? A. In May.
Q. And how many terms did you serve? A. Two full
terms, twelve years.
Q. Terms of six years each? A. Six years each.
Q. Did you ultimately become president of the board?
A. Yes.
Q. What years were you president? A. The last two
years, ’62 and ’3.
Q. Did you hold any other office in connection with your
service on the Denver School Board? A. I was vice-presi
dent of the school board before I was president, and I also
was state president of the school board association.
Q. What year was that? And for what term? [985] A.
Well, I was on—I think I was the president of that associa
tion for four years, just prior—I was still on it when I
left the board.
Q. Now, when you went on the board, what did you do
to acquaint yourself with the school district and some of
the current problems? A. Well, I—
Q. How did you get oriented? A. Well, I had only been
familiar with the schools that my children had and were
attending, and I felt that it was very necessary that I know
the schools in Denver, so the first year that I was on the
board I did visit every school and visited classrooms and
looked at plants and lighting and total facilities of each
school system, or school building.
Q. Did you ever look in on any classses? A. Oh, yes,
many classes, all kinds.
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Direct
897a
Q. Did you actually sit in on any classes? A. I sat in
on them.
Q. Did you get acquainted with any teachers and faculty?
A. Teachers and principals, custodians.
Q. Did you use substantial time—shouldn’t use that word
—did you spend a great deal of time in doing all this ? A.
It took a full year.
[986] Q. At that time, how often did the board meet?
A. Well—
Q. Regular meeting sessions? A. There was a regular
meeting once a month.
Q. Is that true in the summer also? A. As I remember,
yes.
Q. All right. A. Yes, I know that, yes.
Q. You had special meetings on occasion? A. And we
had to have special meetings.
Q. In connection with your meetings, did you hear from
the public from time to time on various matters? A.
Very definitely. They were encouraged.
Q. During the twelve years you served on the board,
Mrs. Johnson, was there any one occasion or more than
one occasion in which a pupil was denied the right to
attend a neighborhood school at any level, either elementary
or secondary— A. Never, to my knowledge.
Q. By reason of his race or color? A. Never.
Q. Was there ever any complaint made by any pupil or
by the parents of any pupil that a child was not allowed
to attend a school of the subdistrict where he lived by such
a reason, race or color? [987] A. Never.
Q. When you got on the board, will you tell the Court,
please, what the policy then was in 1951 with respect to
having furnished to you statistics and analyses of any na
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Direct
898a
ture ■with, respect to racial composition of schools! A.
Well, we did not receive this and did not expect to.
Q. Did yon have any statistics or charts or anything of
any nature which would give you the numbers—either the
numbers or percentages of the Negroes in any one particu
lar school! A. No.
Q. Or of Anglos! A. No.
Q. Or any other minorities! A. No, sir.
Q. Were you furnished any data or information with
respect to racial or ethnic composition of neighborhoods!
A. No.
Q. Whether they were co-extensive with the subdistrict
or not! A. No.
Q. Or any areas, if they were even smaller than a sub-
district! A. No.
[988] Q. This, of course, was before Brown against the
School Board! A. That’s right.
Q. The Supreme Court decision in 1954 after you went
on! A. This is right.
Q. As you sent on the board, what was the policy of the
board generally as to the neighborhood school principle!
A. Well, at that time we all had the feeling that a child
should grow from a family situation into a neighborhood
situation and that the neighborhood school policy was a
good one.
Q. Was that the accepted policy when you went on the
board! A. Yes.
Q. Did it remain such during the entire time you were
on the board! A. Yes.
Q. Did you learn whether that was a policy that extended
pretty much beyond the Denver school system! A. This
was pretty much true all over the United States.
Q. How did you learn that! A. Well, I attended na
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Direct
899a
tional school board meetings with other people from all
over the country.
[9893 Q. When you first went on the board in 1951, you
said you were just considering the children. What do you
mean by that? A. Well, it was my feeling and I think this
was true of all the members of the board that we repre
sented all of the children and all of the parents in the
city.
Q. Were you aware of the—were you informed after
you went on the board as to the constitutional requirements
of Colorado with respect to school districts? A. This is
right.
Q. During the period that, or when you went on the
board, was there any classification of pupils by race or
color? A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. In the establishment of boundaries or changing of
boundaries on older schools, was that an element of your
thinking at any time? A. This was not a consideration.
Q. Now, when the .Brown case was decided in 1954, was
that considered by you as a member of the board as to
its applicability to Denver?
Mr. Greiner: Tour Honor, I would object. I don’t
believe the witness has been qualified to interpret
the Brown case.
The Court: Well, she may state as a fact whether
[9903 they ever considered it.
A. Thank you. It was our feeling that in Denver where
we had never had segregation—
The Court: I think the only question, Mrs. John
son, is whether you ever considered it, so far.
A. (Continued)—yes.
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Direct
900a
Q. And what was your conclusion with regard to the
effect of the Brown case insofar as the Denver school sys
tem was concerned and your activities as a member of
the board? A. That it was not applicable.
Q. Was this also discussed at various meetings you at
tended? A. Yes.
Q. Was this discussed at National meetings you attended?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know whether an opinion was obtained from
the Denver School Board attorney? A. One was.
Q. Do you know what that opinion was? A. That it did
not apply.
The Court: What did that opinion say?
The Witness: That it did not apply to our situa
tion as we were, as we existed.
Q. Do you remember or can you tell us the first
few [991] years you were on the board, say from 1951,
when you went on the board until 1955, if there were any
changes in boundaries of any substantial nature of any
nature that was taken by the board, any action taken by
the board? A. You mean boundaries of schools?
Q. Yes. A. Of course, the city was growing tremen
dously at this time.
Q. What effect did that have on the board? A. Well,
we were in a very difficult situation to have enough class
rooms for all the incoming children.
Q. Why was that? A. Because so many people—the
population had grown so and it was particularly growing
in two areas, in the southeast and southwest areas.
Q. And that was due to newly annexed areas? A. This
is true.
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Direct
9 0 1 a
Q. You were required to take on these newly annexed
areas? A. We were.
Q. At that time, the board had no say as to whether
they should be annexed or not? A. No.
Q. All right. But from the period from ’51 to ’55, do
you recall of any board action to change boundaries of
[9923 existing schools within the old area of Denver? A.
I cannot recall that.
The Court: What years did you say?
Q. ’51 to ’55. A. I can’t remember whether there were
changes at that time or not, but I—well, I shouldn’t as
sume, should I?
Q. Well, if you recall any, we want to know. If you
don’t— A. I cannot say that.
Q. At this time, would you state to the Court what the
procedure was with respect to changes of boundaries at
the elementary level? A. Well, there were certain things
that we knew the staff would consider and, after their
consideration, they simply worked within that consideration.
Q. Did the board take formal action on elementary
boundary changes? A. Yes.
Q. Or was that basically the superintendent’s—- A.
Well, it was basically done by the superintendent, but ac
tion was ratified.
Q. Would he report to the board? A. This is right.
Q. Was there a different procedure with regard to [9933
secondary schools? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Tell us what the difference was and how the secondary
school boundaries were handled. A. Well, this was very
carefully studied with many considerations. We considered,
first of all, the school population, the trends in the popula
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Direct
902a
tion, and we tried to have these trends considered for a
period of time into the future, because—
Q. Projecting ahead? A. Yes, projections.
Q. All right. A. And transportation, safety of children,
available rooms, all of these things were part of our con
sideration.
Q. You considered geographical features? A. Yes.
Q. Man-made features? A. Yes.
Q. Such as what? A. Well, when the highway came
through, the Yalley Highway came through, we had to
consider this.
Q. All right. When you referred to transportation, were
you referring to public transportation? A. Public trans
portation, primarily.
Q. Was building capacity in adjacent areas important?
[9943 A. Very. If we had vacant rooms, we had to use
them.
Q. What about feelings of the community in connection
with boundaries ? A. Prom the time I went onto the board,
this was always invited. We wanted to know what the com
munity was thinking.
Q. Why was that? A. Well, we are representatives of
the people, and we had to know what they wanted.
Q. And how would you learn of the feelings of the com
munity? A. People were invited to come into our meet
ings and we would go out to private meetings, too.
Q. Did you attend many meetings during— A. Many.
Q. During your period on the board? A. A great many.
Q. Now, in considering the potential change in bound
aries, for example, Mrs. Johnson, would you consider all
of these factors or elements? A. Oh, yes.
Q. Was there any formula that you could say as to the
ultimate weight of these factors, one factor should have
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Direct
903a
a weight of ten, another of twenty, another of five and so
forth? [995] A. No, no, what was the best for the young
sters was the only formula that we were interested in.
Q. It was a decision-making process, considering all these
various factors, then? A. That’s right.
Q. Was there a difference in the weight given to some
factors, say, between the elementary school and the weight
you’d give to the same factor in a high school ? A. I don’t
think I understand that.
[996] Q. Well, for example, a traffic situation. Would
that make some difference? A. Yes, little children—you
had to be much more careful. But even so, you had to con
sider traffic problems for big children, too.
Q. You had to consider more than merely building ca
pacity and pupil membership, is that correct? A. That’s
true.
Q. Was that true in every instance? A. This is true in
every instance.
Q. From time to time did you receive any documents
from the staff of the district which were called staff pro
posals? A. Yes.
Q. What is meant by a staff proposal? A. Well, for
instance, in your boundaries, if after they had been studied
they would be presented to us and these boundaries were
suggested would be an included part of these things.
Q. Would you— Pardon me. A. Where we had to have
new buildings, all of this was part of it.
Q. Was this a constant thing that was going on? A.
Constant, yes.
Q. And why did this have to be a constant feature?
[997] A. Because of the influx of people that were coming
into Denver. Denver was growing tremendously at that
time.
Lois Heath Johnson-—for Defendants—Direct
904a
Q. Was every staff proposal that, was made rubber
stamped and enacted? A, No, they were studied very
carefully.
Q. Some enacted or adopted and some were not? A.
Some -were and—
Q. And some were adopted or adopted as amended? A.
Some were adopted and some changed and modified and
then adopted.
Q. Do you recall that in 1956 Hill Junior High opened?
A. Yes.
Q. What effect did that have with respect to the necessity
for boundary changes? A. Well, of course, every time
you build a school this involved not just the people that
were right there but the surrounding schools, surrounding
territories. And so this involved changes at—such as Gove,
and—I believe Morey was involved. It involved a great
area.
Q. Is it true that it involves not only the immediate area
and the schools surrounding it, but it could have a dominant
effect beyond that? A. That’s right.
Q. Was this true in this instance? A. It was true in
every instance.
[998] Q. Do you recall receiving a staff proposal about
in January of 1956 with respect to a large number of bound
ary changes? A. I don’t remember the dates.
Q. But you remember receiving a staff proposal? A.
Yes.
Q. Arising due to this—that Hill was opening? A. Yes.
Q. And could you tell us whether all of these various pro
posals or all the various parts of these proposals were re
lated? A. Well, yes, they were.
Q. When these proposals were made public, were mem
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Direct
9 0 5 a
bers of the public again invited to express their opinions
concerning the same? A. Yes, we had hearings.
Q. Do you remember whether all these proposals were
adopted at the first meeting? A. Well, I would doubt that
they were.
Q. Do you remember what happened at that first meet
ing when they would be voted upon in January of 1956?
A. No.
Q. Do you remember whether part of the proposals in
volved a strip just west of York Street and between Cole
and Smiley, Manual and East? This is going back a long
time, [999] I know, but if you could to the best of your
recollection— A. Dm not sure if this was when it was
involved or not. I know the area you mean.
Q. Do you recall attending some meetings regarding the
Manual boundaries? A. Yes.
Q. And again to refresh your recollection, new Manual
was opened in 1953? A. That’s right.
Q. So this would be about—well, early 1956, not quite
three years later; two and a half years later? A. Yes,
Q, Do you recall at that time various discussions con
cerning the boundaries of Manual? A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember attending some meetings in this
connection? A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember where those meetings took place
that you attended? A. Well, I attended all kinds of meet
ings in the school and in homes, all over.
Q. In connection with this particular boundary? A.
This particular boundary?
Q. You remember Mr. George Brown at that time?
[10003 A. Yes, he attended some of them.
Q. Now, at that time in attending these meetings, could
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Direct
906a
yon tell ns whether you as a member of the board— Well,
let me rephrase that.
Q. In attending these meetings, what did you find as to
the attitude of the people living in the community who
attended and expressed their opinions! A. Well, there
were many different areas and many different kinds of
suggestions that were made. But, it was difficult to find a
spokesman for the total area. There were just too many
voices.
Q. Were you able to find anyone who you thought spoke
for the majority of the people in the area? A. No.
Q. Did you find that there was any substantial agree
ment among all the various people that attended these
meetings that would represent the majority of the area?
A. No. Quite diversified.
Q. At that time did you have any documentation from
the school staff with projections? A. Oh, yes. We were
constantly having projections four and five and six years
ahead.
Q. Did you have with respect to this particular boundary
change? A. Of course. Again, the city was growing so
rapidly [10013 that even projections were not always as
accurate as we liked to have had them.
Q. Now, even the figures and the projections you had—
did they have any breakdown at all by race or ethnic com
position of the areas? A. No.
Q. Or of the schools? A. No.
Q. Or of the neighborhoods involved in the change? A.
No.
Q. At these various meetings did anyone come forward
with any racial or ethnic statistics that you thought you
could rely on or at all? A. I ’m not sure; if people in the
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Direct
907a
community told us of their race, groups and ethnic break
downs, I ’m not sure of that.
Q. You had no figures from school census or— A. I
had no reliable figures I could accept.
Q. Now previously you mentioned various factors that
you normally considered in evaluating whether a boundary
should be changed or not. A. Yes.
Q. Did you consider all those various factors in this
instance? A. Yes.
[1002] Q. Was your ultimate aim in making these—in
making any change—what were you trying to accomplish
when you were considering a change! A. The best pos
sible learning situation for the young people that we were
trying to serve.
Q. Was your ultimate decision in making the boundary
change in 1956 between Manual and East based upon this,
then, the various factors you considered! A. This was
our attempt.
Q. Did you have any racial or ethnic motivation in mind
to desegregate anyone? A. No.
Q. Now, Mrs. Johnson, were you active in considering
the construction of Barrett Elementary School? A. Yes.
Q. Was it East 29th and Jackson Street? A. That’s
right.
Q. In the area of ground involved, what boundaries—
what were the boundaries generally? A. Well, Colorado
Boulevard and— Oh, dear—down two blocks.
Q. Jackson? A. Jackson. Uh-huh. And from 28th.
Q. 29th to 32nd? A. I’m not sure of the boundaries.
[1003] Q. Do you know how long the school district
had owned that property? A. It had been held when I
went on the board.
Q. It was already owned? A. It was already owned.
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Direct
908a
Q, Mrs. Johnson, what’s been the policy from yonr ex
perience on the board and your knowledge of the board ac
tivities with respect to site acquisition, and looking ahead?
A. Well, again, they tried to— At this time we were try
ing to project the needs of the community within a reason
able time, five, ten years.
Q. My question is generally to site acquisition. A. Well,
this is it.
Q. I’m sorry, go ahead. A. And to try to serve the
community that would be surrounding it.
Q. Were you on the board when the site at 6th and
Monaco was acquired? A. No, but when it was sold.
Q. Do you know of any property that was owned by the
board during your tenure of office and the other site which
was used east of Colorado Boulevard out in the Hallett
area, and the Smith area? A. For what purpose?
[1004] Q. That was being held for school—a. possible
school site? A. There may have been some elementary
areas held in there. I ’m not sure. There was nothing
large enough for a high school.
Q. Was there anything large enough for an elementary
school, say, east of Barrett?
Mr. Greiner: I believe the witness has answered
that question, Your Honor.
The Court: We will give her another chance.
A. East of Barrett? I don’t know. I can’t answer that.
Q. Were you on the board when other high school sites
were acquired? A. Oh, yes.
Q. And in projecting those, where did you locate these
and why? A. Well, of course, out in the southwest and
southeast area which was growing so very rapidly, we
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Direct
909a
were having to have areas annexed because we could see
where the community was growing and schools were built
upon newly annexed land.
Q. You were virtually at the city limits at both Thomas
Jefferson and Kennedy, weren’t you? A. That’s right.
Q. Now, getting back to Barrett, if we may, please—
[10053 when was the planning done or even commenced
with respect to Barrett Elementary School? A. As I re
member it, about three years before we were having this
terrific influx at Columbine and Harrington and we knew
we had to build or do something about it. And I think it
was about three years before that the projections began.
Q. About 1957? A. That’s right.
Q. Do you know when the school was finally authorized?
What year? A. Oh, I can’t give you the date.
Q. And it was constructed then so as to be ready for
occupancy in 1960? A. That’s right.
Q. Were you aware of the change in the racial composi
tion in your area north of the city, in the area north of
City Park during this period of time? A. This was chang
ing very rapidly. I knew, because I lived there.
Q. Did you have any statistics, however, during the time
of this planning at any specific time as to the racial or
ethnic composition of the pupils in that area? A. No.
Q. Did you have anything yourself available to you that
[1006] was indicating to you the rapidity of the transition
from white to black? A. Figures?
Q. Yes. A. No.
Q. Did you know where the transition—how far it was
going to move geographically either east of Colorado Boule
vard or east and south? A. I doubt if anyone could have
known this exactly.
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Direct
910a
Q. Did you have meetings with parents and interested
people in that area? A. Yes, a great many.
Q. During this period of time was it necessary to make
any optional elementary school areas? A. Yes, we had to
transport children to other schools.
Q. Do you remember how many were transported to
Park Hill? A. I can’t remember, but quite a number. A
couple of hundred, I would say, but Pm not sure.
Q. Now, did you consider whether you should build an
other elementary school in this area at all? A. Yes.
Q. And the people who attended your meetings—were
they unanimous in the opinion one way or the other? A.
No, not unanimous.
[ 1007 3 Q. Tell us what the feeling was. A. Well, a
great many people wanted the school there and we knew
that the children were there without having to be trans
ported at all, so as far as I remember, there were no chil
dren who were brought in by busses.
Q. You mean after Barrett opened? A. After Barrett
opened.
Q. Was there some opposition to building the school in
that spot? A. Yes.
Q. Again, on this occasion, did you find anyone or any
one organization that you felt could speak for the majority
of the people in the area? A. No.
The Court: It would be surprising if she could,
anyway, in any area.
Mr. Ris : I agree.
The Court: I mean, they’re not composed that
way.
We will take a short recess.
(Whereupon, the trial recessed at 3:29 p.m.)
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Direct
9 1 1 a
£10083 (The Court resumed after a recess at 3:45
o’clock p.m.)
Mr. Ris: May I proceed, sir?
Q. Mrs. Johnson, I think one thing that we have not
previously discussed is the matter of finances in the school
district. A. We were always short.
Q. Well, in your long-term planning, to what extent are
they a factor, either— A. Well, rather decisive.
Q. Well, are they a factor? A. We always needed more
classrooms than we had money to finance.
Q. You are referring now to capital funds? A. That’s
right.
Q. And the availability of such funds? A. That’s right.
Q. Now, getting to the record, how are such capital funds
made available? A. Well, bond issues.
Q. And that required an election? A. This required an
election by the people, yes, sir.
Q. So, in planning additional space or any planning in
volving any substantial expenditures, that was a major
consideration? [1009] A. It had to be.
Q. Now, getting back to the Barrett problem—
The Court: Now, whether the electorate would
approve the bond issue?
The Witness: Well, of course, that was always a
question, too, but after it had been approved, we
still—we couldn’t always build new schools to re
place old schools, because we had so many areas
where we had to just put in classrooms.
Q. But every bond issue did require a vote of the people?
A. That’s right.
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Direct
Mr. Ris: That was the Court’s question, was it
not?
The Court: Well, I knew that.
Mr. Ris: Well, I was not sure—
The Court: I said was that a consideration in
making their plans?
Mr. R is: I see. Beg your pardon.
The Court: In making their plans, whether the
electorate would consent.
Q. Getting back to Barrett, now, if we may, Mrs. John
son, would yon tell us approximately what period of time
or how rapidly the Barrett matter was brought to a head
when you made your decision? A. Well, we had to build
faster than we wanted to at [1010] that particular spot.
The studies were completed, but they were not projected
as much as we would have liked to have had them done,
because we simply had to have more classrooms.
Q. Now, will you tell us how the decision was made as
to the type of building and size of building? A. We used
a prototype there—what was the size of the building? I
can’t tell you that.
Q. Were you building another prototype at the same
time? A. Tes.
Q. Where was it located? A. Out further east.
Q. Were you also building at Denison in southwest Den
ver? A. It was Denison, I beg your pardon. It was
Denison.
Q. All right, how was the determination made with re
spect to the site for Barrett? A. We had land there which
had been, as I told you, acquired before I was on the board,
and there were enough children right there to fill a grade
school, so we used this land which was available.
912a
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Direct
913a
Q. Now, this site was not in the center of the proposed
subdistrict for Barrett, however, was it? A. No children
were bussed in.
Q. No, but it was not in the center of the subdistrict!
[1011] A. No, it was not.
Q. Did you consider placing it more central! A. Yes.
Q. Did you own any land there? A. We didn’t have the
land, and we did own this land, so we used it.
Q. Did finances enter into that at all? A. Very defi
nitely.
Q. How? A. Because we had the land and we didn’t
have the money.
Q. Now, with respect to the setting of the easterly bound
ary at Colorado Boulevard, would you tell us about that,
please? A. Well, at this time, Colorado Boulevard became
a central highway into the city, six lane, and thinking in
terms of the safety of the children, we couldn’t go beyond
there in our thinking, and we had children who could safely
get to the school that would fill the building.
Q. Even though this school was on one edge of the sub-
district, were all its children within walking distance under
your prescribed boundaries? A. I don’t believe we trans
ported any children there.
Q. Did you have any racial considerations in mind to
keep the whites from Stedman coming to Barrett? [1012]
A. No, when that was started there were, I am sure, al
though I have no statistics, both black and white children
in the area,
Q. In the planning stage ? A. In the planning period.
Q. Was there a change during the planning period? A.
A very radical change.
Q. To what? A. To more black children moving in.
Q. Even before Barrett was built, you mentioned that
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants-—Direct
914a
Harrington and Columbine were overcrowded. Did you
acquaint yourself with the situation that existed there, say,
about 1952, when there were some boundary changes made
at the elementary subdistricts? A. I am sure I was in
volved. I think it was a little after ’52 that I really met
with a great many parents in the area.
Q. You took a personal interest in that yourself? A.
Took a personal interest in it.
Q. And various changes were made in boundaries of
those schools from time to time? A. That’s right, we tried
to keep the classes as small as we possibly could, and that
involved some boundary changes.
Q. Were there any racial or ethnic considerations in
making those changes? [1013] A. No.
Q. Now, after Barrett was filled and occupied—
The Court: Now, Columbine and Harrington—
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: —you say were overcrowded and Bar
rett was built primarily to relieve this ?
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: Well, isn’t it true that some students
came from east of Colorado Boulevard to Columbine
and Harrington before Barrett was built?
The Witness: To Harrington, at one time I think
there were children, yes.
The Court: Excuse me, go ahead.
Q. Was that true after Colorado Boulevard became six
lane? A. No, and it was not true after—let me think. I
am not sure that it was true from the time I was on the
hoard, but there had been a time I believe when that was
true. We had new grade schools above Colorado Boulevard
that I believe took care of this situation.
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Direct
915a
Q. Now, after Barrett was occupied, was there then a
proposal to build a junior high at 37th and Colorado Boule
vard? A. There were considerations of this; no actual
proposal.
Q. Was any action taken either to do so or not to do so
[1014] while you were on the board? A. We decided not
to.
The Court: Can you gentlemen hear Mrs. Johnson
all the time?
Mr. Greiner: Fairly well, Your Honor.
The Court: Will you keep your voice up just a
little hit?
The Witness: All right, I am sorry.
Q. And can you give us some of the history of that par
ticular incident? A. Will you restate that, please?
Q. Can you give us some of the history with respect to
the suggested junior high at 32nd and Colorado and the
decision not to construct one at that location? A. Well,
it was not an acceptable thing in the community and we
did have many hearings.
Q. And those were in ’62? A. Yes.
Q. And did you arrive at some conclusion or some feel
ings within yourself as to what the sense of the community
was at this time? A. This is right, we had many hearings.
Q. Now, did this lead to anything else, this particular
episode, and the decision that was made? I am thinking
particularly— [1015] A. Well, you are thinking of other
junior high schools? I mean, the overloading?
Q. No, I am wondering if this had any relationship to
the creation of a special study group, the Voorhees Com
mittee. A. Very definitely.
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Direct
9 1 6 a
Q. Was this an outgrowth— A. This was a total out
growth. We felt the total community should be more closely
concerned with our planning.
Q. Was there a decision with respect to Smiley Junior
High at this time! A. Yes.
Q. What happened there! A. We built on there, made
more facilities, and there were some changes in boundaries
there, too, that affected the adjoining junior high.
Q. When the new boundaries were established for the
three new senior high schools in 1960, George Washington,
Lincoln, and Thomas Jefferson, was there any problem
either of a racial or ethnic nature! A. No.
Q. Or any complaints at that time of setting the bound
aries on racial or ethnic grounds! A. No.
Q. With relation to the overcrowding at Stedman School
in about 1963, did you acquaint yourself with that [10163
situation, Mrs. Johnson! A. Well, I was in and out of
the school constantly.
Q. Do you recall any proposals or discussions concern
ing changes of boundaries in the Stedman and Hallett-
Park Hill complex! A. Yes, there were some.
Q. And can you tell me what you recall concerning those
proposals and the changes made!
Mr. Greiner: Pardon me, Your Honor, but could
we have it established for the record that she is still
speaking now of when she was a member of the
board! She went off the board in ’63.
Mr. R is: I am talking about—I beg your pardon,
yes, that’s a valid observation.
Q. We are still referring to while you were on the
board! A. Yes.
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Direct
917a
Q. Now, Stedman became overcrowded and there were
problems in the Stedman-Hallett area? A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall any proposals being made in 1961, ’62
or ’63, in that area, for changes? A. Well, there were a
great many being made. I can’t be explicit.
Q. Do yon recall as to whether there were some pro
posals [1017] made for study by the staff for that area?
A. There were.
Q. Were there any changes either made or deferred in
that area, 1961, ’62 or ’63, that were made because of racial
or ethnic considerations? A. I can’t answer that, if we
made them at that time or not. There were changes made
in the area, but I am not sure as to the dates.
Q. Well, were they made with racial or ethnic con
siderations? A. Oh, no, no.
Mr. Greiner: We can’t hear.
Q. You will have to speak up. A. Oh, no, I am sorry,
there were no racial reasons for changing boundaries.
Q. Or for not changing boundaries? A. Or for not
changing boundaries. Can you hear me now ?
Mr. Greiner: Yes.
The Witness: I am sorry.
The Court: She is referring to Stedman in ’62
and ’63?
The Witness: Yes.
Mr. E is: My question related to ’61, ’62 and ’63,
yes, sir, that period.
[1018] Q. Now, there has been some evidence, Mrs.
Johnson, that in 1962 there were some boundary changes
recommended for the Stedman area with respect to placing
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Direct
918a
overflow in Smith, Hallett and Park Hill, and that four of
those were adopted and three were deferred. Do yon re
call that particular period? A. Well, there were some de
ferred because the evidence we had was not conclusive as
to what we should be doing. This was the only thing that
I particularly remember. What did you—I don’t know what
you—
Q. Well, these were again—
The Court: You can lead her or call her attention
to what you want her to focus on, Mr. Ris. I think
we will save some time.
[1019] Q. Mrs. Johnson, Pm handing you Plaintiffs’
Exhibit 53, which has previously been admitted to evidence.
And these have been admitted to evidence on the basis that
these were proposed boundary changes for February, 1962,
and apparently were based upon Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 52, a
study document. A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall the document entitled Exhibit 52? A.
Not as 52. I know we had this kind of thing constantly.
Q. Do you recall the specific document? A. No.
Q. Now, it says for study only on Exhibit 52. What is
the meaning of that? A. Well, this was for consideration
and was the usual way in which these were presented to ns.
It didn’t mean it was necessarily to be adopted just as it
was given to us, but for us to study and then question.
Q. And when you received a document as such—such as
Exhibit 52, did you study it? A. Yes.
Q. Did you take into consideration the various factors
that you previously related? You did consider, in deter
mining where boundary changes should be made? A. Yes.
[10203 Q. And those elementary boundaries which the
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Direct
919a
superintendent would often take initiative to change and
then report to you—did you study these as well? A. Not
in depth, as we did the others. But if there was a question
I can remember times when parents questioned certain
boundaries and then I did study them.
Q. Now, there has also been evidence in the case, if you
look at the map, Exhibit 53, that of the seven changes shown
there or proposed changes, which again the evidence previ
ously relates back to 52, that the three directly surrounding
Stedman were not made at the time and the other ones
were. Do you recall that? And the reasons for it? A. As
I say, there was considerable discussion at this time and it
was our feeling that we were not sure what should be done
at that particular moment. And so those changes were not
made.
Q. Now, apparently the year following, one of the re
maining changes was made and a second one was made in
part. Do you recall that? A. No, I don’t.
Q. Now, is there any other reason for not having made
the three Stedman changes initially that, you can recall?
A. No.
Q. Is there any intent to segregate the blacks in Stedman
and permit the whites to get out of the Stedman £10213
area by this? A. No, this was not part of it.
Q. You’re sure of that? A. There was no part of that.
Q. Again, at the time that these-—or the situation with
respect to Exhibit 52 was concerned, did you at that time, do
you recall, have any statistical analysis or evidence before
you as to the numbers of Negro children and Anglo children
in the various areas? A. No. I didn’t—I don’t remember
this ever occurring.
Q. Now, I would like to direct your attention to another
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Direct
920a
boundary problem and this relates to Cole, Morey and
Byers as a result of a study made in 1962.
I hand you what’s been marked as Exhibit 405 and ask
you if you recall that particular exhibit? A. I do.
Q. Was this study by you? A. Yes.
Q. Was it discussed at board meetings? A. Greatly.
Q. Were there hearings held on it? A. There were hear
ings held.
Q. In conjunction with this study did you have any
[1022] racial or ethnic breakdown by any areas? A. No.
Q. Either Cole, Morey or Byers? A. No. No statistical
reports.
Q. What did you personally know as to the racial and
ethnic composition of Cole at that time ? A. I knew it was
changing. I was in the schools.
Q. What did you know about Morey at that time? A.
Well, Morey’s population was changing in that it was now
becoming more and more of an apartment area and this
was making for vacancies. There were smaller numbers of
children that were available to the school.
Q. Were hearings held with respect to the changes re
ferred to in Exhibit 405? A. Yes.
Q. And again what considerations were taken or what
factors were considered by the board in coming to a deci
sion as to whether any changes should be made in this Cole,
Morey, Byers boundaries? A. All of the usual considera
tions. We considered availability to the children by trans
portation, safety of the children, rooms available, moneys
available, and future trends of the communities.
Q. Was there anything special going on at Morey with
regard to capacity utilization at that time, do you recall?
[1023] A. Do you mean our special education classes?
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Direct
921a
Q. Yes. A. Yes.
Q. At that time was the rating capacity of Morey realis
tically reflecting what was going on in that building? A.
Well, if you mean a special—A special education class was
a very special kind of thing. You didn’t have the usual
number of children in special education in one classroom.
Therefore, the space might be occupied and yet the numbers
might be much less than you would anticipate in a class
room.
Q. Do you know rated capacity was determined at that
time; the formula? A. No, I don’t.
Q. Well, then, with respect to the changes made in 1962,
changing some of the boundaries between Cole and Morey,
Morey and Byers, was there any racial or ethnic discrimi
nation— A. No.
Q. —as a background for that at all ? A. No.
Q. Or, any intent to segregate? A, No.
Q. Or any projection by race or ethnic composition as to
what would result? [1024] A. No.
Q. Did you know a Mrs. Mildred Biddick? A. Yes.
Q. Was she given a special assignment in 1962? A. Yes,
Miss Biddick was brought in to do some special work with
regard to minority people in the schools.
Q. Was she put in what is called a community relations
department? A. That’s right.
Q. Was one of her responsibilities to make some racial
and ethnic studies? A. Yes.
Q. So, during your term on the board, was this the first
time then that you began to get into the racial and ethnic
studies? A. This is right. This and the Voorhees com
mittees were almost simultaneous.
Q. Now, could you tell us what the policy was during
the period you were on the board with respect to recruiting
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Direct
922a
of staff and faculty members from minority groups? A.
Well, an awareness was developing within the board that we
needed greater understanding of minority people and we
were very anxious to have more and more minority teachers
in the schools. So we expanded the area in which the people
who were doing our hiring operated. And we explicitly
[1025] instructed some of our people to go to southern
schools to secure qualified Negro teachers for the Denver
Public Schools.
Q. Were assignments and transfer matters, matters for
board determination? Or were those administrative acts?
A. Those were administrative acts.
Mr. Eis: Thank you, Mrs. Johnson.
Cross-Examination by Mr. Barnes:
Q. Mrs. Johnson, you began by telling us that you took,
when you came on the board in 1951—you toured in all the
schools in the district. Did you get any idea of the racial
composition of those schools when you were in them? A.
Yes.
Q. Were you able to learn, for example, that some schools
were predominantly minority as opposed to others? A.
Yes.
Q. And that Cole Junior High -was predominantly minor
ity? A. Yes.
Q. And that Manual High School would have been pre
dominantly minority at that time? A. Well, it was getting
that way, yes.
Q. And did you also go to Smiley and East during those
[1026] tours? A. Yes.
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Cross
923a
Q. And were yon able to determine whether or not these
were predominantly minority schools? A. Well, I’m not
sure that I did this.
Q. You didn’t go there for that purpose? A. I did not
go for this purpose, no.
Q. But you were able to look around and see whether or
not they appeared to be? A. Yes.
Q. Did they appear to be predominantly minority schools ?
Mr. E is: What year?
Mr. Barnes: 1951.
Q. This was when you first came on the board? A. Yes.
Q. I don’t know if I have the answer to the question.
A. Yes, I could tell that there were more white children
than there were black children. .
Q. Calling your attention, Mrs. Johnson, to the events
in 1955 and 1956 when the proposal for the boundary
change with Cole and for Cole, Smiley, Manual, Hill and
East, Hill, Gove and Morey were all being considered, do
you recall that there were several meetings of the school
board devoted to the consideration of those proposals?
[10273 A. I ’m sure there were.
Q. Do you recall having received invitations to attend
meetings in the community to discuss those proposals ? A.
Yes.
Q. Do you recall an invitation to attend a meeting on
January 17th, 1956, in the Y.M.C.A.? A. I went to the
one at the Y.M.C.A. I don’t remember the dates.
Q. You don’t know whether you went to that particular
meeting or not? A. I don’t know the date.
Q. I’d like to put Defendants’ Exhibit AD on the easel.
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants-—Cross
924a
The Court: What are you talking about now?
1956? January?
Mr. Barnes: Yes, Your Honor.
Q. This is in evidence, Mrs. Johnson, as a defendants’
exhibit illustrating the junior high boundaries in January
of 1956. The red line has been indicated as the line for
the changes which were made January 18th at the board
meeting, 1956, for the Hill and Gove Junior High Schools.
Do you recall those changes being made at that time? A.
This was with the opening of Hill?
Q. Bight. A. I remember the changes were made then.
[10283 Q. And that the other changes involving Cole and
Smiley and Manual and East were not made at that time?
A. Yes.
Q. And was there any time subsequent to that when Hill
and Gove boundaries were further changed in addition to
changes that are shown on that exhibit? A. The Hill and
Gove, and what else?
Q. Just the Hill and Gove. As I understand it, these
changes are the changes—or the changes indicated by the
red lines were made at the January 18th, 1956, meeting.
Do you recall any subsequent changes in those?
The Court: Why don’t you point out the change
that you want her to comment on?
Mr. Barnes: I think the answer, Your Honor,
that I want is that there were not.
The Court: Isn’t there another piece of Gove that
was given away along that time—somewhere along
the line there?
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Cross
925a
Q. I ’m thinking of the period between January and
September, 1956.
The Court: Well, you’re asking her whether there
was any change at any time!
Mr. Barnes: Yes.
The Court: In Gove and—
Mr. Barnes: Yes, perhaps that’s too broad a
[1029] question. What I wanted to point out -was
the period prior to September, 1956, and after Jan
uary of 1956.
A. Prior and following when? Following the opening of
Hill?
Q. And prior to September the following year. A. I
don’t remember that there was.
Q. During that period there were changes, were there
not, with regard to Smiley and Gove and Manual and East ?
A. I can’t remember in detail when these took place.
Q. But you don’t remember that at the time that those
changes were made they—that there were also additional
changes made to Hill and Gove boundaries? A. Well,
there were changes to Smiley.
Q. Well, Smiley, East—when the Smiley, Cole and Man
ual, East changes wTere subsequently made, you don’t recall
that there were also additional changes in the Hill and Gove
boundaries ?
The Court: You mean simultaneously?
Mr. Barnes: Yes.
The Court: I guess you can answer that, yes or no,
whether you remember or not, Mrs. Johnson.
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Cross
A. No.
926a
The Court: You don’t remember?
The Witness: I don’t remember.
The Court: You don’t remember whether there
were, E10303 is that correct?
The Witness: I don’t remember that there were.
The Court: Okay. Eeally, it’s not a memory test,
anyhow, I don’t think. I don’t know how she could be
expected to remember the details of this kind. I
mean, why don’t you ask her—point up to her spe
cifics and maybe she will remember. Don’t you think
it would be better—that would be a better way?
You can ask leading questions, you see.
£10313 Q. Well, there weren’t any changes—I think we
have that point, Your Honor, I won’t belabor that one.
The Court: All right, good.
Q. At the board meeting which you recall to have been
about in January of 1956, do you remember the presenta
tion by representatives of the minority community that were
made that evening? A. I can’t say that I remember them
by date, no.
Q. Do you remember at any board meeting when these
boundary changes, being the Cole-Smiley, Manual-East,
Hill-Gove changes, were made, when presentations were
made by members of the minority community? A. Yes.
Q. And do you remember that they discussed capacity
utilization of the schools involved? A. Yes.
Q. And discussed transportation? A. Yes.
Q. To different schools involved? A. Yes.
Q. And discussed the comparative distances to these
schools? A. Yes.
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Cross
927a
Q. And do you recall that they discussed the fact that
the transportation patterns at that time ran down 28th and
[1032] 32nd past Cole and Manual as opposed to down
toward East? A. Well, I knew this because I live in the
area. I am not sure whether I remember that discussion or
not.
Q. ,But you knew that the transportation was direct to
Cole and Manual? A. Yes.
Q. From your residence in that area, did you have knowl
edge of the general racial characteristics of the residential
area surrounding Manual High School? A. Yes.
Q. And did you have some idea that that area was pre
dominantly Negro? A. Yes.
Q. And did you have some idea that the area above City
Park was either in transition or predominantly Anglo ? A.
Yes.
Q. Mrs. Johnson, you testified about the neighborhood
school policy. What is your concept of neighborhood? A.
Well, I have always had the feeling that a child learned
a great deal by being able to walk to school.
Q. And your concept is that the neighborhood school pol
icy requires a district within which a child can walk? A.
This would be my idea, yes.
Q. Does the Gove boundary line which you see indicated
there comport to that idea of the neighborhood school
policy? [10333 A. Well, now, you are talking now not
about an elementary child but a junior high school child,
who is a little more adult.
Q. That’s correct, A. And can probably go longer dis
tances.
Q. Is it your idea that the neighborhood school policy
does not apply then to junior high schools? A. No—
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Cross
928a
Q. Or that it is just modified? A. I think this is a modi
fication. A child is growing to learn a larger area.
Q. There is, is there not, considerable distance from this
end of the Gove district to— A. Yes.
Q. —to that school? A. Yes.
Q. What about the consistency between the neighborhood
school policy and the boundary line for Cole and Smiley
which is indicated on Exhibit AD? Cole appears to be four
blocks from its boundaries and Smiley more than forty.
Does that comport to your concept of a neighborhood school
policy?
Mr. Bis: Just a minute, I think that’s a misstate
ment, because he is putting all of the optional area
there into Smiley, and so it is not a fair statement
of what the map shows.
E1034] The Court: Well, I can’t tell from here.
Are you including in this forty-block question the
optional area?
Q. Perhaps I could restate it. A child who lived within
four blocks of Cole could attend Smiley Junior High School
under the conditions that are portrayed on that map, could
he not? A. Yes.
Q. So that a district neighborhood school policy based on
distance is not necessarily in operation there, is it? A.
Well, this is part of your open policy of allowing the child
to make the choice, or the parents to make that choice.
Q. You testified that you heard several voices at the
series of board meetings in early 1956 from several por
tions of the community and that you were unable to deter
mine, I think, unable to determine what was the majority
voice? A. Yes.
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Cross
929,a
Q. Is that an accurate statement! A. This is true.
Q. Were you making an attempt to discover what the
majority voice was ? Would you have followed it if you had
been able to determine! A. I think we were making a
very definite attempt to discover a voice. \
Q. A majority voice? £1035] A. A majority voice.
Q. And might have been governed by what you considered
to be a majority opinion! A. Well, it would certainly have
helped and would have been one of the things that would
have helped in making a decision.
Q. Handing you, Mrs. Johnson, what has been identified
as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 416, have you seen that document or
a similar document before? A. Many like this. I am sure
I have probably seen this.
Q. Can you state what it purports to show? A. Well, it
shows the present capacity of the various junior high
schools and the anticipated one within a period of time.
Q. And it is dated April 19, 1955? A. 1955, yes.
Q. When you were on the board? A. Yes.
Mr. Barnes: Exhibit 416 has been stipulated as
to its authenticity by the defendants, and we offer
it into evidence.
The Court: Any objection to 416?
Mr. Ris: I would like to take a look at it again.
Thank you.
[1036] The Court: This is a junior high projec
tion?
Mr. Barnes: Both junior and senior high schools,
Your Honor.
Mr. R is: No objection.
Mr. Brega: No objection.
The Court: 416 is in evidence.
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Cross
930a
(Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 416 was admitted into
evidence.)
Q. Turning your attention to 416, can you identify for
the junior high schools as of that date what the stated
capacity of Cole Junior High School was? A. 1908.
Q. And can you state what its projected capacity or what
its enrollment was at that time? A. 1401.
Q. So it was under caapcity at that time? A. Yes.
Q. What does it show there to be the projected capacity
for Cole Junior High by 1960? A. By 1960, it will be
up to 1920.
The Court: What is the date of this projection?
Mr. Barnes: April ’55, Your Honor.
Q. So it would have been just at capacity by 1960? A.
Yes.
Q. What is the capacity stated for Smiley Junior High
[1037] School in 1955? A. Smiley, 1446.
Q. And its enrollment? A. And its enrollment was 1555.
Q. So it was over capacity? A. Yes.
Q. What was its projected capacity by 1960? A. 2,354.
Q. So, it was projected to be expected to be considerably
over capacity by 1960? A. Yes.
Q. Now, in your consideration of the boundary changes
that were made between Cole and Smiley in 1956, would
you not have been able to alleviate that overcrowding which
is projected there in Smiley by moving the Cole boundary
farther over to the east? A. Well, there were many con
siderations to be thought about. This was one of them.
Q. But on a strict capacity basis, it would have made
sense, would it not, in accordance with those projections to
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Cross
931a
include more students in Cole? A. Decisions weren’t made
that way, on one strict basis.
Q. I understand that, and I am not trying to force you
to say that they were; but on that criteria alone— [10383
A. This is right.
Q. -—we could have moved the boundary farther to the
east? A. This is right.
Q. Turning your attention to the second page of the
exhibit, which shows high school projections, can you state
what the Manual High School capacity is in 1955? A.
1600.
Q. And its enrollment? A. 994.
Q. So, it is considerably under capacity? A. Yes.
Q. And what is the projected capacity by 1960? A. 1615.
Q. So, it would have reached just about capacity by that
time? A. Yes.
Q. What is the capacity for East which is indicated there?
A. 2462, with a membership of 2468.
Q. So it is already at capacity? A. Yes.
Q. In 1955. What is the projected capacity for 1960?
A. 4,257.
Q. Or considerably above what its capacity is? [10391
A. A great deal.
Q. Would it not have made sense then to move the East
boundary as well farther to the east to that more of those
students could have been taken into Manual High School?
A. Well, again, if this is the lone consideration, yes.
Q. You stated, Mrs. Johnson, that one of your considera
tions was to take advantage of available classroom space,
did you not? A. Yes.
Q. And there was available classroom space at both Cole
and Manual, was there not? A. Yes.
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Cross
932a
Q. And by those projections it would not have been taken
advantage of until 1960, would it? A. According to this,
no.
Q. Was there any reason to not take advantage of it in
1956? A. Yes.
Q. What was that reason? A. We were trying to make
projections for the total city. We were trying to keep the
children in the same schools for the period in which they
should attend that school, and your projections do change
within that period of time. You have to consider getting
to the schools.
[1040] Q. You testified, did you not, that the transporta
tion which you knew about went directly to Cole and Man
ual? A. Yes.
Q. So, that considering both transportation and capacity
utilization, there were some good reasons for expanding
the boundaries of Manual and Cole, were there not? A.
Yes.
Q. Now, over the years during the time you were on the
board, were there a great many elementary school changes?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. Elementary school boundary changes, excuse me. A.
Well, yes, particularly in the southwest and southeast
areas.
Q. This is just a small point, but are they all reflected in
the school board meeting minutes, to your knowledge ? A.
Yes.
Q. All of the boundary changes that were made ? A. Yes.
Q. Considering the construction of Barrett, Mrs. John
son, is this another example where it was difficult to obtain
a consensus of the community? A. Yes.
Q. And would you have followed a consensus, had you
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Cross
933a
been able to find it? [1041] A. As one member of the
board, I cannot answer it.
Q. Would you have personally been guided by what you
thought was the consensus? A. I certainly would have
been guided.
Q. You mentioned a point about finances and the difficulty
of obtaining money to build sufficient classroom space.
Would it not have been unnecessary to build classroom
space if the spaces at Cole and Manual had been fully
utilized? A. No, not on a city-wide projection.
Q. W'ell, you had some 500 spaces in Manual, did you
not, that were empty? A. Yes.
Q. And you had somewhere between two and three
hundred spaces at Cole that were empty? A. Yes.
Q. So, it would have made financial sense to use those
spaces, would it not? A. Not necessarily. Again, you are
having to consider some other factors. You have to con
sider where the growth of your community was largely
coming, and it would mean transporting children great
distances, and at that time we did not believe in transport
ing children so far if anything else could be done, and we
had never transported high school children.
[1042] Q. Was it more expensive to transport children
than to build new schools? A. Well, it would be a tempo
rary thing, I should think, because those communities were
continuing to grow.
Q. Mrs. Johnson, a number of other schools were built
during the 1950’s in addition to Barrett in 1960 with differ
ent capacities than Barrett, were they not? A. Yes.
Q. For example, Bradley was built in 1955 with 960 stu
dents, was it not? A. Yes.
Q. And Coswell in ’54 for 510 students? A. Yes.
Q. I ’m sure you don’t remember these exactly. A. No.
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—-Cross
934a
Q. But they may sound about right to you. A. About
right.
Q. And Doull with 950 students and Force in 1956 to hold
915 students? You have to answer so it goes on the record,
Mrs. Johnson. A. Oh, yes.
Q. Thank you. And Greenlee in 1952 with 915 students?
A. This sounds right.
Q. And Knapp in 1956 with 780 students? A. Yes.
[10432 Q. So that Barrett wasn’t necessarily built for
only 450 students, was it? A. Would you—
Q. It wasn’t necessary, based on any precedent in ele
mentary school building, to build Barrett small, was it? A.
No.
Q. Now, Colorado Boulevard, which was adjacent to the
playground at Barrett, is not an interstate freeway, is it?
A. Well, it is an awfully busy street. It is a six-lane high
way.
The Court: We will take notice that it is not a
limited access expressway.
Q. All right, I have put on the easel what is identified
in evidence as Defendants’ Exhibit BF, which represents
elementary school boundaries—
Mr. Creighton: 1964.
Q. (Continued) 1964, thank you. Do you recall, Mrs.
Johnson, whether when Barrett was built the Teller and
Steck districts which are represented on that map had the
same boundaries? A. I can’t answer that.
Q. Do you recall whether Colorado Boulevard to the
south of Barrett down in this area, what are the Teller and
Steck districts, was more or less busy? A. Colorado Boule
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Cross
9 3 5 a
vard south of Barrett—east of [1044] Barrett—Colorado
Boulevard—-was very busy.
Q. It was busy all the way down from north to south, was
it not? A. Yes.
Q. It wasn’t a constriction or an increase in traffic that
was particularly noticeable near Barrett, was there? A.
On Colorado Boulevard?
Q. Yes. A. Well, this was part of the new six-lane high
way.
Q. But it comes all the way down past Teller and Steck
schools, does it not? A. Well, they were not built at this
time.
Q. Teller and Speck were not built? A. They had been
built for some time before this was a six-lane highway.
Q. But their boundaries were not adjusted in order to
overcome the difficulties of that busy street? A. Again,
there are limitations with finances that have to be consid
ered, too.
Q. And your consideration as a board member of ways
to avoid traffic hazards—let me restate the question. As a
board member, you were forced to consider ways to avoid
traffic hazards all over the city, were you not? A. Yes.
Q. And some of the things you considered were stop
[1045] lights? A. Yes.
Q. And fences? A. Yes.
Q. And overpasses? A. Well, not at that time.
Q. That hadn’t yet been conceived? A. No.
Q. And special zoning, speed zoning? A. This came
sometime in this period, I am not sure when.
Q. And all of these might be used to avoid the special
hazards of a busy highway that goes through an elementary
school district? A. And were.
Q. And were? A. And were.
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Cross
936a
Q. And could have been used at Barrett, couldn’t they?
A. Yes.
Q. Turning’ your attention to the construction of the
new junior high school at 32nd and Josephine that was pro
posed in 1962 and the decision by the board not to build
that junior high school, was this again in deference to what
was supposed to be the majority view? [1046] A. Well,
we were considering this as one of the factors.
Q. Was it a major factor? A. It was one of the major
factors. However, also, you have to consider the city line
there and the fact that a trunk line of business, a business
area, was also developing very rapidly.
Q. That 32nd and Josephine Street site had been owned
by the school district for the whole time you were on the
board, had it not? A. Yes.
Q. And it was there in 1953 when the new Manual was
built, was it not? A. Yes.
Q. Was there any reason why the new Manual was not
put out there on that site? A. Well, the new Manual was
conceived before I was on the board. I can’t answer that.
[1047] Q. If the new Manual had been put there in 1953
when you were on the board, would it have been an inte
grated school? A. I can’t answer that.
Q. Well, you were familiar with the racial composition of
that neighborhood, were you not? A. This is true.
Q. It was predominantly white ? A. Well,—I can’t an
swer that. You were feeding from two areas.
Q. One area— A. If you were replacing the old Manual,
you would be bringing two together and I couldn’t answer
it.
Q. There would have been a greater degree of integra
tion if you had had the boundaries for the new Manual some
where out here in Park Hill as opposed to down High and
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Cross
937a
Williams Street? A. We were not building with integra
tion as our idea, of course.
Q. In the case of a proposed Stedman boundary change,
in 1962, were you aware that at that time in 1961 prior to
those proposals that Stedman was overcrowded? A. Yes.
Q. How were you aware of that fact? A. Well, we had
studies.
Q. You had studies done? [10481 A. We had studies.
Here you have shown me studies.
Q. Studies like the one in 406 that applied to elementary
schools? A. Didn’t you say Stedman? Oh, I beg your
pardon. I’m thinking of Smiley.
Would you rephrase your question?
Q. Were you aware that—and I was going to say Smiley
—Were you aware that Stedman was overcrowded in
1961? A. Yes, I ’m sure we had studies made at that time,
too.
Q. And you lived at 1955 Glencoe at that time? A. No,
I lived at 2212 Ash Street.
Q. 2212. So yoxx were in the Stedman district yourself?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you aware of the changing racial composition
of the Stedman area? A. Well, as I was in the school,
I’m sure I was.
Q. And was the changing racial composition one of the
reasons that you knew that Stedman was overcrowded?
A. Yes. I knew that people were moving in, if that’s what
you mean. There were no studies made showing whether
they were black or white.
Q. Did you at that time have occasion to go into Stedman
School yourself? [10493 A. Yes.
Q. And did you go into Hallett School yourself? A.
Yes.
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Cross
938a
Q. And Smith? A. Yes.
Q. Were you aware that Stedman was the most Negro
school of the three? A. Probably.
Q. N owt, you have testified concerning the Morey-Byers
boundary change that was acted upon in April of 1962 that
you were aware of the changing characteristics of Morey
because of the changing apartment composition of the area?
A. Yes.
Q. Turning your attention again to Exhibit AD, Defen
dants’ Exhibit AD, which is a junior high school map for
January, 1955, do you recall if there is any difference in
this optional area between 6th and Speer Boulevard which
existed in 1955 and the way it existed in 1962? A. I can’t
recall.
Q. Do you recall whether or do you know whether that
area between 6th and Speer was an area of changing apart
ment dwellings? A. No, I can’t answer that.
Q. You do know that that is the Country Club district,
isn’t it? [1050] A. I expect it is.
Q. And that’s not a district of apartment houses, is it?
A. No.
Q. That is a district of fairly stable families, isn’t it?
A. Yes.
Q. That isn’t the area which—to which we would attrib
ute the changing composition? A. No.
Q. In fact, we’re talking about the area that’s north of
Morey, aren’t we, when we’re talking about the changing
of apartment areas, north and west? A. And east. Yes,
it was changing east, too.
Q. Do you have any idea of what kinds of people racially
were moving into those areas? A. No.
Q. Did you have any idea at the time? A. No.
Q. But you were aware that the character of Morey was
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—-Cross
939a
changing. What did you mean by that ! A, Well, I simply
knew that there were less children because there were more
apartment houses where children were not living.
Q. There were fewer children! [1051] A. There were
fewer children.
Q. Turning your attention to the recruiting for Negro
faculty members, when did the—you testified that the board
began to become aware of this need. When did that aware
ness begin! A. I can’t give you a date.
Q. Were you aware of the need in 1951! A. No.
Q. 1952! A. I can’t give you a date.
Q. Was it fairly late, like, about 1960 or 1962! A. No,
it was considerably before then.
Q. Do you have any idea what the names of the southern
schools were which were referred to? A. No.
Q. Do you have any idea what kinds of contracts teachers
coming from those schools were given? A. Well, they were
given the same kind of contract another teacher would be
given. We didn’t have different kinds of contracts. Did
you mean—
We had some teachers who were—
Q. Were you aware of the fact that for several years
teachers coming out of what might have been considered
untested schools were given substitute teacher contracts?
A. We always were looking for qualified teachers and
[1052] I ’m sure that these would be the ones who would
be given contracts. If there were others who we felt might
qualify and yet we had not this real assurance, this may
have happened. I wouldn’t be able to say yes or no to that.
Q. Were you aware of the need to assign minority teach
ers in other than minority schools? A. At a certain time
we very definitely tried to place teachers in all schools.
Q. There was a period prior to that time when minority
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Cross
940a
teachers were assigned primarily to minority schools,
wasn’t there! A. I can’t say that to my knowledge.
Q. But you did become aware of a time when it had to
be turned around to make a conscious effort to get them
out of minority schools! A. We were making a very much
more conscious effort to get teachers of all kinds in all
schools.
Q. I’m going to turn your attention back to 1955-1956
boundary changes again, Mrs. Johnson.
We talked about capacity utilization. Do you recall how
the conflicts between the figures I have given you and the
purpose to maximize utilization capacity was resolved! A.
Well, many factors were considered. I can’t in each instance
tell you how each one was resolved. I don’t [1053] remem
ber that, no.
Q. What other factors might there have been other than
distance, transportation and utilization of capacity! A.
Well, for instance, in areas where we had special education
—this would take up a certain amount of room even though
your pupil ratio was down for that school. As for instance
at Morey we had at one time practically all of our special
education for a certain age children located there. Now,
this looked as though Morey was considerably underoccu
pied. And yet, actually, it was not so.
Q. The capacity utilization figures which you have take
into account special education classes, do they not! A.
Yes.
Q. So they accurately indicate the number of empty
spaces in those schools? A. No, because there might be
five children in a classroom and in another class there might
be thirty. This would make it look as though you were not
using rooms that were actually being used.
Q. Is it your testimony that space for 500 students ap
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Cross
941a
proximately at Manual did not in fact exist because the
special education classes in that number took up all that
space? A. I don’t say all that space. I say this accounts
for the difference.
£1054] Q. It could account for the difference? A. It
could account for the difference.
Q. Do you know that special education classes were held
at Manual at that time? A. Yes.
Q. I)o you know how many were held? A. No.
Q. Do you know how many were held at Cole? A. No.
Q. Well, how many children are there typically in a
special education class? A. I don’t know what the figure
is today. At one time we said two percent.
Q. I ’m sorry. Maybe I misphrased the question. It’s
about half the number in a regular classroom? About 15,
isn’t it? A. Not always.
Q. But it’s typically 15 children per special education
class? A. It may be a smaller size.
Q. Is it your testimony that all of the extra spaces that
were pointed out to exist at Cole and Manual were in fact
nonexistent because of special education? A. I don’t be
lieve I said that.
Q. Well, what percent of the available space that £1055]
was in those schools was taken up by special education?
A. I can’t give you those figures.
Q. Some of it? A. Some of it, right.
Q. How do you resolve the conflict between the stated
criteria for distance and the fact that all of the area above
29th Avenue is closer to Manual that it is to East? Wasn’t
distance one of your criteria for choice? A. Yes. It was
one of the projections.
Q. How did you resolve that conflict? A. I wish I could
remember all of the things that went into each of those
resolutions. I can’t.
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Cross
942a
Q. Are there any large natural obstacles in that area?
A. No.
Q. No train tracks, are there? A. No.
Q. Only the City Park? A. Yes. That would be a na
tural—
Q. No big gullies or— A. No.
Q. -—or things like that? A. No.
Q. No superhighways? A. No.
[10563 Q. How do you resolve the conflict between your
stated criteria of public transportation and the actual
fact that more public transportation went to Cole and
Manual than it did to Smiley and East? A. I can’t tell you.
It was carefully considered but I can’t tell you how this was
done. I have forgotten.
Q. Turning your attention to Morey and Byers in 1962,
do you recall that Morey was about 75 percent of capacity
before the boundary change in 1962? A. It was low.
Q. And that it was about 76 percent the year after the
change? A. I don’t know those figures.
Q. If that had been the case, would that have been—
That’s not a helpful question.
How do you resolve the question of distance in 1962?
Isn’t it farther from those areas above 6th Avenue and
8th Avenue which were actually included in the boundary
change to Byers than it is to Morey? A. Distance is not
the only factor. This is only one.
Q. Well, assume with me, if you will that the school was
underutilized in both years and went from. 75 percent to
76 percent capacity utilization before and after the change
and that it was farther from this area which was included
in the change between 6th and 8th to Byers than it was
to [1057] Morey? What other rationalization for the change
might have been used? A. I can’t answer that.
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Cross
943a
The Court: At these public hearings, were there
speeches made and arguments made to the effect
that this did have a segregating effect to change
the boundaries in this manner!
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: Were these arguments made when the
Barrett School was—
The Witness: Yes, and then there were refuting
statements, too, by people in the community.
The Court: I was going to suggest that maybe at
this time there was less consciousness on the board
members as to the problems. I rather got that con
clusion from what you said. That you didn’t—You
testified repeatedly that you never made a decision
that resulted in segregation.
The Witness: This is true.
The Court: Was it a fact that this matter was not
really considered in depth in those days!
The Witness: Well, up until the time of the Brown
case, it wasn’t considered at all. And for some time
after that, we felt that we had—that we really didn’t
have this problem in our community. And it wasn’t
until shortly before Miss Biddick was appointed and
the Voorhees Commission was [1058] established
that we had a feeling that the school board had cer
tain responsibilities.
The Court: So the first time you had some aware
ness of it was when it was pointed out that the
quality of education was really perhaps inferior—
The Witness: It might be affected—
The Court: —in these minority schools?
The Witness: It might be affected, and we felt it
was time for us to study this.
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Cross
944a
The Court: This is what impressed the school
board members more than anything else?
The Witness: That’s right.
# # * # #
[1061] * * *
Cross-Examination by Mr. Barnes (Continued):
Q. Mrs. Johnson, turning our attention back again to
the 1956 boundary change I think you testified yesterday
that you recall petitions presented by representatives of
the minority community, Mr. Lorenzo Traylor or Mr.
Lajean Clark or Mr. George Brown, is that correct? A. I
remember petitions being presented. I don’t remember who
presented them nor at which time.
Q. But they were in relationship to those proposed
changes, were they not? A. I think so. They presented
many petitions at various times and I think there were
some at that time.
Q. Bo you recall also petitions from white parents? A.
Yes.
Q. And were you the recipient of telephone calls and
other requests from white parents about those boundary
changes? A. Yes.
Q. And so in your attempt to achieve some idea of the
consensus of the community, you were considering the
wishes of the white parents, as well as minority parents, is
that correct? A. This is correct.
[1062] Q. And were you able to— Bid the calls Avhich
you received from white parents seem to you to reflect the
majority opinion? A. No. No, we had many kinds of
calls from many kinds of people, but there was more of a
consensus. I think. And this is natural.
Lois Heath Johnson—for Plaintiffs—Cross
9 4 5 a
Q. There was more of a consensus in favor of the changes
which were actually made than in favor of something else?
A. I can’t say that.
Q, What do you mean, there was more of a consensus?
A. Well, more—I think more of the white community was
in agreement that appeared to be in agreement in the black
community.
Q. Now, there were some proposals in 1956 that black
teachers would be assigned outside of the predominantly
minority schools. Do you remember those proposals by
Dr. Oberholtzer? A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember some protests or concern being
raised by the Park Hill Improvement Association about
those proposals? A. Yes.
Q. Did they come to board meetings and express those
concerns ? 11063] A. I don’t remember that.
Q. The Park Hill Improvement Association at that time
would have been an association representing a predomi
nantly white neighborhood, would it not? A. At that time
I imagine this was true.
Q. In 1956 and in 1957 ? A. I imagine so.
Q. So that there was a substantial expression of white
concern about the placement of black teachers in white
schools in those years, was there not? A. I don’t remem
ber that.
Q. I thought you said you— A. I remember that they
came and—I don’t remember that there was concern about
placing Negro teachers in the schools.
Q. Wasn’t there some concern by the white community
that certain areas of town would be marked out as poten
tial areas for black expansion? Didn’t you ever have that
feeling? A. Yes.
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Cross
946a
Q. And “yes,” people expressed those concerns to you
in phone calls and letters and by petitions! A. Letters
primarily.
Q. So you were aware of the fears in the white commun
ity as well as those in the black community, weren’t you!
A. Yes.
[1064] Q. And you were aware that all of this had
something to do with race, weren’t you? A. Yes.
Q. And at the time that the Barrett proposals were made
in 1959 and 1960 did you receive again petitions and phone
calls and letters from white parents who were concerned?
A. I don’t remember that.
[1065] Q. So perhaps you did not receive— A. Perhaps
I did. I really don’t remember. We were constantly having
letters and communications throughout the twelve years
I was on the board from parents.
Q. Do you remember any expression of opinion by pre
dominantly white neighborhoods about the Barrett bound
ary line, expressing the hope that it would be moved east
of Colorado Boulevard? A. There was some discussion of
this.
Q. There was discussion of it, but were there requests
for it by representatives of the white community? A. I
don’t remember that there were.
Q. And there were requests for it by representatives of
the black community, weren’t there? A. There were.
Q. And in 1962 when the proposed plans for the new
junior high school at 32nd and Josephine was considered,
were there protests at that time from the white community?
A. There were protests from many people, both by black
and white.
Lois Heath Johnson-—for Defendants—Cross
947a
Q. And there were a lot more witnesses joining in at
that time, were there not, than there had been previously!
A. I can’t say.
Q. This was a time of increasing general public concern?
[10663 A. This is true.
Q. And there were even representatives on the board,
white representatives on the board, who began to express
some concern about the race problem, isn’t that true? A.
We were all concerned with the race problem by this time.
Q. Was this a new concern? A. It was a growing thing.
Q. Now, in 1962, the proposed construction at 32nd and
Josephine was not carried through. What were the criteria
or the factors that were different in your consideration then
than in the consideration of the building of Barrett in 1959 ?
A. As I told you yesterday, the very numbers of children,
with the pressure that made it imperative for us to build a
new elementary school, and we built it where Barrett was
located because the children were there. This was nothing
that we had to look into the future to see. They were there
and they had to be placed someplace.
Q. Well, that same problem existed for the junior high
school? A. This is true, but by this time that area had
become—by the time the junior high school was really being
discussed, the area had become predominantly black. There
was a greater awareness throughout the total country of
whether or not you should build a school that was com
pletely [1067] black, and the community was being listened
to, and we felt that it would not be an acceptable thing in
the community.
Q. Isn’t it true that by 1962 representatives of the ma
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Cross
948a
jority community, the white community, had begun to join
in the concern in a major way? A. Yes.
Q. And that’s what made the difference between ’62 and
’59? A. I think this is a total awareness of the total com
munity that had grown.
Q. There were not large community movements in favor
of the minority position in 1956, were there? A. Large?
Q. That is, that took in the white community and in
which the white community participated? A. I imagine
this is true.
Q. It is true that there were not? A. That there were
not.
Q. Now, in 1961, turning your attention to the Morey
case, do you recall a shooting incident there at Morey, in
which a youngster was killed? A. Vaguely.
Q. Do you recall again an expression of white concern
and protest about that incident? A. Vaguely.
[1068] Q. This was part of the background, this ex
pression of concern was part of the background, that under
lay your considerations in the Morey change, was it not?
A. I doubt if this was part of the decision making.
Q. Well, throughout this period you had presented to
you on each of the occasions I have raised positions on
both sides of the fence, hadn’t you? A. Yes.
Q. And those positions couldn’t help but make you aware
of race as a factor ? A. This is true.
Q. So, although you may not have been intentially segre
gating on the basis of race, you were certainly not ignorant
of the fact that there was race concern in these days ? A.
This is true.
Q. Now, in 1956 I think you testified that you were aware
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Cross
949a
that the population migration had been moving east across
York and across the top of Colorado or across the top of
City Park toward Park Hill, is that correct? A. Yes.
Q. That you were aware of that? A. Yes.
Q. And were you aware that the migration was not mov
ing to the south from the Manual area? [10693 A. I—no,
I think I was aware that it was moving our direction. More
people were coming.
Q. Did you live on the 220 block on Ash at that time?
A. Yes.
Q. And when you went downtown, you probably went
down 23rd Street, didn’t you? A. Probably.
Q. That’s the major route to get into downtown from
that part of town? A. Yes.
Q. And sometimes you would come home out 17th Street?
A. Yes.
Q. You could tell just by looking down the street, 17th
Street was predominantly white apartment buildings?
The Court: 17th Avenue, you mean.
A. Seventeenth Avenue.
Q. Seventeenth Avenue, right, that Seventeenth was pre
dominantly white apartment buildings and 23rd was pre
dominantly black? A. Yes.
Q. So, you knew the area around 17th Avenue was a
white area? A. Well, it was a changing area, too. It
really was. Those large homes just below York Street were
being sold—-
Q. We are talking about 1955-56. [1070] A. Yes.
Q. Was that area predominantly black? A. I don’t know
this.
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Cross
950a
Q. But you could tell the area along 23rd was predomi
nantly black, couldn’t you? A. Yes, and I knew the other
area was changing.
Q. You have mentioned that you do not recall that there
were capacity utilization justifications, with the exception
of the special education element that you mentioned or
that there were transportation justifications or that there
were distance justifications for these 1956 changes, and that
you were aware of the racial movement to the east and
aware that it was to some extent less emphatic to the south.
What possible reason could there have been for moving
the boundary only to the east and not to the south? A. I
was thinking about this last night, and the projections
which you showed me yesterday probably did not include
the fact that we were going to build onto Smiley Junior
High, did they?
[1071] Q. The projections did not show the building
proposed in the late ’50s. A. Yes.
Q. No, I don’t—I won’t testify to what they showed
back— A. Pardon me. Well, this would have been a
factor in our consideration too.
Q. Is it your testimony then that this building was
projected even though it is not shown on the projections?
A. Well, I don’t know what was projected, but we knew
it was going to have to be done.
Q. It was going to have to be done even though there
was empty space in Cole? A. Well, with the growth in
the community in that area, we were not going to have any
empty spaces eventually. Our plans were not for today
and tomorrow. They were for five and six years hence.
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Cross
951a
Mr. Barnes: That’s all I have.
Cross-Examination by Mr. Brega:
* * * * * *
[10773 * * *
Q. Now, in regard to the boundary changes in 1962 at
Cole and Morey and Byers, yon publicized your plans
to make those boundary changes well in advance, too, did
you not? A. Yes.
The Court: What year are you talking about!
Mr. Brega: 1962, Your Honor, at Cole, Morey
and Byers.
[10783 Q. And you did that so that the community could
come in and express their opinion to you! A. This was
always done.
Q. As a matter of fact, the board had no legal obliga
tion to consider the opinion of the community if it didn’t
want to, did it? A. It wouldn’t have been a very wise
board if they had not.
Q. But it was your job to establish the boundaries, was
it not? A. The decision had been made by us.
Q. But you wanted the community to be involved in it?
A. This is right.
Q. Now, at the same time that this boundary change
was being proposed in 1962, there were 17 other boundary
changes being proposed for the junior highs in Denver,
according to Exhibit 405, which is now in evidence. Now,
were you people concerned about those other boundary
changes too? A. Once you change the boundary of any
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Cross
952a
one school, it is affecting all the schools, and so we had
a concern about all of these changes.
Q. So there were probably people who were in and
communicated with yon people about those changes too?
A. Probably, but probably not in as large numbers.
Q. That’s right, because it wasn’t as large an area
[10791 of change. A. That’s right.
Q. But the school board—their attention wasn’t centered
only on one little area in Denver, was it? A. No, we con
sidered it all.
* * * * *
[1080] Q. And so all of these seventeen changes were
considered and you were receiving letters and calls from
people about all of them? A. This is true.
Q. About their concern of whether it should or shouldn’t
be done? A. This is true.
Q. Now, as you were developing this area in the north
east, Denver was experiencing a substantial annexation
during these years? A. Yes.
Q. That you were on the Board, weren’t they? A. Yes.
Q. Did you have anything to say or approval for the
annexations that were made? A. Now, how do you mean
this?
Q. Well, when Denver annexed anything, did the Board
have the right to say, “No, you can’t do it”? A. No.
Q. And when it was annexed, you had the job of putting
those children in school? A. Immediately.
Q. As a matter of fact, many of those annexations were
taken to court to be contested? A. This is right.
[1081] Q. And yet during this period of time you still
had to provide an education? A. That’s right.
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Cross
953a
Q. And Denver was paying the cost, was it not? A.
That’s right.
Q. And some of the annexed areas were later deannexed
by court order? A. That’s right.
Q. And then you had to adjust the school back again?
A. Yes.
Q. And you didn’t have any advance notice really of what
the City was going to do next as far as annexation? They
didn’t tell you a year in advance or two years in advance
in where they were thinking about going? A. No, but the
City was always very cooperative.
Q. Except, they did it— A. It was done.
Q. And over your objection on some occasions? A. I
don’t remember our objecting.
Q. So the School Board during this period of time was
concerned not only about northeast Denver, but with the
annexations in southwest Denver, and the school popula
tion there far exceeded the capacity in some of your years?
A. This is right.
Q. And you were trying to build new schools out there
[1082] at the same time you were building them at Barrett
and in the east? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And in southeast Denver, you had the same problems
going on at the same time? A. This is right. These were
the two areas of greatest growth.
Q. And did you have parents communicating and con
tacting with you about the facilities in the southwest and
southeast parts? A. Constantly.
Q. The same as you were having in the northeast part?
A. Yes.
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Cross
954a
The Court: Why don’t you disagree with him,
just for a change!
The Witness: He is so right.
Q. What I am trying to show here is that the School
Board wasn’t just sitting on a little area of Denver and
that was the only problem that you had during this period
of time. You had finances, you had annexation, and you had
capacity growing by leaps and bounds in the schools! A.
Yes.
Q. And the projections, some of which you had had
shown not to be right because the school population was
increasing more than the projection showed! [1083] A.
More rapidly, that’s right.
Q. Now, when we talk about the teacher situation, as I
understand it, the Board of Education approved the ap
pointment of a teacher! A. Yes.
Q. And in April I believe you generally approved the
teachers contracting for the next year; is that right! April
or May! A. Yes.
Q. As a matter of fact, when this would come in there
would be a list of maybe five or six or seven hundred
teachers that were presented to the Board at a meeting,
would there not! A. There would be.
Q. It said the name and maybe the address, but it doesn’t
say anything about race or ethnic background, does it! A.
No.
Q. And the Board didn’t know whether you were approv
ing a white or a black teacher or some other kind! A. No.
Q. At the time that you had resignations, they were al
ways submitted to the Board, were they not! A. Yes.
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Cross
955a
Q. And yon had a substantial turnover in teachers, did
you not! [10843 A. Yes.
Q. And these teachers that were submitted, you didn’t
know what their race was, as far as their leaving the school!
A. No.
Q. Or where they had been, really! A. No.
Q. And the teacher problem was a substantial problem,
was it not? A. Very grave, all over the country.
Q. You were trying to serve the increased capacity, and
at the same time there were not a sufficient number of
teachers available for you to—that would stay long enough
for them to be permanent! A. Qualified teachers.
Q. Now, did the Board itself have anything to do with
the assignment of the teachers throughout the school sys
tem? A. No.
Mr. Brega: No further questions, Your Honor.
Redirect Examination by Mr. Ris:
Q. Mrs. Johnson, I would like to ask you if there was
one other factor that entered into boundary changes from
time to time that we haven’t previously discussed, and that
involved the frequency of such changes. A. Well, you
don’t want to change your boundaries every [1085] year,
because this is disruptive to the children, so we tried to
make our projections for not less than five or six years in
advance.
Q. So that no child would be displaced. A. So that a
child would not be displaced.
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Redirect
Mr. Ris: Thank you, that’s all.
956a
Recross-Examination by Mr. Barnes-.
Q. Mrs. Johnson, I think yon said when yon were plan
ning for the construction of Barrett, you were thinking
of taking care of the children who needed help now, is
that correct? A. Yes.
Q. And when you were planning for the 56 boundary
changes, you were thinking of children who would need
help in the future, is that right? A. I think we had a
little more time to plan.
Q. You always had both of these considerations in mind?
A. That’s right.
Q. It wasn’t an either/or thing! A. That’s right.
Q. The way you balanced these things is in part an
attempt to satisfy a majority opinion? A. No, this was
not the case.
Q. You solicited a consensus in the community on each
occasion? [1086] A. This is true. This was an oppor
tunity for communication between the Board and the
community as well.
Q. But you were trying to get community expression
on each one of these changes? A. That’s right.
Q. Sometimes with regard to present changes and some
times with regard to future changes! A. This is right.
Q. Did you ever make a decision which you thought
was counter to the majority opinion? A. I can’t answer
that question.
Q. You don’t recall ever making such a decision? A. I
don’t recall doing this.
Q. And the majority opinion was white, was it not?
A. If it were stated.
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Recross
9 5 7 a
Q. Did you have occasion in 1956 to verify or cheek
or look into the proposals by Mr, Traylor and the investi
gation and facts that he suggested to you about capacity
and distance and other things? A. Yes, we spent a great
deal of time.
Q. Did you find those facts to he wrong! A. No.
Q. Did other people present— A. Not always.
Q. Excuse me, I didn’t mean to interrupt you. [10871
A. Even when people came in and talked to us, they
didn’t necessarily have the answer to the problem any
more than we did, and they didn’t present answers to the
problems many times.
Q. Well, in this case, they did suggest changing the
boundaries farther to the east, did they not? A. Some
suggestions were made.
Q. They suggested a solution which would have resulted
in the integration of both Cole and Manual? A. They
suggested this be attempted.
Q. They had facts to support their suggestions? A.
They had statements to this effect, yes.
Q. Were there representatives of the white community
with the same kind of long, detailed factual statements?
A. Oh, yes, yes.
Q. What did they show? A. Well, these were the things
that we had to weigh. They were not—they were some
times in conflict and sometimes not.
Q. And you eventually decided in favor of those deci
sions which— A. We eventually reached a decision on
our own.
Q. Talking about the annexations around the city and
the other constructions and notices and phone calls and
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Recross
9 5 8 a
letters you received from parents in those cases, in how
many of [10883 those cases was race a question? A. Very
seldom.
Q. You were notified of people’s racial concerns in 1956,
weren’t you! A. Yes.
Q. And in 1959? A. Yes.
Q. And in 1962? A. Yes.
Q. But you were not notified of racial concern in the
annexation of the southwest Denver area? A. No.
Q. So, really, the only time you were aware and had
to consider the very sensitive problem of race was in the
situation we have been talking about? A. Yes.
Q. And you were not ignorant of the difficulties con
nected with this problem? A. No, by this time we were
aware.
Q. The only thing I can’t understand is how, if there
were these serious financial problems, it was possible for
the district to avoid the use of space in Cole and Manual.
If these financial problems were really serious, why wasn’t
that space used? A. Again, as I told you, we were not
planning for just [1089] today. We still had to continue
to build, and when we were building a building, some of
our buildings were not fully occupied when we completed
them, in the southwest, I think also in the southeast area,
but we knew that within two or three years they would
be, and it is far more expensive to go ahead and build a
small building and then have to add to it.
Q. Was there ever a time in your tenure on the Board
when Manual was full? A. I can’t answer that. I believe
there was, but I can’t answer it for sure.
Mr. Barnes: That’s all.
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Recross
959a
Mr. Brega: Nothing further, Your Honor.
Mr. B is: Nothing further.
The Court: When the new Manual High was built
in ’52, in planning the courses studied, did you more
or less abandon the old concept that this was a
manual training high school!
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: So it became in its approach, the
oretically at least, just the same as any other high
school!
The Witness: Exactly the same.
The Court: College preparation?
The Witness: Everything was offered in each
school in the same way.
The Court: There was no emphasis on manual
training?
E10903 The Witness: No, sir.
The Court: The courses were—traditionally,
that’s what this school was?
The Witness: Originally, this is right.
The Court: Youngsters went there to learn a
trade ?
The Witness: That’s right, and this was changed.
The Court: This was back in the early days,
I suppose.
The Witness: By this time, educators were begin
ning to—
The Court: The twenties and thirties.
The Witness: By this time, educators were feel
ing that everybody needed to know how to read and
write and express themselves, and we needed certain
background things.
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Recross
960a
The Court: I expect that all the high schools had
trade courses?
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: By that time I think East and West
and South—
The Witness: All had some facility.
The Court: Machine shop or printing or this sort
of thing?
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: But before the building in the
twenties of East, West, and South, I think that most
of the trade [1091] training occurred at Manual,
didn’t it?
The Witness: I think this is right.
The Court: Do you think that that tradition has
had anything to do with the subsequent attitude
at Manual?
The Witness: Well, the parents—this, of course,
was before I was on the Board, the planning of
Manual, but it is my understanding that the parents
were very anxious to have the same offerings in
the school located there as were offered in all of
the other schools, with no emphasis—
The Court: I would think so.
The Witness: —on the trade.
The Court: Thank you.
Anything further?
Recross-Examination by Mr. Barnes:
Q. Mrs. Johnson, isn’t it true that there was a heavier
emphasis on vocational training in the new Manual than
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Recross
961a
there was in the other schools in the district? A. I think
this is probably true and that many people wanted it and
took it, and there were certain areas of—that children
could make their own decision as to what the children
were going to take, but there was no emphasis from the
standpoint of offerings, because everything was offered
at Manual that was offered any place else.
Q. They kept the name the Manual Training High
School? [10923 A. Yes.
Q. The booklet that was prepared by the District, which
has been offered as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 356, which is “The
New Manual,” could I ask you to read the sentence on
page—the pages aren’t numbered— A. “For roughly
three-fourths of the student body, college is virtually an
impossibility.”
Q. And that represents the consideration for Manual
when it was being* built, doesn’t it?
Mr. Brega: I will object to that. She said she
wasn’t on the Board at that time.
The Court: Well, she may have some information.
We will let her say whether she can answer it or
not.
A. Well, I am sure it was a consideration. It should have
been a consideration.
Mr. Barnes: That’s all.
The Court: Well, if you had your choice between
Manual and East, Manual and GW, and you were
preparing for college boards, you wouldn’t go to
Manual, would you?
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—-Recross
962a
The Witness: Well, interestingly enough, Judge
Doyle, at one time there were more scholarships
available at Manual, and we were working on this
and trying to get them taken up, than any other
school in the community. So if I were looking for
a scholarship—
The Court: I didn’t ask you about that. I asked
[10933 you about preparation for college boards,
which is a very formidable task for a youngster.
It is something he concerns himself with.
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: He wants to go to a university or
college.
The Witness: I would go to East. There are
just—the opportunities were there, but they were
not always taken up.
The Court: Well, I know we always heard of
East as being a showplace, though.
The Witness: And it was.
The Court: For that purpose.
The Witness: And it was.
The Court: And finally, GW!
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: Because they did emphasize this.
The Witness: This is right.
The Court: And probably their level of scholar
ship is much higher, wasn’t it?
The Witness: I am sure of this.
The Court: Their standard was higher?
The Witness: Yes.
# # # # #
Lois Heath Johnson—for Defendants—Recross
963a
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Direct
[10943 * * *
P alm er L. B u r c h , c a lle d a s a w itn e s s b y th e d e fe n d a n ts ,
b e in g f i r s t d u ly sw o rn , o n h is o a th te s t if ie d a s fo llo w s :
The Court: Please be seated and give us your
name and address.
The Witness: Palmer L. Burch, 395 Fairfax,
Denver, Colorado.
Direct Examination by Mr. Ris:
Q. Mr. Burch, so the record will reflect your race, are
you white? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How old are you, sir? A. I will be sixty-three next
month.
Q. You are a resident of the City and County of Denver?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long have you resided here? A. I have resided
in Denver since 1924.
Q. Could you tell us generally the areas in which you
have lived and the years in which you lived in those areas ?
A. While I was—before I was married, which was 1946,
I lived with my mother generally in south Denver, 231
Logan, 12 South Washington, 372 South Williams, and
459 South [10953 Pennsylvania. At the time I was mar
ried, I bought my first house at 1770 Roslyn Street near
the airport, and in 1950 I acquired my present residence
at 395 Fairfax, where I have lived since.
Q. Do you have any children? A. One.
Q. A daughter? A. Daughter.
Q. And she attended the Denver Public Schools? A.
She attended three Denver Public Schools: Carson
Elementary School, Hill Junior High, and George Wash
ington High School.
964a
Q. Would you outline briefly the experience you had in
public life and in your business life prior to 1959, which
you felt would be of some value to the School District?
A. When I came to Denver, I attended Central Business
College during the year 1924 and graduated therefrom on
the day before Christmas 1924, secured a position and
began to work the day after Christmas, 1924, for a firm
of public accountants, particularly income tax work. I
was with that firm for approximately six years, at which
time I became associated with the firm of Horace W.
Bennett & Company, real estate ownership, management,
investment, and continued with that firm until my resigna
tion in the spring of 1968.
During that period in 1946, shortly after I was [10963
married, I was approached by two individuals, both of
whom are now deceased, to urge me to stand for designa
tion as a member of the House of Representatives of the
State of Colorado, which came as a surprise to me, because
while I was aware of government operations I had never
participated therein. And I immediately said, “What do
I know about being a representative,” and, obviously, had
no experience. But in talking it over with my wife she
said, “If that’s your desire, Palmer, go to it.” So, I gave
my consent to stand for designation.
I was designated as a candidate. I participated in the
primary election, and in the fall of 1946 I was elected
as a member to the House of Representatives. I knew
nothing about the legislative process. As a matter of fact,
I had to ask where the House of Representatives was.
But in those days we had a session, biennial sessions, and
in 1947 we had 108 days in session and passed a few
laws, and I might say I was so unaware of the legislative
process that I did not introduce a single bill.
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Direct
965a
In 1948, I learned to like the process, I guess. I ran
for re-election, and was defeated, and in 1948, though—
I happened to be a Republican—in 1948, no Republican
was elected in Denver. That was the year when Mr. Dewey
was elected in September but defeated in November.
In 1950, I ran again for the House of Representatives
and have been continually a member of the House of
[10971 Representatives, with the exception of one year.
In the year 1958 I ran for Governor of the State of
Colorado, obviously was not elected, and returned to the
House of Representatives in 1960, where I still hold.
[1098] Q. Then you ran for the school board in what
year? A. I ran for school board in May, 1959.
Q. You were elected and took office in May of that year?
A. Yes, sir, for a six-year term.
Q. Now, before going on the school board, did your
experience in the legislature revolve around any educa
tional matters or financial matters? A. Yes, the State
Legislature is much concerned about educational matters,
particularly with the financing thereof and all powers and
duties—all powers, rather, of school boards are derived
from acts of the legislature. During the year 1951—and
I state frankly I knew nothing about schools in 1947, the
year I served—but beginning in 1951 with the growing
problems of education, not only in Denver but through
the whole state, I became familiar with the problems of
public schools, their organization, the problem of school
districts and consolidation and the problems of financing
schools.
Q. And have you since that time been active in financing
matters in the General Assembly? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you served on any committees involving
finances ? A. I have; beginning in 1951, I was a chairman
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Direct
966a
or vice-chairman of the committee on appropriations,
which is now known as the George Bundy Committee. In
1953 I became [1099] chairman of the house finance com
mittee and in 1955 and ’56 I was chairman of the joint
budget committee, and in 1958 and ’59 I was a member
of the—of both the appropriations and finance committees
and, since 1961, after my service on the Board of Educa
tion, I have consistently been a member from 1961 to date
of both the house finance and house education committees.
I have dropped my membership on the appropriations
committee.
Q. You served one term then on the school board, 1959
to 1967 ? A. I served one six-year term and was reelected
to a short term in 1965. So I served a total of eight years.
Q. When you went on the board in 1956—rather, in 1959,
at that point in time had you had any previous experience
at all in school administration1? A. No, sir.
Q. Was it then necessary for you to acquaint yourself
with the general operation of the school district? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Among the matters that you had to acquaint your
self with, did you inform yourself as to the matter of
school boundaries; establishment and changes of bound
aries? A. Well, it came very shortly after I was on the
board—elected to the board. It became obvious that the
present status of the school construction was called to my
attention [1100] and at that time there was under con
struction three high schools, George Washington, Thomas
Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln High Schools, which
were scheduled—projected to open for business in the fall
of 1960. And because of the changes that would take place
in the lives of the children that were going to attend them,
one of the first matters that came to me for my decision
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Direct
967a
and participation with respect to districting* was the estab
lishment of the attendance districts of George Washington,
Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln High Schools
and the attendant adjustment of the district high school
districts which the children who were assigned to those
new districts had formerly attended, so I became rela
tively—this happened in the fall of 1959, so that one year’s
notice could be given to the interested parents.
And on that I quickly ascertained the manner in which
school attendance areas—what we call subdistricts of the
district—were established and developed.
Q. Did you find that there were various factors and
elements considered in determining the establishment or
changes of boundaries! A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you present during the entire testimony of
Mrs. Johnson! A. Practically all of it; yesterday after
noon and this C1101] morning, yes, sir.
Q. Did you hear her testimony as to the various factors
considered! A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would you generally agree that those factors were
of consequence! A. Yes, I would agree generally. I would
perhaps be somewhat more specific. In other words, the
school board of Denver, the school administration of
Denver had policies and I found that the final act of fixing
high school boundaries devolved upon the Board of Ed
ucation. In other words, the minutes of the board would
show that the boundaries of the three high school districts
and all the others who are, in effect, a mete and bounds
description; that likewise this was true of the establish
ment of junior high attendance districts. But, with respect
to the boundaries established for elementary districts, I
found that they were an administrative matter; were never
a matter of the record vote of the board.
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Direct
968a
In other words, in no place, to my knowledge, in the
minutes of the meetings of the board, was there ever
any metes and bounds descriptions of an elementary dis
trict and only occasionally was there a call to me or a—
an appearance by the board of someone protesting an
administrative change of an elementary district.
Q. Did you have contacts with members of the [11023
community concerning junior high and high school changes ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Both in person and by letter! A. Both on telephone
and appearance and by letter, but more importantly by
appearances of various ones before the Board of Education
itself. Because the proposed boundaries of a district were
always laid out for study, became available, and at a school
board meeting, people were allowed to express their views
through the traditional practices of the school board, desig
nated as audiences.
Q. During your term on the board, Mr. Burch, do you
know of any instance in which a child was refused the right
to attend the school in the subdistrict in which his residence
was located because of race or color? A. No, sir, not a
single instance.
Q. When you eame on the board in 1959, would you tell
us what the policy of the board was in considering factors
of race or color in connection with boundaries? This was
after Brown against School Board in 1954, was it not?
A. Well, I was aware, of course, as a member of the legis
lature and presumably an intelligent citizen who keeps
aware of what’s going on in this country of the Brown
versus The Board of Education decision, reached in 1954.
Being aware of the constitutional provisions of the State
of Colorado, which provide that no distinction or [1103]
classification of pupils shall be made on account of race
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Direct
969a
or color, I was aware and sincerely believed that the schools
of Colorado were not in any way operated by de jure
segregation. Every school, to my knowledge, in this state,
every public school in this state is open to enrollment by any
child living within the boundaries of the district or the
subdistrict as the school district—
* # # * #
[IIO43 * * #
Q. Could you now restrict yourself more to what the
position of the board was or the school district in Denver
was when you came on the board in 1959 with respect to
race or color or, as you ascertain it to be? A. I would
state that I was aware of the public policy of the state
with respect to education and I found that the Denver
Board of Education’s policies were in accordance with
those of the public policy of the state.
Q. In 1959 in connection with boundary matters, were
there any statistics available to you as a member of the
board showing the racial or ethnic composition of the
various schools or various neighborhoods in the district?
A. No, sir.
Q. Were there any such figures or statistics made avail
able to you during the years 1959 to 1964? A. Yes, sir,
the first time—
Q. What time? A. The first time that I received any
official figures with respect to the racial and ethnic compo
sition of the Denver Public Schools was subsequent and
immediately following the presentation of the so-called
Voorhees Report, the [1105] study on equal opportunities
in the Denver Public Schools.
Q. That was in March— A. At that time it became—
I then learned for the first time the composition of oriental,
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Direct
970a
Negro, Spanish surnamed and Anglo in terms of per
centage.
Q. Was that in March of 1964? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, as a member of the community, Mr. Burch,
were you aware of the racial shift in population particu
larly in Northeast Denver during the ’50s and ’60s? A.
Yes, sir, I was.
Q. With respect to the establishment of the senior high
boundaries and before they opened in 1960, were there hear
ings held with respect to the specific boundaries with people
permitted— A. Of those schools?
Q. Yes. A. Yes. In other words, the Board of Educa
tion operated in public meetings and you could—in other
words, when a question came up for final decision, the dis
cussion, the questions—the audiences, the comment and
whatnot, you could call that a hearing although it was tech
nically not a hearing in a formal sense, but people were
heard.
Q. With respect to the Barrett School, had the plans for
that already been formed by the time you came on the
[1106] board in 1959? A. The decision to build a school
and the order to go ahead on preliminary plans had been
adopted before I came on the board. I did participate in
the approval of final plans and the awarding of the contract
for construction.
Q. Now, with respect to the testimony of Mrs. Johnson,
you heard, concerning the Stedman situation in 1961 and
1962, are there any other facts that you could add to that to
enlighten the Court? A. No, sir. Stedman—some of this
will be from my memory, but Stedman School in 1961 had
a capacity of approximately 600 and enrollments of ap
proximately 600. By 1965 Stedman School, with the same
capacity—its enrollment had moved up approximately to
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Direct
971a
900. In other words, it was on double sessions. And it was
true, other schools also changed in enrollment population.
But the situation with respect to Stedman and with respect
to Hallett and Smith, all of whom were, by 1964, having
attendance in excess of capacity, to me, it was intriguing
that that occurred at a time when there was no additional
construction in the area.
In other words, in other words, in 1959, when I came on
the board, the Stedman subdistrict was wholly built up.
There wasn’t any vacant property. There was no new con
struction. And yet, with essentially—there had been a few
houses built—but essentially the same number of [1107]
houses in the area, the boundaries of the district unchanged.
The population moved up by fifty percent, and of course
this was a unique situation with respect to any elementary
district in the city.
Q. Was that anticipated by the board at the beginning
of that three-year period? A. No, sir, I had no—I assume
that that was one of the schools that we would not have
any problems with respect to double sessions and over-
attendance. It was a stabilized area from the standpoint
of construction.
Q. Now, with respect to the Stedman, Hallett, Smith
area, during the ’60s, and the decisions as to whether to
make any additions or to add mobile units, could you advise
the Court as to what the history of that was? A. Well, the
growing overpopulation of the schools with respect to the
facilities there began to intensify itself in 1963 and the
administration and the board began to give it attention. In
1965 the recommendation was made by the superintendent
that we build an addition to Stedman School, approxi
mately 90 capacity, as I recall i t ; three classrooms and half
a classroom to provide for special education and utilize
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Direct
9 7 2 a
the library. And an addition to Hallett School of six class
rooms, 180. That would then—with respect to Stedman,
that would provide capacity in excess of 700. And the
further recommendation was made that [1108] the excess
number of children to keep them from going on double
sessions or continue on double sessions should be trans
ported to other schools.
The Court: This was in 19651
The Witness: 1965.
And the board adopted a proposal for the con
struction of an addition to Stedman School by a vote
of 5 to 2, with two members objecting and five sup
porting. The board unanimously then adopted the
recommendation to transport well in excess of a
hundred—I would say between 125 and 150—children
of all grades, first through sixth, from Stedman
School to Carson School, to Steck School, to Evans
School, to Stevens School, and I think there was one
other.
Q. What was the ethnic predominance of those schools?
A. They were preponderantly Anglo schools.
Q. Would you tell us about the mobile unit situation?
A. With respect to Hallett, again, the addition to Hallett
was approved by the same split board of the vote, 5 to 2.
Q. The same year? A. In the same year. It was larger
-—it was a larger addition because we had a larger site at
Hallett. With respect to Smith School, which was more
level populated with respect to capacity than either Hal
lett or Stedman, as a result of a questionnaire, discussions,
not with the [1109] board, but with the staff as the result
of a questionnaire submitted to the families, parents of
the children attending the Smith School, by a great major
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Direct
973a
ity they elected that they would prefer to have additional
mobile units installed at Smith rather than to have trans
portation, and on that basis the Board of Education author
ized the acquisition of additional mobile units at Smith
School.
Q. Had a similar questionnaire been submitted to the
Stedman parents? A. Yes, sir.
Q. With what results? A. Not as preponderant as it
was in Smith with respect to transportation but—in other
words, on an answer it was not as well framed, as I recall
it. But, with respect to Stedman, some people objected to
having an addition and preferred busing. Some people
wanted the addition----- an addition large enough to pro
vide no busing, and some said addition and the Board of
Education took the latter, building a modest addition, in
creasing the capacity of the school modestly and busing
the balance. The result was, when the addition was finally
completed, which I believe was the opening of school in—
I can’t recall whether it was the beginning of the semester
but the fact of the matter was that Stedman then reverted
to a non—in other words, it had a capacity for the children
there and the rest were bused. [1110] There was the
elimination of double sessions, is what I want to say.
Q. Now, I direct your attention, Mr. Burch, to 1962 and
the matter pertaining to Cole, Morey and Byers boundary
changes. Do you recall that particular event? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And to what extent, if any, were there any racial or
ethnic considerations considered by the board or you indi
vidually in making those changes? A. By me individually,
none. By the board, my best observation, none. The ques
tion came up because of excessive enrollment at Cole
Junior High School and it being the furthest northeast
junior high school. A question of decreased enrollment—
Palmer L. Burch—-for Defendants—Direct
974a
in other words, enrollment below capacity at Morey, and
the recommendations of the staff were that we extend the
boundaries of Morey northward to accommodate the over
population existing at Cole. Then, as Mrs. Johnson has
testified, you don’t modify only one junior high or only
one boundary. They need to look at the boundaries between
Byers and Grant and look at the boundaries between Byers
and Merrill. And it came—this junior high—as a package,
and the final resolution of the board was to move the
boundaries of Morey northward so that some of the enroll
ment of Cole could come to Morey; to move the boundaries
of Morey [1111] southward—or northward, rather, so that
capacity of Byers was not running full; that children
attending Morey could attend Byers; to move the bounda
ries of Byers so that children attending Byers could attend
Grant and Merrill.
In other words, the chess you made on seeking to balance
the attendance and the prospective attendance because in a
junior high school you have to take into account not only
those now attending it but those in the fourth, fifth and
sixth grades in being—who will be attending in the capacity,
and—
[1112] Q. Now, in connection with these— A. And that
was the consideration so far as I was concerned and I am
sure the Board, that the action taken was to reduce the
overpopulation at Cole, and I think the record will show
that the overpopulation of Cole did go down. Strangely
enough, the population of Morey did not increase.
Q. In connection with the staff studies that you have
mentioned and considered prior to making this boundary
change, did any of those studies reflect or show or give you
the racial or ethnic composition of the various neighbor
hood areas involved? A. No, sir, we held studies on
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Direct
975a
changes in junior high enrollment which were always based
on numbers of children and in no respect whatsoever in
respect to race or ethnic derivation.
Q. Now, with respect to the plot of ground at 32nd and
Colorado Boulevard and the junior high suggestion that
we discussed in 1962, the decision was made not to proceed
any further in consideration of a new building at that
point, is that correct? A. Right. That resulted from a
publication which I see here, a study of school boundaries
and population, and the recommendation by the Superin
tendent that consideration be given to building a junior
high school at 32nd and Colorado Boulevard, and that was
first released to the public and the [1113] Board in Feb
ruary of 1962, and once again was available for discussion,
both the Board and public, and that was the first time—
Q. What was the public reaction to that? A. That was
the first time that I became aware of the opposition of
organizations, CORE, NAACP, B’Nai B’Rith, and, in other
words, the civil rights, you might say, organizations. That
was the first time that they appeared with a determined
opposition to any proposed project in public schools.
Q. And there was substantial unanimity among these
organizations? A. There was, sir.
Q. Was that the first time this appeared? A. First time,
yes.
Q. Did the events surrounding that particular sugges
tion also lead to the appointment of the Voorhees Com
mittee? A. In other words, that was the first time. In
addition to the objections by the civil rights organizations,
and bear in mind they were not exclusively Negro oriented,
CORE and NAACP and B’Nai B’Rith, Sheldon Steinhaus-
er’s organization, they were certainly not exclusively black,
but they came in for the first time then. For the first time,
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Direct
976a
the question came up that in a school which they claimed
would be de facto segregated that inevitably and as a
matter of course the quality of education would not be the
same as other schools, [11143 and it was on that basis then
that the Board was—it was suggested that the Board au
thorize appointment of a committee, and the committee
was appointed and given the title, “A Committee for the
Study of the Equality,” the equality of the educational
opportunity in the Denver schools. That was the first time
it came to my attention that the quality of Denver Public
Schools was not—that happened two years or three and
a half years after I came on the Board.
Q. After the Voorhees Committee report was made, did
you study it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That led to the adoption of Policy 5100? A. As a
direct result of the Voorhees report was the adoption of
Policy 5100, which for the first time put into the policy
the words “racial and ethnic consideration.”
Q. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1, is that the copy of the Policy
5100? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that the first step that the Board had ever taken
action concerning— A. Yes, that is the first time, yes.
Q. Now, I will direct your attention, Mr. Burch, to cer
tain boundary changes in 1964, and do you recall what
changes were made with respect to Gove at that time, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
[1115] Q. Would you state what changes were made
then and why. A. Well, if I may go back a little back in
1961, Jackson Fuller became a member of the Board of
Education. He ran for the Board in 1959, when I was first
elected. Jackson was a resident of Park Hill, living at
2090 Ash, as I recall it, and immediately Jack Fuller
came to complain about optional areas and particularly
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Direct
977a
Optional Area A as between Smiley-Cole and East-Manual.
He bad valid reasons. He was constantly saying we should
abolish them, all of them.
Now, we—the Board did not see fit to do that until
after the Voorhees report was in. The sixty-four changes
to which you refer, No. 1, we changed the boundaries as
between East and George Washington High School, ex
tending the boundaries of George Washington north on
Monaco—I believe it was Monaco. Anyway, a substantial
part of the area out by the airport came into the George
Washington High School District, and for the first time
that was to achieve a degree of racial balance.
At the same time, we abolished the optional area as
between East and Manual and Cole and Smiley and estab
lished a firm boundary, as I recall, somewhere around Fill
more Street, and thereby children west of that went to
Cole, east of that went to Smiley.
At the same time we brought Gove, a relatively small
school, the smallest junior high school in the district,
[11163 we fixed its attendance boundaries where it drew
children from north of City Park. I don’t remember the
precise boundaries, but Gove’s boundaries for the first time
extended northward, west of or north of City Park, bring
ing children in that—well, we will say 32nd and Harrison
or Garfield—they went to Gove, and the 1964 boundaries,
again, the change in the boundaries at Gove, was the result
of the Yoorhees report to achieve a degree of racial bal
ance.
Q. Were the children north of City Park assigned to
Gove predominantly black, do you know? A. To my best
knowledge, yes.
Q. Did that achieve some integration into Gove then?
A. Yes.
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Direct
978a
Q. Then it was about in 1964 you began to get your
first racial figures from the Administration? A. Well, I
never received racial figures from the Administration. They
came out in the abstract, as a result of the Voorhees report.
Q. And after that, did the continuing studies thereafter,
where it was pertinent, contain racial and ethnic figures?
A. Yes, continually thereafter used statistics, and for the
first time began to give percentages on the various schools.
Q. And you had a boundary change for Kennedy in
January, 11117] 1966? A. Yes, that last boundary change
I participated in was the construction of the John F. Ken
nedy Junior-Senior High School, which necessitated a
change in the boundaries of Abraham Lincoln High School
and Kunsmiller and Kepner Junior High Schools, and peo
ple came in to protest this because that occurred after the
annexation of Fort Logan and Centennial—some Centen
nial annexation—which changes the pattern of attendance
from Lincoln to Kennedy, and the question of public bus
service of high school kids arose at that time. We finally
resolved the boundaries and everybody went presumably
away happy.
# # * # #
[1117] * * *
Cross-Examination by Mr. Greiner:
Q. Mr. Burch, concerning your eight years that you
served on the School Board, were you aware of the policy
of the School Administration, first of all, with respect
to the approvement and hiring of minority teachers ?
A. Not specifically, sir. In other words, each—-again, if
I may elaborate a little, again, the Board is governed
by state law. They have to hire teachers, and as you know,
the teachers are on probation, probationary contracts.
Palmer L. Burch—-for Defendants—Cross
979a
Every [1118] teacher lias to sign a contract. Then they
become tenure.
Q. That’s a three-year probationary period! A. Yes,
the state law provides that teachers shall serve—every
teacher, even a new one, must have a contract. The con
tract then is renewed for three years, and at the end of
three years, if a teacher’s service has been satisfactory,
they then have what we call a tenure contract.
Q. That’s t-e-n-u-r-e? A. Yes, sir. I was not aware,
and, of course, the state law requires that all teacher con
tracts be approved by the 15th of April, so the first time
I participated in, you might say, the hiring of teachers—
the Board obviously never interviews teachers and it
doesn’t, unless they specifically ask, know where they came
from—but in April of 1960, a great long list of what was
called a personnel report, “We recommend that the follow
ing teachers achieve tenure,” and so forth. It was not
until 1962, the 32nd and Colorado business, that I turned
my attention to find out how many—how many Negro
teachers were in the Denver Public Schools, how many
Hispanos or how many Orientals, and at that time is when
I turned my first attention to finding out the number.
Q. What did you find out! A. I found out there were
not too many, and in asking—
Q. Do you recall how many! [1119] A. No, sir.
Q. Do you recall the schools to which they had been
assigned? A. No, because, again—
Q. Did you make inquiry? A. Again, just a minute—
Q. Pardon me, Mr. Burch, but if you will just respond
to my questions, this will move along a lot faster.
Did you inquire as to where the minority teachers had
been assigned? A. No, sir.
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Cross
980a
Q. Tour study took that not into account, is that correct?
A. No, sir.
Q. All right, now, do you recall what proportion of the
schools’ teachers overall throughout the School District
were minority and what part of 1962 was this? A. Well,
it will be at the time the personnel—-when we finally ap
proved the teachers.
Q. In the spring of ’62? A. Indicated they wanted to
sign contracts.
Q. How did you go about finding out this information?
A, I asked the superintendent in charge of personnel the
number of minority teachers that we had in our public
school system.
[1120] Q. That was Howard Johnson? A. That was
Howard Johnson.
Q. And did he tell you he didn’t know that information?
A. No, sir, he gave the specific answer, as I recall. The
time I first asked, it was 256—
Q. Did he have the figure right on the top of his head?
A. No, sir, in other words, he could not respond to my
question. In other words, he—it was—I asked that, and
it was subsequently given to me, “I want to know how
many Negro teachers, how many Hispano or Spanish
surnamed, how many Oriental,” and I finally got the in
formation with respect to the total as of the April 1962
approval of the contracts.
Q. How long did it take to get that information? A. I
would say that it took—meetings at that time—School
Board meetings at that time were on Thursday afternoons.
I would say it took three days.
Q. Do you know how the information was assembled
by Dr. Johnson? A. No, sir, I have no idea how the school
records are kept.
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Cross
981a
Q. At the time you made this survey in ’62, Mr. Burch,
did you also inquire about the hiring of minority princi
pals or minority assistant principals in the public school
system! A. No, sir.
Q. Tour study was devoted only to teachers! [1121]
A. It was not a study. It was a request for information.
Q. Now, what prompted you to make that request!
A. Because of the sudden interest in the fact that we were
accused of not providing quality education for children.
Q. Were you also accused in 1962 of not hiring a suf
ficient quantity or proportion of minority teachers! A.
No such accusation was ever made to me, sir.
Q. Did you ever hear any such accusation while sitting
in on a School Board meeting! A. No, sir.
Q. You don’t recall any efforts, for example, by the
Urban League in the late 1950’s, as soon as you got on
the Board! Wasn’t the Board constantly asked to hire
more minority teachers! A. You say the late 1950’s! I
recall this matter did not come to my attention until
February, 1962, when this whole matter came into being.
Q. So, between April of 1959 and April of 1962, you
in your capacity as a Board member never heard a request
that more minority teachers be hired! A. No, sir.
Q. All right. Now, what action if any did you take
then, Mr. Burch, after you discovered, and I take it that
what you discovered was that there was a relatively low
[1122] proportion of minority teachers in the School
District! A. In terms of percentage, it would be about
5 percent, yes, sir.
Q. And then what action did you take! A. I took none.
It was not my function as a Board member to direct any
one what action to take.
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Cross
982a
Q. Did you make any recommendations to the Board?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did the Board itself make any recommendations to
Howard Johnson? A. The Board as a result—again, the
equality—the Yoorhees Committee had been authorized
and the Board collectively indicated to the staff that they
should attempt to secure more minority teachers. I as an
individual never made any such recommendation.
Q. I assume you voted in favor of it? A. I did.
Q. Was that a unanimous recommendation? A. To my
knowledge, yes, sir. Well, it was not on a vote. In other
words, it was a unanimous recommendation, yes, sir. No
one on the Board objected. It never came out to a roll
call vote, because there was not a question of motion.
Q. During the period 1959 to 1967, can you describe for
us the means by which you kept track of what was happen
ing [1123] in the schools within the School District. A.
Well, obviously, the main source of information was the
continual reports of the Superintendent and staff with re
spect to the schools. Second, the visits or, I guess you call
it visits, attendance at functions within all of the schools of
the city. I did not—I was not a School Board member who
.—as a matter of fact, there were schools in the system which
I have never visited—I was not one who was constantly
visiting the schools, because I did not consider myself an
administrative School Board member. Certainly, with the
volume of reports and the consideration of the annual
budget, a Board member is kept apprised of what is going
on in the public schools, as well as the press and radio and
TV.
[1124] Q. Now, as I recall, Mr. Burch, you were in the
real estate business from 1930 to approximately 1968, is
that correct? A. Yes, sir.
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Direct
983a
Q. Did that include both commercial and residential real
estate? A. No, sir, that was exclusively commercial, office
buildings mostly in the downtown Denver. Our firm was
never engaged in residential real estate.
Q. Did you belong to any realtor trade organizations!
A. Yes, I belonged to the Denver Board of Realtors and at
one time was president.
Q. And you attended association meetings? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Did you at those association meetings acquire any
knowledge of population movement of Negroes? A. Not
at those meetings. I acquired that by my general knowledge
of the city.
Q. And by 1955, Mr. Burch, do you recall whether you
knew where the eastern boundary of the Negro population
was at that time ? A. I could not say it precisely but it was
obvious that it had moved at least to Colorado Boulevard.
Q. In 1965? A. Where traditionally, when I came to
Denver, it -was [1125] confined at the so-called Five Points
area, but I would observe that, by 1955, when I was not a
school board member, when my property interests were
exclusively office buildings by 1955, that the eastern bound
ary of the so-called Negro residential area had moved to
Colorado Boulevard.
Q. Now, you’re not telling me, Mr. Burch, are you that
in 1955 the area north of City Park was predominantly
Negro? A. Not predominantly, no, sir.
Q. But there were some Negroes? A. There were Ne
groes who were moving east of Colorado Boulevard—or
east of York Street.
Q. Now, if we talked in terms of predominantly Negro
neighborhoods, Mr. Burch, in 1955, where would you place
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Cross
984a
the line? A. Predominantly Negro! Well, I would say
—I was serving in the House at that time with Representa
tive Earl Mann. He lived at 2149 High Street, and the pre
dominantly Negro area would have been from, I would say,
20th Avenue northward. In other words, Earl Mann at
2149 High Street was in the center of the predominantly
Negro residential area in 1955.
Q. Now, it’s true, isn’t it, Mr. Burch, that by 1955 all of
the areas west of York were predominantly Negro? A. I
think High is west of York. They were predominant.
[1126] # * *
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. Mr. .Burch, after you got the information regarding
the proportion of minority teachers in 1962, subsequent to
that time what we have been referring to, I believe, as the
Yoorhees Committee, it issued its report, did it not, in the
spring of 1964? A. Yes, sir, final report. Preliminary
reports were available to the board prior to that time.
Q. One of the findings—and that report is in evidence
as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 20, Mr. Burch—and one of the find
ings of that report was that the district had been assigning
minority teachers to minority schools. Do you recall that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was that the first time that you had been aware of
that? A. Yes, sir. In other words, I as a board member
did not know where any teachers were assigned.
Q. Now, you mentioned these lists of teachers which you
approved in April of each year. A. TJh-huh.
Q. What information was on the lists? [1127] A. Only
the name and, shall we say, serial number. There was no
indication then as to whether they were—it didn’t even have
Palmer L. Burch—-for Defendants—Cross
985a
whether they were— Of course, they all had to have B.A.
degrees. That was a condition precedent to hiring.
The Court: Excuse me. I thought you said that—
maybe I ’m mistaken—that you asked Howard John
son to furnish you with a number of minority teach
ers, you said, after the accusation was made that you
were not providing quality education.
The Witness: That came—- Judge, that came at
the time of the creation of the Voorhees Committee.
The Court: Oh, I see.
The Witness: That was one of the reasons for the
creation of the committee.
The Court: This was following the controversy
about building a junior high school out there!
The Witness: In other words, that it was—it was
raised that we would have poor quality education
there and that is when I said, “Well, how come we’re
having inequality education!” That’s when I first
asked “How many Negro teachers do we have in the
whole system, out of some 4,000?” And I found out
roughly five percent.
The Court: Thank you.
Q. That event which you have just been describing took
[11283 place in 1962, is that correct? A. Yes.
Going to your last question, this—
Q. The list of teachers. A. —the name and the em
ployee number; no indication of— The only way you could
determine sex was by the name.
Q. It did not list the undergraduate school which had
been attended by the teacher! A. No, sir.
Q. Did it give the teacher’s address? A. No, sir.
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Cross
986a
Q. Well, I take it then that the board didn’t really exer
cise any discretion regarding the approval of these things'?
A. It was in compliance with the law that we had to ap
prove, in effect, employment contracts prior to the 15th of
April.
Q. From what yon have told me, yon had no informa
tion upon which to exercise any discretion? A. No, sir.
Q. That was left up to the school administration? A.
That was an administrative function.
Q. Now, on your direct examination, you mentioned the
difference in community viewpoints with respect to the
utilization of mobile units at Smith and Stedman Elemen
tary Schools. Do you recall that? [1129] A. Yes, sir.
Q. You said something about the question being less well
framed at one school or another. Can you explain what you
meant by that? A. Well, there were two separate ques
tionnaires, one going to the parents of Stedman and one
going to the parents of Smith. And they were not precisely
the same question. One of them—the question at Smith was
“Would you prefer busing children to eliminate overcrowd
ing, or the addition of—the acquisition of new mobile
units ?”
The question at Stedman, “Would you prefer a perma
nent addition to the school, or busing?” So in that respect
they were not the same. The question posed to the differ
ent parents were not the same.
Q. Now, what was the point in time that you’re describ
ing that these questionnaires were sent out? A. Let’s see,
it would be in the fall, I would say, of 1965, because the
authorization of the construction at Hallett and Stedman
took place in the spring of 1966. And was accomplished
before I left the board. So I would put the point of time
of this questionnaire at the fall of 1965, September, Octo
ber and so forth.
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Cross
987a
Q. And in the fall of 1965 it is my recollection, and
correct me if yours is different, Mr. Burch, that there had
already been placed four mobile units at Smith—or at
[1130] Stedman? A. Yes.
Q. And six mobile units at Smith, is that correct? A.
That’s right.
Q. Now, the parents at Smith were offered either addi
tional mobile units or busing, is that correct? A. Right.
Q. And the parents at Stedman were offered an addition
or transportation? A. That’s right.
Q. What was said about the removal of the mobile units
at Stedman? A. It was my understanding—and again I
can’t testify to my own knowledge now—but it was my
understanding that the construction of the addition to
Stedman, with the additional classroom space and the bus
ing of one hundred some children, would make it possible
to remove the mobile units at Stedman. Now, I have not
been back to see—-I could not testify whether there are still
mobile units at Stedman, but one of the considerations was
the small size of the school site. But the mobile units, as
they were there—you say there were two?
Q. There were four. A. Well, in terms of space occu
pied, if the mobile units took up as much ground space as
would the three-classroom [11313 addition to the building—
Q. Well, now—- A. Furthermore, mobile units would
take more play space.
Q. Yes, because they’re just single-story structures,
aren’t they? A. That’s right.
Q. So, by the time 1966 rolled around, you had twelve
mobile units at Smith. Do you recall that? A. Yes, sir.
Q. They were taking up an awful lot of space at Smith,
were they not? A. That’s right, but that was—in Stedman
the addition was the site, and apparently the administra
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Cross
988a
tion felt that the Smith site was large enough to accommo
date more mobile units. I sometimes wondered in my own
mind if that were so because it looked like an Army bar
racks out there.
Q. Now, in 1962, Mr. Burch, when the controversy arose
over the proposal to build a new junior high school in
Northeast Denver at 32nd and .Jasmine, how long was that
proposal under consideration before it was scrapped! A.
"Well, it was first given for study to the board in February,
1962, and in effect it was never scrapped. I t just—the
hearings on it and the public discussion and the desire to
create a committee—it was never acted upon. But [1132]
it was never—in other words, it was never rejected. It was
just never acted upon.
Q. Wasn’t a resolution passed which was. introduced by
Mrs. Noel, Mr. Burch, whereby the board in effect said
that they would not construct anymore new facilities in
Northeast Denver! A. That was after my service on the
board.
Q. That was after— A. I was present at the meeting.
That was the meeting after .June of 1967, the first meeting
after I left the board. I attended the meeting as a spec
tator and that is the time when the board adopted the Noel
Resolution about no construction. It would be June, 1967,
the first regular meeting after I left the board.
Q. So the proposal was in fact scrapped! A. Well, if
you take that as scrapping, yes. But it was not scrapped
in April, 1962, or 1963 or 1964. It was still, you might say,
a proposal on which action was never taken.
Q. Now, what were the factors to your knowledge, Mr.
Burch, that caused the board to defer action on the build
ing of that junior high school! A. I would say the main
one was public protest. I think the board is more respon
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Cross
989a
sive at least in my opinion to public protest on any policy
than perhaps any other, because [1133] they represent
the public generally.
Q. Generally, was there a principle which came out of
that protest? A. Yes.
Q. What was it? A. It was the recommendation of the
so-called Voorhees Committee—recommended and was
adopted that school boundaries be hereafter fixed with re
spect to racial and ethnic considerations an in light of
adopting that policy it would have been contrary to policy
to have continued on with the construction of a new school
at 32nd and Colorado Boulevard which admittedly would
have been, in the main, attended by minority students.
Q. Now, did you see any difference, Mr. Burch, or was
it discussed by the board, between the building of a new
facility which you knew would be predominantly black
when it opened, and the building of additions to existing
facilities which you knew would serve only minority chil
dren? A. Well, there is a big difference. The new facil
ity at 32nd and Colorado Boulevard was a junior high
school. The policy of adding additions to elementary
schools was to sever the children in that neighborhood.
And that policy did not change. At the same time that
we were building additions to Stedman and Hallett, we
were building additions to McMeen, to other schools in
the district. There was never [1134] any change in the
policy of the Board of Education with respect to the build
ing of additions to existing schools—small additions.
[1135] Q. That’s somewhat inconsistent, isn’t it, Mr.
Burch? A. Not necessarily.
Q. Well, you decided, as I understand it, not to build
the junior high school at 32nd because it would be a segre
gated school, isn’t that right? A. Well, don’t put words
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Cross
990a
in my mouth. The claim was made that it would be a de
facto segregated school.
Q. Yes, sir. A. I would have to admit that it probably
would have been so.
Q. There is no doubt in your mind, is there? A. All
right, I will say there would have been no doubt in my
mind, but Stedman and Hallett were already de facto seg
regated schools, and the construction of an addition to
those schools made no change whatsoever in the composi
tion of the children.
Q. Well, it placed those children who were placed in
those addition, did it not, Mr. Burch, and put them into a
black school? A. But they were already there. They were
attending the school under double sessions.
Q. I see. You mean there was no change in the enroll
ment? A. No.
Q. During those years at schools such as Hallett? [1136]
A. Certainly, there wasn’t—there was a change in enroll
ment. Stedman School’s enrollment increased from 600 in
1961 to over 900 in 1965 without any change in the area
from the standpoint of additional housing.
Q. Yes. You mentioned that. A. They were on double
sessions.
Q. Did that surprise you, that change, Mr. Burch? A.
Yes, that did surprise me.
Q. Mr. Burch, that had been the history, had it not,
since 1950, of the eastward movement of the Negro popu
lation, that it led to denser populations? That wasn’t such
a surprising result, was it? A. You say it had been the
history since—
The Court: He means, I suppose, that it was pre
dictable and thus it shouldn’t have come as any
surprise. You can comment on that, if you wish.
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Cross
991a
A. (Continued) Well, all I want to say about it is that
this is the only existing area where within the existing
boundaries of the school that the population increased by
that percentage, and it was true with respect to Stedman
School.
Q. It was also true—- A. I certainly would in no way be
able to predict it on the basis of any information available
to me.
Q. Is that right? What happened at Harrington School,
[11373 for example, Mr. Burch? A. Harrington—
Q. In 1950. A. When I came on the Board, Harrington
School had increased in population and we were trans
porting children to Smith School. Columbine School was
on double sessions, and the Board had adopted plans for
the ultimate demolition of Columbine School and the start
ing construction of what we call a primary unit. When we
got the primary unit done, things had changed with respect
to special education that we didn’t go ahead and tear down
the old school, but the capacity in the new primary unit
and the old school were then greater than the population,
and the recommendation was made by the staff that we
transport children at the Harrington School to Columbine
School instead of to Smith School, which was growing.
And we finally resolved the problem by building an addi
tion to Harrington, and Harrington then dropped back to
capacity, aided by the construction of Barrett.
Q. Do you recall that both Harrington and Columbine
were extremely overcrowded in 1955? A. No, sir, I had
no knowledge of their status in 1955.
Q. Well, what was the activity that you have just de
scribed? Wasn’t it to relieve the overcrowding at those
two schools? A. Now, did I understand you to say 1955?
I was not [11383 on the Board in 1955. I stated that when
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Cross
992a
I came on the Board in 1955 and ’60 that both Harrington
and Columbine were overcrowded and on double sessions
or extended sessions or requiring transportation.
Q. Now, had that increase in their enrollment come about
as a result of new construction in their attendance areas'?
A. Of new construction in the attendance area of Colum
bine and—
Q. Yes, sir. A. To a degree in Columbine, yes.
Q. And what about at Harrington? A. Harrington, no.
Harrington was on the edge of the industrial district,
isn’t it, 38th and Steele, and by the time you get to 39th
and Steele, that’s factories.
Q. Would you agree with me that what happened at
Stedman had already happened at Harrington some five
or six years prior? A. No, I will not agree with your—
it is an assumption only.
Q. Now, you mentioned the alternatives given to the
Smith and Stedman parents. Do you have personal knowl
edge of what those alternatives were? Were you present
at those meetings? A. No.
[1139] Q. Did you see any written reports concerning
them? A. I saw—with respect to Smith, I saw the ques
tionnaires.
Q. Oh, you did? Did the questionnaire identify the school
to which the student might be transported? A. No, sir,
to my knowledge, not to my recollection.
Q. Now, during the period of time that you were on the
Board, Mr. Burch, between 1959 and 1967, as a Board
member, what information did you receive concerning
levels of achievement in the Denver Public Schools? A.
Only the triennial publication that was put out and had
been traditionally put out since Dr. Oberholtzer became
Superintendent. There was never any information given
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Cross
993a
to the Board as to the achievement level of any individual
school, but, rather, in the aggregate of the schools of
Denver.
Q. The type of report you have reference to is similar
to Exhibit 82, is it not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Yes. Now, when did the question of the equality of
educational opportunity first—when was it first raised?
A. It was first raised and charged at the time of the—at
the recommendation to construct the junior high school at
32nd and Colorado Boulevard, first raised to my attention,
first time I had heard of it. I had been on the Board roughly
three years.
[1140] Q. Now, Mr. Burch, you knew about the triennial
testing program at that time, did you not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And did it ever occur to you to find out what the
achievement levels were in these minority schools? A.
No, sir.
Q. Did anyone in the School Administration volunteer
that information to you? A. No, sir.
Q. And you never asked for it? A. I never asked for
it.
Q. Do you recall when that information, that school-by
school comparative data, was first made public? A. I don’t
recall it was ever made public while I was on the Board.
Q. So, the program— A. I have seen references to it
since my leaving the Board, but I have no information as
to the achievement level of the school where my own daugh
ter attended, and I never asked for it.
Q. Well, I take it that at Carson, Hill and what was the
other school? A. George Washington.
Q. George Washington, you didn’t have any qualms, did
you, about the quality of the education your child was
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Cross
9 9 4 a
[1141] receiving? A. I had no qualms about the quality
of the education my child was receiving.
Q. Now, as a Board member, were you aware of the fact,
Mr. Burch, that the School District was spending con
siderable money during your tenure on the Board for
programs which I might colloquially call compensatory
education programs? A. Yes.
The Court: What kind?
Mr. Greiner: Compensatory education.
The Witness: Compensatory education.
The Court: Oh.
Q. When did you first become aware, Mr. Burch, of
compensatory education programs in the District? A. I
can’t recite the precise year, but I became aware of a com
pensatory education program installed at Cole.
Q. Cole Junior High School? A. Yes.
Q. What year was that? Do you have a recollection?
A. Well, it would have to be a recollection. I can’t state
precisely. It was at the time of the—started at the time
of the boundary change between Morey and the others.
In addition to that—
Q. 1962? A. 1962. That was when an enhanced and
enlarged, a [1142] greater compensatory educational pro
gram was installed at Cole, to my knowledge, and with
my tacit approval, although it was never done—-although
it was done through budgeting rather than as a policy of
the Board.
Q. Do you recall the nature of that program? A. No,
sir, except with one respect. Compensatory education, of
course, is based on a reduced number of pupils for each
teacher, or two teachers for the same number of children
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants-—Cross
995a
as in an ordinary course. That’s the main thrust of the
compensatory education, perhaps additional courses, em
phasis on other things.
Q. You don’t have any specific recollection? A. No, but
I do know that the thrust of Cole was to reduce the teacher-
pupil ratio.
Q. That can be done in two ways, either cutting the
class size in half or adding another teacher. A. Quite
right.
Q. Were you aware of any compensatory education pro
grams in the District during your tenure? A. Yes, sir,
in other words, the compensatory education, if that’s what
you want to call it, that arose as the result of the Voorhees
Committee, where the Board beefed up, provided money,
additional personnel, additional courses, at Smiley Junior
High School and Baker Junior High School.
Q. Now, so, you have mentioned Morey, Smiley and
[1143] Baker— A. Not—I made no reference to com
pensatory at Morey.
Q. I am sorry. Cole. A. Cole.
Q. Smiley— A. Cole on the Board’s own, before the Voor
hees report. Baker and Smiley as a direct result of a recom
mendation of the Voorhees Committee.
Q. And the first such program that you can recall was
1962! A. With respect to Cole.
Q. Did the— A. ’64 and ’65 with respect to Smiley and
Baker, as a result of the Voorhees report.
Q. Now, do you recall, Mr. Burch, whether or not the
School District received federal assistance in the funding
of those projects? A. Well, beginning in 1965, yes.
Q. That was from the Elementary and Secondary— A.
That was the passage in 1965 of the Elementary and
Secondary Educational Act by the Federal Government,
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Cross
996a
and we finally—I can’t recall when the appropriation was
made, but I think in anticipation—I maybe better not say
that. The 1966 budget adopted in the fall of 1965 first in
cluded additional ESEA money, which had heretofore not
been available [1144] to the District.
Q. Do you recall the schools which were targeted to re
ceive those funds? Were there any schools in addition to
Cole, Baker and Smiley, to your recollection? A. Yes, by
and large, the schools in the Platte River. In other words,
Platte bottom, Fairview, Greenlee, the old one-—Elmwood.
I think that Kepner and Yalverde qualified to a degree.
Horace Mann, Bryant-Webster, Cr of ton-Mitchell, Wyatt,
Wyman, Whittier. Those specifically were so-called target
area schools.
Q. Did the School Administration report to the Board
as to why the Administration thought these programs were
required in those schools which you have just described?
A. No, except in a general—that is where the so-called
culturally and economically disadvantaged children, whom
ESEA—the thrust was to provide greater facilities for
education—that’s where they resided. In other words, that
was the guideline, obviously based on census tracts and
figures on family income and consultation with the Welfare
Department. There is where the economically and cultur
ally disadvantaged children lived. That was the whole
reason for those tracts.
Q. I take it that the money wouldn’t have been spent in
those areas, Mr. Burch, had those children been achieving
satisfactorily in those schools, is that correct? A. I don’t—I
will not—the ESEA did not require as a [1145] condition
precedent achievement. It was on the culturally and eco
nomically disadvantaged. Now, you can jump to the con
clusion that they were not achieving, but you are not going
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Cross
9 9 7 a
to have me so state, because the culturally and economically
disadvantaged areas of this country is where ESEA money
was channeled.
Q. What was the objective of the program, Mr. Burch?
A. To enlarge the educational opportunities of those cul
turally and economically disadvantaged children, sir. That
was the thrust of the whole national program.
Q. And that was never equated with achievement? A. It
hasn’t been equated with achievement yet. It had only been
in operation for the calendar years of ’66, ’67, ’68 and ’69.
Q. Did you receive any valuations of these programs
from the School Administration? A. No, sir, I never re
ceived any during my service on the Board, which was dur
ing a year and a half of ESEA operation. I have never
received an evaluation of any increase in achievement dur
ing that year and a half, nor have I as a public official yet.
The Court: I think we might be able to save a
little time. You were satisfied in your own mind that
it was justified to use this approach?
The Witness: Yes, sir,
[1146] The Court: That there was some neces
sity for it?
The Witness: Bight.
The Court: Doesn’t that really answer your
question?
Mr. Greiner: I think so, Your Honor, yes.
The Court: All right, let’s get on with it.
Q. Mr. Burch, you were a resident in the City and
County of Denver in the years 1955 and 1956? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Do you recall being aware of the controversy in
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Cross
998a
the community over the proposed boundary changes at that
time? A. No, sir, I took no note of school affairs in 1955
and ’56.
Q. You were in the legislature at that time? A. That’s
right.
Q. And you don’t recall any publicity about a letter
written to the School Board by certain legislators? A.
No, sir, I do not.
Q. Now, I believe you said that it was in 1969 with the
building of the proposed building of the junior high school
at 32nd and Josephine that you first became aware of ra
cial considerations, is that correct? A. I didn’t say that.
I said I first became aware—that was the first time that
there appeared before the Board objections raised upon
racial considerations. Obviously, I [1147] was aware of
the racial—of the racial characteristics of this city, but
the—there were never any—let me state this, the bound
aries of Barrett School, for example, were set while I was
on the Board. They were never set by the Board. They
were done by administrative decision. I never received
any complaint, written or otherwise, about the boundaries
of Barrett School, but the first time, when the full impact
of the racial considerations, the de facto segregation, that
that would be a de facto segregated school, it then came out
in the open publicly at the Board of Education at its hear
ings after the introduction of the recommendation that we
consider building a school at 32nd and Colorado Boulevard.
Q. And your recollection is different from Mrs. John
son’s, is that correct? Mrs. Johnson recalled that the Board
had received protests about the building of Barrett, its
location, and the establishment of its boundary lines. A.
That could well be, because I was not a member of the
Board at that time, sir. The Board may well have received
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—-Cross
999a
protests about the building of Barrett when it was pro
posed for study, but the record shows the go-ahead order
given January, 1959.
Q. So, when you came to the Board it was already built!
A. For all intents and purposes. It hadn’t been built, but
it was decided to build it.
Q. When the question of equality of educational [1148]
opportunity in minority schools was first raised or first
called to your attention in 1962, Mr. Burch, did you have
an opinion at that time as to whether or not there was a
relationship! A. No, that was one of the reasons why I
supported the formation of the Yoorhees Committee, to get
the facts if there was. I had no knowledge of it.
Q. What sort of indicia would you have looked to or did
you hope to have come out of that committee report that
might have helped you make a determination as to whether
or not there was a relationship? A. I had no-—I could not
have instructed the committee to—as to what they should
find. As a matter of fact, the committee—we had to provide
—the committee drew its conclusions from the staff, and
there was assigned to the Yoorhees Committee certain
members of the staff. I would have been incapable of
directing anyone to give me the factors by which I could
have found out if the quality of education was unequal.
Q. Well, the Committee did in fact issue a final report?
A. In 1964, yes.
Q. Did it answer the question that you had hoped would
he answered by it? A. Well, they made some 180 recom
mendations, all of which were directed to attempting to
improve the quality of educational opportunity, and there
by improve achievement, but [1149] no one can say if any
of those actually finally resulted in greater achievement of
educational—not opportunity—but educational results.
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Cross
1000a
Q. Now, there was a subsequent committee appointed,
was there not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you on the Board when it was appointed? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Do you recall the reasons why it was felt that it was
necessary to appoint that second committee? A. Well, you
notice the difference in name. One was a special study
committee on the equality of educational opportunity and
the other was an advisory committee, and I don’t recall
the full title, hut the creation of the second was to in effect
advise the Board and Administration in the formulation
of methods rather than calling attention to unequal oppor
tunities.
Q. Well, was the premise of the second committee, which
was called the advisory council on equality of educational
opportunity in the Denver Public Schools, was the premise
there that inequality in fact existed in certain of the
schools ? A. Only as alleged or as demonstrated, whatever
word you want to say, by the Yoorhees Committee.
Q. Well, I take it that there must have been a feeling
that there were some inequality problems or it wouldn’t
have [1150] been necessary to have an advisory council,
would it? A. I think that’s probably right, but you will
note also that the second one was to be composed of repre
sentatives of—I forget the wording—of civil rights organ
izations, and, in other words, its composition was signifi
cantly different than the Yoorhees Committee. The Yoor
hees Committee, as I recall, was twenty-four, three from
each of the eight high school districts, plus staff. The Bird
Committee, the second one, I can’t recall the members, hut
in addition there were members not really residents in the
high school districts.
Q. So, the composition of the second committee was some
what more cosmopolitan? A. That’s right. It brought in
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Cross
1001a
the viewpoints of the civil rights organizations as members
of the committee instead of what yon call—obviously, they
worked with the Voorhees Committee, but they didn’t have
a voice in the vote, as they did in the other.
£11513 Q. Now, if the first occasion, Mr. Burch, of your
attention being called to racial considerations was the pro
posed junior high school in 1962 at 32nd and Jasmine, I
take it the second such instance would have been the contro
versy which surrounded the proposed boundary changes at
Cole, Morey and Byers, also in 1962, is that correct? A.
Yes.
Q. And which came first? Do you have a recollection?
Did the Cole-Morey matter come up after the junior high
school? A. To my recollection—and I might possibly be
wrong—the 32nd and Colorado Boulevard came up in Feb
ruary. The boundary changes with respect to Byers, Morey
and Cole, they came up subsequently to that. Because
again I think, sincerely, or I will state that one of the rea
sons advanced for building the new junior high school—
and it was to be a modest size—was two purposes: number
one, was to relieve the overcrowding at Cole, and number
two, was to work to the point where they could eliminate
Gove. No doubt in my mind that, had the building at 32nd
and Colorado Boulevard been constructed, a substantial
part of the Gove area would have attended that junior high
school.
Q. In fact, there was a plan to close Gove down, wasn’t
there? A. Frankly, when I came on the board, they said
Gove £1152] ought to be torn down. I t’s 700 capacity. It
hasn’t got this and it hasn’t got that. And we ought to abol-
lish it as a junior high school. And I think the construc
tion of the new high school has had some bearing on the
ultimate disposition of Gove.
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Cross
1002a
Q. So the plan to— A. Now, going back to the bound
ary delineations, I personally—I personally received no
objections from the change in boundary lines between Morey
and Cole. I received a whole lot of objections, written, tele
phone calls and whatnot, against the extension of the in
clusion in the Byers district of children who had previously
gone to Morey and it was the same as you had everywhere,
“Well, you’re breaking your friends” and whatnot. A few
little arguments about changes in the Grant-Byers district
because they had to cross the Valley Highway and so forth
and so forth. But there was no significant or rising op
position that ever presented itself to me or to the board at
the time we adopted the boundary changes that you refer to.
Q. So that we can see, Mr. Burch, what the situation was
in 1955, I am now showing you what’s in evidence as Ex
hibit 416. In 1955 what was the capacity for Byers? A.
For Byers? Capacity? This is 1955? I’m reading. 1355.
Q. And what was its enrollment in March of 1955? [11533
A. 1971.
Q. What was its projected enrollment the next fall? A.
1096.
Q. And at any point in time was it projected that Byers
would exceed its capacity? A. No, sir, at no time.
Q. That projection which is Exhibit 416 goes up until
which school year? A. 1961-1962.
Q. All right. So Byers was under capacity and it was
projected to remain that way, is that correct, as shown by
this exhibit? A. That’s what the exhibit indicates, yes,
sir.
Q. Well, in the exhibit—you recognize that as school dis
trict figures, do you not? A. I assume it is. April, 1955.
I had no connection with the school district. Let me say
this—and this is similar—this is the same as similar esti
Palmer L. Burch— -for Defendants—Cross
1003a
mated memberships that were given to me; the 1959 pro
jection, on beyond these years. This is obviously a school
district exhibit. But it is April, 1955.
Q. Now, that exhibit also lists the capacity at Cole, does
it not? A. Yes.
Q. What is the capacity given for Cole? £11543 A. 1,908.
Q. 1,908 students? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And do you know what the enrollment was at Cole in
1955? A. No, sir, I have no idea.
Q. Handing you what’s in evidence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit
215, the first column gives the enrollment at the various—
Cole, Smiley and Morey. If you will look at 1955—what was
the enrollment at Cole? A. 1,338.
Q. 1955? I beg your pardon. A. 1,401.
Q. 1,401. And you have just told us it had a capacity of
1,908, is that correct? A. That may have been true, sir, in
1955, but the capacity of Cole when the boundary changed
was not 1,908. It was somewhat nearer 1,500 or 1,600. I am
certain that the capacity of Cole Junior High School in
1962 will not show 1,908, at least for junior high school
purposes.
Q. What had happened at Cole to your knowledge to
reduce its capacity? A. Well, some of the facilities at
Cole had been transformed from junior high use to special
education use.
Q. Special education— [1155] A. And from the stand
point of the capacity comparing it with more than the
others, we were dealing with the 30-a-room capacity nor
mally associated with a junior high school class.
Q. The special education children were being bused in,
weren’t they? A. All special education children classes are
transportation classes in the whole district, sir. There is
no significance of busing into Smiley. They’re also bused
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Cross
1004a
into Evans. They are bused into Skinner. The special ed
ucation is based on busing.
Q. We were talking*, were we not, Mr. Burch, about Cole?
Busing of special education. A. Obviously—I can’t state
as a matter of fact but it is my understanding that when
you establish a special education center that it’s unlikely
that you have enough in the subdistrict and you thereby
gather them together.
Q. Well, is it your testimony that in 1962—- A. May I
refresh my memory. It says “Capacity of Cole, 1,908, until
1960. 1961 to Present, 1,725.”
Q. Is it your testimony then, Mr. Burch, that in 1955 that
Cole was overcapacity? I believe that’s what you said on
direct examination. A. In 1955?
Q. In 1962. [1156] A. Well, in 1962—in 1962, with 1,725
capacity. 1961 was 1,932 enrollment. As a result of the
boundary change, it dropped down to 1,654. 1,512 in 1963
and it has not been, to my knowledge, above capacity since.
Q. So, how much— A. Again, on the capacity, 1,725,
sir; not 1,908.
Q. Yes. So, if the special education classes had not been
there, what would the situation have been? A. Well, I ’m
certain that the 1,932 membership in Cole is junior hig*h
membership and not related to the—These were not neces
sarily special education classes of junior high age at these
special education centers.
Q. Are you referring particularly to Cole? A. Anyplace.
Special education classes are not necessarily based on age.
We have special education classes that I have attended
where you have children of all ages.
Q. Now, the school directly to the south of Cole was
what junior high school? Morey? A. Directly to the
south?
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Cross
1005a
Q. Right. A. Well, to the southwest would be Morey,
yes, sir; not directly south.
Q. What does Exhibit 215 show the situation to be at
Morey in 1961? A. It shows that Morey had 894.
[1157] Q. Enrollment, and it had a capacity at the time
of 1,170. So it was undercapacity, is that correct? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Now, as I recall the boundary change, an area was
taken from the southern attendance area of Cole and given
to Morey, is that correct?
Mr. Ris: What year, please?
Mr. Greiner: 1962 changes we’re talking about.
A. Yes. In other words, it would be the south and west
boundaries.
Q. How many students were moved? Do you know? A.
No, sir, I have no idea how many were physically moved.
Q. You cited some figures about how much the enrollment
went down at Cole. A. That’s right.
Q. How much did it go down? A. From 1,932 in 1961,
until 1963,1,512. It went down 420.
Q. In a two-year period? A. In a two-year period, by
these figures.
Q. What about the next year, right after the boundary
change? A. 1,932 in ’61; 1,654 in ’62. That’s a reduction
of 278, and the final reduction, 420, which would, from that
—[1158] and these were available to me—would have the
objective of accomplishing a reduction in excess—the en
rollment over capacity at Cole was accomplished in the
two-year period.
Q. Well, now, Mr. Burch, would it have been possible to
solve that very same problem by simply moving the special
education courses to Morey from Cole? A. I suppose it
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Cross
1006a
would have, sir, but that was not the question on which we
were deciding.
Q. That was never even suggested? A. There are always
—not to my knowledge, no, sir. There are always alter
natives to anything. It’s the one that has the general recom
mendation of the staff which is adopted.
Q. Now, during your consideration—the board’s consid
eration of this proposed boundary change, Mr. Burch, you
did say, did you not, that racial questions were raised
about the Cole-Morey boundary change? A. No, sir, I did
not say that.
Q. It’s your recollection that there were no such ques
tions raised? A. I said that I had no objection raised to me
from any extension of the Morey boundaries to the north
west. I had a lot of static from people objecting to the
moving of children formerly going to Morey, to Byers,
primarily because of distance and associations. The racial
question was never [1158] raised, sir.
Q. So your recollection is different from that of Mrs.
Johnson, is that correct? A. If that is—Sobeit. That’s my
recollection.
Q. Do you recall her testifying about the receipt of peti
tions at board meetings protesting that change? A. I heard
that but I could not from my recollection ever—and this
could be adduced—any petition, sir, that was ever brought
to the Board of Education, at least, when I was president,
was always filed with the minutes of the meeting. I have
no recollection of a petition signed by anyone objecting to
the changes in the boundary between Morey and Cole.
Q. Now, did you have any knowledge, Mr. Burch, of the
differences in the racial compositions of the areas which
first were being moved from Cole to Morey in the one
instance, and being moved from Morey to Byers in the
other instance? A. Yes.
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Cross
1007a
Q. You knew, did you not, that the area being taken from
Cole and given to Morey had a different racial character
than the area being taken from Morey and given to Byers,
did you not? A. I did.
Q. And did you have any idea what the impact of those
two moves might be on the racial composition of Morey?
[11603 A. No. In other words, that was not a considera
tion sir. In other words, the attendance boundaries of the
Denver Public Schools were never related to racial or eth
nic considerations. That consideration was wholly on the
number of children.
Q. Now, what you have just told me as reflected in Ex
hibit— A. Let me go on. There was, by Policy 5100; it was
adopted subsequent to the consideration of the boundaries
of Morey and Cole. And race and color did not enter into
it nor did ethnicity.
Q. You seem to be making a distinction, I take it, Mr.
Burch, between the board overtly using race or ethnicity
as a basis for its decision on the one hand and instances
where the board had brought to its attention questions of
race and ethnicity on the other, is that correct ? A. That’s
correct. But the board had not adopted a policy with re
spect to those things brought to their attention, sir.
Q. Now, as I recall, one of the recommendations of the
Voorhees Committee was the establishment of a policy of
limited open enrollment. Do you recall that? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you recall whether or not in the development of
the program of limited open enrollment which was in March
of [11613 1964, as I recall, in the development of that pro
gram, was an objective of integration discussed as a pos
sible objective of limited open enrollment? A. It was. Yes,
sir. In other words, that was the suggestion; that we adopt
a policy of open enrollment or of limited open enrollment,
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Cross
1008a
was a direct result of the recommendations that every
measure should be taken to achieve as much integration
as possible.
Q. Now, you will recall, Mr. Burch, that the policy which
defines the limited open enrollment policy—the written defi
nition of that policy—it did not establish any conditions,
did it, that the transfers under LOE have an integrating
effect? A. No, sir.
Q. Was it discussed? A. It was hoped— It was hoped,
sir, that that policy would achieve a better degree of inte
gration. But there was no mandate about it. I will say,
frankly, as a matter of personal opinion, I viewed the whole
thing with a dim idea.
Q Why? A. With a dim view.
Q. Why? A. I did not feel that it would be productive of
any great degree of integration. And it was also putting
burdens [11621 on parents by the fact that no transporta
tion was at that time provided.
Q. Did you vote against that? A. So I will say, frankly,
and state to the Court I viewed the idea of limited open
enrollment with a dim view, myself, although I voted for it
on the hope that it might accomplish something.
Q. Now, during the course of your tenure on the Board
of Education, Mr. Burch, did you ever receive any informa
tion concerning teacher experience in minority schools? A.
Teacher what?
Q. Teacher experience. A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever acquire any knowledge during that time
period while you were on the board that indicated to you
that teachers in these minority schools tended to have less
experience? A. No, sir.
Q. Were you aware of a higher rate of teacher turnover
in these minority schools? A. Well, it’s difficult to answer
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants•—Cross
1009a
yes or no. I was concerned with, the teacher turnover in
the whole system. But it was not, to my own knowledge'—-
but it was stated that there was a greater teacher turnover
in the older schools and in the schools in the minority area,
wherever they might [1163] be.
Q. So, in your own mind, you didn’t focus on teacher
turnover in just the minority schools? A. No, because
in the personnel reports that there was—while there may
have been more teacher turnover in a Columbine, a Har
rington, a Whittier, than there was in a Bradley, a Fallis,
a Kunsmiller—it was therefore entirely too much turn
over, in my opinion, all over.
Q. Now, there are two sources of turnover, at least that
occur immediately to me: one is resignation of teacher,
and the second is the transfer of the teacher. Is that cor
rect? A. Did you say transfer?
Q. Yes, sir. A. That would not necessarily be turn
over. Again, if I may refer to Mr. Fuller, Mr. Fuller
came on the board in 1961 and joined with me and for the
first time—at the time of the technical report, resigna
tions and whatnot, we asked the superintendent to provide
us reasons, and shortly after that time, in 1961, the per
sonnel report given showing who resigned, also gave the
reasons. Marriage, pregnancy, leaving city, husband leav
ing city, retirement, and whatnot. In other words, all res
ignations then were categorized. That was not available
until after Mr. Fuller. He was strong for it and I joined
him and we finally got that information. [11641 But trans
fers as between schools, that wasn’t on this personnel
report. In other words, it was not severing from what
came on the report. What came on the report was the
leaving of the district. But not moving from school to
school within the district. So transfers could not be—while
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Cross
1010a
they may have affected turnover in schools, they were not
the turnover I was talking about.
Q. So you were talking about resignation-type turnover?
A. I was talking about things which resulted in the teacher
leaving the employ of the district.
Q. Now, from a standpoint of the school from whence
the teacher was transferred, the effect on the school was
the same, was it not? A. It could have been. But may I
say that the only—-I had no knowledge nor did I ever
participate in any transfer of teachers from school to
school. We also approved the transfers of a principal
from this school to that school, and coordinator. But never
did the board ratify, approve, or instigate transfer of a
teacher from school—from this school to that school. That
was an administrative decision, worked out with the teach
ers, so far as I knew.
Q. Were you aware of the written policy of the school
district during your tenure, Mr. Burch, to the effect that
a teacher would not ordinarily be expected to request a
transfer until the teacher had been in a school for three
years? [11653 A. I probably am aware of it. But it was
one of those administrative policies with which I, as a
board member, was not concerned.
Q. Did you see any educational benefit in such a policy?
A. I repeat, I was not concerned with that administrative
policy.
Q. So you didn’t recognize that there is some benefit
to be derived from having a stable membership of teachers
in a given school? A. I repeat, sir, that a board member
is not a school administrator. Those particular things are
left to the administration. Even though, probably with the
majority of the board, we could have changed it. But with
obviously a big policy book—I skimmed through it and 1
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Cross
1011a
was aware of certain policies. But with respect to the one
you mentioned, that was not my concern. I never ques
tioned it, sir.
[1166] Cross-Examination by Mr. Brega:
Q. Mr. Burch, looking first at the Cole-Morey change
in 1962, I would like to have you take the Exhibits 398 and
399, and turning to the appropriate page—398 now would
be the school year ’61-’62 and 399 the school year ’62-’63—
I wonder if you would examine those and tell the Court,
first, for Cole, which you said was primarily a minority
school at that time, would you tell the Court what per
centage of Cole in 1961 and 1962 was white prior to the
boundary change. A. Forty-five—as of May 1, 1962?
Q. Yes. A. 45.0 percent, according to this statement.
Q. No, I am saying white. A. Oh, white.
Q. Anglo. A. Oh, well, wait a minute. This copy I
have here shows Negroes, Orientals and Spanish. This is
the elementary schools here.
Q. Yes. What you have to do here is you have 45 per
cent Negroes, right? A. You want me to do some sub
traction? All right. Obviously, starting with 100 percent,
the Anglo would be 10 percent.
Q. Ten percent in the year of 1961 and ’62? [1167] A.
As of May 1, 1962, yes.
Q. Would you look at Exhibit 399 and tell us what the
percentage of Anglo was in Cole, January 1, 1963? A.
This says that in January, 1963, it was 16.90.
Q. So, it increased the Anglo by 6.9 percent? A. That’s
what the figures show, yes, sir.
Q. Now, in looking at Exhibits 398 and 399, would you
examine those two and tell the Court how the percentage
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Cross
1012a
of minority students or black at Morey changed from the
school year ’61- 62 to ’62-63? A. May 1, ’62, the figure
shows Negro 15.0 percent.
Q. Would you tell the Court what— A. January 24,
1963, the figures show Negro percentage 27.99 percent.
Q. So, the black enrollment at Morey after the boundary
change increased by 12 percent?A. By 12 percent, yes, sir.
Q. Now, I want to go back a moment, if I may, to the
teacher situation which Mr. Greiner dwelled upon. Isn’t
it a fact that during the time you were on the Board, a
black person filed an action against the Board or a com
plaint in the Anti-Discrimination Commission or now known
as the Civil Bights Commission, against the Board for
racial and ethnic data on the teacher applicant forms? A.
Yes, sir, that is true.
[1168] Q. And isn’t it a fact that as a result of that
these things were removed from the applicant forms? A.
It came to our attention that a complaint of some'—what
ever takes place at the Anti-Discrimination Commission—
a member of the Commission had filed a complaint with
the Commission that we were—the school’s records were
discriminatory, and we had attorneys’ conferences and what
not, and finally it was resolved that the School District,
No. 1, would remove from all applications the applicant’s
picture that came in traditionally and any reference to
race, but it was finally agreed that the teacher who was
a tenure teacher or a permanent employee, they would be
left there, so we could identify quickly that this person
was a Negro or Oriental or what the case may be. That
did occur, although it never came into the general public
—I don’t recall ever having heard anything about it in the
press, but it did occur yes.
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Cross
1013a
Q. Then, at a subsequent time, I believe, after the Voor-
hees Committee, you began to get requests, recommenda
tions, to solicit teachers on the basis of race and ethnic
background? A. Yes.
Q. And isn’t it a fact that when you got into this you
found, for instance, that it was extremely difficult to find
qualified teachers of Hispano background, for instance?
[1169] A. Well, it was always difficult to get qualified
teachers of either the Hispano or the Negro race, because
of the competition. In other words, the same situation
existed over the whole United States or over the State of
Colorado, and, frankly, there was more demand for their
services than there were numbers to be chosen. We were
in competition to get a qualified Negro teacher or a quali
fied Spanish American teacher. We were in competition
with school districts all over the United States.
Q. In other words, there was a great demand? A. So
it was difficult. It was difficult to secure teachers of the
minority, ethnic or racial minorities.
Q. Now, when you got to the problems in the Stedman-
Smith-Hallett area, were all of these schools on double
session or extended session at one time in this period of
1961, ’62, ’65, in there? A. To my best recollection, yes.
When the enrollment of the school increases over its
capacity, you have extended sessions. You have double
sessions. In other words, you attempt to accommodate
the children within the existing facilities, and, certainly,
the thrust of the Administration and of the Board during
my whole tenure was to eliminate double sessions where
possible.
Now, I would have to answer, I believe, that the devel
opment of double sessions obviously required the putting
[11701 of mobile homes at Smith, or mobile units. The
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Cross
1014a
development of double sessions finally resulted in the mo
bile homes and subsequent addition at Hallett, and, like
wise, at Stedman, and when the addition at Stedman and
the transportation to the other schools—in other words,
it is a known fact that there have been no double sessions
at Stedman or at Hallett since the additions were built.
There still may be, to my knowledge—I wouldn’t know as
to the present number of children in Smith. There may
still be some classes, some grades and some classes on
extended or double session.
Q. During this period when you had those mobile units,
you also had four at Phillips and four at Park Hill. Now,
these schools were predominantly Anglo, were they not?
A. Yes, sir. They were prior to 1964. In other words,
there were changes made in the elementary boundaries at
Phillips, at least, subsequent to the Voorhees report, which
increased the population of Phillips and particularly its
minority population, but one of the problems that worried
us at the Board is Phillips is a very small site and the
construction of any mobile units there reduced the play
ground area. That was always our problem about mobile
units.
Q. During the time you were studying whether or not
to build additional capacity or bus people out or double
sessions, isn’t it a fact that you had received a report then
from a special study as the result of the Yoorhees Com
mittee on [1171] whether people liked busing? A. Yes.
Q. Or liked the neighborhood school policy? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Isn’t it a fact— A. Made available to the members
of the Yoorhees Committee and made available to the
members of the Board of Education and the staff was a
report which was confidential and never released publicly,
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Cross
1015a
but it was in effect a study of questions and answers, a
poll, shall we say, of many of the points that were under
study by the Voorhees Committee.
Q. Now, I would hand you what has been marked for
identification as Defendant’s Intervenor’s Exhibit TJ, and
ask you if you can identify that document. A. Yes, that is
the Confidential Copy No. 40 of a publication called, “The
Equality of Educational Opportunity in Denver, Colorado,”
which was developed and authorized by the Voorhees Com
mittee under the auspices of Research Services, Incorpo
rated, and this came into my custody and my possession
as a member of the Board of Education as the fortieth
confidential copy. How many others, I don’t know. That’s
the fortieth copy, which I have had at all times.
* * # # #
[11733 * * *
Cross-Examination by Mr. Brega (Continued):
Q. Mr. Burch, in consideration of this Stedman-Smith-
Hallett area and these changes that occurred in ’66, had
you examined and used the questionaire regarding the at
titudes of Denver people toward busing Denver children?
Had you examined this report and studied it on whether
people were in favor or opposed to busing in the elemen
tary schools? A. Well, we were aware—yes, a School
Board member was aware of the response to his question,
attitudes toward busing Denver school children.
Q. All right. Let me read the question. “Would you
approve or disapprove a plan whereby elementary school
children would be taken to different schools by bus so that
no one school would ever have mostly minority group
students ?
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Cross
1016a
Now, would you tell the Court, in the elementary school,
what percentage of the Negro parents disapproved of mov
ing by bus to another school! A. Forty-three percent.
Q. Did you also at this period of time take a poll in the
Hispano or Spanish, as this is classified, and could you
tell the Court what percentage of the Spanish people voted
[11743 disapproval of busing in the elementary school!
A. 61 percent of Spanish parents disapproved.
Q. Now, examining page 43, which goes into the ques
tion, as I will read it: “This card describes two different
plans or ways by which children might go to school in
this city. Which of these plans do you consider best for
children in this city, elementary school or Grades 1 through
6?” And one is a neighborhood plan and the other is an
open enrollment, and would you tell the Court what per
centage of the Negro parents voted in favor of the neigh
borhood school plan! A. 71 percent.
Q. And what percentage of the Spanish parents! A. 79
percent.
Q. In favor of it! A. Yes.
Q. All right, now, were these factors that were con
sidered by the Board when you looked at this overcrowding
in this area as part of the viewpoint of the community!
A. Not wholly. I was guided in my views on the Stedman
situation specifically by communications which I received
in writing and by telephone from parents in the Stedman
School district.
Q. Well, isn’t it— A. I asked why not come to the
Board and make those things public, why call me alone,
and they said, “We would—
[1175] Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we object to
the witness’ hearsay statements.
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Cross
1017a
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Cross
The Court: Overruled.
Q. Now, counsel has questioned you on whether you
anticipated the tremendous growth in the population east
of Colorado Boulevard as far as the black population. The
exhibit before the Court, S-l, reflects that between 1963
and 1968 the total black school population increased by 45
percent. Could you tell the Court whether or not you had
any studies that indicated that this growth was coming?
A. What was the time period, sir?
Q. Between ’63 and ’68, or up until you left the Board.
A. In other words, it is not an official census. No. The
Board recognized, of course, the constant increase in the—
we became aware of a large increase in Negro population
in Denver Schools upon the census of 1960. It was appar
ent in the years since there has been a steady increase.
Now, you say, were we aware that it increased 45 percent
in five years?
Q. Or anything near that percentage? A. Well, only by
figures that you might read on—for other purposes. We
ourselves knew it was increasing, but I had no knowledge it
increased 45 percent.
Q. Well, as a matter of fact, were you not concerned
about the number of students that were going to schools
in this particular northeast Denver area? [11763 A. Yes.
In other words, as I have stated, it was a unique thing
in my experience with public schools that an increase would
-—such an increase would develop in an area already de
veloped. By that I mean when we add a newly annexed
area where the developer was still building houses, you
never knew how many kids were going to come from any
house; but in an area which was built up, where there was
no new construction—apartments, as you are all aware,
1018a
apartment construction, that’s what’s affecting central
Denver. That causes the school enrollment to go down,
because children of lower school age traditionally don’t
live in apartments.
Q. Well— A. But I was—what’s the word? This sur
prised me, that growth in an established area.
# * # # #
[11773 (Following a recess, the trial resumed at
2:05 p.m.)
By Mr. Brega:
Q. Mr. Burch, prior to lunch we were discussing the
Stedman, Smith, Hallett situation about 1966. During this
period of time when you were concerned with the problem
of overstudent population in these school areas, was there
any discussion when you were talking about building or
objection from the community on the basis of race or
ethnic background? A. Yes. The answer to that is yes.
There was objection stated that the addition to a school
which was already preponderantly Negro enrollment would
insure that that would continue to be a de facto segregated
school. But there was also support given—to me, expres
sion of support given to me for the construction of addi
tions at both of these schools in the—by people in the
District.
Q. Now, isn’t it a fact that in the Smith subdistrict the
majority of students there at that time were black? A. I
was led to believe that that was true, yes, sir.
Q. And yet the parents of those students wanted mobile
units rather than busing out of the subdistrict? A. Well,
the question was not posed to them, as to additional con
struction. It was never proposed that an addition be made
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Cross
1019a
to Smith. School, per se. The question there was additional
mobile units to increase the classroom capacity, or busing.
And, the preponderance of opinion of those [1178]
particular people was more mobile units, no busing.
Q. Now, at the time that that was brought up to the
Board, do you know whether the Board voted unanimously
in favor of more mobil units at Smith? A. I can’t recall
precisely, but I would believe from my recollection that
notwithstanding the no votes on the construction of per
manent additions, I would recollect that the vote on the
question of acquiring the requested number of mobile units,
I think, was wholly affirmative. I don’t recall of a no vote
on the acquisition of additional mobile units at Smith
School.
Q. And Mrs. Noel and Mr. Benton both voted in favor
of that? A. That’s my recollection. They both voted no
on the Stedman-Hallett permanent additions, but I recol
lect as being president of the Board that it was a unani
mous vote finally on the acquisition of additional mobile
units at Smith.
Q. And it was also a unanimous vote of the decision of
busing students out of Stedman, isn’t that right? A. Cor
rect.
Q. One hundred some students? A. Correct.
Q. And they were bused, were they not, to predomi
nantly Anglo schools? A. Yes.
[1179] Q. Now, I want to cover just for a moment this
annexation with you. Did this create a real problem for
the Board during the time—the period of time that you
were serving? A. It certainly did. The projections of the
Board prior to my being on it had built schools, at the
then outlying boundaries of Denver, and a good example
is Pitts School at Hampden and Grape, or what not, was
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Cross
1020a
on the then boundaries. Then annexation took place in
Hampden East and Hampden West and Golden Key and
what not, with the result that we, under the laws pertain
ing to annexation, it became our obligation to immediately
provide schooling facilities for those children, and they
couldn’t attend the nearest school because it was already
full. But, during my service the annexation of the so-called
Bear Valley addition and Bear Valley West, the addition—-
the annexation of Fort Logan and the property south of
Fort Logan, Centennial Estates, or something, and the
annexation in the south and east of Thomas Jefferson High
School, they certainly posed problems for us.
Q. During the time that these annexations were being
sought by the City, did they ask School Board’s opinion on
this or seek your advice! A. The practice was that the
City Planning Office would deliver to us the proposed an
nexations ; the proposed developer’s plans on it. And would
ask us to make an estimate of the number of children that
might result from that annexation. [1180] But, as the
annexation usually went through, we had—we thereupon
had the obligation of educating the children.
Q. Well, these areas that were annexed didn’t for the
most part have any schools, did they? A. Yes, they had
schools. But, the children in the annexed areas to all of
southeast Denver attended schools in the Cherry Creek
School District. But, the school laws, a resident of a school
district notwithstanding the fact that this annexed area
might contain a school within it, the children could no
longer go to that school; they had to attend Denver schools.
So, sure, they had schools there in most cases that they
were attending, but we had to provide schools over and
above what they had. They could not go to the Cherry
Creek schools after they became residents of Denver.
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Gross
1021a
Q. As these situations developed, I recall that in 1965
both the Fort Logan annexation and the Centennial Estates
were deannexed by court order. A. That’s correct. We
acquired the children immediately upon annexation, al
though I can’t say immediately but at the beginning of
the next semester or at the beginning of school year by
arrangement and understanding with the existing school
board, but in those two cases we had children who became
our obligation, who subsequently were deannexed and be
came Sheridan’s obligation and then finally became our
obligation. And with respect to the Fort Logan and Cen
tennial Estates [11813 annexation to which you refer—
Q. Did you ever have occasion to go to the City Council
and object to annexation? A. Yes, sir, I appeared before
a City Council meeting at one time when an annexation
was proposed. I think it was the Centennial Estates annex
ation. And vigorously protested on behalf of the Denver
Board of Education and the people of Denver in my rep
resentative capacity that this was an unwise annexation
to the City of Denver and should be turned down that night.
Q. As the result of this service on the Board and your
service in the legislature did you propose any legislation
concerning who had a right to object or to veto an annexa
tion? A. I did twice in 1963. I personally introduced a bill
into the general assembly to provide that no annexation to
the City and County of Denver should be valid except as
approved jointly by the Council and the School Board. The
bill went nowhere. In the year 1967, I succeeded in having
a bill introduced under another representative’s name, and
it was passed and became law. And since that time, in the
spring of 1967, annexations to Denver must be approved
jointly by City Council and by the Board of Education.
[11823 Q. Now, did the annexation of Montbello area
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Cross
1022a
have any effect upon the Smith-Hallett-Stedman area! A.
No.
Q. How did they go to school in the Monthello area? A.
Well, Monthello started slowly and projections were made
as to the number of school children there, but, obviously,
Smith School was the closest in terms of geographical dis
tance, but there was obviously no point in busing—they had
to be bused to a school from out there. The final solution
hasn’t been developed yet, but the developers finally en
tered into an agreement whereby they agreed to construct
one of their typical residence structures in the shape of a
school building, and the District leased it for a certain
period of time and that’s the schools in Monthello today.
You might call them cottage schools. They are certainly
not comparable to other schools, but to my best knowledge,
in the smaller or lower grades, kindergarten, first and sec
ond, they try to take care of them there. I think the chil
dren third through sixth are being bused to other schools
in the system, but not to any Park Hill Schools, because of
the capacity already—
Q. Now, the financing of the students, the new students
coming in, could you tell the Court what the revenue sources
are for the School District? A. Well, the revenue sources
of the Denver Public Schools are like all other schools in
Colorado. The primary [11833 and major source of reve
nue for operating schools is derived from a property tax
imposed on all the taxable property in the district at what
ever rate of levy the School District determines is neces
sary. Since 1947, there has been state support of educa
tion which results from appropriations made to the Depart
ment of Education, which is distributed to all the school
districts in the state under a complicated formula which
attempts to determine need; and then, of course, more
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Cross
1 0 2 3 a
recently, the money coming directly to the school district
from what we call the Public Law 874, the so-called impact
area, where the Denver schools get approximately
$1,300,000 a year as the result or by reason of parents
working at Lowry and working in this building and the
Post Office and what not. We get that without restriction.
There is no restriction imposed by the states with respect
to state aid except that no part may be used for capital
construction purposes. We may not use any state money
for the construction of the school building, and the ESEA
money for Denver’s district received in 1966 was somewhat
less than two million. None of that could be used for build
ings, although it could be used for equipment.
So those are the sources of revenue. And the major one,
of course, is property taxes.
Mr. Brega: Your witness.
Redirect Examination by Mr. Ris:
[1184] Q. Mr. Burch, was LOE, limited open enrollment,
an outgrowth of the Voorhees report? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Before LOE actually went into effect, do you know
whether Dr. Oberholtzer or anyone else made a trip to the
East to investigate the operation of such a plan? A. Yes,
during the insipiency of the Voorhees Committee and prior
to its creation, Dr. Hinderman, at least, was sent especially
by the Board to review what had taken place in Detroit
and other eastern schools. The limited enrollment, limited
open enrollment, we were told, had been utilized some
place, and we sent representatives-—I remember specifically
Dr. Hinderman, although there may have been others in
the staff, but they came back to report to us as best
they could what had been the results of limited open en
rollment in other districts.
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Redirect
1024a
Q. It was on the basis of the Yoorhees report and these
reports that you then adopted it! A. That’s right. Now,
as I stated before, I went along, although I was not con
vinced on the basis of the evidence that it would have any
material effect on the situation.
Q. With respect to the finances, are there any limitations
of the state law pertaining to increase in operating budget?
A. Yes, beginning, yes, with the last legislature, [11853
in adopting the new School Foundation Act, since it was
advanced by the school people and by the legislature and
all as something to in effect put a cap on the ever-increas
ing property taxes, there is a provision in the school dis
trict law or the School Finance Act that a school district
may not increase its expenditures in excess of 106 percent
of the previous year’s expenditures except by a vote of the
people.
By regulation of the State Department of Education, it
has been a little different than what the legislature intended
it, but that bill is now before us in its limited session, and
in the fall of 1970 it is my feeling, my view, my judgment,
that a majority of the school districts in the State of Colo
rado, are going to have to go to the people to have their
operating budgets approved.
Q. What is the principal source for capital construction
funds? A. The only source prior to 1945, the only source
of capital construction by school districts was bond issue.
In 1945, the legislature saw fit to adopt what they call the
post-war planning levy of one mill, which authorized every
school district in the state to levy one mill for the purpose
of catching up on construction they had to forego during
the war. That remained at one mill until 1963. In the 1963
session, I, as a member of the legislature and also as a
member of the Board of Education of Denver was success
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Redirect
1025a
ful in [1186] having the state law modified so that a dis
trict having a valuation in excess of $250 million, of which
there are only two in the state, Jefferson County and Den
ver, could impose a two-mill capital reserve levy. That
was done in the year 1969 again. That rate of levy has
been applied to all districts in the state and under law now
all districts in the state may levy two mills on the valua
tion of their property for capital reserve construction pur
poses.
Q. Is that sufficient to do away with the necessity for
bond issues! A. No, sir, it is only a supplement to bond
issues.
Mr. Bis: That’s all, thank you.
Recross-Examination by Mr. Greiner:
Q. This preference that was expressed by the students
at Smith for mobile units, had the parents at Smith at
that time been advised of the comparative levels of achieve
ment at Smith? A. Let me go back. It was expressed by
the parents of students at Smith, not the students at Smith.
Q. Pardon me, had the parents been advised of the
achievement level at Smith with comparison to other
schools? A. Not to my knowledge, because I don’t think
—as I testified earlier, as a Board member as I was not
aware of the achievement levels of any schools in the Dis
trict, and I [1187] doubt very much if it were not avail
able to members of the Board that it were available to the
parents.
Q. You said the parents at Smith, there was no promise
held out to them that there would be any permanent addi
tion at Smith? A. It was not proposed. I t was never ad
vanced that a permanent addition to Smith would be made.
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Recross
1026a
Q. Yet, I assume you agree with, the Voorhees report,
which said that mobile units should only be used on a tem
porary basis'? A. It being a recommendary and advisory
report, I am not required as a Board member to agree with
any such report.
Q. Did you conceive of the mobile units at Smith being
permanent? A. No, mobile units by their nature are tem
porary, but it can be defined as one school year or longer.
Q. By February, 1966, there were twelve mobile units at
Smith? A. Correct.
Q. When was the first time that mobile units were re
moved at Smith? A. I could not testify that any mobile
units have ever been removed at Smith, sir.
Q. Now, you will recall, Mr. Burch, that I showed you
Exhibit 396, which showed that Cole had a capacity of 1908
[1188] students in 1955. Do you recall that? A. That’s
what you have here, yes, sir.
Q. Or that’s also on Exhibit 215? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Exhibit 215 shows, does it not, that the capacity at
Morey was reduced? A. It shows that—
Q. At Cole, I am sorry. A. It shows that the rated
capacity of—are you talking about membership or ca
pacity?
Q. Capacity, sir. A. The capacity of Cole in 1955 was
1908. The capacity of Morey until 1955 was 1446, and af
ter 19—at a later date, the rated capacity of Cole became
1725 and the rated capacity of Morey became 1170.
Q. Now, I believe you indicated that that reduction in
capacity at Cole was caused there by an increase in its
utilization for special education, is that correct? A. I
could not testify to my own knowledge, but when I—having
seen these figures, which incidentally I am—in this exhibit,
I would surmise that it was used in preparation for the
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Recross
1027a
1966 bond issue; but when I raised the question how come
Cole, which formerly had a capacity of 1908, is now 1725,
the answer was that we still have the same number of
rooms but the use to which certain rooms are being put,
with a lesser [11893 number of special education children
than other children, that has resulted in the capacity, and
the same was true at Morey.
Q. Now, back in 1955-56, when Cole was rated at 1908
students, do you know how many special education students
— A. No, sir, I don’t.
Q. —were going to Cole? A. I can testify to nothing
that occurred in 1955.
Q. But it is your testimony that you think the number
increased between ’55 and ’62? A. The number of spe
cial—
Q. Yes. A. I am led to believe that’s true.
Q. I am handing you what has been marked for identifi
cation as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 421, which purports to be the
principal’s report from Cole Junior High School in the
school year 1956. Can you identify that for us! A. No,
sir, this happens to be Morey.
Q. I am sorry, here is the one for Cole, Exhibit 420, ex
cuse me. A. Yes, this is—I would say that this is the
principal’s semi-annual report of the operations of Cole
Junior High School for the school year ’56-’57.
Q. It shows the number of special education students in
the school, does it not? There is a special column for it?
[11903 A. Special education, yes, sir.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we offer Plaintiffs’
Exhibit 420.
Mr. Ris: No objection.
Mr. Brega: No objection.
The Court: Received.
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Recross
1028a
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 420 was re
ceived in evidence.)
Q. Referring to Exhibit 420, how many special education
students were going to Cole in 1956, Mr. Burch? A. I
assume the last column, “T”—-
Q. Is the total. A. Forty-four, membership on last day
of semester, 44.
Q. So, there were 44 special education students in Cole
in 1956, and at that time it had a rated capacity of 1908
students, is that correct? A. It would appear so on the
record.
Q. I am handing you what has been marked Plaintiffs’
Exhibit 422, purporting to be a resume of the annual prin
cipals’ reports for the school year 1962-63. Can you iden
tify that for us? A. Yes, sir.
The Court: This is still Cole?
Mr. Greiner: Yes, it includes Cole.
A. (Continued) I would identify this as a school [1191]
document. As to whether or not—I might say this is the
first time I have ever seen a summary of the annual re
port of principals, because they were made to the Admin
istration and not the Board.
The Court: This is probably prepared by the staff
of the School Board, anyway, isn’t it?
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: I mean, this summary.
Mr. Greiner: Yes, Your Honor.
The Witness: Your Honor, that’s the first time
that I as a School Board member ever saw a report
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Recross
1029a
of the principals, because there was not a report
that came to the Board but rather to the staff.
Mr. Greiner: We offer 422, Your Honor.
[11923 Mr. Bis: No objection.
Mr. Brega: No objection.
The Court: It will be received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 422 was re
ceived in evidence.)
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. Now referring to Exhibit 422 for the school year
1962-63, there is a column for special education, is there
not? A. There is.
Q. And if you will look at the line for Cole Junior High,
Mr. Burch, how many special education students are in
Cole Junior High School? A. It says 71.
Q. So in other words, betwen 1956 and 1962 there was an
increase in special education students at Cole, approxi
mately thirty-six students, is that correct?
Mr. Brega: Object to the form of the question, if
the Court please. The exhibits say that only in
the years of 1956 and 1962 those were the numbers.
The exhibit does not show what happened in the
intervening years.
The Court: True, but—
Q. Comparing the two years, what was the increase? A.
Well, again, the question is misleading.
The Court: Never mind. I ’ll take care of that.
The Witness: One report was—
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Recross
1 0 3 0 a
£11933 The Court: You just answer the questions
as they come up, and if there’s any objections, of
course, I’ll rule on those.
A. As between the two, it shows an increase of 27 students.
But, one is for a full year and one is for a half year.
Q. Now, 27 students and—and yet the difference in the
rated capacity of that same school for those two years is
the difference between 1908 students which was its rated
capacity in 1956, and 1525 students which was its rated
capacity in 1962, is that correct? A. Yes, sir. The mathe
matics of what you say are correct,
Q. So that for 35—or 27 more special education students
they reduced the capacity of the building of—by 173, is
that correct? A. That’s apparently what happened.
Mr. Greiner: No further questions.
Redirect Examination by Mr. Ris:
Q. With reference to Exhibit 420, on the 1956 matter,
you said something about there may have been the study
in connection with the bond issue. What was meant by that?
A. That is with respect to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 215. In other
words, I have never seen this form on the capacity [11943
of schools come in this form.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, so the record is clear,
215 was prepared by plaintiffs. It is not a school
district document.
Q. You have never seen such a document? A. No, sir,
I never saw it in this form.
Q. And you have never seen Exhibit 240 before? A. No,
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Redirect
1031a
sir, I have never seen a principal’s semi-annnal report.
They never came to the board.
Q. And have you ever seen Exhibit 422 before? A. No,
sir, I have never seen the summary of annual reports of
principals.
The Court: These were not presented by him.
Mr. Greiner: Very definitely not, Your Honor.
The Court: These consolidated principals’ re
ports ?
The Witness: ,But these, Your Honor, were never
submitted to the board either individually or in
pamphlets. I have never seen these reports before.
Q. So what you’re being asked to prepare now is some
thing that has just been put before you? That’s nothing
you have any background or any knowledge of? A. Ob
viously these were in existence but they never came to the
attention of the board. I have never seen these reports
before.
Q. Now, with regard to the different figures with [1195]
respect to the capacity of Cole, do you have any personal
knowledge as to the reasons for the variances as shown
by these documents that Mr. Greiner has called to your
attention? A. No, sir, I have no— All of the change in
the rated capacity in the principals’ reports were before
my time. I had to start in with no knowledge that the
capacity of Cole Junior High School was 1725 students.
Q. Is it true that special education classes can make a
difference in capacity? A. They can. Special education
classes traditionally do not have the same number in them.
In other words, a class would be 30. A special education
class, depending on the degree of handicap, could be 5,
could be 8, could be 15. But, never more than 20.
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Redirect
1032a
Q. Well, is it correct, Mr. Burch, your testimony before
lunch in which Mr. Greiner led you along concerning special
education as a possible reason for changing a capacity—
Mr. Greiner : I object to the form of the question
as leading, Your Honor.
The Court: Overruled. It is redirect and he can
clarify to some degree. We will give him some lati
tude on that.
You don’t object to his referring to your question
as being leading, do you ?
Mr. Greiner: I believe it’s an accurate statement,
[1196] Your Honor.
The Witness: Let me say that special—in special
education, whether it is hearing, the blind, lame,
speech, is a very sensitive thing, and the board of
education in Denver and the Denver Public Schools
have constantly sought to enlarge the opportunities
for the education of those, that class of pupils, and
I did not state from knowledge that I knew that ad
ditional classes were at Cole, but always the plea of
parents of handicapped children, “Give us more
education.”
Q. Yery well. So you were testifying that special educa
tion classes would be one possibility for a change in ca
pacity? A. Yes, we always sought to enlarge our special
education classes.
Q. But not that you knew from your own knowledge that
that was the reason for these differences in capacity? A.
Correct.
Palmer L. Burch—for Defendants—Redirect
MEILEN PRESS INC. — N. Y. C. 219