Carter v. School Board of Arlington County, Virginia Brief on Behalf of Appellants
Public Court Documents
January 1, 1950

50 pages
Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Carter v. School Board of Arlington County, Virginia Brief on Behalf of Appellants, 1950. a991d8fa-ac9a-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/1dc9b362-f1c3-41bc-b3ce-ce2bea0584af/carter-v-school-board-of-arlington-county-virginia-brief-on-behalf-of-appellants. Accessed July 10, 2025.
Copied!
BRIEF ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR TH E FOURTH CIRCUIT. No. 6064 CONSTANCE CARTER, an infant, by her Parent and Next Friend, ELEANOR TAYLOR, et al., Appellants, vs. THE SCHOOL BOARD OF ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA, a body corporate, and FLETCHER KEMP, Superintendent of Schools of Arlington County, Virginia, et al., Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the E astern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division Hill , Martin & Robinson, 623 North Third Street, Richmond, 19, Virginia. L eon A. Ransom, 1939 13th Street, Washington, D. C. Lawyers Publishing Co., Inc.—Richmond, Va. SUBJECT INDEX PAGE Statement of the Case ............................. ...................................... 2 Questions Involved ................................................. ...................... 4 Statement of the Facts ......................... ......................................... 5 Argument ............................................................................ 10 I. The Legal Principles ................................................... 10 II. Appellees Are Discriminating Against Appellants By Refusing and Failing to Afford Them High School Opportunities, Advantages and Facilities, Including Curricula, Equal to Those Afforded White Children Similarly Situated ...... 12 A. Physical Plants, Facilities and Equipment..... 12 Shops ........................................................................ 13 General Shop ................................................. 13 Auto Mechanics Shop ................................ 13 Mechanical Drawing Room ........... 14 Machine Shop ......... 14 Sheet Metal Shop ........................... 14 Printing Shop .......... 14 Wood Shop ................. 14 Science Laboratories .................. 15 Libraries—Rooms ................................................. 16 Holdings of Books and Periodicals ......... 17 Music Rooms ............................. IS Art Rooms ........................................ -................... 19 Commercial Facilities and Equipment ......... 19 Typewriting Rooms .................................... 19 Bookkeeping Rooms .................................... 19 Auditoriums ....... 20 Gymnasiums ......................................................... 20 Athletic Fields and Outdoor Facilities ........... 22 Cafeterias ............................................................. 22 Distributive Education Rooms ........................ 23 Guidance Offices ................................................. 23 Infirmary Facilities ....... 23 Teachers’ Rest Rooms ......................................... 23 Administrative Facilities .................................... 24 Grounds ................................................................. 24 Classrooms .......... 25 Sanitary Facilities................................................. 25 SUBJECT INDEX-Continued PAGE B. Curricula ............................................................... 26 Courses of Study.................................................- 26 Alteration of Courses.................................. 28 Grouping of Classes .................................... 28 Vocational Courses ....................................... 29 Summer School .............................. 30 Guidance ............................................................... 30 Co-Curricular Activities .................................... 30 Honorary Awards ................................................. 31 C. Teachers ................................................................. 32 Number of Teachers ......................................... - 32 Teaching Experience ........................................... 32 Teachers’ Salaries .......... ................................... - 33 Number of Different Subjects Taught.... ......... 33 D. Accreditation ......................................................... 34 III. The Discrimination Against Appellants Cannot Be Justified By Reason of the Smaller Number of Negro High School Pupils, as Compared With The Number of White High School Pupils, in Arling ton County, or By The Comparative Expenditures or Investments Made For Education in the High Schools of Said County............................................... 35 IV. The Discriminations Against Appellants as to Courses of Instruction Cannot be Justified by the Claimed Failure of Negro Pupils to Specifically Demand the Establishment of Such Courses at the Negro High School ....................................... 36 V. Appellees Are Discriminating Against Appellants By Requiring Them to Avail Themselves of High School Facilities Outside Arlington County, While Affording White Children Similarly Situated Such Facilities Within Said County .......... 39 Plant Facilities and Equipment .......................... 40 Shops ..................................................................... Science Laboratory .......................--------------- 40 Library ..................................... 41 Auditorium ............................................................. 41 Dining Room .............-........................................... 41 Courses of Study........................................... 42 Conclusion ............................................................... 44 T a ble o f C ases Alston v. School Board, 112 F. 2d 992 (C. C. A. 4th, 1940 ..... 11 Ashley v. School Board of Gloucester County, 82 F. Supp. 167 (E. D. Va., 1948) .................................................10, 11, 12 Carter v. School Board of Arlington County, 87 F. Supp. 745 (E. D. Va, 1949) ......................................... ........................... 3 Corbin v. County School Board of Pulaski County, 177 F. 2d 924 (1949).................................. ................. .......10. 11, 12, 43 County School Board of Chesterfield County v. Freeman, 171 F. 2d 702 (C. C. A. 4th, 1948)........................................ 11 Fisher v. Hurst, 333 U. S. 147 (1948) ........................................ 37 McCabe v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co., 235 U. S. 151 (1914) ....................................................................... 35 Missouri ex rel Gaines v. Canada, 305 U. S. 337 (1938) ......................................................................10, 35, 44 Mitchell v. United States, 313 U. S. 80 (1941) ........................ 35 Pearson v. Murray, 169 Md. 478, 182 A. 590 (1936) ................ 10 Piper v. Big Pine School District, 193 Cal. 664, 226 P. 926 (1924) ........................................................................................ 44 Sipuel v. Board of Regents, 332 U. S. 631 (1948) ................TO, 37 Smith v. School Board of King George County, 82 F. Supp. 167 (E. D. Va., 1948) ...................................................10, 11, 12 Wrighten v. Board of Trustees, 72 F. Supp. 948 (E. D. S. C., 1947) .......................................................................................... 10 C o n stitu tio n s C ited United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment..... 2, 10, 37 Virginia Constitution, Article IX, Section 1 40 ......................... 11 P rin c ipa l Sta tu tes C ited United States Code: Title 8, Section 41 ................................................................ 2, 11 Title 8, Section 43 ................................................................ 2, 11 Code of Virginia; 1950: Title 22, Section 22-221 ......................................................... 11 SUBJECT INDEX-Continued PAGE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R TH E FOURTH CIRCUIT. No. 6064 CONSTANCE CARTER, an infant, by her Parent and Next Friend, ELEANOR TAYLOR, et al., Appellants, vs. THE SCHOOL BOARD OF ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA, a body corporate, and FLETCHER KEMP, Superintendent of Schools of Arlington County, Virginia, et al., Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the E astern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division BRIEF ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS [ 2 ] STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal from a final judgment of the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia in a case arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, wherein appellants, plain tiffs below, are seeking a declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction. On September 4, 1947, appellant Constance Carter, an infant Negro child, residing in the County of Ar lington, Virginia, by her mother, filed her original complaint (R. I ) 1 alleging that appellee School Board of Arlington County, Virginia, and Fletcher Kemp, the then Division Superintendent of Schools of Arling ton County, Virginia, original defendants below, have pursued and are pursuing, the policy, practice, custom and usage of denying, on account of her race or color, said appellant and other Negro children similarly sit uated, educational opportunities, advantages and fa cilities equal to those afforded white children similar ly situated, and thereby have denied, and are denying, her and them the equal protection of the laws secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the rights secured by Sections 41 and 43 of Title 8 of the United States Code, and the rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Both the original com plaint, and the amended complaint (App. 1) filed Oc tober 15, 1947, seek a judgment declaring that the policy, custom, practice and usage aforesaid are vi olative of the Constitution and laws aforesaid, and a 1. References are to the appendix page numbers where the portion of the record referred to is printed therein, and, otherwise, are to the record page numbers. [ 3 ] permanent injunction restraining and enjoining said de fendants from making such distinctions or any distinc tion based upon race or color in the opportunities, ad vantages or facilities provided by them for the edu cation of white and Negro children residing in said County, or, in the alternative, a permanent injunction restraining defendants from denying plaintiff, and those on behalf of whom she sues, admission to and enroll ment in the high school maintained and now used exclusively for white pupils. On September 30, 1947, said defendants filed an answer (R. 9) which in substance denied that racial discrimination is practiced. Subsequently, defendant Kemp’s term of office expired (R. 650) and appellee William A. Early, his successor, was duly substituted as a defendant (R. 32). On October 24, 1949, appellants Julius Brevard and Peggy Council, each an infant Negro child, residing in Arlington County, by their respective parents, filed their petition (App. 12) seeking intervention as plain tiffs, the petition alleging their own experiences in un successfully seeking educational opportunities, advan tages and facilities, and praying for the same relief sought in the original and amended complaints. In tervention was duly permitted (R. 1276). On September 6-9, 1949, and on October 24-26, 1949, the Court below heard evidence and oral argument. On December 7, 1949, the Court rendered a written opinion (App. 343), reported at 87 F. Supp. 745, in which appeared the Court’s findings of fact and conclu sions of law, and on December 12, 1949, entered final judgment (App. 364), dismissing the complaint. [ 4 ] QUESTIONS INVOLVED 1. Are appellees discriminating against appellants by refusing and failing to afford them high school edu cational opportunities, advantages and facilities, includ ing curricula, equal to those afforded white children similarly situated? 2. Can the discriminations against appellants be justified by reason of the smaller number of Negro children of high school age, as compared with the num ber of white children of high school age, enrolled in high schools in Arlington County, or by the compara tive expenditures or investments made by appellees for education in the white and Negro high schools, re spectively, of said County? 3. Can the discriminations against appellants as to courses of instruction afforded or taught in high schools be justified by the claimed failure of Negro children to specifically demand the establishment of such courses at the Negro high school? 4. Are appellees discriminating against appellants by requiring them to avail themselves of high school facilities outside Arlington County, while affording white children similarly situated high school facilities within Arlington County? The first three questions are raised in the record by the original complaint (R. 1), the amended complaint (App. 1), the answer (R. 9 ), and the pettion for in tervention (App. 12). All questions are raised in the record by the proceedings at the hearings (App. 86- 89, 141-144, 195-200, 224-230, R. 248-251, 270-271), the argument, and the opinion of the Court (App. 343). The fourth question is additionally raised in the [ 5 ] record by appellants’ objections (R. 829-838) and mo tion to strike (R. 891-893 ) at the hearings. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS Appellants are Negroes, are citizens of the United States, of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and are res idents of and domiciled in Arlington County. At the time the original complaint was filed, and at the time the amended complaint and the petition for interven tion were filed, the appellants were all within the statu tory age limits for eligibility to attend public schools and satisfied all requirements for admission thereto. Their respective parents are Negroes, are citizens of the United States, of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and are residents of and domiciled in Arlington Coun ty. They are taxpayers of the United States and of said County and Commonwealth, and are and were re quired by law to send their respective children to school. Appellee School Board of Arlington County, Virginia, exists pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia as an administrative depart ment discharging governmental functions, and is de clared by law to be a body corporate. Appellee Wil liam A. Early is Division Superintendent, and holds office pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, as an administrative of ficer of the free public school system of Virginia. The public schools of Arlington County are under the control and supervision of appellees, acting as an ad ministrative department or division of the Common wealth of Virginia. Said appellee School Board is under [ 6 ] a duty to enforce the school laws of Virginia, to main tain an efficient system of public schools in Arlington County, to determine the studies to be pursued, the methods of teaching, and to establish such schools as may be necessary to the completeness and efficiency of the school system. Appellee William A. Early, as Division Superintendent, has the immediate control and operation of the public schools in Arlington Coun ty. The only two schools of Arlington County directly involved in this case are the Washington-Lee High School and the Hoffman-Boston High School.2 The former is operated for the exclusive use of white pupils, and the latter for the use of Negro pupils (App. 84, 244, 248; R. 37, 884, 887, 888). Washington-Lee is predominantly a senior high school, with 1881 senior high school pupils in its total enroll ment of 2377 ( R. 38, 87). It has no elementary pupils (R. 38, 87). Hoffman-Boston, on the other hand, is predominantly an elementary-junior high school, with only 48 senior high school pupils in its total enroll ment of 270 (R. 38, 87).3 In the past, Negro high school pupils residing in Arlington County have largely attended schools in the District of Columbia to obtain courses and facilities available to white pupils at Washington-Lee, but lack ing at Hoffman-Boston (App. 84, 85; R. 652-653, 671- 673, 740). A number of these pupils pursued Vo- 2, There are 5 secondary schools in the Arlington school system. The other three schools are white junior high schools, namely, Claude Swanson, Dolly Madison, and Thomas Jefferson (R. 37). 3. During 1946-47, the Arlington School Board paid the tuition of 21 Negro pupils who were attending senior high schools in the District of Columbia ( App. 85; R. 37). The exact number of Arlington Negro pupils attending schools outside Arlington is unknown. [ 7 ] eational courses (R. 740). The District of Columbia in recent years started charging tuition on Arlington pupils, and Negro pupils appealed to the Arlington School Board for payment of tuition (R. 653, 655). During the 1946-47 session, Arlington paid the tui tion of 21 Negro pupils (App. 85; R. 37) and, dining the 1947-48 school session, agreed to pay, and in fact paid, tuition on all pupils involved (R. 652-653, 740, 755). During the 1948-49 session, the School Board decided that it would pay tuition only on Negro seniors who had already completed three years of work in District of Columbia schools (R. 653-654, 755). Appellant Constance Carter originally attended high school in the District of Columbia because of lack of facilities and courses at Hoffmau-Boston (App. 17- 18). At the opening of the 1947-48 school session, she, accompanied by her mother and attorney, con ferred with the principal of Hoffman-Boston in an effort to obtain certain courses there (App. 19-21; R. 669, 773). While the evidence is conflicting as to the courses then sought and the details of the conversation,4 it is uncontroverted that courses in Typewriting and Physi cal Education were among those requested (App. 21- 22), that Hoffman-Boston then had only 8 typewriters, an insufficient number, and no typing tables or chairs (App. 21, 234-235; R. 775-776, 795-796), and that Physi cal Education was taught by regular classroom teachers not certificated in that subject (R. 43-44, 671, 774, 795). She then sought the desired courses at Washington- Lee, but admission was denied because she is a Negro (App. 22; R. 670). She thereupon entered Dunbar 4. Appellants’ evidence was to the effect that the principal stated that the courses requested were not available at Hoffman-Boston (App. 19-22). [ 8 ] High School, in the District of Columbia, until she later entered Hoffman-Boston (App. 19; R, 266-287, 777-778, 797-798). Her mother has been forced to pay tuition for her attendance in the District of Co lumbia (App. 18-19; PL Ex. 73, 74, 75, 76). Appellant Peggy Council attended junior high school and obtained a part of her senior high education in the District of Columbia (App. 211, 221; R. 1144-1145, 1148-1151). Arlington paid her tuition, but after it ceased doing so she could not pay it herself (App. 212, 222), but entered Hoffman-Boston at the beginning of the 1948-49 session as a pupil in grade 1G-B ( App. 212, 277; R. 631, 1149, 1150). She desires to enter a nursing school (App. 282) and 2 years of Latin is prerequisite for admission (App. 218-219, 282, 315; R. 645,1100-1101,1159-1160). When attending senior high school in the District of Columbia, she filled out an elective sheet, which the principal of Hoffman-Boston later received, upon which she requested a course in Latin (App. 280). When she first entered Hoffman- Boston, she conferred with the principal, advising of her need for Latin, and was assured that she would be given a year and one-half of Latin at Hoffman- Boston, and that he would see that she would be ad mitted to a school in the Distinct of Columbia, after her graduation from Hoffman-Boston, at which she would be given an additional one-half year of Latin (App. 220-221, 222, 279, 281; R. 645). In May, 1949, she filled out another elective card upon which she requested for the 1949-50 session, courses in Spanish and Short hand (App. 278; R. 801), which card she personally delivered to the principal (App. 280). At this time, she did not understand that Latin would be offered at Hoffman-Boston for said session (App. 281). In June, 1949, being advised that Latin would be avail able, she made out another elective sheet, which she delivered to her home room teacher, upon which she also requested Latin, Chemistry and Shorthand. (App. 212-218, 280-281). About two weeks before the close of the 1948-49 session, she conferred with the principal relative to her program for 1949-50 and advised him of her desires in order that her program might be worked out (App. 216). She also needs Chemistry for her nursing career (App. 282-283). She first sought this course during the 1948-49 session (App. 237-238). She has not been afforded Latin at Hoffman-Boston, be cause it has not been taught there since she entered (App. 213, 222, 278, 282; R. 645). She has not been able to get either Spanish or Chemistry because these are alternating courses at Hoffman-Boston, and no Chem istry has been taught since she has been there (App. 213, 282; R. 802), and the only course in Spanish taught while she was there was an advanced course in Spanish (App. 214; R. 802). No class in Shorthand was afforded her until the early part of October of the current school year (App. 278; R. 802, 1151). Appellant Julius Brevard attended Armstrong Techni cal High School, in the District of Columbia, during the 1948-49 session, taking, among other courses, blue print reading which included drafting and automo bile mechanics (App. 208; R. 629). Unable to pay tuition there (App. 211), he entered Hoffman-Boston at the beginning of the 1949-50 session, and on the first day requested of the principal a course in auto mobile mechanics (App. 208-209; R. 628-629, 789). The principal advised him that Hoffman-Boston did [10J not have the course, and that he did not know when it would have it (App. 208-209; R. 620, 789). The answer led him to believe that no effort would be made to obtain the course for him (App. 209). He has not been afforded this course (App. 209), and there never has been a time when anyone at Hoffman-Boston ask ed him what he desired to take (App. 210). Since the remaining facts are so interrelated to the decision of the legal issue, complete statements of the facts as to specific matters are, for convenience, made in connection with the appropriate portions of the argu ment, and, to avoid repetition, are omitted here. ARGUMENT I T h e L e g a l P r i n c i p l e s The controlling legal principles are so well settled as not to require extended discussion. The refusal or failure of an agency of the state to afford its Negro citizens, because of their race or color, educational opportunities, advantages and facilities equal in all re spects to those afforded persons of any other race or color is a denial of the equal protection of the laws secured by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Con stitution of the United States,5 * * * and of the rights se cured by laws of the United States enacted pursuant 5. Sipuel v. Board o f Regents, S32 U. S. 631 (1948); Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U. S. 337 (1938); Corbin v. County School Board o f Pulaski County 177 F. 2d 924 (C. C. A. 4th, 1949, Smith v. School Board of King George County, 82 F. Supp. 167 (E , D. Va., 1948); Ashley v. School Board o f Gloucester County, 82 F. Supp. 167 (E. D. Va., 1948); Wrighten v. Board o f Trustees, 72 F. Supp. 948 (E . D. S. C., 1947); Pearson v. Murray, 169 Md. 478, 182 A 590 (1936). [ 1 1 ] thereto,6 and by the Constitution and laws ur the Commonwealth of Virginia.7 It is beyond question that the appellees in this case are subject to the constitution al and statutory mandates.8 In Virginia, separate schools are maintained for white and Negro pupils, respectively.9 * These provisions not only constitute the sole reason for denying admission of Negroes to Washington-Lee (App. 225, 244, R. 708, 884, 887), but also have necessarily made Washington- Lee a large school and Hoffman-Boston a small school (App. 249, 267; R. 85-86), which, in turn, has brought about many of the differentials between the two schools (App. 249, 267; R. 85-86). In these circumstances, it is clear that all of the discriminations and inequalities suffered by Negro pupils residing in Arlington County follow as a consequence of their race, which the law makes the sole criterion as to the school which they may attend (App. 225, 248; R. 884, 887). Both appellees and the Court below assumed that this case must be decided upon an assumption that the sep- 8. REV. STAT. Sec. 1977, 1979, 8 U. S. C. Sec. 41, 43; Smith v. School Board o f King George County, 82 F. Supp. 167 (E. D. Va., 1948), cited supra note 5; Ashley v. School Board o f Gloucester County, 82 F. Supp. 167 (E . D. Va., 1948), cited supra note 5. 7. The Constitution of Virginia (Art. IX, Section 140) provides; “White and colored children shall not be taught in the same school.” The Code of Virginia of 1950 (Title 22, Section 22-221) provides: “White and colored persons shall not be taught in the same school, but shall be taught in separate schools, under the same general regulations as to management, usefulness and efficiency.” While the constitutional provision does not expressly provide for equality as does the statute, it is necessarily to be construed as if it did, for otherwise its invalidity would be plain. See cases cited supra note 5. 8. Corbin v. County School Board of Pulaski County, 177 F. 2d 924, (C. C. A. 4th, 1949), cited supra note 5; County School Board o f Chesterfield County v. Freeman, 171 F. 2d 702 (C. C. A. 4th, 1948); Alston v. School Board, 112 F. 2d 992 (C. C. A. 4th, 1940). 9. VA. CONST. Art. IX, Sec. 140; VA. CODE (1950) Title 22, Sec. 22-221, both cited supra note 7. [ 1 2 ] arate school laws of Virginia fix a rigid pattern within the framework of which the rights of appellants, and other Negro children residing in Arlington County, must be determined. But in situations where unequal edu cational opportunities and facilities are afforded Negro pupils,10 the invalidity and inapplicability of segrega tion laws is well settled, and the mandates of the Con stitution and laws of the United States cannot be avoided by resort thereto.11 As the rights of appellants are measured by the test of equality, a determination of the issues necessarily involves a comparison of the opportunities, advantages and facilities which Arlington County affords its white and Negro pupils resident therein.12 II A p p e l l e e s A r e D is c r im in a t in g A g a in s t A p p e l l a n t s B y R e f u s in g a n d F a il in g t o A f f o r d T h e m H ig h S c h o o l O p p o r t u n i t i e s , A d v a n t a g e s a n d F a c i l i t i e s , I n c l u d in g C u r r ic u l a , E q u a l t o T h o s e A f f o r d e d W h i t e C h il d r e n S i m i l a r l y S it u a t e d A. Physical Plants, Facilities and Equipment. Washington-Lee consists of a three-story brick struc ture with a one-story shop annex. The main building, erected in 1925, is of pleasing architectural design, be lt). Appellants do not concede the validity of segregation laws under any circumstances. 11. See cases cited supra note 5. 12. Corbin v. County School Board o f Pulaski County, 177 F. 2d 924 (C. C. A. 4th, 1949), cited supra note 5; Smith v. School Board o f King George County, 82 F. Supp. 167 E. D. Va., 1948, cited supra note. 5; Ashley v. School Board of Gloucester County, 82 F. Supp. 167 (E . D. Va., 1948), cited supra note 5. [ 1 3 ] mg trimmed and embellished with limestone. It has approximately 64 classrooms and the facilities here after described. Adjacent to the buildings is the spa cious athletic stadium. The entire plant occupies a site of 11.9 acres. Its total cost was $925,988. (R. 59, 101, 119, 241, 731, 940). Hoffman-Boston consists of a two-story brick build ing and a one-story shop annex. The building con structed in 1923, is of plain construction unadorned by architectural details. It has 6 regular size classrooms and one smaller room that can seat only 18 pupils. The grounds around the school are unimproved, and there is no athletic stadium or facilities. The entire plant occupies a site of 5.7 acres. Its total cost was $109,966. App. 239; R. 59-60, 101, 119, 731, 940). That Hoffman-Boston is tremendously inferior to Washington-Lee in the matter of physical plant, fa cilities and equipment13 is apparent from a compari son of physical plant, facilities and equipment of the two schools: Shops: Washington-Lee has 7 separate shops, as fol lows: —General Shop: Ample area, orderly arrangement (App. 61-62), equipped with universal saw, band saw, 2 jig saws, belt sander, drill press, 4 lathes, grinder, jointer, and stock of small tools (App. 61-62; R. 63, 124, 187; PI. Ex. 53, 54). —Auto Mechanics Shop: Large area, orderly ar 13. The physical plant and facilities of a secondary school should be designed in such fashion that it will promote attainment of the edu cational objectives ( R. 59). Equally important is the matter of equip ment (R. 59, 367, 996). To the extent that physical plant, facilities and equipment are inadequate, the educational development of the pupils will be retarded (R. 59). [ 1 4 ] rangement, equipped with 3 motor analyzers, 10 prac tice engines, drill press, valve grinder, armature lathe, chain hoist, battery charger, air compressor, speedome ter, and stock of small tools (App. 62-63; R. 63, 124, 187; Pi. Ex. 51, 52). Also has a trainer-type airplane (App. 62-63; R. 245) and dual control automobile for driver training (App. 62-64; R. 245). —Mechanical Drawing R oom : Ample area, orderly arrangement. Equipped with specially designed draw ing tables, stools, drawing boards, blueprint machine, shop library, and stock of small equipment (App. 63- 64; R. 63, 124, 187; Pi. Ex. 55). —Machine Shop: Large area, orderly arrangement. Equipped with 11 lathes, 5 milling machines, 3 drill presses, forge, electric grinder, electric hack saw, arc welder, shaper, and stock of small tools (App. 64-65; R. 63, 124, 187; Pi. Ex. 56, 57). Also has a Link train er for aviation training (App. 64-65; R. 63, 187; Pi. Ex. 56, 57). —Sheet Metal Shop: Ample area, orderly arrange ment. Equipped with forming roll, brakes, shear, fold er, 9 crimping machines, and stock of small tools (App. 65; R. 63, 124, 188; Pi. Ex. 58). —Printing Shop: Ample area, orderly arrangement. Equipped with 3 presses, paper cutter, virkotype ma chine, 4 cases of type, and stock of small tools (App. 65; R. 64, 124, 188; PL Ex. 61, 62). —W ood Shop: Large area, orderly arrangement. Equipped with 3 lathes, band saw, planer, 2 universal saws, radial bench saw, 2 jointers, 2 sanders, 2 drill presses, jig saw, and stock of small tools (App. 66; R. 64, 124, 188; Pi. Ex. 59, 60). The machines are [ 1 5 ] connected to an expensive sawdust-disposal system ( App. 66; PI. Ex. 59, 60). Each of these shops is well designed, lighted and ventilated, and samples of work done in them evi dence their effectiveness and the caliber of instruc tion in them (App. 65-68). The cost of the shop build ing was $110,000, and the cost of its equipment was $21,000 (R. 102). HofFman-Boston has only one shop — a general shop (App. 61; R. 63, 187, 243; Pi. Ex. 67, 68). It con sists of only one room (App. 61, 62-63, 70; R. 63, 187). Its space is inadequate. Its equipment consists in 2 lathes, a universal saw, jig saw, post drill, grinder, jointer, belt sander, band saw, drill press, and a stock of small tools (R. 63, 188; Pi. Ex. 67, 68). It has no machines or tools for instruction in Automobile Me chanics or Printing (App. 62-65, 67-68, 70-71, 172- 173; R. 63, 187, 243-245, 247, 739-740, 969-970), and no machines and little or no tools for instruction in Machine Shop, Sheet Metal, Wood Shop, or Mechani cal Drawing (App. 64-66, 172-173; R. 244-246). In struction in these courses at Hoffman-Boston would be impossible (App. 109). The cost of its building, which also houses the Home Economics department, was only $37,500, and of its equipment $2,000 ( R. 102). Science Laboratories-. Washington-Lee has 4 science laboratories:14 a Physics laboratory, a Chemistry lab oratory, and 2 Biology laboratories (App. 50-52, 52- 53, 106-107; R. 61-62, 183-186; Pi. Ex. 29, 70). Each laboratory is furnished with the necessary desks and 14. Thus, the courses in Biology, Chemistry and Physics can each be conducted in a separate laboratory. This is superior to the practice of teaching different science courses in a single laboratory or room (App. 54, 74; R. 368-371). [ 1 6 ] demonstration tables, all equipped with the necessary gas, water and electric connections (R. 61; Pi. Ex. 29). The Physics laboratory has cases for equipment, while each of the other S laboratories is equipped with a store room for materials and equipment (R. 61). Each laboratory has an ample stock of apparatus, equipment and supplies (App. 51-53, 107-108; R. 237). The cost of its equipment was $34,501 (R. 102). Holfman-Boston has only one science room in which all of such sciences as are at that school are taught (App. 52-53, 106-107; R. 61, 236; Pi. Ex. 6, 7). Its stock of apparatus, equipment and supplies is much less substantial and varied than that at Washington- Lee (App. 53-54, 106-108, 191-192; R. 61-62, 183-186). The cost of its equipment was only $1,934 (R. 102). Libraries-Rooms: The library at Washington-Lee con sists of a main reading room, reference room, magazine room and work room (App. 46-47, 60, 128, 232; Pi. Ex. 24, 25). It was originally designed for use as a library (R. 60). It is adequately lighted (App. 46- 47; R. 60, 128) and ventilated (R. 128), is sound proofed (R. 128), has a 20 foot ceiling (R. 128), and is very attractive (App. 46-48). It has 3480 square feet (R. 128). It is amply equipped with all of the modern furniture and equipment usual in school li braries (R. 60, 137), costing $3,921 (R. 102). The library at Holfman-Boston consists of one room (R. 60, 128, 233; Pi. Ex. 24, 25). It was not originally designed for use as a library, but was made by com bination of two rooms of classroom size (R. 60, 719). Its low 13 foot ceiling does not afford proper ventila tion (App. 182-183; R. 606-609). It has no sound proofing (R. 128). It is not attractive (App. 48, 180- [ 1 7 ] 183). It has 1617 square feet (R. 128). Its furniture and equipment is smaller in quantity than Washington- Lee’s, and does not include a newspaper rack or fil ing cabinets which are found at Washington-Lee (App. 183; R. 60, 137), and only 6 of its 24 drawers in its card catalog drawer are being used at all for cataloging purposes (App. 183). Additionally, the library at Hoffman-Boston is situ ated immediately next to the auditorium (App. 182- 183; R. 945), and the principal’s office is located in the library workroom in the comer (App. 181-183). These, coupled with lack of soundproofing, and its low ceiling, makes it noisy (App. 182-183, 184-185; R. 606- 609). Its low ceiling height, in relation to the size of the room, and the positioning of the principal’s office, detract from its aesthetic value (App. 180-183; R. 607, 608). —Holdings of Books and Periodicals: Washington- Lee’s library contains 8,682 volumes of books and 90 subscriptions to periodicals. (App. 322; R. 179-181). The library at Hoffman-Boston contains only 1,07 i vol umes for the entire junior-senior high school depart ment, and 21 periodical subscriptions (App. 322; R. 179). The book holdings at Washington-Lee cost $12,- 000 ( R. 102), are well diversified and many have recent copyright dates (App. ............, 146-147). Such books as Hoffman-Boston’s library has cost only $1,921 (R. 102), and in 1947-48 were generally very old books, many of which had been donated by other libraries (App. 146-147). Additions to the Hoffman-Boston li brary since that time, while helpful, do not make it [ 18 ] equal to the Washington-Lee library (App. 147-148).15 Music Rooms-. Washington-Lee has two specially equipped facilities for instruction in Music. The first is the Choral Room (App. 48-49; R. 60, 126, 234, 977; PL Ex. 71), a large special room with a capacity of 63 (R. 126). It is equipped with a director’s stand, a grand piano, movable chairs, filing cabinets, book shelf (App. 48-49). It has hung paintings on the wall (PL Ex. 71), Celotex block ceiling (R. 126), and the room is well soundproofed (R. 126). An adjoin ing room is lined with cabinets for storage of instru ments (App. 48-49). Washington-Lee also has an auditorium specially designed for band and orchestra instruction (App. 31- 32; R. 60, 126, 223, 977; Pi. Ex. 72). This has a stage (App. 31-32; R. 223), music stands (App. 31-32), ad equate storage space (App. 48-50) and about 100 mov able chairs (App. 31-32). This room can also be used as a multi-purpose room (App. 31-32). There is also another instrument storage room (R. 126). Hoffman-Boston has no studio, auditorium or other special room for instruction in Music (App. 31-32, 99- 100, 190-191; R. 60, 126, 223, 234-235, 977). The Music classes meet in a very small room which was formerly used as the principal’s office (App. 32, 49- 50; R. 126, 361-362; Pi. Ex. 11), which has no stage (App. 32), piano (App. 50-51), or storage space (App. 49-50) and is too small for a band or orchestra (App. 102-103; R. 361-362). 15. The American Library Association Report, universally accepted as a standard, establishes a minimum of 2,000 volumes for the smallest possible high school unit (App. 179, 180). While Washington- Lee needs more duplicate copies, Hoffman-Boston would need substan tially the same number of books and periodicals to compare favorably with it (App. 105, 110-112, 178-180; R. 54). [ 1 9 ] Art Rooms: Washington-Lee has two rooms employed for instruction in Art. One is the Art Studio, which is excellently lighted and ventilated (R. 129), and equip ped with adequate and special facilities for instruction in Art, including adjustable swinging easels which great ly facilitate drawing, (App. 25-27; R. 60, 129, 2.17; Pi. Ex. 40). There is also another separate Art facility (R. 129). Holfman-Boston has no Ail Studio or room, or equip ment the same or similar to that at Washington-Lee (App. 26-27, 99-100, 102-103, 190-191; R. 60, 129, 217). Commercial Facilities and Equipment — Typeioriting Rooms: Washington-Lee has two large rooms specially equipped for instruction in Typewriting, (App. 57; Pi. Ex. 37, 38), including an ample number of typewriters, special typing tables and chairs, a mimeograph machine and a mimeoscope (App. 33, 57-59, 257). Holfman- Boston utilizes one small room which is not specially equipped for Typewriting (App. 57-58; Pi. Ex. 10). It has a small numper of typewriters (App. 239; R. 182), no mimeograph machine (App. 57; R. 182) or mimeoscope (R. 182), and simple folding chairs serve as typing chairs (App. 59). —Bookkeeping Rooms: Washington-Lee has a sep arate room equipped with special equipment for in struction in Bookkeeping (App. 34-35; R. 223; Pi. Ex. 39), including bookkeeping desks, typewriters, adding and calculating machines and other equipment (App. 34-35, 113; R. 223-224). Holfman-Boston has no spe cially equipped room for instruction in Bookkeeping, or machines, or other equipment of the same type or f 20 J similar to that at Washington-Lee (App. 35-36, 113; R. 182, 224, 996). Auditoriums: Washington-Lee has a large, modern main auditorium, with balcony (App. 28; R. 60, 123, 952), comfortable fixed-type oprea seats (App. 28, 250; R. 60, 952), projection booth (App. 29; R. 60, 123, 952), slanting floor (R. 388), a deep stage with draw cur tains (App. 28-29, 250-251; R. 60, 220), and a seat ing capacity of 1151 (R. 123; Pi. Ex. 17). The girls’ gymnasium, hereafter discussed (post, pp. 20-21), is immediately behind the stage (App. 28; R. 220). At Hoffman-Boston, a large room, with a flat floor, is used as an auditorium (App. 31; R. 60, 221, 358; Pi. Ex. 3). The seats are folding chairs (App. 29- 30, 250; R. 60, 222, 798-799, 952). It has a small elevated platform rather than a stage (App. 29-30; R. 60, 221, 944). It has no balcony (R. 952), fa cilities for motion pictures (App. 252; R. 60-221) and can seat only 300 persons (App. 29; R. 123). The ceiling is only 14 feet high (R. 798) and posts sup porting it obstruct vision (App. 30). A small room on one side of the platform is used for storage, and an other on the other side is used as the women teachers’ rest room (App. 56, 119; R. 221-222, 239). Gymnasiums: Washington-Lee has two gymnasiums (App. 41, 44, 100; R. 60, 123, 228, 230, 724, 944). The girls’ gymnasium is very large, is located immediately behind the stage of the main auditorium, being sep arated from the latter by large sliding doors (App. 28; R. 220; Pi. Ex. 18, 19). These doors can be opened to permit persons seated in the auditorium to witness games and other activities in this gym nasium, or they may be closed to permit separate and simultaneous use of this gymnasium and auditorium (App. 76-77; R. 219-220, 952-953). It has seats addi tional to those in the main auditorium (App. 28; R. 1219). The boys’ gymnasium (Pi. Ex. 28) is also large, and is capable of a use independent of that made of the girls’ gymnasium (App. 76-77, 100). Each gymnasium is well equipped (App. 29, 41- 42, 44), has a basket ball court (App. 29, 41-42. 44; R. 944), adjoining dressing rooms (App. 42-44; R. 60, 228, 229), team rooms (Pi. Ex. 21), locker rooms (App. 42-44; R. 60, 229, 230, 231, Pi. Ex. 22, 27), shower rooms (App. 42-44, 152; R. 60, 228; Pi. Ex. 20) and lavatory facilities (App. 42-44; R. 60). Each can be used for a wide variety of games and athletic contests (App. 44; R. 123). Hoffman-Boston has no gymnasium (App. 40-41, 44, 100-101, 190; R. 231, 681, 799, 944). The so-called auditorium can only be used for limited calisthenics (App. 46). It is not in fact a convertible au ditorium-gymnasium; the ceiling is too low for gymnasium purposes, the lights hang down too low, the lights and windows are unprotected ( App. 101), and the ceiling supports in the floor constitute hazards (App. 44-45; R. 944). It is too small to permit the playing of games (App. 44-45, 190) and the seats must be removed before it can be used at all (App. 45). It has little or no equipment for gymnastics (App. 190), no basketball court (App. 44-45; R. 896, 944), dressing, team, locker, shower or lavatory facilities (App. 152; R. 60, 231-232) or other facilities similar to those afforded at Washington-Lee (App. 100-101; R. 231- 232). [ 2 2 ] Athletic Fields and Outdoor Facilities: Washington- Lee has a large athletic stadium with a graded foot ball gridiron (App. 27; R. 59, 347, 939a; Pi. Ex. 41), a track (R. 59), a concrete grandstand (App. 27; R. 59, 218, 347, 939a) beneath which are team and shower rooms (R. 218, 939a). This facility is equip ped with seats on three sides (R. 939a) and artificial lighting facilities for night events (R. 218). Addi tionally, there is another smaller field used for soft- ball and other group games and physical education activities (R. 688-689), and there are tennis courts (R. 59). Hoffman-Boston has no stadium, gridiron, track, ten nis courts, grandstand, team or shower rooms, seat ing or artificial lighting facilities (App. 27-28; R. 59- GO, 218, 726, 941-942). It has an open space, which is not level (App. 27-28; R. 349), not marked off (R. 349) and has too much grade for effective use (App. 27-28; R. 349). The total space available is inade quate for outdoor recreation (App. 111-112) and it has no facilities the same or substantially similar to those at Washington-Lee (R. 218, 942). Cafeterias: Washington-Lee has a large, modern at tractive and well arranged cafeteria (App. 34-35, 267; R. 61, 139, 225, 725; Pi. Ex. 32) with a large seating capacity (R. 61, 139), amply arranged kitchen (App. 34-35; R. 61) and steam tables (R. 61). In it an excellent lunch program is conducted (App. 267; R. 139). Hot plate lunches, soups, vegetables, salads, de serts and beverages are served (R. 139). Hoffman-Boston has no cafeteria or lunch room fa cilities or program of any sort (App. 35-36, 99-100, 113- 114, 268; R. 61, 139, 225, 724-725, 799, 849). Chil [ 2 3 ] dren attending this school must either go home to lunch, or bring lunches with them (R. 725, 849). Each of the three principal witnesses for defendants testified that this situation was undesirable (App. 267; R. 691, 849). Distributive Education Rooms: Washington-Lee has a Distributive Education Room or office (App. 38- 39; R. 226-227; PL Ex. 43) with facilities, equipment, and literature available for teachers to work with pupils with a view to making a correlation between their school work and actual work in the field, thus facili tating the transition of the pupil from school to work (App. 38-39, 115-116; R. 226-227). Hoffman-Boston has no Distributive Education facilities or equipment at all (App. 39-40; R. 227). Guidance Offices: Washington-Lee has a special room equipped and utilized for pupil guidance (App. 39- 40, 116-117; R. 227; Pi. Ex. 36). In it all guidance activities can be conducted privately and effectively (App. 117-118). Hoffman-Boston has no guidance fa cilities at all (App. 40-41, 116-117: R. 227). Infirmary Facilities: Washington-Lee has an infirmary equipped with 6 beds and first aid equipment (App. 110; R. 60, 724). The office of the school health de partment for the County is located in this building, thus providing effective emergency service (R. 60). Hoff man-Boston has no infirmary, clinic, or first-aid room (App. 110; R. 60, 724). Teachers’ Rest Rooms: At Washington-Lee there are several rest rooms for men and women teachers (App. 54-56; R. 61, 122; Pi. Ex. 26, 33, 34). Each is an impressive, well-equipped facility, with lavatory facili [ 2 4 ] ties, lounge chairs and sofas, mirrors and other furni ture and equipment (App. 55-57; R. 122). At Hoffman-Boston there are no rest room facilities at all for men teachers (R. 122), and the single fa cility for women teachers is a 12 by 6 foot room ad jacent to the auditorium platform containing a toilet, a mirror and 4 chairs (App. 55-57, 119; R. 122, 221- 222, 238-239; Pi. Ex. 9). This room is also used as storage for tumbling mats and other equipment (App. 56-57; R. 239, 342-343). It contains no lounge chairs, wash basin, coat rack, or other equipment or appoint ments (App. 57; R. 122), and is also used as a dressing room for dramatics (R. 122). Administrative Facilities: Washington-Lee has a large, well-equipped principal’s office (Pi. Ex. 30), a well- equipped business office (App. 33; R. 224-225; PL Ex. 31), and an elaborate intercommunication and public address system (App. 34; R. 235; Pi. Ex. 30). Hoffman-Boston has no business office (App. 33-34; R. 225) or intercommunication or public address sys tem (App. 34; R. 235, 354). The principal’s office is in the library workroom, a very small room, with no outside window or waiting room facilities, meager equipment, and is noisy and ill ventilated (App. 33- 34, 118-119, 181-182, 183; R. 233, 235, 352-353, 606). Grounds: Washington-Lee is situated upon a fully de veloped and well-kept site (Pi. Ex. 63, 64). There are sidewalks and paved driveways throughout the grounds (R. 939-940). It is one of the most beautiful high schools in the state (App. 59-60). Hoffman-Boston’s school grounds are undeveloped and are in much need of improvements (R. 942; Pi. Ex. 14, 15, 16). Half of its grounds is unusable (R. 942). [ 2 5 ] It is ungraded, has no paved walkways or driveways on the site (App. 188-189; R. 941). Consequently, mud and other elements in rainy and other inclement weather present a health hazard (App. 188-189). There is no comparison that can be made between the two schools so far as attractiveness is concerned (App. 36-37, 59- 60, 119-120, 188-189). Classrooms: Classroom facilities at Washington-Lee (PL Ex. 35) are superior to those (PL Ex. 12) at Hoff- man-Boston (App. 36-38). Washington-Lee has rooms (Pi. Ex. 42), larger than average, which can seat a large number of pupils, and may be used as resource or multiple-purpose rooms or for teaching purposes where assembly of a large group is necessary (App. 37-38). Sanitary Facilities: Washington-Lee has lavatories for girls and boys on each floor and for boys in the shop building (R. 61; Pi. Ex. 23, 44, 45). There are ab- bexl spray-type industrial washbowls in each shop (R. 61). Hoffman-Boston only has lavatories for girls and boys on the first floor only, and a toilet for boys boxed in a comer of the shop (R. 61). Elementary and high school pupils use the same facilities (App. 192). PIoffman-Boston is not as well maintained as Wash ington-Lee (App. 38; R. 226; Pi. Ex. 13, 49). Broken window panes are in evidence at Hoffman-Boston (R. 242; PI. Ex. 14). In view of these great differentials,16 the conclu sion is inevitable that Hoffman-Boston is greatly in ferior to Washington-Lee in physical plant, facilities and equipment.17 16. Experts attested the important educational value of the omitted facilities: Shop (App. 109, 173); Science (App. 54-55, 74-75; R. [ 2 6 ] B. Curricula18 Courses o f Study: Until the 1949-50 school session, Washington-Lee provided three separate curricula: (1) the academic, (2) the commercial, and (3) the general, and awarded separate diplomas for completion of each (App. 120-122; R. 45, 147-148, 856). In addition, it actually had a vocational curriculum (App. 121-122). Hoffman-Boston has never actually offered anything other than the general curriculum. (App. 120-122; R. 45, 147, 148).19 Washington-Lee has abandoned the practice of award ing separate diplomas for completion of the different curricula (R. 147, 856), but the courses comprising 368-369); Library (App. 118, 178-180); Music (App. 191, 192-193; R. 423); Art (App. 103, 191); Commercial (App. 113, 193; R. 997); Auditorium (App. 189); Gymnasium, Athletic, Physical Education (App. 101, 144, 153-154, 156, 189); Cafeteria (App. 114-115); Distributive Education (App. 38-39, 115-116); Guidance (App. 116-117, 193); In firmary (App. 190, 201-202); Teachers’ Restrooms (App. 119); Ad ministrative (App. 184). See also the Jenkins Report, R. 33-76. 17. Experts testified that the following facilities at Hoffman-Boston were individually inferior to those at Washington-Lee: Shops (App. 67- 68, 74, 108-109; R. 318, 417); Library (App. 47-48, 104-106, 110, 147, 178, 180, 185; R. 233-234); Science (App. 107, 191; R. 307); Distributive Education (App. 39, 115); Guidance (App. 193); Art (App. 27, 100, 103, 191); Music (App. 50, 100, 102, 191); Cafeteria (App. 99-100, 192); Infirmary (App. 190); Business Office (App. 33; R. 225); Teachers’ Restroom (App. 57, 192; R. 946-947); Auditorium (App. 31, 100, 189); Gymnasium (App. 46, 101-102, 190); Com mercial (App. 99, 108; R. 995); Physical Education (App. 99-100; R. 488, 505, 509); Athletic (App. 249); Buildings and Sites (App. 188- 189). See also the conclusions expressed in the Jenkins Report, R. 33-76. 18. It is regarded as superior practice for a high school to provide a number of different curricular patterns in order to meet the individual needs of pupils of varying abilities and interests (App. 122-123, 163- 166; R. 45, 493, 524). 19. A number of the required subjects in the academic, commercial and vocational curricula were not and are not taught (App. 120-122, 333-334, 337-339; R. 45). The general curriculum has the least number of required courses, is the easiest to complete, normally does not permit the pupil to enter a standard college without conditions, and does not provide proficiency in any vocation (R. 45-47). [ 2 7 ] each of its several curricula are still actually taught each year (App. 333-334, 337-339). The courses offered at Hoffman-Boston comprise nothing more than a gen eral curriculum (App. 120-122, 333-334, 337-339; R. 45). There are at least 37 courses separately offered and taught at Washington-Lee which are neither offered nor taught at Hoffman-Boston, as follows (App. 123- 124, 127, 213, 235-237, 264, R. 738). Speech I Speech II Journalism I Journalism II Adv. General Mathematics Solid Geometry Commercial Arithmetic Economics Psychology World History Economic Geography Latin-American History Latin I Latin II Fine Arts Commercial Art Music Appreciation Orchestra Mixed Chorus 276-277, 333-334, 337-339; Commercial Law Business Correspondence Bookkeeping Machine Shop Sheet Metal Automobile Mechanics Printing Mechanical Drawing Retail Sales Consumer Buying Driver Training Woodworking Glee Club, Boys Glee Club, Girls Junior Girls’ Glee Club Cadets, Boys Cadets, Girls Cadet Band These are courses commonly taught in American high schools, the important educational value of which was attested by expert testimony in this case.20 * 20. Speech (App. 166-167); Journalism (App. 166-167, 259); Solid Geometry (App. 167); Commercial Arithmetic (App. 167-168); Gen eral Mathematics (App. 168-169); Economics (App. 169-170); World [ 2 8 ] The only “course” offered at Hoffman-Boston and not available at Washington-Lee is a partial unit in brick laying taught in connection with the general shop course at the former school (R. 47). —Alternation o f Courses: At Washington-Lee, the courses are taught each and every year (App. 337-339). Such courses as Hoffman-Boston affords are offered pursuant to a regular practice of alternating the courses over a period of three years, that is, the alternating courses are taught only once each three years (App. 337- 339). A curriculum offering courses to the pupils each year is superior to one which offers only alternating courses (App. 74), and the practice of alternation is generally considered undesirable and contrary to best practices (App. 138-139, 186-187). Therefore, difficulties arising from alternation of courses21 exist at Hoffman-Boston, to the decided disadvantage of its pupils,22 which do not exist at Washington-Lee (App. 138-139). —Grouping of Classes: In standard practice at Washington-Lee, the senior high school courses are pro- History (App. 169-170); Latin, Business Correspondence, Bookkeeping (App. 170); Mechanical Drawing, Fine Arts, Art Appreciation (App. 171); Music Appreciation, Mixed Chorus, Boys’ Glee Club, Girls’ Glee Club (App. 172); Machine Shop, Sheet Metal, Automobile Mechan ics, Printing, Woodworking (App. 173); Retail Sales, Consumer Buying (App. 173-174); Boys’ Cadets, Girls’ Cadets, Cadet Band, Or chestra (App. 174); Driver Training (App. 62-63, 174-175); Guidance (App. 117). 21. The difficulties encountered by Peggy Council (ante, pp. 8-9) are typical. 22. The chief disadvantages, among others, of such a system are (1 ) it prevents the organization of courses on a sequential basis; (2 ) prevents homogenius grouping of pupils by age, grade and maturation levels; (3 ) seriously handicaps maladjusted, transferring or failing stu dents who frequently are unable to get the courses when needed, and (4 ) requires a greater extension of teaching faculty, in the way of addi tional preparation and decreased specialization and thoroughness of the teacher (App. 136-139, 186-188). [ 2 9 ] gressively organized into half units of content (App. 337-339; R. 47). Such has not been the practice at Hoffman-Boston. There, all pupils in grades 9B, 10A, 10B, 11A, 11 B, 12A and 12B were taught throughout in the same classes dur ing the 1947-48 session, all pupils in these 7 half- grades taking exactly the same schedule and being taught the same content (R. 49), Under this arrangement, progression of the subject matter of the courses of study could not be accomplished, and the students were permitted no electives (R. 49). During the cur rent school session, the courses in English, Civics, Phy sics and Typewriting are taught to all pupils in grades 11B, 12A and 12B in the same room, by the same teach er, at the same time (App. 214-215, 217-218, 238-239), and Physical Education is being taught to all pupils in grades 10B, 11A, 11B, 12A and 12B in the same room by the same teacher at the same time (App. 214-215). Vocational Courses: The vocational courses at Wash ington-Lee afford both general and vocational shop- work23 (App. 265-266; R. 966). Hoffman-Boston offers only general shopwork (App. 265; R. 968, 970-971, 1007). The single shop at Hoffman-Boston could not afford an adequate program (App. 233), and it is un known whether the single shop instructor there could give or has been trained to teach all of the vocational courses there offered at Washington-Lee ( R. 1071-1072). 23. Vocational shopwork at Washington-Lee is a technical voca tional course in which the pupil spends one-half of his day in the vo cational course, and the other half of his day in taking his related or required subjects (App. 265; R. 741, 967-969). This is intended to train the pupil for specific types of occupations (App. 265-266). Gen eral shopwork affords only a beginners’ or background course only en abling the acquisition of skills for development in the specialized vo cational courses (App. 265-266; R. 967-969). [ 3 0 ] Summer Schools A summer session has obvious value in affording pupils the opportunity to take additional courses, retake courses failed, or strengthen themselves in weak subjects (App. 175-177; R. 49-50). Wash ington-Lee regularly provides an 8-week summer school for its pupils (R. 49-50, 156), and its 1948-49 session offered English and Mathematics at all levels and 9 courses in other fields (App. 336). Hoffman-Roston has no summer school (App. 336). Guidance: There are two trained guidance counsel lors at Washington-Lee (R. 735). Hoffman-Boston has no guidance counsellor (App. 116-117, 230; R. 735). Guidance has an important value to the edu cation of the pupil, and can at all times be afforded by a specialist than a teacher (App. 40-41, 116-118, 145-146, 200). Co-Curricular Activities: The curriculum at Washing ton-Lee includes a vast number of club and pupil ac tivities24 which are absent from the curriculum at Hoff man-Boston, as follows: (App. 128-129, 176-178; R. 52, 155): * Boys’ Glee Club Bible Club 0 Girls’ Glee Club Football * Mixed Chorus Basketball * Junior Girls’ Glee Club Baseball ' Orchestra Track *Band Crew a Boys’ Cadet Corps Golf * Girls’ Cadet Corps Tennis 24. The educational value of a well-rounded program of co-curricular activities is important and well-recognized (App. 128-129, 176-178; R. 51). All of the so-called “extra-curricular” activities are actually a part of the pupil’s total educational experience (App. 128). [ 3 1 ] Student Newspaper Staff Archery Year Book Staff Hi-Y Organizations Tri-Y Organizations Literary Society Debating Club Various subject Clubs The 8 activities marked with an asterisk are in fact curricular subjects in the schedule which carry credit (App. 129; R. 155). None of the club or pupil activi ties available at Hoffman-Boston carries credit (App. 129). The listing above does not denote the indi vidual subject clubs at Washington-Lee, which would make the list considerably longer (App. 129). Honorary Awards: Washington-Lee has a chapter of the National Honor Society (App. 134-135; R. 70), a national organization having chapters in the leading high schools in the United States (App. 133-134; R. 70). Membership in this organization is one of the most coveted student awards, and only first-class high schools are eligible for chapters25 (App. 133-134; R. 70). Wash ington-Lee may also confer the Bausch and Lomb Hon orary Science Award (App. 134; R. 70). Hoffman-Boston does not have a chapter of the Na tional Honor Society, nor may it confer the Bausch and Lomb Honorary Science Award (App. 134; R. 70). The fact that its pupils cannot compete for these honors is a decided disadvantage to them26 * (App. 134). 25. In this connection, Washington-Lee holds the following citation: “By virtue of its standards, this school is qualified to confer this award for scholastic attainment.” (R. 70). 26. It has long been a custom in American high schools to give special recognition to students of scholastic excellence (R. 70). The undisputed evidence was that honorary awards build the morale and prestige of pupils, provide homogeneity among the pupils obtaining them, and are of valuable assistance to them in obtaining acceptance by. colleges, scholarships, and employment (App. 133-134, 194-195). [ 3 2 ] C. Teachers Number of teachers: Washington-Lee has 79 full-time senior high school teachers (R. 107, 108, 110, 114), including an ample number of vocational teachers. Hoffman-Boston has only 12 full-time teachers, who teach in both the junior and the senior high school de partments (App. 239), only one of whom teaches vo cational work (App. 91). The number of teachers at Hoffman-Boston is insufficient to permit the teaching of the number or variety of courses taught at Wash ington-Lee27 (App. 89-92). Teaching Experience: The experience of the teacher is an objective index to teaching competency (R. 39)28 * In general, experienced teachers are better and more effective teachers than inexperienced teachers (App. 92-93, 148, 160-161; R. 39). Teachers at Washington-Lee have a greater average of teaching experience, both in Arlington County and elsewhere, than teachers at Hoffman-Boston (App. 148, 160-161; R. 110, 409, 677). The median Washington- Lee teacher had 11 years of total teaching experi ence in 1947-48 (R. 40, 41) and 12.8 years in 1948- 49 (R. 110). The median Hoffman-Boston teacher had only 6 years of total teaching experience in 1947- 48 (R. 40, 41) and only 5.6 years in 1948-49 (R. 110). 27. For example, the single vocational instructor at Hoffman-Boston could not teach, certainly as well, all of the distinct vocational courses as well as they are taught by the several vocational teachers at Wash ington-Lee each of whom is a specialist in his field. (App. 89-92). The same considerations apply in the academic field, particularly in the language and science courses (App. 91-92). 28. Arlington, like most other school systems, gives salary and other preferences to teachers as their teaching experience increases (R. 39- 40). [ 3 3 ] Washington-Lee has 28 teachers with more than 15 years total teaching experience, while Hoffman-Boston has none (R. 110). Teachers Salaries: Differences in competency of teach ers are further reflected in the salaries paid teachers in the two schools.29 The median salaries paid Wash ington-Lee teachers for 1946-47, 1947-48, and 1948- 49, were $2,861, $3,149, and $3,242, respectively (R. 42, 105). The median salaries paid Hoffman-Boston teachers for the same years were $2,274, $2,724, and $2,699, respectively ( R. 42, 105). In these three years, only one teacher, for only 1947-48, at Hoffman-Boston received a salary which was greater than the median salary of teachers at Washington-Lee ( R. 40, 42, 105). As all teachers are paid from the same salary scale (App. 98-99; R. 40, 675), these differentials are due to factors of competency rather than race (App. 99; R. 40, 499). Number o f Different Subjects Taught: Teachers at Hoffman-Boston have to teach a number of different unrelated subjects, while teachers at Washington-Lee are almost in fields of specialization30 (App. 94-97, 29. Salaries of teachers in Arlington County are based upon factors of experience, collegiate training and rating, reputation and scholastic ability (R. 675-676). The basic assumption of the salary schedule is that as training and experience increase, the teacher’s value to the pupil increases (R. 40). 30. A teacher is seldom equally competent in all of the subjects he is certificated to teach (R. 40-41). In terms of both training and in terest, the teacher is usually most competent in his field of major specializa tion (R. 43). The general practice in larger schools is to confine a teacher to teaching primarily subjects in his major field, and, secondarily, in his minor field, of college preparation (App. 163-164; R. 593, 594, 597). Instruction in a school in which each teacher teaches a single subject will usually be superior to instruction in a school in which teachers generally teach two or more unrelated subjects (App. 163-164; R. 43, 593-599). 162-163). Only 2 of the 79 teachers at Washington- Lee in 1946-47 and only 3 of the 81 teachers there in 1947-48, taught more than a single subject (R. 43), and no teacher taught more than 2 unrelated subjects during this period (R. 43). All 5 of the teachers at Hoffman-Boston in 1946-47, and 6 of the 7 teachers there in 1947-48 taught two or more unrelated sub jects (R. 43). In 1948-49, only 6 of the 79 teachers at Washington-Lee had to make more than three daily preparations, while during the same year 9 of the 11 teachers at Hoffman-Boston had to make more than three daily preparations (App. 95; R. 114). D. Accreditation Washington-Lee is accredited both by the South ern Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools and by the Virginia State Department of Education (App. 131, 268; R. 68). Until 1948-49, Hoffman-Boston was accredited by neither (App. 131, 268). It is still not accredited by the Southern.Association (App. 132, 268; R. 937) and is accredited by the Virginia State Depart ment of Education only on a probationary basis (App. 131, 268).31 [ 3 4 ] 31, Accreditation is a thing of great value, not only to the school, bat also to its pupils (App. 131; R. 68). The standards of regional accrediting agencies are usually higher than those of state accrediting agencies (App. 147-148; R. 497). A public institution of higher learning in Virginia might admit without qualification graduates of a school ac credited by the state accrediting agency (App. 132). Graduates of a school accredited by a regional accrediting agency may normally go to any institution, public or private, in the United States and enter with out examination, but if the school is not accredited by a regional ac crediting agency, a majority of the colleges in the United States either will not admit the graduate or will admit them only by special ex amination (App. 130-131). Thus, non-accreditation by the Southern Association would adversely effect the entrance by a Hoffman-Boston graduate into most colleges in the United States (App. 132) and its pupils who desire to enter college, either private or public, located outr side Virginia are greatly disadvantaged (App. 130-132; R. 69-70). Experts testified as to the inherent difficulties and inferiorities of small as compared with large high schools (App. 71-72, 75; Pi. Ex. 99). The conclusion reached by them (App. 68, 99, 135-136, 195) that the opportuni ties, advantages and facilities afforded Hoffman-Boston pupils are greatly inferior to those afforded Washing ton-Lee pupils, is inescapable. ■ Ill The Discriminations Against Appellants Cannot Be Justified B y Reason'of the Smaller Number of Negro H igh School Pupils, as Compared with the Number of W hite H igh School Pupils, in Arlington County, or B y the Compara tive E xpenditures or Investments Made for E ducation in the H igh Schools of Said County. The position of appellees and the Court below rests largely upon the fact that the enrollment at Hoffman- Boston is much smaller than at Washington-Lee. The simple answer is that the constitutional right to equali ty in educational opportunities is personal, and that the fact of smaller number of pupils at Hoffman-Boston is no justification for a refusal to afford such right when requested,32 or for the difficulties arising from its small ness. This is educationally (App. 73, 74-75, 142-144, 195-196, 198-200, 225-226), as well as legally, sound. The expenditures and investments per capita (App. 347-348) in the high schools in question are equally ir relevant. Conclusions as to the relative merits of two [ 3 5 ] 32. Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U. S. 337 (1938), cited supra note 5; McCabe v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co ., 235 U. S. 151 (1914); Mitchell v. United States, 313 U. S. 80 (1941). [ 3 6 ] schools drawn from per capita expenditures and in vestments is acceptable procedure where the schools are of comparable size, but it is well known that where, as here, there is greatly disparity in the size of the populations of the schools being compared, per cap ita figures are worthless (App, 86-89). IV The Discriminations Against Appellants as to Courses of Instruction Cannot B e Justified B y the Claimed F ailure of Negro Pupils to Specifically Demand the E stablish ment of Such Courses at the Negro H igh School. At Washington-Lee, all courses in the curriculum are available each year to every eligible pupil without prev ious demand or request therefor (App. 224, 225, 228). Appellees’ claim, and the holding of the Court below, is that a Negro pupil at Hoffman-Boston seeking in struction there in courses available to pupils at Wash ington-Lee as a matter of course must be subjected to an entirely different procedure: 1. He must make a precedent demand or request for the course before it will he afforded, either at Hoffman-Boston or elsewhere, and await its establish ment, even though the same course is already being taught at Washington-Lee (App. 224, 228-229; R. 712). 2. Upon receipt of a demand or request for a course at Hoffman-Boston for instruction in which it has no facilities or where it is requested only by a few pupils, the principal has no authority to establish the course, [ 3 7 ] but can only refer the request to the School Board for such arrangements it is able to make (App. 705- 706, 237-238; R. 784, 790, 802, 811-812). The course will not be given unless and until the School Board so directs (R. 811-812). 3. In addition, the pupil must survive an investi gation or test before a determination is made (App. 230, 269-270).33 That it is not incumbent upon Negro pupils to seek the establishment of additional educational facilities was recently made clear in the Sipuel case34 where a Negro refused admission to the only state-supported law school in Oklahoma because of her race sought mandamus to compel her admission. The courts of that state denied the writ on the ground that she should have requested the establishment of a separate law school. The Supreme Court of the United States held this po sition to be untenable.35 * * 33. The Vice-Chairman of the Board testified that if only one Negro pupil wanted at Hoffman-Boston a course taught at Washington-Lee, the Board would not be justified in establishing it unless the pupil was “tested”, and it appeared that it would do the pupil some good, the pupil showed enough talent and aptitude for the course and ability to use it, and “there was any practical reason why tax money should he spent to offer one course to one pupil” (App. 270), in which case she would recommend to the Board that a teacher give the pupil “special time”, or let him take a special course for a regular course, or send the pupil elsewhere to obtain the course (R. 1080-1083). 34. 332 U. S. 621 (1948) cited supra note 5. 35. The Court said: “The petitioner is entitled to secure legal education afforded by a state institution. To this time, it has been denied her although during the same period many applicants have been afforded legal education by the State. The State must provide it for her in conformity with the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amend ment and provide it as soon as it does for applicants of any pther group.” (332 U. S. at 632-633) When the case again came before the Court (Fisher v. Hurst, 333 U. S. 147 (1948) it was said: “The Oklahoma Su preme Court upheld the refusal to admit petitioner on the ground that she had failed to demand establishment of a separate school and admission to it. On remand, the district court correctly understood our decision to hold that the equal protection clause permits no such defense.” (333 U. S. at 150). [ 3 8 ] Appellees’ position here is an effort to technically justify a great wrong. The record in this case shows that no white pupil has ever been required to demand a course and wait for its establishment (App. 224, 225, 228), but can take the same as a matter of course.36 Courses are offered in high schools in the light of the; potential rather than actual demand (App. 196-197; R. 583, 584).37 Indeed, pupils register for the courses they know are to be offered during a particular ses sion, rather than seek courses not listed in the offering — a practice which has proven thoroughly futile at Hoffman-Boston.38 86. The Vice-Chairman of the School Board admitted that a Negro child desiring a course available to white children at Washington- Lee could not get the course at Hoffman-Boston no matter what his ability is, while if white he could get it at Washington-Lee no matter what their ability is (App. 270-271). 87. The better procedure in establishing courses is to plan the entire four year program and organize the courses in progressive order (App. 226-227). It is very inferior administration and bad practice to establish a course here and there as and when a pupil requests il (App. 226-227). The organization of courses and determination of offering is usually made by a committee of faculty members and ad ministrators who study the needs of the pupils (App. 149-150, 197- 198, 202-205; R. 583, 584). Experts are frequently called in either for complete surveys or consultation (R. 589). Where the-occasion de mands, questions may be discussed with parents and other interested persons (App. 203-204). The study includes student population for previous years, population trends in the community, the potential needs of pupils who will matriculate in the future, and other factors (App. 197). This seems to have been the process employed for the estab lishment of courses at Washington-Lee. 38. The evidence shows plainly that in the past Hoffman-Boston pupils have made requests for courses in the most intelligent and reasonable manner possible for a school child, but have not received them. Peggy Council requested Latin on at least four separate oc casions prior to the current school year, and also requested Spanish and Chemistry, neither of which courses she has received ( ante, pp. 8-9). Calvin Davis graduated without receiving the vocational course his mother formally requested of the School Board (post, foot note 47). Julius Brevard’s request for automobile mechanics has not been honored (ante, pp. 9-10). The principal of Hoffman-Boston testi fied that he has frequently had pupils request certain courses, which [ 3 9 ] V Appellees Are Discriminating Against Appellants By Requiring Them to Avail Themselves of H igh School F acilities Outside Arlington County, W hile Affording W hite Children Similarly Situated Such F acilities W ithin Said C ounty. Appellees claim to have established the general pol icy of sending Negro vocational pupils resident in Ar lington County to Manassas Regional School. 25 miles distant at Manassas, Prince William County, Virginia, to there obtain courses not offered at Hoffman-Boston though offered and taught at Washington-Lee (App. 226, 242; R. 651-652, 715-716, 740-742, 833, 1069). Manassas is owned and maintained by the School Boards of Prince William, Fairfax and Fauquier Coun ties (App. 246, 306; R. 831-832) pursuant to the plan specified in the statutes of Virginia and the rules and regulations of the State Board of Education (R. 97) which vest exclusive authority with respect to the op eration and management of the school, and in all other matters most vital to said school, in a Joint Commit tee for Control (App. 241-243), composed of two school board members, each with voting power, from each of the three participating school boards (App. 241-243; PI. Ex. 87). Arlington does not share in either the ownership, con trol or operation of Manassas (R. 879-880). It simply pays tuition for the privilege of attendance by its were not given them because none presented formally an application therefor (R. 779), and that at the beginning of each school year pupils requested a variety of courses which Hoffman-Boston did not give (R. 785, 810-811, 816). [40] pupils (App. 241). One Arlington Negro pupil is at tending (App. 271, 287; R, 1089, 1118). He travels daily to and from Manassas on a school bus owned and controlled by Fairfax County (App. 245-246, 271), Plant, Facilities and Equipment-. Manassas consists in a group of old, unattractive buildings (Df. Ex. Y, CC, DD) and a newly constructed vocational building (Df. Ex. E E ). The latter, and the academic building, which is in bad condition (App. 313), are of principal con cern here. Shops: Manassas has only (R. 1130) a general car pentry shop (Pi. Ex. 79), a general masonry shop (Pi. Ex. 77) and a general mechanics shop (Pi. Ex. 78). As the photographs attest, these shops have vir tually no equipment (App. 302; R. 1125-1126).39 Science Laboratory : Has only one science laboratory (R. 1129; Pi. Ex. 83). It is in a very dilapidated condition (App. 313; R. 1224). It has very little apparatus, equipment or supplies (R. 1128; Pi. Ex. 83). Its facilities for experimentation are not used (App. 313), and the laboratory itself has not been used for a long time (App. 313). The value of its science equipment is less than $1,000 (App. 309-310). 39. Typical is the general mechanics shop in which, it is claimed, instruction in Automobile Mechanics is afforded (App. 289-290). The instructor testified that he had a few hand tools (App. 289, 295), but no motor analyzers, valve grinders, armature lathes, chain hoists, bat tery chargers, practice engines, experimental speedometers or other equipment (App. 293-295) such as is found at Washington-Lee. He referred to a Chevrolet truck there, but neither he nor the administrative officer knew how or for what purpose it got there, or to whom it belonged, its year model, or the miles it had traveled (App. 289-292, 238- 239). He was unable to name from the witness stand what other tools or equipment he had (App. 292-293). It was also said that the pupils would use anything which was available, including the school’s farm machinery (App. 239; R. 1267). [41] Library: Located in one small room, unattractive, equipped with 6 tables and 30 chairs, ventilation doubt ful (R. 1127; PL Ex. 80, 81, 95). It has no reference room, magazine room, or workroom (Pi. Ex. 80, 81, 95). It has only 3122 volumes (Pi. Ex. 95), and 48 magazines (App. 310). Auditorium: Its single auditorium is the third-floor attic of the classroom building (App. 300, 312; R. 1128, 1258; PI. Ex. 84, 85). It is small, terribly overcrowded, in adequate, inaccessible and unattractive (App. 312; Pi. Ex. 84, 85). It has only three exits, and the building is not fireproof (App. 300; Pi. Ex. 84, 85). Its seats are partly the old wooden long bench type, and part ly metal seats attached to the floor (R. 1259; PI. Ex. 84, 85). It has no projection booth or stage (Pi. Ex. 84, 85). Dining Room: A small room, which can seat only 40 or 50 pupils, is employed for the purpose ( App. 299-300; R. 1128; Pi. Ex. 86). It has a small quantity of old equipment (R. 1128; Pi. Ex. 86). Its classrooms are in very poor condition and ill- equipped (R. 1127, 1224; Pi. Ex. 86). It has no in door space available for physical education (App. 310). The lavatories in the academic building are in bad condition (R. 1224). It has no lockers, except in the vocational building (App. 301). It has no gymnasium, band auditorium, music room, art room, bookkeeping classroom, distributive educa tion room, guidance office, or teachers rest room ( App. 309, 311-312). Its vocational facilities, auditorium, cafe teria, library, athletic facilities, classrooms, science fa cilities and lavatories are each inferior to the facili ties at Washington-Lee (App. 311-312; R. 1220). [ 4 2 ] Courses o f Study: The shops at Manassas are only gen eral exploratory shops. Manassas has no separate spe cialized courses in Automobile Mechanics, Mechanical Drawing, Machine Shop, Sheet Metal, Printing, or Wood Shop as has Washington-Lee (App. 295). For some it has no facilities at all; whatever is taught with reference to the others is what may be touched upon in the general exploratory courses.40 Its academic curriculum41 * * suffers similarly when com pared with Washington-Lee. The only academic courses at Manassas which are not at Hoffman-Boston are World History and General Mathematics (App. 284- 287; PI. Ex. 87, 89). Thus, there at least 35 aca demic and vocational courses at Washington-Lee which are not offered or taught at Manassas (see ante, p. 27). Manassas is about 25 miles from Arlington (App. 226). Attendance at Manassas would require this dis tance to be traveled each day. To require Negro pupils to obtain a high school education under these circumstances is to subject them to the same inequali- 40. The General Mechanics instructor testified that instruction there in in Automobile Mechanics for about 6 weeks had consisted entirely in teaching the pupils how to change tires and minor maintenance (App. 290), that he had taught them “quite a bit of theory” (App. 293) following which he would “let them change a wheel just to be chang ing a wheel” (290), largely on his own car (App. 290, 292). He admitted that the course was only a beginners’ course (App. 295; R. 1188). It is clear that Julius Brevard could not obtain at Manassas a course in Automobile Mechanics equal to that afforded at Washington- Lee (App. 313-314). 41. Vocational pupils from Arlington attending Manassas would take both their vocational and related or desired academic work there ( R. 753, 754). [ 4 3 ] ties, hardships and inconveniences which in the Corbin42 case this Court held to invalidate a similar arrange ment.43 It is plain that Arlington does not intend to discharge its obligations to Negro pupils, but to unload them on some other authority owing them no responsibili ties.44 In the very arrangement it now seeks to justi fy, its officials have evidenced a striking indifference toward the welfare of Negro pupils.45 Aldington es tablishes its own policies in Aldington schools which it exclusively owns and operates, and these have resulted in a high standard of educational offering to white pupils. This is not and cannot be done at Manassas, which is operated by others and in accordance with their own lower standards.46 * It is clear that such ar rangement does not afford Negro pupils the equality of 42. Corbin v. County School Board o f Pulaski County, 177 F. 2d 924 (1949), cited supra note 5. 43. The fact that some white pupils residing in Arlington County receive vocational instruction at Manassas Technical School, also in Manassas, is immaterial. Such pupils go there, not because of their race, but because they happen to be late in seeking the courses at Washington-Lee or because in the normal course of operations the classes there are filled when they apply (App. 243-244). All Negro vocational pupils for whom Hoffman-Boston has no facilities must at tend Manassas Regional, and no Negro pupil is permitted to compete for the available facilities at Washington-Lee (App. 243-245). 44 For some time Arlington depended upon the District of Columbia to educate its Negro pupils (Ante, pp. 6-7). It would revert to this practice if Manassas cannot afford Negro pupils the courses sought (App. 231; R. 753, 756).. 45. The arrangements were made without precedent investigation to determine the vocational facilities ( App. 277; R. 768) or academic offering (R 767) at Manassas, or whether it afforded the course deemed desirable for and offered at Washington-Lee (App. 231; R. 768). 46. The general policy of the Committee for Control is to operate Manassas in conformity with the policies of Prince _ W d-iam County (App 306- PI Ex 90). This caused dissatisfaction both within and without the school (App. 306). Teachers are paid in ac cordance with the salarv scale of Prince William County (App. 3 0 ;) , [44] legal right or protection in47 the privilege of a voca tional education which the Constitution requires.48 CONCLUSION The evidence clearly and convincingly demonstrates that appellees have discriminated and are discriminat ing against appellants and other Arlington County Negro pupils, on account of their race or color, in educational opportunities, advantages and facilities in violation of the Constitutional and statutory provisions hereinbefore whose average salary for teachers is lower than Fairfax and Fauquier Counties (PI. Ex. 96, pp. 272-273) and tremendously lower than Arlington’s (PL Ex. 96, p. 271) which pays the highest in the state (App. 245; R. 676, 678-679) and thus is in position to attract su perior teachers (R. 676-677, 871-872). The teachers remained very dissatisfied and the pupils suffered (App. 308). Inauguration of the 12-year system at Manassas was delayed until the Prince William School Board decided it wanted and could afford that system (App. 308-309). Construction of the new vocational building was delayed for several years for similar reasons (App. 309). In May, 1949, a study was made of the vocational set-up at Washington-Lee for purposes of setting up at Manassas an adequate vocational program to be modeled after Washington-Lee. A program therefor was carefully worked out and presented to the Joint Committee at its June meeting (PI. Ex. 90) which included the necessary equipment. The Joint Committee did not accept the report (App. 302-304). In the past, numerous other recommendations have been made to the Joint Committee (PI. Ex. 91, 92, 93) which the Committee ignored (App. 304-305). 47. The Arlington School Board received a letter from the mother of one Calvin Davis requesting a vocational course offered at Washington- Lee but not at Hoffman-Boston, and requesting that the course be offered at Hoffman-Boston or that his tuition to Manassas be paid (App. 232). The Board declined to put the course in at Hoffman- Boston and never in fact paid his tuition to Manassas (App. 233). Davis could not register at Manassas, and returned to and attended Hoffman-Boston until his graduation without ever having received the course he desired (App. 240). The Assistant Superintendent of Schools of Arlington testified that he did not check with Manassas to determine whether Davis was admitted there (R. 765-766) and that he was not familiar with the outcome of the incident (App. 232-233). 48. Missouri ex. rel Gaines v. Canada, 305 U. S. 337 (1938), cited supra note 5; Piper v. Big Pine School District, 193 Cal 664, 226 P. 926 (1924). [ 4 5 ] referred to (ante, pp. 10-11). It is therefore sub mitted that the judgment appealed from is clearly erroneous and should be reversed. Respectfully submitted, Oliver W. Hill , Martin A. Martin, Spottswood W. Robinson, III, L eon A. Ransom, Counsel for Appellants. Hill , Martin & Robinson, 623 North Third Street, Richmond 19, Virginia.