Kimbrough v. United States Brief Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner
Public Court Documents
July 26, 2007
Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Keyes v. School District No. 1 Denver, CO. Appendix Vol. 4, 1970. da745805-ba9a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/60137488-f54a-49aa-af2a-8c70f7052b67/keyes-v-school-district-no-1-denver-co-appendix-vol-4. Accessed May 03, 2025.
Copied!
APPENDIX
Volum e 4— Pages 1515a to 1988a
Supreme Court of the United States
OCTOBER TERM, 1971
No. 71-507
WILFRED KEYES, ET AL.,
PETITIONERS,
-v.—
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,
DENVER, COLORADO, ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
CERTIORARI GRANTED JANUARY 17, 1972
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED OCTORER 8, 1971
INDEX TO APPENDIX
Volume 1
P A G E
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 Voorhees,
J r .................. — ............................................ -........ 73a
Hearing on Preliminary Injunction July 16-22, 1969 85a
T estim o n y
(M in u t e s of H earing 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. Voorhees, 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
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 Court ................................. 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 Order........................ ..... 475a
I l l
PAGE
Volume 2
(Minutes oe Trial on Merits,
F ebruary 2-20, 1970)
PAGE
Minutes of Trial on Merits, February 2-20, 1970 .... 481a
Plaintiffs’ Witnesses:
Paul Klite—
Direct .....................................481a, 493a, 502a, 523a,
530a, 533a, 537a
Voir Dire ........................................ 491a, 502a, 522a,
528a, 532a, 536a
Cross .................................................................. 564a
Redirect ............................................................ 621a
Lorenzo Traylor—
Direct ................................................................ 579a
Cross .................................................................. 607a
Redirect ............................................................ 621a
Gerald P. Cavanaugh.—
Direct .......... 626a
Cross .................................................................. 646a
Redirect ................................................... 652a
Recross .............................................................. 655a
Mary M o rto n -
Direct ................................................................ 656a
Cross .................................................................. 660a
Marlene Chambers—
Direct .......................................................... 665a, 671a
Voir Dire .......................................................... 670a
Cross .................................................................. 676a
Redirect ............................................................ 681a
Recross .............................................................. 682a
V
PAGE
Palicia Lewis—
Direct ...................................... -..................- 684a
Cross - ............-..................... -....................... 693a
Redirect ....................................................... 696a
Recross .................................... -..... -.............. 696a
Mildred Biddick—
Direct ............................................................ 697a
George E. Bardwell-
Direct ..............-........... 700a, 703a, 707a, 716a, 727a,
757a, 769a, 790a, 798a
Voir Dire ....................-.......702a, 707a, 715a, 726a,
755a, 767a, 786a, 791a
Cross ............... ........................................ .... 800a
Redirect .......... .................... -....................... 818a
George L. Brown, Jr.-
Direct ................ 857a
Dr. Dan Dodson—
Direct ...........
Cross .............
1469a
1493a
Defendants’ Witnesses:
Robert L. Hedley—
Direct ..................
Voir 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
Volum e 3
William Berge—
Direct ........ 1033a
Cross ..... 1051a
James C. Perrill—
Direct ....... 1076a
Cross .................................... 1083a
Bedirect ... ....... 1100a
Recross ........... 1101a
John E. Temple—
Direct .......................................1101a, 1115a, 1129a
Voir Dire .......... ........... ...................... 1112a, 1128a
Cross ................................................. 1131a
Jean McLaughlin—
Direct .......... 1131a
Cross ........... 1146a
Bedirect .................. 1150a
Dr. Harold A. Stetzler—
Direct ........................................................ 1150a
Cross ...................... 1189a
Redirect .......... 1210a
Lidell M. Thomas—
Direct .......................................................... 1214a
Cross ............................................ 1239a
Bedirect ....................................................... 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 l l
PAGE
Volume 4
(M in u t e s oe H earing 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
Yoir 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 l l l
Robert O’Reilly—
Direct ..................................................1910a, 1925a
Voir Dire ............................................... 1920a
Cross ............................................ ................ 1942a
Redirect ....................................................... 1968a
Defendants’ Witnesses:
Robert D. Gilberts—
Direct ....... 1706a
Cross ............................................................. 1763a
Redirect ........................ 1834a
Recross ....... 1842a
James D. Ward—
Direct .......... 1844a
Cross .... 1868a
George Morrison, J r . -
Direct ....... 1874a
Cross ........ 1892a
Redirect ....................................................... 1896a
Albert C. Ream 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 U. 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 rs in E x h ib it V o lu m e
PAGE
1515a
Hearing on Relief, May 11-14, 1970
The Court: Now, you undertake to represent the
Hispano community too?
Mr. Greiner: That’s correct, Your Honor.
The Court: And are you certain that they wish to
be bused, integrated ? Every word I get, every piece
of evidence I get is that there is a difference of view
point here, a very major difference. That they would
resist any effort to integrate.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, the only answer that
I can give the Court based on the record in this case
is that we had no intervention in this case after
notice of publication and quite a bit of publicity. We
had no intervention from—in behalf of the Hispano
community that would indicate that divergent view.
I think one of the questions—
The Court: Well, I think we ought to keep this
in mind in presenting the evidence, this inquiry in
mind, and consider whether it’s proper for a Court
and counsel to determine what’s good for them and
order them to do it whether it is of their consent or
not, you know. I don’t see that that is saving their
constitutional rights, if this be true.
Mr. Greiner: Well, I think, Your Honor, it’s going
[91 to be what it—what it boils down to is a question
of, is there another reasonable, realistic alternative ?
That’s what this hearing is all about. And the ques
tion of the consent of the people who are to be
affected by the plan of relief is really a secondary
question. The question is, how do you remedy the
inequality? A lot of children in the school district
wouldn’t go to school at all—
1516a
The Court: I’m not talking about the children.
I’m talking about the people, you know. No, I ’m
merely saying that our basic legal problem is rem
edying the invasion of the constitutional rights. And,
if it’s true that there is a segment that says their
rights are not violated, why, I don’t see that it is
any of our business to say, “Well, they are. And
you’re going to get them remedied whether you like
it or not.” I just don’t—Not a single Spanish-origin
person has appeared here demanding relief or even
suggesting that any should be granted to them.
Mr. Greiner: Well, I think the only basis upon
which we can proceed, Your Honor, is the status of
the record and the record—in the record there is no
dissenting Hispano intervenors.
The Court: Okay.
# * # * *
[13] * * *
J ames Coleman, 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 and
profession.
The Witness: James Coleman, Baltimore, Mary
land. I’m a sociologist at Johns Hopkins University.
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. Dr. Coleman, you’re currently in the Department of
Social Relations at Johns Hopkins, is that correct? A.
That’s right.
James Coleman—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1517a
Q. How long have yon held that position! [14] A.
Since 1959.
Q. What are your duties and responsibilities in the De
partment of Social Relations? A. I’m Professor of Social
Relations at Johns Hopkins.
Q. Have you prepared a resume of your experience and
qualifications? A. Yes, I have.
Q. Handing you what’s been marked as Plaintiffs’ Ex
hibit 512, and I would ask you to identify that, please. A.
Yes, that is my resume.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we would submit Dr.
Coleman’s resume. It is part of our memorandum
which has previously been supplied to counsel.
Mr. Ris: No objection.
The Court: It will be received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 512 was re
ceived in evidence.)
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. Dr. Coleman, I wonder if you could relate for us just
briefly some of the experience which you have had in the
field of the analysis of the factors which led to inequality
of educational opportunity in schools which are racially
isolated? A. My initial and major experience in this direc
tion came with the analysis of the survey of equality of
educational opportunity which was requested of the Com
missioner of [15] Education in the Civil Rights Act of
1964. That was published in July of 1966. Subsequent to
that time I have carried out some further examination of
the same data and more recently some examination of data
from a number of specific cities which have carried out
some studies of their own.
James Coleman—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1518a
Q. Can you identify some of the cities for us? A. Yes.
New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Los Angeles.
These were not detailed examinations but simply looking
at some of the work which—reviewing some of the work
which those cities have done themselves.
Q. You mentioned this 1966 publication. I’m handing you
what’s been marked for identification as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit
500 and entitled Equality of Educational Opportunity and
ask you if that is the document to which you have reference?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Can you tell the Court, please, Dr. Coleman, what
your duties and responsibilities were in connection with
that study? A. In connection with the survey which led to
this and the publication of the report, I was director of the
staff which produced the report.
Q. What was the purpose of the study? A. The pur
pose of the study was to fulfill Section 402 of the Civil
Rights Act which requested the Commissioner of [16] Edu
cation to carry out a survey of the lack of equality of edu
cational opportunity in the United States, as a consequence
of several factors, the principal of which was racial char
acteristics of the students.
Q. Now, would you describe briefly how the study was
conducted? For example, how many students were the sub
ject of the study? A. The study was conducted by carry
ing out—by selecting a sample of schools, first selecting a
sample of high schools throughout the United States and
then selecting a sample of feeder junior high and elemen
tary schools which served those high schools and then ex
amining the characteristics of the schools, some of the
characteristics of the teachers, and some of the character
istics of the students in Grades 1 through 6, 9 and 12.
James Coleman—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1519a
Q. What characteristics were considered? A. Well,
there were a number of characteristics of the schools and
of the school districts which were considered which in
cluded the major characteristic that educators have charac
teristically examined in terms of school quality. Most of
the kinds of things which school financial resources go into
purchasing and then a number of characteristics of teachers,
ranging from things of having to do with their attitude
to things, having to do with their experience, to a test of
verbal skills which was given to the teachers.
[173 Q. What method was used to survey the teachers?
A. The teachers were surveyed by essentially a relatively
short questionnaire which they completed. This was in
similar form of that which was completed by students, but
shorter, and the test involved—associated with the ques
tionnaire—was also short.
Q. Do you recall approximately how many students re
sponded to this questionnaire? A. Yes, there were some
thing over 600,000 students in the five grade levels that I
mentioned throughout the United States, around 4,000
schools being involved.
Q. And approximately how many teachers ? A. If I re
call correctly, something around 60,000 teachers.
Q. What were the geographic characteristics of this sur
vey? A. Well, the geographic characteristics of the sur
vey were 50 states of the United States and the District
of Columbia, without carrying out a representative sample
of each state; nevertheless, carrying out a representative
sample of regions in the country. So that properties of the
survey and the sample were to have a representative ex
amination of schools serving children in different regions
and particularly children of different races in those regions,
different races or social origins.
James Coleman—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1520a
£183 Q. Did you also study children in urban and rural
settings? A. Yes, within each region there was a separa
tion between students who attended schools in metropoli
tan areas and those who were outside metropolitan areas.
Q. Was Denver one of the areas which was the subject
of this study? A. With regard to that, I have to indicate
I am not at liberty to say for the following reason: that in
carrying out the survey an explicit promise was made to
the superintendents of schools in all of the districts which
were surveyed that none of the districts would be identi
fied in publication or otherwise, so that there has been—
this has been adhered to in the past, and unless I am
formally directed to do so, I would prefer not to.
Q. For what period of time was the study conducted?
A. The study was conducted in the fall of 1965—-beginning
in September—and extending through to October, covering
a very short period of time, and the analyses of the data
were then carried out in the winter and spring of—the
winter of 1965 and the spring of 1966.
Q. And then what has been marked for identification as
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 500 was published at what time? A.
In July of 1966.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, at this time we would
[191 offer Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 500.
Mr. Bis: May I voir dire the witness?
The Court: Yes.
Voir Dire Examination by Mr. Ris:
Q. Dr. Coleman, you are the director of this survey as
you have indicated. You had substantially—a substantial
number of people who were actually doing the detail work
on it? A. Yes.
James Coleman—for Plaintiffs—Voir Dire
1521a
Q. Who drafted the questionnaires? A. The question
naires were drafted principally within the Office of Edu
cation by a group of staff members there.
Q. There have been substantial criticisms since the re
port was published and before the survey was completed as
to whether some of the questions were not quite fair, isn’t
that correct? A. Well, no.
Q. You’re not aware of any such criticism at all? A.
I ’m not aware of the criticism about the fairness of the
questions. I think there was a good deal of concern in
various localities of the country about some of the ques
tions which were asked, but I don’t think having to do with
fairness.
Q. What were the nature of the objections to which you
[203 refer? A. I think objections had to do with the
question—the objections were of several sorts; that is, a
short time prior to that in some states there had been
either—in some local boards there had been resolutions that
there would be no racial identification of children. Now,
in Grade 1, where the teacher completed the questionnaire,
the teacher was required to fill in the questionnaire which
required filling in the race of the child. And that was seen
in some localities as being in violation of the resolutions
which had recently been passed by these localities. So I
think that was probably the major—that, and the very fact
that having children identify themselves with regard to
race or with regard to ethnic origin, because there was also
a question having to do with whether a person came from
Mexican-American or Puerto Rican background, and those
questions, I think, were the ones which excited the most
concern. Simply because there had been, as I indicated, a
number of district resolutions passed against any kind of
racial identification.
James Coleman—for Plaintiffs—Voir Dire
1522a
Q. Were you aware that Colorado had a constitutional
provision pertaining to classification of students by race?
A. I don’t think that that constitutional provision was—I
don’t know the details of that constitutional provision, but
it was not in the judgment of the attorneys at the U.S.
Office of Education—it was not violated by [21] this.
Q. The question was, were you aware of such a provision?
A. I was aware in a number of states that there were pro
visions of this sort.
Q. Is that the type of objectionable situation it was; as
to race and—and then the geographic areas? A. Yes.
Q. Now, you say you’re under some orders not to dis
close the cities that did not—the cities that did participate.
Can you tell us then that Denver is not one of the par
ticipants in this area ? A. I cannot say anything in regard
to systems which did not participate.
Q. And under whose direction is this order? A. Alex
Andermood was Assistant Commissioner of Education at
this time and he is the one who made that—
Q. But you will answer it if ordered by the Court? A.
I certainly will answer it if ordered by the Court. I would
like at the same time to communicate with the Office of
Education before doing so.
Mr. Bis: If the Court please, may I ask the Court
to order him to answer whether Denver is repre
sented in the study?
The Court: Well, this is voir dire. For w'hat pur
pose? What are you seeking to do?
[22] Mr. Bis: It’s one element—
The Court: This is premature.
Mr. Bis: The Court may be right. Maybe it’s a
little premature and he has to communicate with
James Coleman—for Plaintiffs—Voir Dire
1523a
Washington. Later in cross-examination—but it
might save some time if we could resolve it now.
The Court: You’re going to object to this coming
in?
Mr. Eis: Yes, sir.
The Court: Doesn’t it teach us anything?
Wouldn’t it be of any value at all?
Mr. E is: I think it may be of some value.
The Court: Do you think it’s prejudicial to the
defendants ?
Mr. E is: I don’t think it’s competent. As I am
going to continue my voir dire, there is a great deal
of raw data that the Department is not permitting
access to anybody on it and the Hopkins case refused
admissibility on that basis, and this is the next step
I’m going to take. But I was trying to get this one
point at the moment which I think would be rele
vant later on.
The Court: Well, I suppose we could assume that
Denver was included. Do you have reason to believe
that Denver was not studied?
Mr. E is: I ’m informed that Denver was not and I
[233 just want it as a matter of record. I’m in
formed by the superintendent of schools.
The Court: For purposes of your objection, I ex
pect we could assume they were not.
Mr. Eis: All right.
Do you stipulate then there is not—
Mr. Greiner: I don’t know that to be the fact.
The Court: Okay. I expect then you can tell us,
Doctor, whether Denver was not.
The Witness: As I say, if possible, I would like
to communicate with the Office of Education because
James Coleman—for Plaintiffs—Voir Dire
1524a
there were two categories of school systems which
did not participate; those which were not originally
sampled and those which were sampled but refused
to participate.
The Court: Do you know the answer to the ques
tion?
The Witness: No, I’m not clear which of these
categories Denver was—-
The Court: Well, he’s not in a position to answer
it right now, anyway.
Mr. Ris: All right.
By Mr. R is :
Q. Then, at a recess, can you verify this? A. Yes.
Q. Is it true, Doctor, that there were eleven major school
systems which, for either one of the reasons you just [243
stated, are not included in the study? A. Yes, there were
a lot of—a large number of systems were not included
for one of these two reasons.
Q. I’m speaking of major—say, over 500,000 population.
A. Yes. I don’t have the specific numbers but I would
certainly think that would be approximately right.
Q. Now, Dr. Coleman, is it true that all these question
naires came in and were reviewed and you—I presume
were computerized and so forth? Is that correct? A. Yes.
Q. And the raw data itself is locked up in the archives
of H.E.W.? A. The data available is on tape to any re
searcher who wants to carry out further examination of
the data, and a number have done so.
Q. Are they available for court purposes? A. Yes.
Q. Would they—were they available in the Hopkins
case? A. They were available in the Hopkins case.
Q. Isn’t it true that H.E.W. declined to produce them?
James Coleman—for Plaintiffs—Voir Dire
1525a
A. H.E.W. declined to permit identification of the par
ticular systems involved; that is, H.E.W. declined to have
a specific analysis of the District of Columbia schools
[25] carried out, pursuant to the agreement that had been
made with the school superintendents when the survey was
carried out.
Q. So Judge Wright declined the admission of the re
port, is that correct? A. I don’t think so.
Q. Do you know? A. I testified in that case.
Q. I understand.
The report was not admitted into evidence, was it, Doc
tor? A. Well, I ’m surprised that—I testified at great
length in that and I had thought that the report was cer
tainly discussed in the case.
Q. But it was not admitted into evidence? A. Well—
Q. Do you know? A. No, I’m sorry. I am—my impres
sion is that it was admitted into evidence. Now, if you
know to the contrary, then—
Q. I have been so informed and I am surprised that you
thought it was. A. Well, I think it was, yes.
Q. Who actually did the correlating of the answers to
the questionnaires? The staff people? [26] A. Yes.
Q. In the Deparement of Education? A. In the IT.S.
Office of Education.
Q. So the report itself, Exhibit 500 in this case, con
tains the ultimate conclusions rather than any of the basic
raw data from which conclusions were drawn? Correct?
A. That’s right, yes.
Mr. B is: If the Court please, we would object
to the admission of this—any more than any text
book or other document to buttress the testimony of
the witness—
James Coleman—for Plaintiffs— Voir Dire
1526a
The Court: Do you wish to have it introduced
simply for reference purposes?
Mr. Greiner: That’s correct, Your Honor.
The Court: Or cross-examination ?
Mr. Greiner: I am going to ask the witness to
relate—-to advise the Court as to what the major
findings of the study were; what the conclusions
were that were reached and most of these causative
factors.
The Court: Well, can he refer to it? We will
withhold a ruling on that until a little later on. But
he can refer to it all he wishes and it can be used
to cross-examine him.
Direct Examination by Mr. Greiner (Cont’d ) :
Q. I believe you said there were some 600,000 students
[271 surveyed.
The Court: Were you offering it testimonially as
well? For the purpose of utilizing its content as if
it were evidence in the case, testimony in the case?
Mr. Greiner: I believe, Your Honor, what I ’m
about to do is demonstrate through the witness that
the survey was broad enough in its scope, it cov
ered districts like Denver even if it may not have
covered Denver, so the question as to its relevancy
or its pertinency, vis-a-vis Denver, which—we think
it is pertinent and relevant because it was the broad
est survey ever conducted and it is very thorough.
So I think, to answer Your Honor’s question—
The Court: Well, really, I think that the facts
and figures in it might be of some value to us. I
suppose—if he’s going to give conclusions that are
James Coleman—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1527a
contained in it, I suppose he can be cross-examined
by those.
Mr. Greiner: That’s correct, Your Honor.
The Court: Very well. Go ahead.
Q. Now, Doctor, you said that there were some 600,000
students surveyed. A. That’s right.
Q. And some 4,000 different schools? A. Yes.
Q. And can you tell us whether or not urban school sys
tems such as Denver were in fact included in this survey?
£283 A. There were a very large number of urban school
systems which were included in the survey. The original
sample was carried out in such a way as to be representa
tive of regions of the United States as well as represen
tative of the United States as a whole, and one classifica
tion within regions was urban areas. Now, no school dis
trict is exactly like any other and that is why we have a
representative sample; so we can get a broad conclusion
as to which are representative of the country as a whole,
and of regions. Something like between 60 and 70 percent
of the schools selected in the sample or in the school sys
tems selected in the sample participated in the survey and
others declined to do so.
Q. Are you familiar with the existence of any other
study of equality of educational opportunity which was
as comprehensive as that you directed? A. There has not
been, to my knowledge, any similar survey. There have
been plans which have been discussed in the U.8. Office of
Education for the carrying out of further national sur
veys. There is also a national assessment of education
which is currently being carried out, but there are no such
surveys covering elementary and secondary education
which are as broad as this one.
James Coleman—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1528a
Q. Have lawyers’ studies been used as a basis of other
studies of equality of educational opportunities? [29] A.
Yes, it served as a basis of a number of local studies which
have been carried out in local school systems and they
have carried out changes in their systems through school
integration or some other activities. They have used that
as a source. There has also been a number of things in
various places which have stemmed from this in one way
or another, the organization for economic cooperation and
development in Europe has established equality of edu
cational opportunity which follows very much the pattern
which was initiated by that survey.
Q. Can you summarize or capsulize for us Exhibit 500,
several hundred pages in length, on what were the major
conclusions reached by the study? A. Well, first of all,
let me say that there were a number of sections to the sur
vey or a number of things which were reported in that
volume, and the only ones which I will make any statement
on here are those which have to do with elementary and
secondary education, for which this major survey that we
described was carried out. There were also other surveys
for secondary education and some other examinations which
are in the report which I think are not relevant to the
present case and so I will report only on those that I see
as possibly relevant.
The survey attempted to examine the question of equal
ity of educational opportunity in what might be seen as
[303 three different ways. One is through looking at the
input resources into schools and how those varied accord
ing to particular classifications of students that were
surveyed. I should remark at the outset that the survey
examined the equality of educational opportunity with
regard to the following racial and ethnic groups: Negro,
James Coleman—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1529a
Mexican-American, Puerto Rican, Oriental, American In
dian, and whites other than those who were included in the
previous classification.
So, with regard to these six groups and with regard to
Negroes and whites in particular regions of the country,
there was an examination of, first of all, as I indicated, the
input resources into schools.
Q. Can you give use some example of those resources?
A. Well, there were a large number of items having to
do with schools which were examined—which examined
such things as the number of books in the school library,
the age of the textbooks, the age of the school buildings,
the size of the site on which the school building existed,
the kinds and number of curricula that existed in the
school, the existence of audiovisual equipment, the exist
ence and character of science laboratories; whether they
were free public kindergartens or not, and a whole variety.
The classroom size, per pupil expenditure of instruction;
the number of items on this—of this general character.
Q. And what was the second? [313 A. The second was
the degree of racial segregation in schools, that is, as with
the first, not taking as a given or as answered the question
of whether this in itself constitutes inequality of educa
tional opportunity, but rather recognizing that our task
was to examine inequality of educational opportunity as it
may be defined by a number of people in the population
and in the Congress and in the Executive of the federal
government. Our task was to examine the different pos
sible definitions of inequality of educational opportunity
and one of these is clearly the degree of racial segregation
in the schools. So that this was the second major area that
we examined, that is, the racial composition of the schools.
James Coleman—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1530a
The third major area that we examined was to look not
at the input resources into the schools but at the output
resources of the schools, and in that we took a fairly nar
row definition of output. We didn’t look at the kinds of
social attitudes or anything of that sort that might be seen
as a legitimate output of education, but took a narrow
definition, really, examining principally verbal skills and
mathematic skills of children of these six different groups
and, as I said, of Negroes and whites in different regions
of the country.
Q. This then was the achievement data? A. That’s right.
This was the achievement data and [32] again, not view
ing this per se as a measure of the equality or inequality
of educational opportunity, but viewing this as an ele
ment which is relevant to the question of equality or
inequality of educational opportunity because the further
examination of that data was to see how this achievement
varied as a consequence of different resource input into the
school and then to see how those resource inputs were
related to the race of the child. So that, essentially, this
third area was to examine what might be described as those
resource inputs of the school that were relevant to the
outputs of the school; that is, those which exhibited some
degree of impact or effect upon the achievements of stu
dents in the school.
Q. Can you tell us what the major factors were in the
school which contributed to the presence or absence of
unequal educational opportunity? A. Well, if I could go
back to the prior question, I think it didn’t—I didn’t com
pletely answer that. I should say that, in examining those
three kinds or three definitions of what might constitute
inequality of educational opportunity, we found a smaller
degree of difference with regard to input resources at the
James Coleman—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1531a
—of the sort I described before, a smaller degree of dif
ference between schools attended by persons in these dif
ferent racial and ethnic groups than had been previously
anticipated or that had been previously felt to be [33]
the case. So that, with regard to that measure of inequality
of educational opportunity, we found smaller differences
than anticipated.
Q. You’re talking about the physical resources? The
hardware of education? A. That’s right. Now, with re
gard to the third conception of equality of educational
opportunity that I just described, the question came, what
were the sources in the school or what were the character
istics of the school that were most highly related to the
achievement of students or the output of the school. And
we grouped those characteristics of the school into three
broad categories; those which were characteristics of the
school of the sort I described before with the physical input
into the school, including things about the curriculum but
not including characteristics of the teachers. The second
broad set of characteristics was those having to do with
characteristics of teachers and the third one was one which
was introduced only in a later stage of the analysis and
what might be described as educational resources brought
by other children to the school. What was done was to
measure the characteristics of the home environment of
the children who were in the school and then to examine
how a child in that school—how a child’s performance was
the function of family background of the other children
in the school. That was the third general set of resources
[34] in the school that we examined.
First, as I said, was more merely the physical and cur
ricular aspects of the schools and the second was charac
James Coleman—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1532a
teristics of the teacher and third was the characteristics
of the students in the school.
Now, we found, first of all, that schools differed. Schools
attended by these different racial and ethnic groups dif
fered least with regard to these first two categories and
most with regard to the third category. That is, they dif
fered least with regard to physical input of the schools
and next with regard to the characteristics of the teachers
in the school and the most with regard to the characteris
tics of other students in the school. Secondly, when we re
lated the output of the school to—the performance of
students to the other three characteristics; that is, when
relating performance of students in the school to these
three clusters of characteristics, we found that the one
which was least related to performance was the physical
and curricular aspects of the school. What was the next
most related to performance was the characteristics of the
teacher, and what was the most related to the performance
were the characteristics of other students. So that there
was roughly an inverse order between those characteris
tics which were effective in producing educational output
and those which were similar for the schools attended by
children of different racial and ethnic [35] groups; that
is, those characteristics in which the schools attended—
for example, were attended by Negroes and whites—dif
fered most with characteristics of the other students in
their schools, and with the ones which were shown to be
most effective in the analysis.
Q. Now, with regard to this third factor, student en
vironment or the environment created by the student group,
did you also have occasion to study the peer group en
vironment created? I know you have studied the black
James Coleman—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1533a
school children and the environment created by those chil
dren, is that correct? A. Yes.
Q. Now, did yon also consider Mexican-American or His-
pano children separately! A. Yes.
Q. What did you find was the relationship, if any, be
tween the types of school environment created by those
two groups? A. Well, first of all, I think it can be fairly
stated that of the six racial and ethnic groups that were
described there were four which had roughly similar levels
of performance and roughly similar levels of family back
ground when one looks at the kinds of resources that ex
isted in the family. Those were Puerto Bican, Mexican-
American, American Indian and Negro, and two which had
both higher levels of performance [36] and higher socio
economic characteristics of background, those of whites
which I mentioned before and Oriental Americans. In terms
of kinds of impact that a child from one of these first four
groups—the kind of impact that the average family back
ground of children in these four groups and that is not of
any particular child, but I’m talking about average family
background in terms of its socioeconomic resources, those
were roughly similar across these four groups.
Obviously, of course, there are major differences be
tween, for example, American Indians and the other three
groups, but at least among the other three groups, espe
cially when urban-rural differences are controlled, with
socioeconomic backgrounds which are not extremely dif
ferent, then what was found, and it was found in the study,
was the—what was found was the socioeconomic back
grounds or the educational resources in the home rather
than specific racial characteristics of the student which re
lated—which was the environmental resource that I de
scribed earlier.
James Coleman—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1534a
Q. Now, Doctor, on the basis of that factor, the simi
larity of the types of background, for example, and the
Hispano—and that Hispano and Negro children bring to
school with them, did you or can you reach any conclu
sions as to the effects of the peer group, the student peer
group in schools which are predominantly minority in
their character, such as, for example, 40-percent Hispano
and 40-percent black, and [37] contrast it with schools
which are predominantly composed of one minority group.
Is there a difference? A. In terms of our examination,
there would be no reason to see any difference at all. As
I say, in elaboration of that, the important set of vari
ances or the set of variables which were found to be
important were that educational resources brought by the
child into the school from his home and which then had an
impact upon other children in the school, and these were
related to the racial characteristics of the children, but it
was not the racial characteristic or the ethnic characteris
tic per se, but these educational characteristics as it af
fected other students.
Q. And there is a correlation, is there not, between the
socioeconomic factors and the race? A. Yes.
Q. Now, did you also have occasion to study the dif
ferent mixes of the ethnic groups and racial groups in
these schools? A. There has been a good deal of exami
nation of that. That was examined only in fairly small—
a fairly small report that we are discussing, but it’s been
examined with regard to these same data in subsequent
analyses. And first of all, I should say it’s difficult to make
strong inferences in this area. Essentially, if I understand
your question correctly, you’re asking what is the effective
[38] student body of different socioeconomic positions,
James Coleman—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1535a
for example ranging from, say, zero to a hundred percent
middle class. Is that your—
Q. That’s right. A. First of all, I should say that the
inferences cannot be absolutely conclusive in this regard,
but there seems to be a kind of majority effect, that is,
that if the school is predominantly middle class, then there
are beneficial effects on those students who are not middle
class in the school or who come from, family backgrounds
which have poor educational resources in them; without
being deleterious, effects the quality upon the other chil
dren.
If the majority is in the reverse direction, there seems
again to be this kind of majority or climate effect of the
school which leads to the—which does away with those
benefits. As I say, the inferences in this area cannot be
entirely conclusive, but that is both on the basis of these
data, principally to further analyses which have been car
ried out, and on the basis of some other research which
has been—
The Court: Well, then, the culturally-deprived
whites would be exactly in the same position in your
mind!
The Witness: Tes, sir.
The Court: As the Negroes or Hispanos or Ori
entals, is that right!
[39] The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: And with similar deprived—
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: Well, they say it’s the middle class—
upper middle class influence that produces most sig
nificantly; whether the students are Negro or what
ever they are.
Jam.es Coleman—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1536a
The Witness: Yes, sir. That’s certainly the evi
dence of onr survey. Now, there has been some
other examination which is not entirely consistent
with that bnt I think all of the examination of this
question shows that the major influence is that of
the educational resources in the child’s home, which
are principally derivative from the socioeconomic
background of the child.
The Court: That’s what the defendants here said
at the trial. They said that the whole problem was
that of the culturally—cultural deprivation, eco
nomic deprivation, and not the schools themselves.
This was the education that was being offered; that
they were just dealing with a group of students
whose level of basic knowledge was low. And so on.
The Witness: I’m not talking now about the in
fluence of the child’s background upon his perfor
mance. I ’m talking about the influence of the back
ground of other children in the school upon his
performance and, if I understand what you just
said—
[40] The Court: Well, you said that was what
determined the inferiority of the schools, that is,
whether or not they had a large number of white
middle-class students.
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: Isn’t that what you said?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: So it follows that, if our culturally
and economically deprived are in the minority, why,
then the school itself is going to be an inferior one.
The Witness: Yes, sir. That would certainly be
the conclusion.
James Coleman—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1537a
The Court: And I take it that you’re saying that
the quality of the educational effort is not going to
make very much difference.
The Witness: What I ’m saying is that inferiority
of that school is for, let’s say, for example, for a
hypothetical child whose school is a predominantly
lower-class black school, for example, or predom
inantly middle-class school, that his educational ex
perience will be very much a function of that social
composition of the school more than of the explicit
resources which the school has put into the system.
In other words, I think that’s what you just indicated.
The Court: So you’re spinning your wheels try
ing to improve these schools and thus improve the
educational [413 experience of the child in them by
programs of this kind?
The Witness: Yes, sir. I think that would be the
principal inference one would draw from the re
sults of most of these programs as well. That is,
our survey didn’t examine explicitly programs—that
is, special programs that had been introduced be
cause in many respects many of these programs be
gan only after our survey was carried out. Many
of them have been done, for example, in response to
Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act which came out about—only subsequent to that,
but the results of these further—of studies of these
special programs have not been very encouraging
with regard to their effects.
Mr. Greiner: We’re about to get to that, Your
Honor,
The Court: I figured you were. I will let you
develop it.
James Coleman—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1538a
James Coleman—for Plaintiffs—Direct
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. Dr. Coleman, yon have mentioned studies that were
conducted subsequent to that which you directed. Are you
familiar with the report of the United States Civil Eights
Commission which was based in part upon the data gathered
in the Coleman report? A. Yes.
Q. What was the nature of the study conducted for the
Civil Rights Commission? A. Well, the Civil Rights Com
mission report directed [42] itself much more specifically
to questions of school integration in comparison to com
pensatory programs than the survey that we carried out
did. Ours was directed toward broader questions and so
that there was analysis—there was both further analysis
of the data which had been gathered under our survey.
Analysis of some special data in particular localities. One
examination very—one very intensive examination of the
effects of socioeconomic and racial integration in Rich
mond, California, for example, that is reported in the ap
pendix to that survey, and then there was an examination
of compensatory education programs which existed at that
time.
Q. Now, was this study then put out in published form?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. I ’m handing you what’s been marked for identifica
tion as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 27 and 27-A, being the appendix
to Exhibit 27, and ask you if you can identify those for
us? A. Yes, these are the reports to which have been—
to which you have been referring.
Q. Now, what role did you play, Dr. Coleman, in the
creation of the study now represented by Plaintiffs’ Ex
hibits 27 and 27-A? A. I played no role whatsoever other
than as a consultant to the study and was not very deeply
involved.
1539a
Q. As a consultant, what did you do? A. I simply dis
cussed at a meeting of consultants of [431 that study the
general directions that the survey might take and what
kinds of data it might use. One of the persons who worked
intensively with me on the equality of educational op
portunity was a major staff member in this report. He
carried out the analysis of—a further analysis of these
data.
Q. Now, Exhibit 27 was published when, Doctor? A. I
believe it was 1967.
Q. And how much time subsequent to the publication of
the Coleman report was this? A. I think it was less than
a year.
Q. Now, does Exhibit 27 then attempt a further eval
uation of, for example, the then compensatory education
programs? A. Yes. It carries out a further examination
—or a more explicit examination of the compensatory
programs and certainly our survey didn’t carry out such
an examination at all. I should say, however, that partly
because of the fact that many of those programs have
been subsequent to the publication of this, there has been
much more recently, by the New York State Department
of Education, a very comprehensive survey carried out
of both compensatory programs and school integration
activities at local levels which has a title similar to this.
I ’ve forgotten exactly the title.
Q. I think we just happen to have that with us, [443
Doctor. I t’s been marked for identification as Exhibit 508.
That’s Dr. O’Reilly’s study. A. That is the Report on
Racial and Social Class Isolation in the Schools. That’s
the most recent and comprehensive survey which has been
done up to this point. I think, in contrast to nearly every
thing that’s been done before Avhich was quite partial and
James Coleman—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1540a
quite—well, either partial or a little early with regard to
the evaluation of compensatory programs, and I think
this is really kind of a benchmark for evaluation of these
programs at this point.
Q, Now, turning your attention back to Exhibit 27 and
27-A—do you recall what conclusions were reached in
those studies regarding the efficacy of compensatory ed
ucation programs in these isolated schools! A. Yes, the
conclusions that were reached were essentially conclusions
—the conclusion that compensatory education programs
had not shown any generally effective methods for in
creasing achievement of children from disadvantaged back
grounds. That is, it was a fairly discouraging conclusion
with regard to those compensatory programs. And those
fairly discouraging conclusions, I think, have been really
characteristic of most of the examinations of compensatory
programs which have been carried out.
Q. Now, when we talk about compensatory education,
Dr. Coleman, what kinds of programs are we talking about?
What [45] are some of the objectives of these compensa
tory programs? For example, does it include remedial
instruction? A. Well, the objectives of the programs, the
objectives of the—of many of the programs are very di
rectly to increase achievement in cognitive skills which
are viewed as the principal resonsibility of elementary
education. That is, verbal skills and mathematical skills.
So that the goals have not completely focused upon that
but very largely focused upon these two things, verbal
and mathematical skills.
Q. What about factors such as—I believe it’s called cul
tural encouragement or broadening the horizons of the
child? A. Well, there has been some of these, as well.
However, from the point of view of the kind of evaluation
James Coleman—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1541a
which has been used both in the report under question,
racial isolation in the public schools and other evaluations,
most of those valuations have to do with these specific
cognitive skills, that is, the question of whether a given
compensatory program increases such cognitive skills more
than would be expected by the regular program that the
child would attend through that period of time.
Q. Well, factors such as building self-esteem, for exam
ple, and overcoming a negative attitude in the child, or
getting additional parental involvement with the education
of the child? Aren’t those factors which would also lead
to [46] improvement in these cognitive skills? A. Yes,
these certainly might well do so, and it’s just that the final
criterion which has been used principally for evaluating
these surveys is whether in fact cognitive skills are in
creased. Now, many of the things of the sort you described
have some value in their own right and also may be factors
which, if improved or if effected, then, in turn affect cog
nitive skills which are the principal criteria that have
been used in evaluating the cognitive skills.
Q. Dr. Coleman, I ’d like to turn your attention to the
question of integration. What is the nature of your study
on the question about the causal relationship, if any, be
tween integration of the minority child and, by that, I
mean placing them in a—let’s say a majority Anglo school?
What is the relationship between that process and the
improvement of the minority child’s achievement? A. I’m
not sure I understand the question. Well, could you state
it in other words ?
Q. Well, can you tell us if there is any beneficial effect
upon the minority child? A. If there is any beneficial
effect upon the minority child? Can you continue the
question?
James Coleman—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1542a
Q. By integrating the child. A. Well, I’m sorry. Let’s
say that the survey that [47] we carried out was a survey
which examined only children in those schools in which
they were found and so wdiat we had to do was to examine
children who were in integrated schools and had—and had
this similar background but in integrated—segregated
schools. The only was I can answer your question is to
say that, in terms of the analysis that we carried out,
the analysis was limited not to moving children from one
school to another and see what the consequences were,
but limited to examining children in the schools in which
they were found, controlling insofar as possible on the
backgrounds of these children, and then looking at their
performance in the schools that they were with. And, as
I indicated, the performance was more strongly related
to the educational background of the other students and
by that factor, the racial composition of the school they
were in, than to any other single characteristic of the
school—-
Q. What was the relationship? A. That the higher the
educational resources of the other children in the school
they brought with them from their homes, the greater the
achievement of any particular child in that school, control
ling on his own family background. So that it was a posi
tive effect of the educational resources in the homes of
the other children who were in the school.
Q. Then what in your mind is the primary factor that
is present in the integrated school, the predominantly
Anglo [48] schools, that led to their improvement and
achievement of the minority child? A. Well, I must make
inferences because of the fact that one has simply the
statistical education and then the question is, what are
James Coleman—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1543a
the mechanisms involved, and if I understand your ques
tion, you’re asking what are the mechanisms?
I am tempted to express—and a number of people have
at some length—the inference that I would draw from
various evidence that I have had—I have seen is that it
has to do with the linguistic and conceptual challenge
that environment brings to a child. Well, that environ
ment brings for a child—that linguistic and conceptual
challenge is the thing which is provided for—created by
the environment of the other children in the school. What
that means in effect is that, if the inference is correct,
is that a child from a linguistically-impoverished back
ground will be most affected by a school situation which
has a—which is more linguistic, particularly the rich or
different educated environment.
Q. Are you familiar, Doctor, with any programs of com
pensatory education which supply this factor that you have
just described? A. Well, I think that, if a program of
compensatory education were to be effective, it would prob
ably have to be through that kind of mechanism. I think
that the major [493 problem with compensatory programs
is that it’s much more difficult and, if possible, much more
expensive to introduce such environmental changes in the
child’s environment, not only within the classroom but
outside the classroom when the actual social environment
that he experiences in the sense of other children he talks
to remains homogeneous with his past.
Q. Now, did Exhibit 27 also consider these same factors?
A. Yes. Again, it’s difficult to isolate these factors per se
and as a consequence I think one must depend upon in
ferences with regard to this.
Q. But with—were the conclusions which you have just
described also reached by the Civil Bights Commission
James Coleman—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1544a
study? A. The conclusions that I have described were
certainly compatible with the conclusions that they reached.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, at this time we would
offer Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 27 and 27-A.
Mr. Bis: We would object on the grounds of in
sufficient foundation.
The Court: Are you offering the content of both
of these as testimony?
Mr. Greiner: Well, I think really the function of
these is simply to inform the Court of the state of
the art, so to speak, insofar as the analyses which
have been conducted [50] concerning really the
primary issue we have before us and namely what
works and what doesn’t work.
The Court: What part are you going to rely on?
The whole thing?
Mr. Greiner: There is a particular section there,
Your Honor, toward the back which contains the
analysis of compensatory programs as well as an
analysis of the then integration programs which
were in existence at the time that report was pub
lished. The appendices, which is 27-A, is simply
data used by the study in reaching its conclusions.
The Court: Are you familiar with this material?
The Witness: Yes, I am.
The Court: Have you read it?
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: No, I mean Mr. Bis.
Mr. Bis: I have read so much that I—
Mr. Greiner: We listed that as an exhibit on
about June 16th last year.
James Coleman—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1545a
Mr. E is: I’m familiar with the volume and I have
a copy, yes, Tour Honor, insofar as the particular
part counsel is referring to.
The Court: Well, he’s got a paper clip there.
Mr. E is: Mine didn’t have a paper clip.
Mr. Greiner: I ’m not sure that paper clip is in
the right place, Your Honor.
E513 The Court: Well, we will receive it for
whatever value it may have, bearing in mind that
it is hearsay, of course. This is somewhat an un
usual type case, but if there are parts of it that
you feel are particularly incompetent, why, you
can call my attention to those.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 27 and 27-A
were received in evidence.)
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. Dr. Coleman, calling your attention then to the
breadth of these surveys represented by Exhibit 500, Ex
hibits 27 and 27-A, in your opinion are the results of that
survey sufficiently founded in the data—is the data com
prehensive enough that you would consider it to be reliable
in applying it to a school district such as Denver’s?
Mr. E is: I’ll object to that because the witness
stated he had very little to do with 27 and 27-A ex
cept on a consulting basis, and so, by his own ad
mission, he has not examined the data and cannot
draw such a conclusion.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, I believe the witness
has stated that most of the data upon which 27-A is
based is data that was developed in the course of
preparing Exhibit 500.
James Coleman—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1546a
James Coleman—for Plaintiffs—Direct
Q. Is that correct? A. That’s correct.
The Court: Are you familiar with the Denver
condition?
[52] The Witness: I am familiar with some con
siderable part of the Denver situation now. I have
read a number of documents relating to this case,
yes.
The Court: Well, do you feel you can answer this
last question, as to whether this 27 is germane to
the problem here?
The Witness: Yes, I would certainly think it is
germane, that is, surveys which are carried out on
a school system other than a particular school
system under consideration have, I think, charac
teristically been used as a basis for policy in par
ticular school systems.
The Court: The thing that worries me about all
this is that what you say is that the schools are
not inferior as counsel proved at the trial, but that
the students are inferior. They proved it over
whelmingly that the schools were inferior; their
offerings were inferior. Now, in coming up with
a new tack—it’s not the schools at all, it’s the stu
dents and their economic and cultural deprivation
that makes the educational experience one that is
noncompetitive. It’s dull; not exciting. I mean, I
get that from what you’re saying. Sort of a self-
defeating proposition. They proved the constitution
was violated and now they are unproving it.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, what vre’re trying to
avoid is a duplication of the testimony that the
Court has already received. We could go into
teacher attitudes, teacher [53] experience.
1547a
The Court: Well, he says it is of no consequence.
The Witness: I ’m sorry. I didn’t mean to say—
The Court: You said these programs were worth
less. I ’m exaggerating a little bit to make my point.
Isn’t that what you’re saying?
The Witness: No, what I am saying—
The Court: Virtually worthless?
The Witness: I’m really trying to say the follow
ing that is, that first of all that, of the school re
sources which are provided by the school system,
those which show most relation to a child’s achieve
ment are the characteristics of the teachers, in par
ticular the verbal skills of the teachers. But that
these are not as important for the achievement of
the particular student in terms of our analysis as
the social composition of the rest of the student
body. Secondly, that with regard to compensatory
programs, if one evaluates these programs simply
in terms of the increase in performance that occurs
as a consequence of them or that occurs for children
who have participated in them, there is very little
cause for optimism with regard to the overall effec
tiveness of these programs. But, of the things which
the school board provides, the characteristics of
teachers and in particular the verbal skills of teach
ers seem to be the most important characteristics.
The Court: We will take a short recess.
£54] (Whereupon, the trial recessed at 11:06 a.m.
and resumed at 11:23 a.m.)
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, Dr. Coleman isn’t back
yet.
James Coleman—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1548a
Your Honor, we are just about finished with Hr.
Coleman. I don’t believe the Court has ruled on
500, and we would offer that at this time. Per
haps we could dispose of that while we’re waiting.
The Court: 'Well, he’s going to give us some in
formation on it, isn’t he, as to whether Denver was
considered?
Mr. Greiner: We can certainly check on that.
The Court: I mean, before we ruled on it? I
mean, we were withholding a ruling. He didn’t know
the answer.
Mr. Greiner: I’m sorry, Your Honor. We can’t
seem to find Dr. Coleman. He may be calling Wash
ington, but I haven’t been able to find him.
The Court: Do you have any other witnesses you
wish to call?
(Colloquy not transcribed herein.)
The Court: Well, if you wish to take a recess
while you find him, I ’ll be glad to do that. Would
you prefer this?
Mr. Greiner: I would prefer it, Your Honor. I
think things would follow a lot more logically.
The Court: Are you going to ask him how many
white middle-class or black middle-class people he
needs in order [553 to achieve the objectives? What
percentage he needs?
Mr. Greiner: I believe he said the majority, Your
Honor.
The Court: A simply majority?
Mr. Greiner: Yes.
The Court: In order to make any impact?
James Coleman—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1549a
Mr. Greiner: You need a majority to create this
environment that is necessary.
The Court: Okay. Well, let us know when you’re
ready.
(Whereupon, the trial recessed at 11:29 a.m. and
resumed at 11:35 a.m.)
Mr. Greiner: We apologize. The witness thought
we were in recess until 12:30 and therefore went
ahead and tried to place this call to Washington.
The Court: That’s all right. The reporter is hav
ing trouble getting his testimony. I don’t know how
we can remedy it but I’m afraid you’re going to have
to keep your voice up full.
The Witness: Fine.
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. Dr. Coleman, just prior to the recess, we were dis
cussing the educational resources which the schools allo
cate to particular schools, which the system allocates. Now,
is there a condition that you’re aware of of these homo
geneous residential areas which do exist and how [56]
do these neighborhood residential patterns relate to the
kinds of students that you find in the schools? A. Well,
the answer to that depends very much upon the way in
which the school system organizes its schools in relation
to residents. That is, most school systems organize their
schools in relation to the residents by having fixed school
districts and some of these are very ethnically homoge
neous. And a few school systems don’t operate in that
fashion. But the impact of the educational resources that
I described before that are brought with other children to
the school from their home really is the function very much
James Coleman—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1550a
then of the social composition of the schools which are
organized in most districts in the United States, are in
turn the function of the socioeconomic and ethnic compo
sition of the neighborhood.
Q. So then it’s a matter of student assignment policy!
A. That’s right.
Q. Now, could you report to the Court on your tele
phone call and what the status was! A. The telephone
call at this point is inconclusive. I indicated to the people
of the Office of Education to give me an answer with re
gard to two questions, that is, the status of Denver with
regard to which of these two categories it was in, and
secondly, the question from their counsel as to what their
position is with regard to the nature of this [57] informa
tion. So they are searching—they’re doing that now.
The Court: Finally, Dr. Coleman, you mentioned
that you were on this Cabinet committee. Can you
give us the nature of—•
A. Well, I ’m not on the Cabinet committee because only
Cabinet committee members are on the Cabinet committee.
I ’m a consultant to the Cabinet committee on school de
segregation which is attempting to first develop legisla
tion for $500 million worth for this year and a billion
dollars for next year for implementing school desegrega
tion, both in the South and North. And for then laying
out guidelines for the conditions under which such money
can be used by schools—by local school systems so that I
am principally advising the committee with regard to the
guidelines which school systems would—the guidelines for
school systems with regard to the use of the moneys for
school desegregation.
Q. In that context, does school desegregation include
transportation? A. Yes, in the conception of the Cabinet
James Coleman~for Plaintiffs—Direct
1551a
committee as it currently—I think I ’m probably not really
—the Cabinet committee is still determining the character
of these things and so I ’m not really specifically knowl
edgeable about what will be the outcome of the Cabinet
committee’s deliberations.
£58] Q. What is the time table for making this $500 mil
lion available? A. There will be some funds-—it is ex
pected that there will be some funds available by the end
of June.
Q. Then, directing your attention back to the relation
ship between the neighborhood school policy and the
homogeneous character of schools that are created by
that policy, is there any way that you can see, Doctor, that
we’re going to adhere to the neighborhood school policy of
attaining the racial and ethnic heterogeneity which you
believe to be necessary for equality of educational oppor
tunity? A. It seems to me there is a very—a specific in
compatibility between neighborhood school policies and
equality of educational opportunity as it derives from the
social composition of the school itself. I think this was
not necessarily the case in the past but there has been a
general shift over a period of time toward increasing
homogeneity, not solely with regard to race but increasing
the homogeneity of neighborhoods, and this homogeneity
of neighborhoods has, in terms of the evidence that I have
seen with regard to school performance, has reduced the
equality of educational opportunity as a consequence of the
—of increasing the homogeneity of neighborhoods. I think,
as a consequence, it’s probably necessary in order for equal
ity of educational opportunity to exist to have affirmative
action [59] of sort that is not necessary when neighbor
hoods were less homogeneous than at present.
Mr. Greiner: We have no further questions, Your
Honor.
James Coleman—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1552a
Cross-Examination by Mr. Ris:
Q. Dr. Coleman, the budgetary amount that you are
working on as a consultant to the Cabinet committee—is
that to provide funds to the states for compensatory edu
cation programs basically? A. No, this is not, basically
what this is designed for.
Q. What are the funds designed for? A. The funds are
basically designed to aid school districts in implementing
desegregation.
Q. And certainly it’s for providing additional educa
tional curriculum, increasing teacher input and so forth,
is it not? A. Yes.
Q. And to provide situations where the need appears
that there can be smaller teacher-pupil ratio? A. Well,
insofar as that is carried out in desegregated settings, in
sofar as the orientation of that program exists.
Q. But it is to provide that as one of the things—that’s
one of the things it’s to provide, is it not? [603 A. I t’s to
provide—yes, certainly.
Q. To provide more facilities, physical facilities, more
teacher availability to the students to attempt to increase
their educational achievement? A. Well, let me say two
things. First of all, neither the legislation nor the specific
guidelines for the utilization of these funds is completed.
When legislation is completed then it may be changed in
Congress. So that it’s not possible for me to say anything
specifically about what that legislation or—about the spe
cific details of how those funds will be used. But, I can say
that the major orientation of the persons who are respon
sible for administering those funds is for their use in aid
ing school desegregation.
Q. Well, the funds are not going to be limited to trans
portation of pupils from one school to another? A. No.
James Coleman—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1553a
Q. Obviously not. A. No.
Q. So there are many other programs that are being
considered for the use of these funds'! A. Yes.
Q. To increase the educational opportunity of the chil
dren I A. Exactly.
Q. Has your entire career been engaged in sociology,
[613 Dr. Coleman? A. Since I have completed my edu
cation, it has. Before that, I worked as a chemist for two
years.
Q. And you have never taught in public school systems?
A. No, I have never taught in the public schools.
Q. Never been involved in planning or administration of
a public school system? A. No, I never have.
Q. Have you ever visited the Denver schools, in any of
the individual schools? A. No, I have not.
Q. Have you ever visited with the superintendent or the
members of the staff pertaining to vote conditions? A. No,
no vote factors.
Q. Are you acquainted with the programs that are pres
ently in existence or contemplated in the Denver schools,
particularly Manual High School and Cole Junior High?
A. Yes, I’m acquainted with some of their programs. I ’m
not acquainted with them in precise detail, but I have read
about particular programs at Manual, and also programs
at Cole and some of the elementary schools.
Q. And what has been the source of your information?
A. Some of the material which I think was submitted by
the defendants in this case.
Q. That came in during the previous trial? [62] A.
Yes.
Q. Have you read some of the transcript? A. Yes.
Q. Is that the extent of your information? A. I also
read some of the material which was presented by the
Superintendent of Schools, both in 1968 and more recently.
James Coleman—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1554a
I just scanned the material which was dated, I think, May
5th, 1970.
Q. You’re not holding out yourself as an expert to the
Denver situation! A. No, certainly not.
Q. Have you had some change of opinion yourself or
some change in the inferences you have drawn from your
study since the original publication of Exhibit 500? A.
No, I think not. At that point or within a month after that
was published I wrote a statement which was a review in
an attempt to summarize some of the conclusions of that
which was published, and that statement I think was sub
stantially the same as what I have been indicating.
Q. Dr. Coleman, insofar as a child coming from a home
and neighborhood environment where he has been cultur
ally deprived in his beginnings, his awareness, preschool,
and then attends say a middle-class school, was it your
original thought as a result of your study that this child
would absorb facts and learning processes from middle-
class students [63] —students in the middle-class homes
who came with the more advanced learning process and
knowledge? A. That was not my belief prior to carrying
out the study. Prior to carrying out the study I assumed,
as I think most of us assumed, that there was far more
impact of the usual school resources that we conceive of
as school resources relative to the impact of these less
tangible things that you were just describing. In carrying
out that analysis and as a result of that analysis I was
forced to come to that conclusion.
Q. Well, you have more of a feeling now, as I gather
from your testimony previously, then, it’s more of a mat
ter of a motivation now rather than actually learning from
the peer group? That is, he is more highly motivated
rather than the learning process itself? A. No, I think
James Coleman—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1555a
it’s simply a matter of having to cope with a more chal
lenging environment which is less like that that he has
come in. contact with in the past, and to myself, I have
often used the analogy of an English-speaking child at
tending a school in which all the children spoke French.
That is, this is the way in which yon would—he would very
quickly come to learn French; not through anything other
than the fact of being confronted every minute of the day
with the necessity for communicating with those students.
Q. Doctor, wouldn’t you recognize that some children
£64] when they go into a school, that basically they are
frustrated and give up? A. Well, my assumption before
carrying out the survey was that particularly—well, espe
cially class—lower-class students, that is, students from
especially deprived backgrounds—if someone separated, for
example, Negro students in integrated schools between
those who were white disadvantaged and those who were
not white disadvantaged, that there would be a negative
effect for those who were white disadvantaged. And I ’m
not surprised in both our analogy and in other analogies
to find that was the case.
Q. You didn’t find that to be the fact, though? A. No.
Q. You have never been informed of that occurring in
individual cases in any of the schools systems? A. In fact,
it’s kind of a general conception that one gets from an
anecdote case that would lead to having the prior expecta-
tation or certainly led me to have that prior expectation.
Q. Actually, your study didn’t study individual students,
did it? A. Well—
Q. I mean, you were studying the large mass of students?
A. Yes, but we did that essentially by studying the indi
vidual students. That is, we just didn’t look at the [65]
average performance in the classroom. But we looked as
James Coleman—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1556a
to how a particular child in that classroom—how his per
formance was affected by other children in that class,
whether it was related to the performance of others in the
class.
Q. What do you mean by a stable racial integration pat
tern, Dr. Coleman? A. Well, when I use that term I mean
one in which the—essentially in which the population is
stable; one in which the racial composition of the school
doesn’t change sharply over a period of time.
Q. And there are some schools that are not stable, al
though racially integrated, is that correct? A. That’s
right.
Q. There are problems if the school is not stable? A.
I ’m not sure I understand the import of your question.
Q. Well, is there any difference between a stable racially
integrated school and a nonstable racially integrated school
in its operation and achievement? A. I think there are
both internal and external sources of instability. That is,
some of the sources of instability have to do with simply
population movements quite independent of the school.
But some of them have to do with the problems that arise
within the school; problems [663 that are not treated when
they arise by the particular school principal.
Q. In your study with respect to teachers, you mentioned
that verbal skills, you found, made a substantial difference.
Did I understand you correctly? A. Yes.
Q. Was that the principal difference you found in teacher
characteristics? A. Well, no. We examined a number of
teacher characteristics but this was the one which was most
highly related to the achievement of students in the schools
of these teachers.
Q. You mean basically in minority schools? A. Well,
yes, for minority students. Whether they were in predomi
James Coleman—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1557a
nantly white schools or predominantly black schools or
predominantly schools of another ethnicity. That is, inde
pendent of that, the finding1 was that the student’s per
formance was related to verbal skills of the teacher.
Q. This was regardless of the experience that the teacher
had in teaching? A. Yes, the experience that the teacher
had did not appear to be as important a factor in and of
itself as those verbal skills.
Q. Was this also true and important regardless of the
advanced degree the teacher might have? £67] A. Yes,
although these other factors, in particular the education
of the teacher, were not unrelated to the child’s achieve
ment ; just that they were not as highly related as the verbal
skills.
Q. Did you find, also, that this verbal skill was the over-
lying or important—
The Court: Beg your pardon? Keep your voice
up, too.
Mr. Ris : All right.
Q. —that the verbal skill was the most important, again,
regardless of the race of the teacher or the ethnic origin
of the teacher? A. Yes.
Q. So that the race or ethnic origin did not make the
difference that the verbal skill did? Correct? A. That’s
right.
Q. Now, in your study and your conclusions, Dr. Cole
man, have you differentiated the predominantly white
schools by socioeconomic class of the students attending
those schools? A. We haven’t classified the schools simul
taneously by—well, if possible, let me start over again.
Q. Go ahead. A. Could I ask you repeat the question
because I think—
James Coleman—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1558a
The Court: Have you isolated schools in your
study [68] upon the basis of racial or of cultural
and economic deprivation?
The Witness: Yes. We certainly have.
The Court: You have made studies that were
based upon this? This matter, regardless of race?
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: I think that’s what he’s leading to.
Q. That’s exactly what I’m leading to. And, regardless
of the race, if it’s a low socioeconomic homogeneous neigh
borhood, you find low achievement? A. Yes.
Q. And that is true regardless of the racial composition
of the school, if it’s a low socioeconomic area? A. Yes.
The Court: Well, that’s a problem for the legis
lators or the school board; not for the Court. In
other words, there is no—according to you, there is
no discrimination based upon race or color or na
tional origin. The discrimination, if any, is based
upon poverty. And that may not be anything a
court can do. I mean, there is no constitutional
deprivation.
The Witness: Two things have to be distinguished.
One is the deprivation which arises to a child from
his own background and the other is the deprivation
which may accrue to him as a consequence of the
backgrounds of the other £683 students in the same
school that he is attending, and the research that I
was reporting found both of those factors to be
important in a child’s achievement; the first being
more important, but the second not being negligible.
The Court: Well, if you have a school that is 100-
percent white but is economically and culturally de~
James Coleman—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1559a
prived, why, its level would be just as low as one
that is 100-percent black.
The Witness: The results of the research would
say that a child in that school would be suffering
lack of equality of educational opportunity as a
consequence of the other students in the school, in
dependent of the fact that it was white rather than
black.
The Court: I thought that’s what you said.
By Mr. Ris:
Q. Now, in addition to the family background of the child
—the neighborhood background of that student is also of
powerful impact! A. The survey that we carried out did
not distinguish between the composition of the neighbor
hood and its effect and the composition of the school and
its effect. The major reason it did not was because most
schools—the composition of many schools, most schools, is
similar to the composition of the neighborhood itself.
Q. Well, then, Dr. Coleman, we end up with the general
conclusion that there are many factors, social and economic
[70] factors that determine a child’s environment and it
has just a tremendous effect on how he is going to achieve
in school, is that correct? A. Yes, I think that would be
a—
Q. And I would gather then that we conclude that the
schools have to take that child as he is and that we have
very little impact on him? A. Well, I wouldn’t conclude
that because I would conclude that the schools, insofar as—
well, the schools which themselves have a certain social
composition and thus constitutes a certain environment, do
either reinforce his family background environment or act
apart from it. Insofar as they do reinforce it and insofar
James Coleman—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1560a
as lie does come from a disadvantaged background, then I
think the schools do exercise a kind of—in a sense a de
pressive effect in that regard.
Q. Then the search at the moment—the search of the
sociologists and educators and all is how to find a program
within the school that is at least in part going to offset this
socioeconomic background to this child—that the child is
subject to up to this point? A. Well, that would be the
strategy, to carry out such a search. At the same time, the
social composition of the schools has been shown to be
important and this social composition of the school is in
itself a factor which then [71] either releases the child
from this background environment or fails to do so.
Q. What happens when the child gets out of school and
goes back home to his home in the neighborhood environ
ment? Does he have some regression? A. Well, I think
two kinds of questions can be asked. One is, what happens
to the child? Well, I ’m sorry. I thought you mean after
the end of school. I think I misunderstood the question.
I mean, when he leaves the school during the—
Q. Right. And in the summer vacation. A. There is
some evidence now, particularly during summer vacations,
that there is a strongly depressive effect upon, for exam
ple, Negro children, whether it’s neighborhood or home or
whatever, but during the summer period.
Q. Dr. Coleman, you were quoted in a recent Senate
hearing as expressing an opinion that children should have
some experience in a psychological minority environment
and some experience in a psychological majority environ
ment. What do you mean? Did you make such a compari
son? A. Yes, I did. If I were designing an educational
experience for a child, I would certainly include both these
James Coleman—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1561a
kinds of experiences; the experience of being in a psycho
logical majority and the experience of being in a psycho
logical minority. I think both of these are quite important.
Now, [721 these are independent of the question of what
is the kind of environment that is most conducive to learn
ing cognitive skills. These have to do with the types of
environment that affects a child’s social attitude and his
sense of self-esteem and things like that, and so I was
referring to those when I raised the question of being in
a psychological minority and in a psychological majority.
Q. Would such a plan be consistent with a child spend
ing part of this time in his homogeneous neighborhood
school and part of the time in an educational center where
he could be a minority there as compared to a majority
elsewhere? A. Yes, I think that would certainly be con
sistent. Now, the impact upon his cognitive skills would
depend really upon the proportion of time in those two
environments.
Q. Did you express in your opinion that an ideal or an
optimum would be about -50 percent each way! A. I am
not sure what I said in that.
Mr. Ris: That’s all we have at this time.
* # # * #
[go] * * *
Redirect Examination by Mr. Greiner (Cont’d ) :
Q. Doctor, would you report to us, please, on what you
learned from your conversation with the Washington office?
A. Yes. I’m sorry if my fears were unfounded and—well,
I’m happy that my fears were unfounded and the Office of
Education—it was indicated that the proscription was
against releasing any data on particular schools or school
districts which had participated, and not against indicating
James Coleman—for Plaintiffs—Redirect
1562a
[81] which had not. The Denver school system was not
drawn in the initial sample of the schools which were
sampled or school systems which were sampled for the
survey. It had a probability of being drawn but it was
not drawn. So it was not part of the survey.
Mr. Greiner: That’s all we had from Dr. Cole
man, Your Honor, unless you have further ques
tions.
The Court: No.
(Witness excused.)
Mr. Greiner: Our next witness is Dr. Neal Sulli
van.
Neal Sullivan—for Plaintiffs—Direct
Neal Sullivan, 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, address and pro
fession.
The Witness: Neal Sullivan, 287 Harvard Street,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. Dr. Sullivan, have you compiled a resume of your
experience and so forth? A. Yes, I have.
Q. Handing you what’s been marked for identification
as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 513, I ask you if that is your resume?
A. Yes, it is.
1563a
£82] Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we would intro
duce it at this time.
Mr. Bis: No objection.
The Court: It will be received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 513 was re
ceived in evidence.)
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. Dr. Sullivan, by whom are you currently employed!
A. The Massachusetts State Board of Education.
Q. What position do you hold with the State Board of
Education! A. I’m the Board’s secretary.
Q. And how long have you held that position? A. For
sixteen months.
Q. Now, what are your duties and responsibilities for
the State of Massachusetts? A. To carry out the policies
adopted by the State Board and by the general court and
to oversee the operation of the public schools, housing, and
1,250,000 students.
Q. Now, does Massachusetts have a statute requiring
the elimination of racial imbalance? A. Yes, they do.
Q. Do you, in the course of your duties, administer that
statute? A. Yes, I do.
£83] Q. Can you give the Court some indication of what
is involved in the administration of that statute? A. That
was a mandate of the general court indicating that when
a school—when a single school -would have more than 50
percent black students that the local school committee
would have to take action to reduce that and keep it below
50 percent.
Q. Now, what kinds of action have been taken by these
local school districts? A. Redistricting, reorganization,
Neal Sullivan—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1564a
pairing of schools, busing students, to the development
of educational parks.
Q. Can you give us some idea of the types of programs
that are now under way in the public schools of Massachu
setts that are directed towards either desegregation or in
tegration of student bodies? A. I think the one that would
be the most significant to this Court would be the City
of Boston, with approximately the same student popula
tion. A large city, but with a similar public school popula
tion. The reason for the size of the school population being
about the same is that Boston has an extremely large paro
chial school population, so that I think it’s significant that
when I am in Denver I talk about what’s going on in
Boston— Boston is busing students. Boston is discontinu
ing neighborhood schools. Boston is developing an intri
cate program with 28 affluent white suburbs. Boston is
doing everything that is necessary under the law to de
segregate and then integrate its schools. And at the same
time the State Department of Education is running an
experimental school in the heart of the black section of
the City of Boston that is a suburban school, bringing
together black and white children.
Q. Now, these integration programs, many of them, I
take it, are brought about by the mandate of this state
legislation, is that correct? A. Boston was, or the school
committee of Boston gained national notoriety for feet-
dragging, procrastination, and doing all those thing that
many school committees dor A lot of talk and no action.
The law certainly stimulated them. I think I stimulated
them a little bit, too.
Q. Now, with regard to the transportation of students in
Boston, for example, can you tell us what is involved
there? How many students are being transported? A.
Neal Sullivan—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1565a
Boston is now transporting children on an inner city basis
to the suburbs to—to 28 suburbs. I would estimate approx
imately 2,000 students are being moved out of the city
every day in what is known as the MED CO program and
a bridge program. That is, blacks going out.
Q. That’s one-way busing, is that correct! A. That’s
one-way busing; out of the city to the suburbs. There is
another program in which .Boston cooperates [85] with
the state when we bus white youngsters into the city now
with state money. The state legislature this year has pro
vided funds for that program. In addition, in the City of
Boston, using state money, there are black and white
children, many thousands of them, elementary, junior high
and high school students, being bused to accomplish in
tegration.
Q. Now, is this busing essentially voluntary, Doctor?
A. Yes, it is at the present time.
Q. Now, has that voluntary program in Boston suc
ceeded in turning any formerly all-black schools into pre
dominantly Anglo schools? A. No. As a matter of fact,
I am critical of the voluntary nature of the program. It
still is a program that wouldn’t solve the problems of the
City of Boston. The thing that is going to solve Boston’s
intricate racial problems, school problems, is the assistance
given Boston in school buildings. Now, there—they are
now planning $200 million worth of new schools and this
is the thing that is going to make the difference in Boston.
I would predict that there would probably be fewer stu
dents riding ultimately in the Boston plan. They are build
ing these large educational park-like schools on the periph
ery of the ghetto, and with Boston’s transportation system,
the public transportation system, there is a strong possi
bility that the busing aspects of this will not be of major
Neal Sullivan—for Plaintiffs—Direct
concern
1566a
[86] Q. Now, how long has the MEDCO program been
in existence! A. I think approximately four years.
Q. Has there been any attempt to evaluate the effects
of that program on the achievement of minority children
being bused into the Anglo schools? A. Yes, indeed, and
also achievement of the Caucasian children in the lily-
white suburbs. And that research indicated that the black
child’s achievement improved and that the Caucasian child
just went along on a very steady pattern that he has been
achieving on for all these years.
Q. What kinds of racial compositions are being achieved
in these formerly Anglo schools? A. Well, it’s not the
significant type we’re talking about because we move 2,000
black children out to 28 communities. What happens here
is that there is an attitudinal ehange on the part of white
parents. It was not easy. There was trouble in the 28
communities. There was resistance on the part of the
white suburbs, but not resistance enough that practical
educators didn’t go ahead with the program. It was a
good program educationally, sociologically and psycholog
ically, so you do what is right and you convince the school
committees. You don’t have to convince every person in
the suburb. If we waited for that we would never have
any integration.
Q. Now, the plaintiffs in this case, Doctor, in £873 de
signing their plan for relief, have really split it into three
parts, the first being desegregation and the second being
integration. In other words, programs directed for smooth
ing this transition when you first have the desegregation.
What types of programs have you—have been used in
the Massachusetts programs to achieve that transition?
A. Well, the Massachusetts, I think, was similar to most
states and educational systems. Initially it was a moving
Neal Sullivan—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1567a
body type of concept and program, assuming that every
thing would fall into place, And large amounts of money.
It was not budgeted by school committees nor the state
in order to prepare children, nor to prepare faculty in
order to prepare the ancillary services that relate to the
child once he is moved. At the present time we’re doing
better in Massachusetts. We’re far from a position that
would be worthy of imitation. We have a long way to go.
I think desegregation is moving faster than integration and
it is certainly the latter goal that we are working toward.
Desegregation is just now getting started. Integration is
to achieve something that is worthwhile.
Q. Now, you mentioned programs directed toward, first
of all, preparing the faculty of the staff. What kind of
programs do you have in mind? A. Well, I would have
to cite the efforts made in Berkeley where we have a staff of
a thousand teachers where we [88] gave that our prime
consideration, our prime budgetary effort, which was made
in the area of faculty. There would be no sense in inte
grating children or trying to desegregate if the faculty
wasn’t ready to accept the child and to accept the philos
ophy of the program. So, for a period of two years, we
put hundreds of thousands of dollars into the Berkeley
program and I think overall it might have—well, during
the period I was there, it would have exceeded well over
a million dollars. It meant a complete retraining of those
teachers who were going to be affected, particularly in
the elementary schools. It meant taking them out of their
lily-white schools and their ghetto schools—taking them
away from there. It meant giving them courses in human
relations. It meant taking the children, mixed groups with
the teachers, to science camps outside of 'the city where
they lived together. We did everything that a good school
Neal Sullivan—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1568a
system does in order to prepare those teachers who were
going to supervise it and carry it out to prepare them for
the day of integration.
Q. Now, you have mentioned Berkeley, Doctor. You were,
for some period of time, the Superintendent of Schools for
the Berkeley School District, is that correct? A. Yes.
Q. Is that the position you held before your current
position? [89] A. Yes.
Q. What was the period of your tenure in Berkeley?
A. Four and one-half years.
Q. During what years are we talking about? A, 1964
through—to February, 1969.
Q. Now, during that period while you were there—while
your were Superintendent of Schools in Berkeley, was
Berkeley undergoing the implementation of a plan of in
tegration? A. Berkeley started its integration certainly
after I arrived.
Q. Was one of your duties as the superintendent the
administration of a program for integration? A. Yes,
indeed.
Q. Now, as I understand it, the program in Berkeley was
done in stages, is that correct? A. That is correct.
Q. What was the first stage of the program? A. To
integrate the junior high schools. There are three large
junior high schools, one black, one white and one in be
tween. And the first assignment was—and these were
Grades 7, 8 and 9. The first assignment was to break
away from the old 7th, 8th, 9th-grade organization and
reorganizing them, completely desegregated, on a 7th and
8th-grade basis. And the 9th-grade children in the city, on
a single campus, and that completely desegregated the
[903 junior high schools with that one act.
Q. Then when did the segregation of the elementary
Neal Sullivan—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1569a
schools at Berkeley commence! A. Well, actually it went
on in pieces during the period of 1964 through 1968. For
example, we bused hundreds of black children into the
prestigeous lily-white schools in the hills; those nice neigh
borhood schools, and we conducted that program and care
fully evaluated it for a period of three years. It went so
well that the lily-white schools and the parents in those
schools were prepared to accept completey desegregation
of the Berkeley elementary and primary schools and early-
childhood schools that was effected in September of 1968.
The Court: What is a lily-white school!
The Witness: All white, Your Honor.
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. So I take it integration of the elementary schools was
first undertaken on a pilot basis, is that right! A. Indeed
it was.
Q. How many schools were affected ? A. All the schools,
some black children, and incidentally a cross-section of
black children, some slow, medium, some fast; different age
groups. The different sections. Some in trouble, some not
in trouble. All bused to every single school throughout the
Berkeley area. They had—they all had some—
Q. Were any Anglo children bused into the black schools!
[91] A. None.
Q. Did those schools then remain predominantly black!
A. They did.
Q. What is the racial and ethnic breakdown of the Berke
ley school population! A. Forty-three percent black, five
percent Chicano and fifty-two percent white,
Q. There is some Oriental there, is there! A. Yes, and
as a matter of fact, I guess I gave too many of the Chicanos
Neal Sullivan■—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1570a
in there because we would have to add Orientals in that
group.
Q. Now, as I understand it, the chronology of the inte
gration program was to start at the junior high school
level first. Was that your own choice? A. No, it was not.
If I had complete freedom to integrate a school system and
I, as superintendent of schools, couldn’t expect that—but,
If I had, I would integrate the early childhood and kinder
garten and the first grade first. And not junior high
schools.
Q. What’s the reason for that? A. The great payoff is
the earlier you do it the richer the reward. Very difficult to
integrate thirteen, fourteen, and fifteen-year-old students.
They have their minds set. They have attitudes that have
been reinforced by living in isolation for thirteen years,
and it’s tough. [921 As a matter of fact, around the
country the integration of our high schools has not worked
for that very reason. So the great payoff comes at early
childhood education, but it’s been rarely tried.
Q. Now, you mentioned that the pilot elementary inte
gration program was studied, I take it, for its results, is
that correct? A. That’s correct.
Q. Can you describe for us what aspects of the program
were subject to the study? A. Everything. It was carried
on by Professor Johnson from San Francisco Tlniversity—
San Francisco State. It was Dr. S. I. ITayakawa’s school,
not San Francisco University. I want to make that distinc
tion. This was the very distinguished professor who headed
the program up and he conducted it over a period of three
years.
Q. Now, for example, was the effect of the integration
upon the minority child’s achievement evaluated ? A. Yes,
it was.
Neal Sullivan—for Plaintiffs—-Direct
1571a
Q. What kind of findings resulted from that evaluation?
A. That was the most interesting, I thought, part of the
research, other than the attitudinal results and the research
on the black youngsters transported into the white schools
clearly indicated improvement; improvement in achieve
ment. He reacted to the composition. Many of these
[93] youngsters had been straight-A students in the black
schools. When they got up into the white school they were
straight-C and B students by comparison. And they were
receiving- poorer marks. Their parents went to the white
schools and visited there. We saw to that. It was only
fair. They saw the great differences in the two buildings;
libraries, rugs, properly-lighted schools, lunchrooms that
were adequately staffed as against the large blackboard-
jungle-like school that we had along the waterfront. Now,
the black youngster went into this school during the day
time and returned to his own home at night and he had—
it had a great effect on the siblings in his own home. He
had homework to do. He had homework in his other school,
too, but he didn’t do it for one reason or another, and I
think I can advance reasons why he didn’t. But when he
came home from the white school and when he was going
hack the next day to compete with whitey he started to do
his homework and the results were most satisfying to the
parents who suddenly insisted that they wanted the same
good things for the siblings in the family and all of the
neighborhoods also.
So the results were clearly indicated; changed achieve
ment rates on the part of the black students.
Q. Now, when the elementary school integration pro
gram was fully implemented in Berkely, can you tell us—•
tell the Court, please, just what was involved in that
program? E943 A. Well, that was a complete desegrega
Neal Sullivan—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1572a
tion program and a great deal of planning went into that.
I probably spent, and my staff, most of onr time during a
two-year period to make sure that it would go well. The
first year we spent working with the community orienting
and educating them as to the why of integration. And that
is a major job. We did the same amount of work with
the staff and the same amount of work with the students.
This was an around-the-clock preparation. We were, at
the same time, analyzing the budget and extrapolating the
costs to see what it’s really going to cost to integrate a
school system; to really figure out honestly what it costs
to bus half the students in the city. All those intricate
details were worked out. Every answer was given. Meet
ings were held; radio, television. We printed our own
newspaper with our stories.
Everybody was given a chance to come up with a plan.
We asked the community this one question: Is integra
tion in America and Berkeley a worthwhile goal? And that
was the question. The answer was a resounding yes, and
then we asked the community if the answer is yes, would
you help us find ways of carrying it out. We had hundreds
of plans submitted and finally ended up with two and it
narrowed down to one which turned out to be the Berkeley
Plan. And that was the one that was implemented.
Q. Now, in describing the Berkeley Plan, what sort of
[95] other studies did you have available to you to give
you guidance? A. Very little.
Q. When was this plan taking place? What time period
are we talking about? A. The period 1966-1967, 1967-1968.
Those two years where we made the all-out efforts for total
integration of the primary elementary schools.
Q. Were there any other integration programs then in
existence which you could use as models for your own pro
Neal Sullivan-—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1573a
gram? A. No. Riverside had made a good move—River
side, California, and Camden, New Jersey; Evanston, Illi
nois; and there were others. We felt that there was one
missing dimension that—to the few that made an effort,
and that missing dimension was this: they didn’t seem fair
to all concerned; fair to the whites. They didn’t seem to ns
to be fair to the blacks.
Q. Why not? A. The black child was the only one tak
ing the bus ride.
Q. Now, we were inquiring, Doctor, about the compo
nents of the integration program in the elementary schools.
What was done? For example, did you simply close the
formerly all-black schools? A. No, we didn’t. Every
school—and there are old [96] schools in Berkeley—they
have the same problem that a city has like Boston. Berke
ley could spend a hundred million dollars on its schools
right now because many of them should be torn down. The
interesting thing was that the schools that were in shambles
were the black schools. These at one time were white
schools prior to Woi'ld War II. When they were finally
taken over completely by the blacks, no changes were
made. The library, cafeteria, fluorescent lights, the rugs
went into the white schools. Also, the teachers who were
more experienced seemed to follow the white students and
not the black child, and instead of having trees and grass,
we had asphalt jungles on the playgrounds. It was similar
to those stories that we can read about in the inner city
school. Berkeley was no exception. The blacks took over
old schools and they became more old and tired. Very
interesting. Once those schools were integrated, the first
thing that the school committee had to do was put in a
sprinkler system in them. Also, the town took out the
incandescent lights and put in fluorescent lights. They did
Neal Sullivan—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1574a
all these things that should have been done many years
before just for humane reasons. And it wasn’t until the
white child was to enter those schools did the community
really make the decision to put the money into them to
correct them.
Q. Now, how were these formerly all-black schools util
ized? What did you do with the grade level difficulty in
[97] the elementary schools? A. We’re now talking about
the Berkeley Plan and the high schools. They were very
small. Some of them were as small as eight groups; cozy
neighborhood groups, I like to call them. Some were
slightly larger than cozy, but really not big. They were
delightful schools for the upper middle class and middle-
class people. Those schools had limited playground space
and for that reason they became the K-3 schools. All of
the white children in those schools, all the fourth-graders,
all the fifth-graders and all of the sixth-graders were given
bus rides into the black section of Berkeley where those
schools were made into middle-class schools, Grade 4, 5,
and Grade 6. That basically was the plan.
Q. Now, was that reassignment mandatory? A. Abso
lutely.
Q. Was that bus ride mandatory? A. Absolutely, until
someone wanted to have his mother drive him or get on a
bike. He had to go to school.
Q. Now, prior to the implementation of the Berkeley pro
gram, hew many predominantly white schools were there in
Berkeley? A. Well, let’s look instead at the predomi
nantly black ones. I would say six predominantly black and
fourteen or fifteen predominantly white in that area.
[983 Q. What was the total student population? A.
Sixteen thousand.
Neal Sullivan—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1575a
Q. Now, once you mentioned programs directed toward
faculty and staff. What was it that you found that it was
necessary for the faculty and staff to learn in connection
with this integration program? A. Well, we learned a
great deal. We learned, for one thing, that the universi
ties and colleges in preparing teachers for this wonderful
profession of mine completely ignored the entire factor of
human relations.
Q. What do you mean by human relations? A. You have
to live with one another; the social ethics of getting along
together, the climate of the community, the respect for
the other people; understanding a little bit, at least, about
the history; what was true about the black man, really;
what happened to him in America; the history of the
things; the history of the Oriental; the history of the
Mexican; the history of the white man in America.
Q. These were programs of minority history that were
taught to the teachers? A. Oh, yes. We had to start
over, teachers and students.
Q. Now, were there also minority history programs that
were implemented for students themselves? A. Abso
lutely. We introduced a kindergarten through the twelfth
grade, a social science curriculum that included [993 the
history and the culture—the cultural achievement, the
giants in our history who were black in the world and the
—and who had been somehow or other left off the history
pages. This was put in the program, yes.
Q. Were you also breaking new ground, Doctor, in the
development of those curricula? A. Well, not really. I
think most school systems in the country are sensitive to
this problem and I am very proud of what’s been done
from Maine to California in this area. I think educators
have been quite responsive.
Neal Sullivan—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1576a
Q. Now,—so the Berkeley Plan then was a plan prem
ised on integration? A. Absolutely.
Q. Now, prior to the implementation of the Berkeley
Plan, what, if anything’, in the Berkeley school system was
done or attempted to be done to improve minority achieve
ment through compensatory programs? A. Well, the first
thing they did—they just about doubled their tax rate in
order to have many, many millions of dollars to pour into
these black schools.
Q. How long did the compensatory effort last? A. Pour
years, and. it continued. When integration was effected,
compensatory education didn’t stop. You see, I believe
that’s the best compensatory education; integration. So all
this was a compilation of those things that we learned.
[100] For example, the thrust in our curriculum was that
everyone is going to learn to read. And we first had to
convince teachers that everyone had the ability to read.
That was one of those reasons for the in-service program
because a lot of teachers look at someone and say he is
black and he can’t learn, and if you’re white you can read.
So they work with you. They don’t work with the people
over here. So we had to do a great deal of work with read
ing and we all became reading teachers and we mandated
reading courses and proper methods courses for our entire
staff, and I mean the entire staff, all the way through high
schools. Those teachers who were teaching English and
social science were expected to become versed in the pro
gram.
Q. That was part of the integration program? A. Ab
solutely. They certainly wouldn’t have moved into a de
segregation and an integration program without preparing
the students for this, and one of the ways to prepare them
is to better educate them. Now, the results of our efforts
Neal Sullivan—for Plaintiffs—-Direct
1577a
clearly indicated that we were not going to do it in isola
tion. It was a missing component, and we found this
missing component when we bused black children into the
white schools. Different things happened.
Q. Now, before you had the integration program at
Berkeley, can you describe for us the types of compensa
tory programs which were attempted? [101] A. I think
Berkeley, like every other community that has a heart,
tried everything that had been called to our attention. The
major thrust was obviously where the money is, and that
is what the teachers insisted upon, is to lower classes—
lower class size. That costs money. That costs consider
able money. Class size then was given the first considera
tion. The second was materials and equipment. Hundreds
of thousands of dollars for the electronic equipment that
most schools have now. Those new' books that try to in
corporate the black man in our history. The addition of
paraprofessionals. In other words, children that the young
sters could identify with. Lots and lots of black adminis
trators at high levels. That’s very important. Berkeley
gave that top priority. Black principals in white schools.
We felt that was only fair. White principals in black
schools. We felt that was good. You name it and we
tried it.
Q. Did you have cultural enrichment programs, for
example? A. Yes, we did. We boug’ht all the records
and all those humanity series and Encyclopedia Britannica
and others that do just an excellent job. We gave them
the ride to the school, and a ride to the park. The ride to
the super market, the camp, and a ride to the police sta
tion. We wanted them to have—to meet everything.
Q. Did you have programs that were designed to build
[102] the minority child’s self-esteem? A. We tried.
Neal Sullivan—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1578a
Q. Well, so you had four years of primary emphasis on
compensatory education. What was the impact of com
pensatory—the compensatory program on the minorities’
achievement? A. It had no effect.
Q. What, in fact, did happen? A. We integrated the
schools. What happened was overall there was retrogres
sion in all the black schools in achievement.
Q. Now, since the full implementation of the integration
program at Berkeley, have there been continuing studies
of its impact on minority achievements ? A. Massive stud
ies; overstudies. I ’m not there any longer, but there they
are under the microscope, yes.
Q. What are the results of these studies? A. Of course,
they have only been in there sixteen months, actually, of
school following the complete integration of the schools.
I talked to the superintendent of schools there. I haven’t
personally seen the evidence. He tells me that—
Mr. Ris: Just a moment. We will object to this.
If there is some evidence of this, we would like
to see it.
The Court: Sustained:
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. Well, what was it then that led the C103] Berkeley
community to decide to change its student assignment
policy? A. It was based on—obviously the school com
mittee had an effect on the community. A school committee
that was committed to doing what was right for the
children and a superintendent who believes in quality inte
grated education, a staff that cared, and a selling job to
that community, and then not waiting for the consensus
on the part of a hundred and twenty-five to a hundred and
Neal Sullivan—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1579a
fifty thousand students. But the school committee voting
to do what was right and they did.
Q. Now did you, as the superintendent at Berkeley, feel
that there was an educational premise to the integration
program? A. If I hadn’t, I wouldn’t have recommended
it.
Q. What other bases were there for the decision to inte
grate? A. Psychological and sociological and legal and
moral.
Q. What about the psychological basis? A. Well, my
experience with black children—and I have taught in black
schools in the South and when I served there as a super
intendent of schools in Berkeley I am a teacher. In meet
ing these children, it was very clear to me that in their
isolation they were completely rejected and psychologically
this came through. Inferiority complexes; a [104] feeling
that they couldn’t accomplish anything. So, psychologi
cally, the experience was devastating and has been for 200
years. Sociologically, we are stereotyping black people.
We don’t have fair housing in states where I have worked.
So they live in ghettos. And that tells the community
something. Morally, I think as an educator I should do
what I consider is right. And legally I would leave the
courts to decide that. I followed what I thought was meant
by the Sixteenth Amendment and the Civil Bights Act
of 1964.
Q. Now, when Berkeley was considering all these plans
before the ultimate plans were actually decided upon, was
the alternative of simply increasing the compensatory
education and leaving the schools segregated? Was that
an alternative? A. Yes, absolutely. And a segment of
the community pushed real hard saying that the money
that we were going to spend for busing, if it could be put
Neal Sullivan—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1580a
into programs in the ghetto schools, everything would
come out okay. Now, that’s the oldest promise of them all,
and it was rejected.
Q. During this period of emphasis on compensatory
education, what were the costs of that compensatory pro
gram? A. Well, the tax rate was $3.25 when I went to
Berkeley. In order to do all these things that I talked
about doing, the lowering of the pupil-teacher ratio, in
creasing teacher salaries, improving facilities, using
money for transportation, the tax rate went on a vote of
the people from [105] $3.25 to 4.75. That happened two
years after I arrived in Berkeley.
Q. Well, approximately how many million dollars were
spent for compensatory education before the integration
program was implemented? A. I would hesitate to give
you a figure here today.
Q. But that money was not effective in raising the
minority achievements? A. No, it was not.
Q. Now, did you have any experience with regard to
using larger class sizes in the integrated school than had
been possible in the segregated school? A. Well, we moved
during those years into differentiated staffing, into large
groups, small group organizations. But we did not, when
we went into integrated classes, indicate to people it would
save money. As a matter of fact, we retained those pupil-
teacher ratios we had introduced into the all-black schools
when we totally integrated the system. We continued to
have a lot of pupil-teacher ratio in the integrated schools.
Q. Now, what in Berkeley—did you have complete com
munity acceptance for this integration program? A. No,
certainly not. There was a recall election during the early
years of my administration.
Q. They didn’t like what you were doing? [106] A. A
Neal Sullivan—for Plaintiffs■—Direct
1581a
good many people didn’t like what I was doing, that’s
right.
Q. Now, what was done to marshal community accept
ance of the integration plan? A. I mentioned earlier that
we used the media completely. I had my own radio pro
grams. I had my own column in the local newspapers. We
found this effective. But I think probably our most effec
tive communication vehicle was the openness of the school
committee meetings, the willingness of the school commit
tee to everything; where to move around the community
to hold its meetings in black schools and in Oriental areas
and in the hills. It was an all-out effort by not five peo
ple nor one person, but an entire staff. The staff, for
example, the union, clearly indicated in its negotiations
with the school committee that they wanted integrated
schools. The students themselves spoke out on the sub
ject. We spent a great deal of time with the clergy; the
clergy took a position on the subject. Spent a great deal
of time with the Chamber of Commerce that was reluc
tantly opposed to—initially opposed to school integration;
came around in favor of it. The town businessmen. The
university staff. We worked with all of them and asked
for their support and in the end got it from most of them.
Q. Now then—
The Court: Well, you have had that kind of [1073
acceptance of your ideas and your program in Mas
sachusetts, apparently.
The Witness: Your Honor, I think that integra
tion is widely accepted across Massachusetts today.
We have pockets of resistance, particularly in Bos
ton and Springfield.
Neal Sullivan-—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1582a
The Court: But you’re doing it quite differently
in Massachusetts. You’re following different pat
terns.
The "Witness: Yes, in a way. As Commissioner of
Education, I have several hundred committees for
which I am responsible. But I ’m continuing to use
the media. I’m continuing to ask every school com
mittee to do those things that I did in Berkeley.
I have my own study advisory council, my teacher
advisory council on a state basis, so I ’m doing the
same things I did in Berkeley but now on a state
basis.
The Court: Well, is this a statewide system?
The Witness: No, it is not, Your Honor.
The Court: How come you can exchange students
inside—or to the suburbs?
The Witness: That has to be by vote, Your Hon
or, with the school committee in the respective sub
urban community. It has to be by cooperation. And
not by edict of the state. I only have persuasive
power in this area.
The Court: And so these suburban schools agreed
to receive the students?
[108] The Witness: (Nods affirmatively.)
The Court: Is this an exchange program?
The Witness: No, it was a direct movement of
blacks into the white schools. There was no ex
change. Now there is a movement back in the sub
urbs into the city, but that’s a separate program.
The two are not related.
Neal Sullivan—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1583a
Neal Sullivan—for Plaintiffs—Direct
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. Doctor, when you got the minority child into the
desegregated school, what did you find with regard to
that child’s level of achievement? A. It was many years
below the level of the white child. We didn’t discover that
when he got there. We knew it before he went.
Q. Now, what did you do to help the minority child
catch up? A. I think the greatest thing we did was to
integrate every classroom in the same manner we inte
grated the city. Every classroom in every building also
had to be integrated and in this same degree. They were
heterogeneous classes. Berkeley had been a district track
ing school system. And it continues to have some of the
tracking aspect at the secondary level, although they are
quickly eliminating it. But at the elementary level we went
from homogeneous groupings to completely heterogeneous
arrangements. And in my opinion it had the greatest ef
fect on the black child.
The Court: Well, to what extent? What do you
£1093 regard as heterogeneous composition?
The Witness: This would be, Your Honor,—
The Court: What do you mean by your telling us
that?
The Witness: Children of different intellectual
capacities, ranging from the area of the low 90s,
the high 80s in the Intelligence Quotients to the 150s
and 160s. The wide range. We would not put the
low students together. We would not put the fast
students together.
The Court: What about racial composition?
The Witness: The same way, Your Honor. In
each classroom we used computers to do this. There
1584a
would never be in a classroom—and again I indi
cated at the secondary level there is still a trace of
the tracking system that goes on. But at the ele
mentary level the classroom would have somewhere
between 30 and 45 percent black children and the
other composition, the 55 to 65 percent would be
either a combination of blacks and Orientals and
Ohicanos or all blacks in some cases. But each class
room would have the same racial composition as
the school and as the community.
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. Now, prior to the implementation of the integration
program, I believe you mentioned that the minority schools
in Berkeley continued to have less experienced teachers,
is that correct? A. No question about it, that’s right.
Q. What about the rate of teacher turnover at those
[1103 minority schools? A. Three to four times as high
as it would be in the white schools.
Q. Now, what had been done prior to integration to
try to hold the experienced teachers in those ghetto schools?
A. No particular bonus, but instead an effort to provide
all teachers with top salaries. That was the thrust at
Berkeley. I’m not about to say that teaching in an all-
white school is a picnic, but teaching in a black school is
just an impossible situation. Both the all-white school and
the black school can indeed be challenging, and should be
rewarding. So the Berkeley Plan was to upgrade the sal
aries of all teachers; not some teachers.
Q. Now, did you consider the alternative of additional
compensations as an inducement to get these good teachers
into the black schools? A. It was considered and rejected.
Q. Why did you reject it? A. I t was not fair. It wouldn’t
Neal Sullivan—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1585a
get the job done. Providing additional money in commu
nities that Pm familiar with where there have been insen
sitive programs, providing transportation in and provid
ing some extra money—it hasn’t brought out better teach
ers. Instead, when Berkeley completely integrated its
schools, the greatest reward for the recruiter was that we
had 300 applicants for many of our [111] jobs. Teachers
like to teach in an integrated setting if salaries are com
mensurate with the challenge.
The Court: You mean they prefer integrated
schools over the segregated schools?
The Witness: No, I didn’t mean to say that, Your
Honor.
The Court: I’m curious.
The Witness: No. I think teachers—the teachers
that I have been employing now for these good
many years since moving with the Kennedy admin
istration into the South and recruiting blacks and
■whites, teachers by and large would prefer teaching
in an integrated setting.
The Court: And this is a—there is a tendency
for them not to like to teach in a segregated school?
The Witness: Particularly segregated black
schools, Your Honor.
The Court: I suppose, like anybody else, they
don’t like to travel long distances.
The Witness: Your Honor is right. That’s one
of the reasons.
The Court: They probably prefer to live in more
pleasant areas.
The Witness: That’s one of the reasons.
The Court: Go ahead.
Neal Sullivan—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1586a
Neal Sullivan—for Plaintiffs—-Direct
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. Prior to the implementation of [112] the integration
program, can yon describe for us the types of classroom
discipline problems, keeping the child’s attention, and so
on, which took place in the minority schools? A. It was
similar to those minority schools that I visited and that
I have operated all over the country. It just happens that
when you put black children together in isolation you
bring out the very worst of them, and I think that is true
with any minority group. It certainly was true in the Irish
ghetto school I attended outside of Boston when I was a
kid.
I don’t think you bring out the best in people when you
isolate them and when you add to their frustrations of
their being rejected, and it makes it doubly difficult and
so discipline has been hard and it was hard in the Berkeley
schools in the all-black schools.
Q. Does this take teacher time away from teaching? A.
It makes it almost impossible at times.
Q. Now, what was the experience on classroom, disci
pline problems in the integrated environment? A. Well,
this probably was the most satisfying part of the integra
tion program, particularly for the teachers who were com
ing from the all-black schools. Now, we found for the first
time perfect control, perfect relationship; group self-dis
cipline. And there indeed was a controlling and a leveling
factor brought into the school, brought into the [113]
classroom by the white child. There was no question about
that. It became an easier situation in order to conduct an
educational program.
Q. Now, approximately how many children are now be
ing transported under the Berkeley program? A. Four
thousand.
1587a
Q. And in considering this transportation—let’s see.
That’s about 20 percent of Berkeley’s school children? A.
Yes, and we’re talking about the elementary school and
that’s about half of them. There is no transportation pro
vided for the junior high school youngster. They get there
on their own.
Q. I see. So, half of Berkeley’s elementary school popu
lation is transported? A. Approximately.
Q. Now, when you were considering transportation as an
alternative, was this opposition on the school based on
safety reasons? A. Absolutely.
Q. What did you find? Did you study the safety factors
and the—in the school transportation system? A. An ex
haustive study was made.
Q. What was it that you found? A. It -was the safest
way to get to school.
Q. Was there a—was this a local study or did you go
[114] to national sources? A. We started in the State
of California and that particular system—vre had the com
plete cooperation of the California State Patrol and we
used their research. The year that we studied it they didn’t
have a single death in the transportation of hundreds of
thousands of students under extremely difficult conditions.
Miles and miles. The same general observation was made
with the national study through the National Education
Association. The most dangerous way to get to school was
to walk, and the most dangerous place to walk is in your
own neighborhood, and the next most dangerous way to
go to school was to ride with your mother or father in that
second car.
Q. Now, have you also had an opportunity in the Berk
eley program to study the impact of integration upon the
Anglo child’s achievement? A. Yes, indeed.
Neal Sullivan■—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1588a
Q. Were there adverse implications? A. No.
Q. What happened to the achievement levels of the Anglo
child? A. Continued on its very steady pattern. No
change.
Q. What kinds of racial composition are we talking about
in the integrated schools? A. Thirty-five to 45 percent
black in every classroom.
£1153 Q. Now, from your experience as a school super
intendent and in your position with the Department of
Education with the State of Massachusetts, you have had
some experience in both compensatory programs and in
integration programs. A. That is correct.
Q. Do you have an opinion, Doctor, as to which is the
most effective way to go about this? A. Yes, I do.
Q. What is that opinion? A. That is the best compensa
tory educational program that I know of is integration.
Mr. Greiner: No further questions.
Cross-Examination by Mr. B is:
Q. Are conditions in Boston comparable to those in Berk
eley from the school standpoint? A. Public schools, I
would say no.
Q. What’s the school population in Berkeley? A. As I
indicated in the testimony, 16,000.
Q. What is it in Boston? A. Approximately 100,000 of
public school students.
Q. What is the parochial school population? A. Close
to 50,000.
Q. In Berkeley what is the geographical area of the
school system? [1163 A. I would estimate in the area of
25 to 30 square miles.
Q. Do you know what the average busing distance is for
Neal Sullivan—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1589a
a child under the present plan! A. I would estimate
around three or four miles.
Q. And what’s the general nature of the population in
Berkeley? A. Are you speaking now of school popula
tion?
Q. No, I’m thinking of professionals and the occupation
of parents. A. I would say it’s a cross-section of Amer
ica; lots of poor people and quite a few rich.
Q. Would you say that the average intelligence of a
native of Berkeley is higher than that of the average per
son in the State of California generally? A. No, I wouldn’t
say that.
Q. You wouldn’t say that? A. No.
Q. Do you say that the problems of any school district
are the same as the problems of any other school district?
A. If they have similar racial compositions, yes, and socio
economic conditions, I think they’re very similar.
Q. Can you take one plan for one system and apply it
to another ? A. No, I clearly indicated that I thought each
city [1173 should develop its own plan of integration.
Q. Each city has to be handled—has to handle their
problems on a case-to-case basis? A. Yes, I think that
you involve all the people to come up with the Denver plan.
Q. Now, your first plan in Berkeley, you indicated was
a partial plan. How many children were involved in that
before you went into your September, 1968, all-city plan?
A. Are you talking about the busing of the primary young
sters to the hill schools?
Q. Yes, sir. A. Three or four hundred.
Q. Was it more than 250? A. I would estimate from
three to four hundred here today in this courtroom.
Q. Well, you wrote an article in the Harvard Educa
tional Review, didn’t you, concerning the Berkeley Plan,
Neal Sullivan—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1590a
the Berkeley Unified School District! A. I recall writing
for the Harvard Review, yes.
Q. Do you remember stating that approximately 250 Ne
gro elementary school children were being transported
from overcrowded areas! A. Would you repeat that ques
tion, please?
Q. Approximately 250 Negro children have been trans
ported from the overcrowded poverty areas of—
[118] The Court: The question is, did you write
that?
Q. Did you write that, sir? A. If it’s in the Harvard
Review—What’s the date of that?
Q. Well, I don’t find the date on it. I ’m sorry. A. Be
cause 250 might be the right—
Q. Well, did that expand? A. Yes, it did increase as it
went along; not to any great degree. I indicated three or
four hundred would be tops.
Q. Now, this was your first plan, was it? A. At the
primary level?
Q. Yes, sir. A. Yes.
Q. And were these children selected to do this or did
the parents volunteer? A. The parents had to be in
volved.
Q. And they had to volunteer their children to do it?
A. That’s right.
Q. Do you know whether this was—whether there was
any correlation at all to the socioeconomic area of the
people who were interested enough to volunteer their chil
dren as to the balance? A. Well, we had sufficient volun
teers so that we could—
Q. Well, not everyone that volunteered was taken? Did
[1193 you make any study to determine the family back
Neal Sullivan—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1591a
ground of the children who were volunteered? The par
ents of those who volunteered as compared with those who
had not volunteered? A. No, because we felt it was a
cross-section of the school but never attempted to find
out—
Q. What that—what exactly that correlation might be?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you do? A. What did we do about what?
Q. Attempting to determine this socioeconomic back
ground of the family from which each of these children
volunteered? A. We determined the socioeconomic back
ground of all children in Berkeley.
Q. I’m asking you, did you do it on an individual basis ?
A. Yes.
Q. How~ did you do that? A. By questionnaires to the
parents.
Q. And you did that on these 250 children? A. Did it
on all the students.
Q. What did you find out? A. A real wide range of
socioeconomic conditions in the community.
Q. And then what did you do with that information? A.
In selecting the students to become involved in the inte
gration plan, we took a cross-section of them.
E120] Q. And in each instance you actually went back
into the child’s background and determined what that back
ground was? A. We tried.
Q. What type of questions did you ask? A. I don’t
remember specifically because I didn’t work on the ques
tionnaires.
Q. Did you see the questionnaires? A. I recall seeing
them.
Q. Do you recall what the questions were that were
included in that questionnaire? A. No, I don’t.
Neal Sullivan—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1592a
Q. But you did not select anyone who had not volun
teered through their parents? A. That’s right.
The Court: Well, in this busing program—that’s
a voluntary program?
The Witness: Yes, it is, Your Honor.
The Court: Well, did you design that?
The Witness: No, that was designed by the school
committee of the City of Boston.
The Court: In other words, this doesn’t represent
any change of viewpoint that you had from Berkeley
to Boston?
The Witness: No. Again, my powers are persua
sive, Your Honor, and this was a voluntary system
and in an interim [1213 period prior to the erection
of these many new school buildings.
The Court: In other words, you still hold the
views that you had when you were in Berkeley?
The Witness: Yes, I do, Your Honor.
The Court: But you’re not able to put them all
into effect in Boston?
The Witness: That’s right, Your Honor.
By Mr. B is:
Q. With respect to the achievements of the pupils in
Berkeley, was the district norm higher than the national
or state norm before your integration went into effect? A.
I think so, definitely.
Q. And so you started out on a higher basis to begin
with at all levels? A. Not at all levels, no.
Q. The average? A. It would be higher.
Q. Now, with reference to your—one of your writings
—it’s impossible to separate the effects of integration and
Neal Sullivan—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1593a
the effect of the students’ social class. How do you ana
lyze the effects of integration? A. In terms of the class
a child is coming from. If you would read a little more
there—
Q. In the comparison of predominantly Negro schools
£122] with the hill school levels, are the foothill schools
the ones that already were partially integrated? A. That
would be correct.
Q. And in your article you’re talking about three
schools, the three levels: one, the hill schools which would
be under, it says here—
The Court: Then the foothill schools were what?
You haven’t mentioned those before.
The Witness: This would be partially integrated.
Q. Now, how many were there of the so-called hill
schools? A. Well, I would say eight.
Q. How many foothill schools? A. Four.
Q. And the Negro schools? A. Four.
Q. Now, in comparison—and I will go back in the quotes
here—in comparison with the predominantly Negro schools
with the foothill schools, it is impossible to separate the
effects of integration . . .
Now, if you can’t make a distinction to the effects of
integration and the effects of the students’ own social class,
as stated in this article, then how do you determine the
effects of integration you previously testified to? A.
Through the experience that we had by moving the [123]
black youngster from the very low socioeconomic areas
of the city into the higher socioeconomic areas.
Q. You can’t determine the effects of integration after
you move, can you? A. That’s right.
Neal Sullivan—for Plaintiffs■—Cross
1594a
Q. As you say here, that you cannot separate the ef
fects of integration from the effects of the students’ own
social class? A. Well, we’re talking there about the foot
hill schools and just as in most communities, thank God
there are some black people who make it despite the sys
tem.
Q. Lots of people, white people, make it despite the
system? A. Indeed. We have a different type of circum
stance with black—with the black child responding alto
gether differently to the environment than the youngster
whose family didn’t make it and hasn’t made it and is in
great trouble.
Q. Now, even after these youngsters from the Negro
schools moved to the hill schools, was the achieving gap
closed between the children that were moved up in the hills
and the children who were originally on the hill? A. I
indicated that there was progress made; slow progress
initially on the part of the black youngsters moving up
with no slowing down on the part of the white child.
Q. But you stated in the article nevertheless it £124]
remains a considerable achieving gap between the Negro
and other students even at the hill schools? A. Indeed,
and that’s correct. And that’s why we can’t delay with
integration.
Q. Then integration per se is not the only answer, is it?
A. I think it’s the only answer in America. If we’re going
to have—
Q. All you do is integrate, and that solves everything?
You don’t mean that, do you, sir? A. It might not solve
everything but, if we have to make some choices here as
to what we’re going to do in our society, I suggest to you
that the top priority I would give would be to give inte
Neal Sullivan—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1595a
gration a chance. We haven’t given it a chance. That’s all
I ’m saying.
Q. Well, that, in and of itself is not sufficient, though,
even under your theory, is it? A. Under the Berkeley
Plan, I felt that there were so many indicators in Berk
eley after the complete integration that it became a more
mature community where people were living together in
harmony so that I was convinced that, with that experience
and the experience that I had in the South, that indeed it
was the answer today. Economy is needed. Everyone has
to make a living. We have to have health services. We
have to live in decent surroundings. I’m not saying a
[125] school is going to correct all these things. It’s going
to help, though.
Q. That’s what I ’m trying to get at—that mere integra
tion isn’t the beginning and the end. You don’t deny that?
A. It’s going to go a long way, but there have to be other
factors involved in America.
Q. Now, also, even under your own theory that integra
tion in the schools has to be—as you say in the article,
a massive educational revolution? Bight? A. I like that
expression.
Q. Well, that’s yours, isn’t it? A. You bet. I like that
language.
Q. You need something more than integration? A.
You bet. Massive reform.
Q. Massive education revolution for which community—-
A. Would you read that?
Q. Certainly there can be no educational—equal educa
tional opportunity in Berkeley or any other place without
racial integration of the schools, and this is italicized—-
massive educational revolution for which community edu
cational centers offer the most promise. A. I ’m talking
Neal Sullivan—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1596a
here about a part of the Volume II: Racial Isolation. That
was given to you this morning as an exhibit, in which I
wrote one of those articles—one of [126] the suggestions,
and it was the—on the educational part. What I ’m talking
about here is a much larger community center for a single
campus where we would bring together larger numbers of
children where we would have the libraries, the cafeterias,
the gymnasium facilities, the classrooms, the speech teach
ers, special facilities, the nurses and so forth that you can’t
have in a small neighborhood school. That’s what I’m re
ferring to here.
Q. And this is why you get into that particular type
of center, a differentiated staffing as you mentioned? A.
Exactly.
Q. So one without the other is still ineffective, is that
right? You have to have a continuing thing? A. Well, one
without the other is what Berkeley has now because Berk
eley doesn’t have the other that I’m talking about. They’re
spending a great deal of extra money educating children
in an integrated setting in small schools. Small schools
are expensive to operate. And the final Berkeley Plan on
my leaving there was a recommendation for a series of
educational parks to replace the neighborhood schools for
reasons of economy and services.
Q. And that has not been accomplished even at Berkeley,
then? A. Not yet.
Q. Now, even beyond that, that is not going to solve
[127] all the problems of the disadvantaged youngster,
is that correct? A. That is correct.
Q. Still a lot of things that the school district can’t do
anything about? A. (No answer.)
Q. That has to be done by—it’s got to be done by other
governmental agencies? A. Let’s assume all school sys-
Neal Sullivan—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1597a
terns will make the massive and the humane effort that
Berkeley made and then there would be fewer of these
things left out.
Q. Well, you have your own theory in this article. You
said that education and reform itself is not sufficient. So
I think it has to go beyond the school district for all these
problems before all these problems are solved. Isn’t that
true? A. Indeed it does. Reform has to be a cross-sec
tional thing in our society.
Q. Now, you talked about Berkeley, that the entire sys
tem became engulfed in a reading program; all the teach
ers at all levels. A. I indicated that, at the secondary
level, those teachers, English and social sciences—
Q. Now, this great effort that was done went beyond
the normal curriculum, did it not? [1283 A. Yes, it did.
Q. And it involved additional programming? A. Yes.
Q. Additional teachers? A. Yes, indeed. Machines,
everything.
Q. And how do you distinguish between those inputs
from compensatory education? A. They are part of com
pensatory education.
Q. Oh, they are? A. Yes.
Q. So they’re still needed, are they? A. Indeed.
Q. Even under your theory? A. Yes.
Q. To what extent did you have student mobility, par
ticularly in the core area schools in Berkely? Was it
a major factor? A. Which school?
Q. In the core area. A. Extremely high mobility.
Q. Did you find a decrease in mobility after the integra
tion? A. We found that to be true but we also found
another phenomena that is understandable. We found the
heavily-populated blacks in Oakland and Richmond segre
gated schools [129] falsifying records and doing all sorts
Neal Sullivan—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1598a
of things in order to get into the Berkeley schools. I
couldn’t blame them. I didn’t like at all the falsifying of
records but I could understand what they wanted.
Q. You got an influx then? A. Yes, we did.
Q. Now, you talked about an increase in the tax rate.
Much of that went for things that were other than strictly
compensatory education, did it not? A. I would say yes.
Q. Capital improvements, increased teacher salaries, in
creased costs of doing business, so to speak? A. Indeed.
Mr. Ilis : That’s all.
Redirect Examination by Mr. Greiner:
Q. Dr. Sullivan, it’s a fact, is it not, when Berkeley was
considering its integration program, that there were great
fears expressed that integration would lead to white flight?
A. Yes, indeed.
Q. Now, you mentioned there was an influx of blacks into
Berkeley. Was that also—was there also an influx of
Anglos? A. That probably was the most satisfying of all
the [130] phenomena that occurred around the Berkeley
Plan. You see, Berkeley, since 1948, had started to lose its
white population. The mayor of the city was concerned
concerned. It was not until Berkeley took the first initial
steps to desegregate its schools did the white migration stop
and turn around, and during my years in Berkeley there
was an increase in the white population. I’d like to make it
very clear in answering the question from the defense
about the increase in the black population—we had to be
extremely rigid and find those black children who were il
legally entering the school system and asked them to leave.
But there was a stop in the white movement out and there
was a slight increase in movement in.
Neal Sullivan—for Plaintiffs—Redirect
1599a
Mr. Greiner: No further questions.
Mr. Eis: Nothing further.
The Court: I gather from what you have said,
Doctor, that you believe that the isolation of the black
students is one major problem in the inferior educa
tion?
The Witness: I definitely do, Your Honor.
The Court: And then you do not agree with Dr.
Coleman’s thesis that the big problem is economic
and cultural deprivation and that the solution is to
integrate the deprived with the culturally-adequate
group ?
The Witness: Judge, as you report what Dr. Cole
man said, I will accept it. I was in the courtroom
earlier this [1311 morning and I must say I couldn’t
hear Mr. Coleman. I’m sorry.
The Court: I may be oversimplifying what he said.
The Witness: If that’s what he said, then I would
enter a demurrer. I think the big problem in educa
tion is the isolation of black people.
The Court: I believe he said that, if you had a
school populated by blacks, if 50 percent of them
were from homes that were economically and cul
turally secure, that the result would be just as good
as if you had 50 percent of students from white
homes that were middle-class homes.
The Witness: Your Honor, I have read that and I
suggest to the Court today that what we should start
to do is become equally interested in at least what
happens to the attitude of these people. Let’s assume
that making—I am concerned about their hardened
attitude about their brother whites and yellows and
browns. I have supervised black schools and I can
Neal Sullivan—-for Plaintiffs—Redirect
1600a
report to you that we had some singular success in
achievement, hut I can report to you that the atti
tudes didn’t improve. Instead they worsened, and
that concerns me even more than achievements.
The Court: I can understand that. What do you
think you do to accomplish this improved atmo
sphere'? Do you stimulate the student to do more
work? You say there is an attitudinal change.
£132] The Witness: Absolutely, and you put your
finger on it, Your Honor. The word is stimulation.
Indeed. And it is stimulated and I think I heard you
say this morning that the black man is competitive
when he is given that opportunity.
The Court: I don’t think there is any question
about that.
The Witness: I thought I heard you say that. And
I agree with you. And I suggest that, if we provided
him with those opportunities to compete against
the white student, that the—that his own level of
achievement would richly reflect the competition. The
achievements would change. We know this to be
true, if they were given that opportunity.
The Court: Well, am I to understand that you
took a couple of years to get this program really
set up and off the ground at Berkeley?
The Witness: Yes, Your Honor. It took two
years in order for me to guarantee to the parents
that there would be something good at the end of
the bus line and that I could guarantee that for
them. It took two years for us to do it, to complete
everything.
The Court: And in Boston, when you get these
new facilities completed, do you expect to carry out
Neal Sullivan—for Plaintiffs—Redirect
1601a
the same kind of a program yon have had in Berke
ley?
The Witness: Yes. We’re moving toward that
direction in Boston now, retraining of staff, and
there is [133] real receptivity in the city and in the
staff in preparation of programs.
The Court: But your view is that there should
be a combination, apparently, is that correct!
The Witness: Absolutely.
The Court: That people now say there ought to—
they ought to have a home school and a campus
school as well?
The Witness: No, I ’m not saying that. My ex
perience here indicates that that is doubly expensive
and I oppose that type of arrangement.
The Court: How would you work it out, then,
for them to have the exposure?
The Witness: I think the way that I worked it
out in Berkely and that it is being worked out now
in Boston and in innumerable other communities
throughout the United States, where a child is given
a single campus and on that campus—it’s large
enough to have a multiracial setting with different
types of facilities that that student and his fellow
students need, and I think the best arrangement is
to do that—the best way to do that is by keeping
them on a single campus, on a permanent basis.
That doesn’t say you don’t give them the rich re
warding field trips and exposures. You do that,
Your Honor.
The Court: But this is a long-term program, this
campus idea, isn’t it? You can’t use the same fa
cilities that [134] you have at present.
Neal Sullivan—for Plaintiffs—Redirect
1602a
The Witness: You can use some of the same fa
cilities, Your Honor, but again you’re being very
perceptive and I have strongly recommended that
the state and federal government provide our cities
with dollars so that school administrators can built
these facilities without pushing harder on local
bond issues and overburdening local property tax
payers on the tax basis. I think we need state and
federal help for these buildings and I think we’re
going to get it. We have it in Massachusetts now.
George Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
George Bardwell, 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:
[135] The Court: Please state your name and
address.
The Witness: George Bardwell, 22801 South Har
rison, Denver, Colorado.
The Court: You’re the same George Bardwell
who has testified before and has been qualified, is
that right?
The Witness: I have.
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. Dr. Bardwell, in front of you on the witness stand
you will find a stack of exhibits, the first of which has been
marked for identification as Exhibit 509. Would you
please describe Exhibit 509 to the Court! A. Yes, Ex
hibit 509 is a table showing the twelve of what are desig
nated elementary schools showing the enrollment data by
1603a
the Anglo percentage, Negro percentage and Hispano per
centage ; teacher experience data for 1968 for new teachers,
probationary teachers and median experience; and per
centile median achievement for 1968, Grade 5.
Q. Now, with regard to the percentile achievement of
the schools which to date the Court has designated, how
many such schools are there, first of all? A. Excuse me?
Q. How many Court-designated elementary schools are
there on that chart? A. There are twelve.
Q. And what is the source of the data on Exhibit 509?
A. The source of the data, the Defendants’ Exhibit F-l,
[1361 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 246, 247 and 377.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we would offer 509 at
this time.
Mr. Ris : No objection.
The Court: It will be received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 509 was received
in evidence.)
Q. Dr. Bardwell, referring to Exhibit 509, how many of
the Court-designated schools are achieving- at below the
25th percentile? A. Eight.
Q. Now, next in front of you is what has been marked
for identification as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 510. Would you
please describe that to the Court? A. Yes. Exhibit 510
shows ten target schools which we have classified as Plain
tiffs’ target schools, showing the ethnic enrollment, teacher
experience data, and the median achievement.
Q. And the source of the data on 510 is the same as the
source of the data on 509? A. Yes.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we would offer Exhibit
510 at this time.
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1604a
Mr. Bis: No objection.
The Court: It, will be received.
[1373 (Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 510 was
received in evidence.)
Q. Now, first of all, Exhibit 510 shows certain of the
achievement data for these target schools, is that correct?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. How many of these target schools are performing
below the 25th percentile? A. Every single one of them.
Q. And Exhibit 510 also makes comparison, does it not,
between the schools which have been designated by the
Court and these target schools? A. Yes, it does.
Q. Now, what is the comparison with regard to the teacher
experience information? A. In the case of the Court
schools, the percentage of new teachers for the twelve
Court schools is 23 percent. In the case of the ten target
schools the percentage is 20.
Q. What is it for probationary teachers? A. For pro
bationary teachers for the Court schools, 48 percent, and
for the target schools, 42 percent.
Q. And is the city average also given? A. I t is.
Q. What is the city average of the probationary teachers?
A. Thirty-seven percent.
[1383 Q. What about the median years’ experience? A.
In the case of Court schools, 3.5 years. In the case of the
target schools, 3.7 years, and in the case of all schools in the
city, all elementary schools, 5.6.
Q. What is the comparison between the achievement
levels of the target schools and the Court schools? A. For
the twelve Court schools, 21 percent percentile at Grade 5
and for the ten target schools, 20 percentile.
Q. And again, achievement at the 20th percentile means
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1605a
what? A. It means that throughout the United States 80
percent of the children at the Grade 5 on this test are per
forming above that particular level.
Mr. Ris: If the Court please. Excuse me. When
I said no objection to this, I have no question as to
its authenticity or correctness of the figures. I do
object to what’s being done with it now and with the
questions now being asked Mr. Bardwell to inject
these other target schools into this particular hear
ing and, as I said, as I said in my opening statement,
it was our position this was going only to the Court-
designated schools. I just want to make my record
on that, please.
The Court: You’re not asking’ me to retry the
issues that have already been tried?
Mr. Greiner: No, Your Honor. The Court has
made [139] a distinction which the Court in its
opinion designated as being tentative in nature.
We’re taking the Court at its word and we are in
troducing evidence to show that there really is no
logical basis for distinguishing between the schools
which you have already selected and these remaining
target schools. That’s certainly the purpose of this
proof.
The Court: Well, we will permit you to make your
record, anyway.
Q. First of all, Dr. Bardwell, you will recall that in the
opinion of March 21, the Court used a rule of thumb of
between 70' to 75 percent composition of one minority group.
Do you recall that? A. I do.
Q. Now, referring to Exhibit 510, are there any schools
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1606a
among plaintiffs’ target schools that meets that criteria!
A. Yes, there are.
Q. What is the racial composition of Smedley Elementary
School? A. Seventy-seven percent Hispano.
Q. And what is the racial composition of Elyria Ele
mentary School? A. Seventy-three percent Hispano.
Q. Are these both low-achieving schools, also? A. They
are.
Q. And what is the achievement level at Smedley? [140]
A. Nineteen percent.
Q. And what is it at Elyria? A. Twenty-three percent.
Q. And what is the Anglo population as shown by Exhibit
510 of Gilpin School? A. Gilpin, seven percent.
Q. Gilpin? A. Excuse me. Three percent.
Q. Crofton? A. Seven percent.
Q. Ebert? A. Eleven percent.
Q. Wyatt? A. Two percent.
Q. Boulevard? A. Thirty percent.
Q. Garden Place? A. Seventeen percent.
Q. AVyman? A. Twenty-eight percent.
Q. Have you given it for Smedley and Elyria? A.
A. Twenty percent for Smedley and twenty-seven percent
for Elyria.
The Court: What are you reading from?
Mr. Greiner: Exhibit 510, Your Honor.
[141] Q. So all of these target schools—have you com
bined the Negro and Hispano enrollments? What is the
percentage composition of the combined enrollment? A.
All of these would have 70 percent or the greater minority
enrollment.
Q. Now, you have what’s already in evidence as Exhibit
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1607a
883 in front of you. Now, I’d like to direct your attention,
Dr. Bardwell, to the tables in back of Exhibit 883 that
contain socioeconomic data.
The Court: 'What exhibit is this now?
Mr. Greiner: 883, Your Honor.
Q. Now, the tables in Exhibit 883—do they give socio
economic data by school? A. They give mean family in
come from the 1960 census.
Q. And that is by school? A. It is by school.
Q. Can you find the data there for Gilpin School? A.
Yes.
Q .What is the mean family income of Gilpin? A.
$3,680.
Mr. Ris: If the Court please, this is all ten years
ago, the 1960 census. We don’t think that’s relevant
with the changes that have happened since then.
The Court: It has very little probative value.
Mr. Greiner: Well, Your Honor, it gives us a
starting [142] point and then we’re going to try to
update it to the best of our ability based on other
data.
The Court: Are you going to go through all these
schools with this?
Mr. Greiner: Just ten of them. It won’t take long
Q. What is the city median family income? Do you have
that, Dr. Bardwell? At that time? A. $6,400.
Q. And what was the family income at Crofton? A.
$3,630.
Q. At Ebert? A. $3,608.
Q. Wyatt? A. $4,050.
George Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1608a
Q. Boulevard? A. $5,355.
Q. Garden Place? A. $4,830.
Q. Wyman? A. $4,606.
Q. Smedley? A. $5,008.
Q. Elyria? A. $4,500.
Q. And Swansea? [143] A. $5,590.
Q. Were any of these schools of this socioeconomic of
family income—were any of these schools up to the city
wide average? A. No, they were not.
Q. Now, I wonder if you could step to the board here
and direct your attention to the map that’s been placed
there.
Mr. Greiner: This would be Exhibit 514.
Q. What is Exhibit 514? A. It’s a map of the junior
high school boundaries in September of 1967, as shown by
this map by the blue dots—these are the Court-designated
schools.
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
The Court: Who prepared this plan that you are
offering? Or are you just trying to refute what
was in my opinion? Of offer some rebuttal or some
thing of that sort?
You make an offer of proof. I mean, just for the
record.
Mr. Greiner: I ’ll be happy to, Your Honor.
The Court: We will not have any of this. There’s
no point in retrying the case. I’m not going to do it.
We spent all those weeks, you know, trying the law
suit. And you had full opportunity and, too, I don’t
want any more testimony based upon the testimony
received this morning, you know, that would supple
ment the main case. You follow me, don’t you?
1609a
I mean, that would support the position taken by
Dr. Coleman [1443 or by Dr. Sullivan. Because,
really, it goes to the basic issues that we tried, this
material.
Mr. Greiner: Well, perhaps I misread Your
Honor’s opinion of March.
The Court: I didn’t think we were going to go
over all that material again, you know. We developed
a tremendous record of factual material that
you can refer to if you like. But I didn’t—the pur
pose of the hearing now is for the most part to
receive any suggested remedies that you wish to
offer, you know, so that we can enter a final judg
ment in this case. It won’t be too final, I don’t think.
I think it’s going to be temporary final. But, I
mean, it doesn’t look to me like we’re going to wrap
up this in one fell swoop. We do the best we can.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, the major thrust of
the plaintiffs’ evidence at this hearing is going to
be directed toward remedies. But, as we said on
April 16th in our first preliminary memorandum, we
did feel that in the Court’s opinion of March 21 that
the Court had indicated that it had tentatively se
lected a criteria of racial composition and the Court
at least in my mind indicated that it had not closed
its mind to this question.
The Court: Well, I just don’t feel that we should
reopen the whole case. Do you follow me? Do you
know what I’m talking about?
[1451 Mr. Greiner: We are not reopening the
whole case. We’re only talking about these ten ad
ditional schools, Your Honor.
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1610a
The Court: Well, I say to you that—you make
your offer of proof and maybe we can get some
enlightenment from that as to what you have in
mind.
Mr. Greiner: What we have in mind is, Your
Honor,—in our offer, is as follows: that the evi
dence which is already in the record in this case
regarding the achievement in these target schools,
regarding the racial composition of these target
schools, regarding the teacher experience of these
target schools, all shows that the educational situa
tion in these ten additional target schools is exactly
as bad as—
The Court: Oh, I agree with that, but the record
shows that. If you will remember in my finding I
said that we were limited under the pleadings and
the issues developed to attack racial segregation.
Isn’t that right?
Mr. Greiner: That’s right.
The Court: In other words, what Dr. Coleman
said today, namely, that desegregation of poor
people and deprived people creates this problem.
Well, this is a problem that I cannot deal with.
I t’s not a Fourteenth Amendment problem, you
know. I don’t think I can. If it doesn’t deal with
discrimination based upon race or national origin
or creed. But, if it is discrimination based upon
poverty, this is not [146] open to me. I mean, in
and of itself. That’s what Coleman said.
Mr. Greiner: I believe what Dr. Coleman said,
Your Honor, is that—
The Court: Am I wrong about that?
Mr. B is: No. Counsel, in his proposed—
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1611a
Mr. Greiner: Pd like to be able to finish my offer
of proof.
The Court: That’s what I thought he said.
Mr. B is: That’s what he said. He is merely ar
guing now; not even suggesting additional proof.
I t’s not even an offer of proof.
The Court: "Well, we will see what he’s got.
Mr. Greiner: What Coleman said this morning,
Your Honor, was that the factor in school which
contributed most to the inequality of educational
opportunity was the homogeneous peer group. We
asked Hr. Coleman if there is any difference in the
kind of peer group environment created by Negroes
as compared with Hispanos. He said no. If there
is a racial basis for saying that a school that is
75 percent of one ethnic minority is a segregated
school, that same basis obtains if it’s 35 percent of
one minority group and 40 of another. We can see
very clearly that the effects are exactly the same.
Those children got in those schools—
The Court: All right. That is all argument based
[147] upon the evidence that is in the record now,
I suppose. I mean, you introduced evidence at
length and in depth concerning the conditions in
these schools, all of them.
Mr. Greiner: That’s correct. We haven’t cor
related the socioeconomic data which is already in
the record and that was the purport of my last
question to Hr. Bardwell. In words, there is a very
strong correlation in this city between socioeconomic
status and race and ethnicity. You can talk about
the upper-middle-class black school but when we look
at the schools that are the subject of this presenta
tion, there are no such schools. They don’t exist.
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1612 a
The Court: Well, I suppose that you might clas
sify the Northeast Denver schools along this line,
some of them.
Mr. Greiner: Well, but we look at the achievement
level of those schools—we see then that there is no
good achievement in those schools.
The Court: Well, then, Dr. Coleman’s testimony
doesn’t come out. That’s the only thing I can say.
Mr. Greiner: Perhaps it doesn’t on that one point.
The Court: What do you propose to have Dr.
Bardwell testify to?
Mr. Greiner : Well, we will get to the 1960' census
data in the record. Dr. Bardwell has also conducted
a study, I believe in 1967, dealing with the socio-
economic conditions of this north central portion of
the school district and in [1483 this portion many
of these target schools to which we’re having refer
ence. We do have some updated socioeconomic data.
That was all I was seeking to put through this—
The Court: Do you have an exhibit on that that
he has prepared?
Mr. Greiner: We’re going to make one, Tour
Honor, right here by just labeling the schools for
which we have this additional data.
The Court: What is the story? What’s he going
to say?
Mr. Greiner: That the socioeconomic status of
this neighborhood is still very, very low in terms
of the rest of Denver. These are still low socio
economic schools, just as they were in 1960.
The Court: That the condition is the same as that
which he has read from Exhibit 883?
Mr. Greiner: That’s correct.
The Court: Substantially?
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1613a
Mr. Greiner: Relatively, yes.
The Court: It hasn’t changed on any of these
schools that you have just mentioned?
The Witness: Schools we’re talking about here
and the area that comprises a good portion of the
target schools that we have in mind, that this is in
the area that is precisely in the middle of the so-
called census poverty area [149] of the city in
which I was consultant to the mayor’s office on the
survey of that particular area to determine certain
socioeconomic characteristics, educational character
istics of these residences. This is the so-called
poverty area of the city. And it is in that area-—
The results of the study are published on poverty
and jobs in Denver through the mayor’s office and
I just simply wanted to point to the fact that half
of the target schools that we’re talking about here
are located precisely in the middle of this poverty
area.
The Court: Okay.
Mr. Greiner: May we proceed with that, Your
Honor?
The Court: Well, doesn’t that pretty well wrap
it up? What you’re saying is that there is no sub
stantial change relatively.
The Witness: What I ’m saying, Your Honor, is
that it is peculiar in a way that, if one were to look
•—if one were to lay the red dots on the northern
area of the city here, which is called the poverty
pocket of the city, that one would find five of the
target schools in that area and that the schools
that we have designated here as Court schools,
while lying also in that poverty area, that these
lie in the middle of the worst of it.
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1614a
The Court: What do you want him to do? Mark
up the map now?
Mr. Greiner: Yes, just to indicate these other
[1503 target schools and their locations.
The Court: All right. One more map isn’t going
to kill us.
Mr. Ris: I ’m not sure, Your Honor.
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. Would you identify, please, the schools that you are
marking? A. This is Garden Place and—
The Court: I’ll take judicial notice of the fact
that it is the poverty area.
A. This is Boulevard, and this is Crofton. This is Gilpin
and this one is Wyatt. This one is Swansea. This one is
Elyria. This one is Wyman and this one is Ebert.
Q. Thank you, Doctor.
Dr. Bardwell, did you participate in the drawing of the
plans of the plaintiffs relating to the desegregation of the
Court-designated elementary schools? A. I did.
Q. Turning you attention next to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 501,
which is before you, would you describe for us what Ex
hibit 501 pertains to? A. Yes. It is a proposed plan
which we have designated Plan 1 for desegregating the
Court’s elementary schools.
Q. Would you advise us, please, of the general concept
of Plan 1? What is the basic premise? A. This plan is
based—
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
[151] Mr. Greiner: The corrections were in the
defendants’ plan, Your Honor.
This begins at Page 12 of our memorandum.
1615a
Q. Do you have the question in mind, Doctor? A. Yes, I
do. This plan desegregates the twelve designated Court
schools by use of exchange transportation with seventeen
other elementary predominantly Anglo schools. By retain
ing each of the Court schools as well as the seventeen Anglo
schools as Grades K through 6— The way in which this
plan was constructed is roughly as follows: Anglo schools
were selected which had approximately 85 percent Anglo
enrollment and over in 1969, and a second criteria, those
schools whose capacity could accommodate the exchange
transportation with the Court-designated schools, and,
three, the Anglo schools were selected such that the racial
composition of the schools, once the exchange transporta
tion was finished, would not depart by more than one stan
dard deviation from the city average. In addition to that,
the plan incorporates the feature that, after the exchange
transportation is completed, that the capacity of the 29
schools that are involved would not depart by more than
ten percent of full utilization of the plan. The next step
was to compute mileages from each of these schools to
every other school and construct tables that were useful
then for the computer. This information was transferred
to punched cards and a rather complex computer [152]
program was written and developed for the solution of what
is called a linear program transportation solution for these
29 schools. The solution is given in Exhibit 501-C.
Q. Now, the results of this linear program and the trans
portation plan—how does this plan affect the distance
traveled by children under the transportation plan? A. No
other conceivable plan of transportation would have less
transportation than what this plan has. It minimizes the
total amount of transportation and hence inconveniences
of all students.
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1616a
Q. What about the effect of the cost of transportation?
A. It minimizes the total cost.
Q. What criteria was used in terms of the composition
of the school population resulting from the cross trans
portation? A. The criterion was adopted that no school
after the proposed plan had been effected would depart
from this city average by more than one standard deviation.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, at this time we’d like
to offer Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 501, which is really just
a narrative description of this first alternate plan.
The Court: Very well. Do you have any objection?
Mr. Ris: No, sir.
The Court: It will be received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 501 was re
ceived in evidence.)
[1531 Q. Now, again, with respect to this first plan,
Exhibit 501, looking at Exhibit 501, what is the range of
Anglo composition which will result from the implementa
tion of this plan at the affected schools? A. This shows
that the minimum percent Anglo composition at any one
of the affected schools is 54 percent.
Q. What is the maximum Anglo composition? A. Sixty
percent.
Q. Now, how many schools are going to be affected
should Plan 1 be adopted? A. Twenty-nine.
Q. And of those 29, there are 17 Anglo schools ? A. That’s
right.
Q. And the 12 Court-designated schools ? A. That’s right.
Q. How many students will have to be transported under
Plan 1 ? A. 8,380 students.
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1617a
Q. And do you know how many of those will be Anglo?
A. Yes, 4,284.
Q. Do you also have a breakdown of Negro and Hispano?
A. Not separately, but as combined, 4,900.
Q. So roughly the same number of minority students
and Anglo students? A. That’s right.
[154] Q. Now, what effect would the implementation of
this plan have upon the twelve mobile units now located at
Smith Elementary School? A. The plan contemplates that
the capacity utilization of Smith Elementary School would
be 106 percent, and of the permanent facilities, and the
mobile units would be withdrawn.
Q. There were mobile units at others of these minority
schools affected by this plan—does the plan contemplate
their removal, also? A. They would be removed as well
Q. Now, does the plan address itself to overcrowding
which exists in some of these schools? A. It does.
Q. And would you describe that, please? A. Yes. Of
the Court’s elementary schools which were overcapacity in
1969, Bryant, Webster, at 112 percent; Fairmount, 131
percent; and Greenlee at 116 percent, all utilized to within
ten percent of the rated capacity. In fact, in those schools
it would be less than that: 105 percent and 106 percent
and 105 percent respectively.
Q. Now, those percentages which you have just given are
shown on Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 501-A, are they not? A. They
are.
Q. And how is Exhibit 501-A—how was it developed?
A. This is one of the solutions of the linear program [155]
and just merely a summary of the characteristics of the
schools after Plan 1 had been implemented.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we offer 501-A at this
time.
George Bar dwell-—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1618a,
Mr. Els: We have no objection.
The Court: It will be received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 501-A was re
ceived in evidence.)
Q. Now, we have talked about the remedying of over
crowded schools. What, if anything, did the plan consider
with respect to the underutilization of certain of the
schools? A. Of the twelve elementary schools which were
designated by the Court, in 1969 Columbine was 80 percent.
Elmwood realized its capacity at 87 percent. In each of
these cases implementation of this plan in these schools
would be utilized to the extent of 94 percent in each case.
Now, these other schools—
Q. Now, next calling your attention to 501-C, would you
describe for us what 501-C is? A. 501-C is a detailed trans
portation schedule for the sending and receiving Anglo
students and the sending and receiving of minority stu
dents. It depicts the number of students to be transported
from each of the schools, each of the Anglo schools, and
indicates how many of those students are to be received at
each of the minority schools.
[156] Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we offer 501-C.
Mr. Ris: No objection.
The Court: It will be received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 501-C was re
ceived in evidence.)
Q. Now, have you also prepared an estimate on the opera
tional costs? A. I have.
Q. And this is the transportation program? A. Yes.
Q. Is that shown on what has been designated Exhibit
511? A. Yes.
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1619 a
Q. Would you tell us, please, what the source of the data
in 511 is? A. For proposed Plan 1, the estimated maxi
mum cost—
Q. Pardon me. What is the source of the data? A. Ex
cuse me. The source of the data is based upon a memo
randum dated April 10, 1968, to the Superintendent, Dr.
Gilberts, from Howard L. Johnson entitled Daily Average
Number of Pupils to be Transported . . . in the 1968-69
school year. The second source is the volume, Transporta
tion in Denver Public Schools, dated April 1968, in particu
lar Pages 2 through 6.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we offer Exhibit 511 at
E1573 this point.
Mr. Kis: We don’t challenge the source. We don’t
challenge the arithmetic as made, but we do challenge
the ultimate figures. We will have some evidence—
The Court: Very well. It will be received subject,
of course, to the right to refute it.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 511 was re
ceived in evidence.)
Q. Referring you then to Exhibit 511, Doctor, have you
made an estimate of the operational costs—or the maximum
operational costs of Plan 1? A. Yes.
Q. What is that cost? A. $623,600.
Q. Now, can you explain to us how you developed this
cost per student/mile figure of 3.23 cents per student/mile?
That’s reflected on Exhibit 511. A. Yes, from the memo
randum that was just cited as one of the sources of this
exhibit, the total number of route miles per day were de
veloped from the figures supplied by Mr. Johnson to Super
intendent Gilberts. These figures show that for the ele
George Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1620a
mentary schools 18,928 miles, and for the junior high
schools, 13,972, making a total of 32,900 miles per day one
way. Now, by dividing that by the number of students that
were involved in this figure, 8,744, which was [158] the
number of students being transported at that time, we
come up with an average number of miles per student of
3.8 miles now being transported, using, of course, 1968 in
formation. By examining the transportation in the Denver
Public Schools report, the administrative services, the
budgeted 1968 transportation cost for regular transporta
tion for junior high school students and elementary school
students was $382,740. By dividing that dollar figure by
the total number of miles just calculated by 181, which is
the number of school days in the year, by two, for one way,
gave us cost per mile of 3.23 cents per student/mile per
day one way.
Q. Now, 511 also' contains a resume does it not, of the
average miles which a student would be transported one
way under this Plan 1? A. I t does.
Q. What is that distance? A. For the Anglo students
the average student/mile would be six and one-half miles.
For the minority student the average student/mile would
be 6.3.
Q. And the overall average? A. Overall, 6.4.
Q. And what costs are included, Dr. Bardwell, in the costs
per student/mile figure shown on Exhibit 511? A. These
include the salaries of supervisors, bus drivers, bus me
chanics, equipment repair, contracted services, [159] re
placement of buses, pupil transportation insurance, gaso
line, lubricants, tires, tools, repair parts, supplies and
other expenses; garage repairs and maintenance by private
garages.
George Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1621a
Q. Now, do these costs include the capital cost of acquir
ing additional school buses? A. They do not,
Q. Why not? A. In order to do that, it would require a
detailed examination of the bus routes to be taken, the num
ber of students that would be picked up at each school in
each bus, and it is very difficult to determine this figure
because at the present time the school district utilizes its
buses to the extent of about 70 percent of their rated
capacity and this means that, if more students were to be
transported, it is likely that the percent utilization of the
capacity of the buses would be increased and so therefore
that is an unknown factor. In addition to that, there is
likely to be some rerouting of students that, are now on
buses. This contributes to uncertainty. And in addition to
that, one would just simply have to get a detailed schedule
of the buses before one would be able to—
The Court: What exhibit are you reading from?
What exhibit do you have in front of you right now?
The Witness: I don’t have any now, sir.
The Court: Well, I thought he had.
[1603 Mr. Ris: 511 he has been referring to.
The Court: Tes. That’s right. That has not been
received yet, has it, Mr. Greiner?
Mr. Greiner: I believe it has, Your Honor.
The Clerk: Yes, Your Honor.
The Court: All right.
Q. Now, are there other alternatives in devising the
actual transportation schedule or transportation of these
students? Are there other thing that can be done to in
crease the utilization of both existing equipment and new
equipment? A. Yes. I mentioned that, to take advantage
of some of the students that are not now being transported
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1622a
among the various schools, some utilization of facilities
might he had by rerouting* some of these students, making
that ride a bit shorter. In addition to that, it would be
worthwhile to institute linear programming in the use of
transportation schedules in the district, and this would
then minimize the total amount of transportation for the
district.
Q. What about the time of day at which different schools
are open? A. I t’s possible, as is being done now, to
stagger the starting time of schools so that one bus could
serve for two.
Q. Now, what impact, if any, Dr. Bardwell, does Plan 1
have automatically upon teacher assignments in these
Court-designated schools? [1613 A. Well, automatically
it doesn’t have any effect on teacher assignments simply
because each of these schools will be designated K through
6 schools and therefore some conceivable arrangement in
order to equalize the teacher talents would be necessary
if such a plan were to be implemented.
Q. Now, Doctor, I’d like to call your attention to what’s
been marked for identification Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 502, which
purports to describe the second alternative plan for de
segregating the Court-designated schools. Would you
please compare or contrast Plan 2 with Plan 1? A. Plan
2 again directs itself to the twelve Court schools. This
plan envisages that a Court, school would be only a 4
through 6 school. And that, paired with each one of these
Court schools, or perhaps more than one, would be a group
of predominantly Anglo schools which would enroll only
Grades K through 3, and thus the Court schools would
exchange K through 3 students with 4 through 6 pupils
from the Anglo schools.
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1623a
Q. Now, in terms of the number of students to be trans
ported under the second alternative plan, Doctor, how does
the transportation requirements compare? A. In the case
of Plan 2, it would require the transportation of approxi
mately 11,109 students.
Q. So that’s approximately 3,000 additional students? A.
Yes.
£1623 Q. And increased transportation requirements in
a pairing concept? A. Because, under Plan 2, it would
mean that roughly half of the students—not quite that
many, but let’s say roughly half of the students would
be transported because those students that are now going
to a school and, let’s say kindergarten through 3, would
have to be transported to a school that would be desig
nated kindergarten through 3 if their school was not.
Q. Do you have more children being transported because
—There are whole classes of children being transported,
is that correct? A. That’s correct.
Q. Now, what impact does the second alternate plan have
upon the overall underutilization of the schools that you
mentioned? A. In the case of Smith Elementary School,
for example, the mobile units that would be involved at
that school would be removed and the utilization of that
capacity would be at 114 percent. Other mobile units
throughout the district that would be involved in this plan
would also be eliminated.
Q. How does this plan affect the overcrowding that now
exists at Montbello Elementary School? A. Well, it is pro
posed under this plan that Montbello, being a severely
overcrowded school at this time—
[163] Q. What is the current capacity utilization? A.
173 percent.
Q. What grade levels does it encompass? A. K
through 6.
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1624a
Q. What will this plan do for Montbello? A. It is pro
posed that Grades 4 through 6 at Montbello at the current
time will be transported to Columbine, which is a 4 through
6 school. That would result in a capacity utilization at
Montbello from 173 percent to 118 percent and would con
vert the Montbello into a K through. 3 school only.
Q. Now, will any minority students be bused into Mont
bello under this proposal? A. No.
Q. And what would be the racial composition of Colum
bine, the receiving school of these Montbello children? A.
The racial composition at Columbine after the transporta
tion would be—
The Court: Before you leave that, you would be
using Montbello then, just its school population to
integrate Columbine? And Montbello would remain
a white school? Do I understand you correctly?
The Witness: Columbine would be paired with
Bradley, Ellsworth and Montbello; all three schools.
Columbine has a good deal of unused capacity at
this particular time, and at the same time Montbello
is overcapacity. In order to [1641 utilize that, it is
proposed here that this particular arrangement with
Montbello students would be effected.
The Court: You wouldn’t have any Negro stu
dents into Montbello?
The Witness: No.
The Court: Are there any there now?
The Witness: Yes, the racial composition is about
85 percent Anglo.
The Court: And it would remain about that per
centage ?
The Witness: After the plan is implemented, the
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1625a
racial composition at Columbine would be 59 per
cent Anglo,
The Court: I mean Montbello.
The Witness: Montbello would be—and I am as
suming here that the same portion exists for the K
through 3; that it would be around 85 percent.
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. How would the second plan affect the capacity utili
zation of Bryant-Webster, Fairmount and Greenlee? A.
In the case of Bryant-Webster, we remind ourselves again
that there is 112 percent capacity. Fairmount is at 131
percent and Greenlee is at 116 percent, and these are util
ized as capacity utilizations below these particular schools.
Q. Then what about the capacity utilization of such [165]
schools at Coulmbine, Elmwood, Fairview, Mitchell and
Whittier? A. All of these schools are underutilized by as
much as 20 percent and under the proposed plan these
schools would be utilized more heavily than they are now.
For example, in the case of Columbine the percent capacity
would be 101 percent.
Q. Now, directing your attention to what’s been marked
as Exhibit 502-A, Doctor, would you please just briefly
describe for us the data reflected on that exhibit? A. Yes,
this table shows the effect of the pairing plan proposed
here and shows the Court schools and those schools that
are suggested as pairing schools for each of the Court
schools. The enrollment in 1969 for kindergarten through
Grade 3 and for Grades 4 through 6 are shown on that table
and also the percent capacity after the implementation of
the plan, the resulting percentage Anglo at each of those
schools, and the number of students transported for kinder
garten through Grade 3 and Grades 4 through 6, the total
George Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1626a
number of students that are transported one way each and
every day and the average miles of students one way.
Q. Now, can you summarize for us the source of the
data shown on Exhibit 502-A? A. Yes. In the case of the
enrollments for kindergarten through Grade 6, this is the
September 26, 1969, report of [166] the pupil membership
by the office of planning, research and budgeting in the
Denver Public Schools. In the case of mileage calculations,
these were taken from the data indicated in Plan 1.
Q. These are the distances involved? A. These are the
distances between the various schools.
Q. And that is also the source of the average miles per
student one way? A. A calculation resulting from that.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we would offer 502-A
at this time.
Mr. Bis: No objection.
The Court: It will be received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 502-A was re
ceived in evidence.)
Q. Then calling your attention to 502-B, what is that
exhibit, Doctor? A. This is a table capsulizing the char
acteristics of the Court schools, their racial and ethnic
compositions, and the enrollments in Grade K through 3
and Grades 4 through 6; the number in special education;
and their capacity.
Q. Is this then just a summary of data that are in evi
dence from other sources in this case? A. Yes, it’s for the
Court’s convenience.
Mr. Greiner: We offer 502-B, Your Honor.
[167] Mr. Bis: No objection.
George Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1627a
The Court: I t will be received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 502-B was re
ceived in evidence.)
Q. Then, with regard to Plan 1-—I think I forgot to offer
501-B, which is also—is it not a resume of the statistical
data on the schools to be affected by Plan 1? A. That’s
correct.
Q. Prior to implementation of the plan? A. That’s cor
rect.
Mr. Greiner: We would offer 501-B.
Mr. Pis: No objection.
The Court: It will be received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 501-B was re
ceived in evidence.)
Q. Now, under the pairing plan in the second alternative,
what will the range of racial compositions at the affected
schools be in terms of Anglo composition, Doctor? A. In
every case the schools will have 51 percent Anglo enroll
ment or better. These remain at a low range of from—a
low of 54.1 percent to a high of 67.5 percent and, in con
trast, for example, Columbine having six-tenths of one
percent of Anglo students to 97 at—97 Anglo at Bradley.
Q. Now, how are students to be selected for participa
tion in this plan at the selected schools? [1681 A. There
would be no problem of choice here simply because those
kindergarten through Grade 3 pupils, for example, the one
—at one of the Court-designated schools, would be auto
matically selected for transportation to one of the pairing
schools. Similarly, those students in Grade 4 through 6 at
one of the predominantly Anglo schools would be auto
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1628a
matically transported to one of the receiving Court schools.
So there would be no problem of selection of students.
Q. Eventually all students at the selected schools would
participate in this plan? A. That’s correct, if they re
mained in that school.
Q. Now, what does the second plan do with respect to
the assignment of teachers? A. Here again, it would sug
gest that the assignment of teachers would be automatic
as well, because those teachers that specialized in Grades K
through 3 obviously couldn’t very well stay at a school
in which only Grades 4 through 6 were held, and therefore
the assignment of teachers to a kindergarten through Grade
3 would be automatic as well as the students.
Q. In other words, the teachers would follow the stu
dents? A. That’s correct.
Q. Now, referring back to Exhibit 511, the cost [169]
estimate under Plan 2, how many students would be trans
ported at the elementary level? A. 11,109.
Q. And what would be the average miles trip per student
one way? A. 6.3 miles.
Q. And you have used the same cost per student/mile?
A. I have.
Q. And then what would be the total maximum operating
cost of Plan 2? A. It is estimated to be 813,800.
Q. Next I’d like to call your attention, Doctor, to Ex
hibit 503. Would you please identify for us Exhibit 503.
Mr. Bis: If the Court please, we’re now getting
into Part 3 or proposed Plan 3 and, we assume,
proposed Plan 4, which gets into the target elemen
tary schools, the plaintiffs-designated schools rather
than the Court-designated schools, so I would object
to any testimony as to Plan 3 or Plan 4 as being
beyond the scope of this hearing.
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1629a
The Court: Well, before we reach that point, have
you prepared a narrative summary of Plan 2?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: Has that been received?
Mr. Greiner: That’s Exhibit 502, Your Honor. I
don’t know if we have offered that. I thought we had.
[170] The Court: I don’t recall either. I don’t
have any record of it.
Mr. Greiner: Here it is, Your Honor. We offer 502.
Mr. Ris: No objection.
The Court: It will be received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 502 was re
ceived in evidence.)
The Court: Well, it’s at least within the area of
the plans and he is going to argue that there is no
rational basis for omitting at least some of these
schools, so I suspect that this is sufficiently relevant
to receive it.
We are now embarking on Plan 3?
Mr. Greiner: Yes, Your Honor, Exhibit 503.
By Mr. Greiner-.
Q. Would you describe for the Court, Dr. Bardwell, the
relationship between Plan 3, the narrative statement for
which is Exhibit 503, and Plan 1? What is the relationship
between the concepts involved? A. The concepts here are
identical. That is, Plan 3 is identical to Plan 1 except that
it incorporates the additional ten target schools and addi
tional number of predominantly Anglo schools, making a
total of 50 schools altogether.
Q. So, whereas Plan 1 affected some 29 schools, as I re
call it, Plan 3 would affect 50 elementary schools? A. That’s
right.
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1630a
[1713 Q. And how many of those would have been pre
viously predominantly minority schools! A. You mean of
the 50!
Q. Yes. A. Excuse me. Twenty-two.
Q. How many of them would have been previously pre
dominantly Anglo schools? A. Twenty-eight.
Q. Now, what was the bases used for selection of the
Anglo schools with which we preface Plan 3? A. The cri
teria for selection of Anglo schools in this plan was iden
tical to that used in Plan 1 except that the racial composi
tion of the particular school, in order to be included, was
80 percent or more.
Q. Eighty percent Anglo or more? A. That’s right.
Q. How many students would have to be transported if
Plan 3 were to be implemented? A. 11, 471.
Q. Now, how does that compare with, for example, the
amount of students—the number of students that would be
transported under the pairing plan, the second plan? A.
It would be only 362 students more under Plan 3.
Q. Now, what about the average miles traveled per stu
dent one way under Plan 3 ? [172] A. In Plan 3, six and a
half miles. Plan 2, 6.3.
Q. And Plan 1 was 6.4? A. Plan 1, 6.4.
Q. What is the average range of Anglo enrollment which
would be achieved under Plan 3 if it were implemented?
A. In Plan 3 the average enrollment in any school would
be 51 percent.
Q. And the maximum? A. The maximum would be 61
percent.
Q. Then have you also prepared an estimate reflected on
Exhibit 511 of the total cost of the transportation under
the third plan? A. Yes, $867,000.
George Bar dwell-—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1631a
Q. So that’s about 50,000 more than the pairing which
the Court just designates? A. That’s correct.
Q. Now, calling your attention to Exhibit 503-A, 503-A
simply shows the results of implementation of Plan 3, is
that correct? A. That’s correct.
Q. And 503-B is a compilation of what, Doctor? A.
503-B is merely a capsule summary of the racial and ethnic
distribution of students for the schools, both the Anglo
schools and the Court and target schools that are involved
in this plan, together with a summary of the numbers [173]
of students to be sent and received under this Plan—under
this transportation plan at each one of these schools.
Q. And then 503-C depicts what? A. This is a detailed
transportation schedule for each one of the 50 schools
involved, which shows the number of students to be trans
ported from each school to every one of the other schools
in. order to achieve the objectives of that plan.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we offer 503-A, -B and
-C at this time.
Mr. B is: Objection on the grounds it’s beyond the
scope of this hearing.
The Court: Overruled. It wall be received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 503-A, 503-B
and 503-C were received in evidence.)
Mr. Greiner: We are also offering 503, Your Hon
or, which is a narrative description of the plan.
The Court: Very well.
Mr. Bis: Same objection.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 503 was re
ceived in evidence.)
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1632a
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. Now, Doctor, finally, with regard to a plan for the
desegregation of both the target schools and the Court
schools, I call your attention now to Exhibit 504. Would
you explain to the Court the relationship between the
[174] fourth plan and Plan 2! Both plans still utilize a
pairing concept, do they not? A. They do. Plan 4 is iden
tical in its conceptualization to Plan 2.
Q. Except there are more minority schools selected? A.
In this case there are, of course, the twelve Court schools
as well as the ten target schools. Together then this would
be 22 minority schools which would be involved in the pair
ing plan.
The Court: Identical with Plan which now?
The Witness: Identical to Plan 2 in concept.
That’s the pairing plan. Except here we are in
volved with ten target schools in addition to the
twelve Court schools.
Q. So that each of the current minority schools would
become Grades 4 through 6, is that correct? A. That’s
correct.
Q. And each of the affected Anglo schools would be K
through 3, is that right? A. That’s correct.
Q. Now, have you prepared an exhibit—and I will now
refer you to Exhibit 504-A—showing the, proposed pair
ings of the target schools? A. That’s correct.
Q. And then the pairings of the Court-designated
schools would remain the same as under Plan 2, is that
correct? [1751 A. That’s correct.
Q. And then 504-B depicts what? A. Merely a summary
table showing the characteristics of these target schools
1633a
with regard to the enrollments and the membership com
position so far as grade level is concerned in 1969.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, at this time we would
offer Exhibit 504, 504-A and 504-B.
Mr. Ris: Same objection as to the 503 series.
The Court: Overruled.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 504, 504-A. and
504-B were received in evidence.)
Q. Now, Doctor, with regard to this fourth alternative
plan for desegregating both the target schools and the
Court-designated elementary schools, how many schools will
be affected in this plan? A. In this plan there would be
53 schools.
Q. And what would be the total number of students that
would have to be transported under this plan! A. 16,845.
Q. And what about the average length of the bus ride?
A. 6.6.
Q. And what would be the maximum annual operating
cost of such a program as you estimate it? A. In this
case we have estimated $1,292,800.
[176] Q. Now, would this plan also have the same effect
upon the—for example, the location or the elimination of
mobile units at Smith and so on? A. It would.
Q. And the overcrowding at Montbello, the same con
cept is included? A. (Nods affirmatively.)
Q. Now, what about elementary schools which are over
capacity? Would their—would this utilization be reduced
there? A. The utilization would be reduced.
Q. What about the range of Anglo composition at the
paired schools if this plan were implemented? A. The
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1634a
range of Anglo compositions would be from 50.3 percent
Anglo to a higb of 63.8.
Q. How are students selected for transportation in this
plan? Is it just the same as Plan 2? A. Here again, the
selection would be automatic.
Q. Would it have any effect on teacher assignment? A.
In the same way as Plan 2.
Q. Now, that Plan 4 would cost an estimated $1,292,000?
A. That’s right.
Q. But you also prepared an estimate of what it would
take to desegregate all of the elementary schools in the
district? [177] A. I have.
Q. And is that estimate reflected on Exhibit 511? A.
It is.
Q. And how many students would be required for trans
porting under the citywide plan? A. In this case, for the
entire 91 schools, 14,364 students.
Q. What would be the total cost of that plan? A. The
maximum cost of $904,000.
Q. The average miles of students one way is almost a
mile less than any of the other plans. What’s the reason
for that? A. Well, when you give yourself the flexibility
of desegregating all the schools in the city, you can do that
much more efficiently than by picking out certain schools,
because your transportation routes become much more
efficient.
Q. Now, have you also prepared a proposed plan with
respect to the junior high schools? A. We have.
Q. Now, one of the junior high schools that was desig
nated by the Court for relief was Cole Junior High School.
Before we get to the details of this plan I wonder if you
could describe for us the general condition in terms of
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1635a
capacity utilization that we now find in the junior high
[178] schools in the district? A. Yes, we have a situation
here in the case of the 18 junior high schools—In 1969 the
enrollment was around 23,440 students. Excuse me. The
capacity, 23,440. And yet, the enrollment was 22,419, which
means that the junior high schools as a total are under
utilized to the extent of about 1,021, and this means that
the building of Place School, due to open in 1971, and
assuming it will have a capacity of 1,200, this means we
will have an unused junior high school capacity in 1971
of approximately 2,200 students. But, in addition to that,
there are certain schools within the district in which Jef
ferson is one and John F. Kennedy is another in which
the capacity utilization of these schools is more than 100
percent, and yet a very large part of their enrollment was
bused in in 1968.
Q. How many students were bused into Thomas Jeffer
son? A. The best figure that I have here is for 1968 and
at that time 1,284 students were bused in.
Q. What was the other school? A. Excuse me?
Q. What was the other school? A. John F. Kennedy.
Q. And how many students were being bused into Ken
nedy? A. 533.
Q. Now, these are students—Anglo students who are
[179] already on buses, is that correct? A. That’s correct.
Q. Now, is there a relationship, Doctor, between the over
crowded junior high schools today and the racial composi
tion? A. Well, generally, one finds that except for the
two schools that were affected by the Court’s order, Hill
and Smiley, that the more heavily utilized the school is,
then the higher its racial composition in terms of Anglo
percent.
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1636a
Q. The minority high schools are less utilized? A. Than
when it happened to be underutilized school.
Q. Would you explain for us, Doctor, the first alternative
being proposed by the plaintiffs as it affects Cole Junior
High School? A. In order to desegregate and improve the
conditions that we have referred to earlier with regard
to Cole, it is proposed that we can increase the Anglo
percentage of students at Cole from 1.4 percent, the per
centage in 1969, to 66 percent by implementing this par
ticular plan, while at the same time relieving the over
crowding at Thomas Jefferson and John F. Kennedy with
out requiring any new transportation of students in the
district. This could be accomplished by simply transporting
those students, 1,038 of them that are now on a bus going
to Thomas Jefferson or John F. Kennedy, and simply have
their designations to be Cole Junior High School [1803
instead of Thomas Jefferson or Kennedy.
Q. Now, do spaces have to be created for those Anglo
students if they are to be received at a school? A. No.
Q. Wliy not? A. Because Cole at the present time has
989 students, but the capacity for 1,725. In other words,
the percent capacity in 1969 was 58 percent.
Q. So then the first alternative simply contemplates a
diversion of Anglos already being bused? A. I might add
—excuse me—that there is the additional proviso here that
the few students, about a hundred, a hundred and twenty,
would be transferred from Cole to either one of the two
schools—they happen to be bused into Cole at the present
time—just north of Vasquez Boulevard, which is over the
two-mile limit under the transportation arrangement with
the school district. It’s across a heavily-traveled highway
and so they are transporting to Cole now.
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1637a
Q. So these students would not be bused into Cole any
longer but could be sent to either John F. Kennedy or T.J.,
is that right? A. Or one of the other schools that happens
to have available space.
Q. Now, have you also prepared a second alternative
[1813 plan dealing with junior high schools ?
The Court: Are these special education groups
that are now being bused at schools?
The Witness: Excuse me ?
The Court: Are there special education groups
that are now being bused to this school, to Cole?
The Witness: No.
The Court: I had thought that there was some
evidence on that at the trial. These are regular
students ?
The Witness: These are regular students and it is
my understanding that these students are now two
miles away from Cole and they happen to be in an
area just north of Vasquez Boulevard.
The Court: You mean out toward Commerce City,
that area?
The Witness: That’s right, that being beyond the
two-mile limit. Then they are entitled to transporta
tion.
The Court: How many of them are there?
The Witness: About 124.
The Court: And you propose to send them where?
The Witness: It wouldn’t make too much differ
ence, I suppose, given the shortest bus ride, prob
ably to Thomas Jefferson—this would take advantage
of the use of Valley Highway, which would be very
quick transportation.
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1638a
The Court: I t’s a pretty long ride, though, isn’t
£1823 it, the north end of town to the south end?
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. Now, have you also developed a plan, Doctor, that
would be broader in scope than just Cole Junior High
School? A. Yes, the second alternative for the junior high
schools would be to correct the segregated status of Horace
Mann, Lake Morey and Baker, in addition to the secon
dary status of Cole.
Q. Baker is also a Court-designated school, is it not?
A. That’s correct.
Q. What is the racial composition of minorities at Morey?
A. 26.8 percent Anglo.
Q. How would this second alternative plan with regard
to the junior high schools—
The Witness: It is proposed here that—
The Court: Have you completed Cole?
Mr. Greiner: Yes, the first alternative as to Cole,
Your Honor.
The Court: Have you got a narrative on that one ?
Mr. Greiner: Yes, we do. It has been marked for
identification as Exhibit 505 and we offer it at this
time.
The Court: I t will be received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 505 was re
ceived in evidence.)
[183] The Court: Do you have an alternative
plan on Cole?
Mr. Greiner: Yes, they are both contained in Ex
hibit 505, Your Honor.
George Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs-—Direct
1639a
Q. Would you describe then this second alternative? A.
It is proposed under this alternative that again the trans
portation that is now being undertaken in the district with
regard to certain schools, particularly Anglo transporta
tion, that this transportation be rerouted to Cole, Horace
Mann, Lake, Morey and Baker, and this would mean re
routing of approximately 2,278 Anglo students that are
now on a bus, but it would in addition require that 1,900
approximately minority students from these five junior high
schools be transported out of these schools in order to
have an effective racial composition after the implementa
tion of the plan of approximately 70 percent Anglo.
Q. So that the new transportation required would be
1,900 minority students? A. That’s correct.
Q. And the other transportation would be that of—which
really already exists except the designation would be
changed? A. That’s exactly right.
Q. What would be the racial composition resulting at
these five schools? A. It would be approximately 70 per
cent Anglo in each [1843 case.
Q. Now, how would this plan affect the overcrowding at
certain of these junior high schools? A. The transporta
tion could be arranged in such a manner that John F. Ken
nedy, Thomas Jefferson, whose capacities are now utilized
fairly heavily, would be relieved by the transfer or rerout
ing of students that are now being transported into those
two schools. Additional relief might be given to some of
those schools also whose capacity is somewhat overutilized
if we consider that overutilized is above, let’s say, 100 per
cent.
Q. Are any of these schools on double sessions? Or do
you know? A. It is my understanding that one of them
is but I’m not certain of that.
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1640a
Q. Now, how would this proposed second alternative re
late to the superintendent’s general proposal of a model
school complex? A. It would seem to us that, if these
five schools were desegregated according to this alternative,
then the racial composition of the entire junior high school
picture for the city would look very good and then the
superintendent’s model school complex could be given a
great deal more flexibility because each one of these junior
high schools then would be approximately equal in racial
composition. And so [185] the problem of what might be
called exchanges for this—for integration purposes wouldn’t
have to be undertaken.
Q. Now, how do these plans relate to the relief which
has been granted by the Court under Part 1 of the reinstate
ment of the resolutions? Doesn’t the injunction—won’t it
call for certain transportation for students out of Cole, for
example? A. Oh, yes, yes. That’s incorporated under both
of these alternatives. That is, the number of students that
were assigned out of Cole under the resolutions will be
carried through, and that was implicit when these plans
were drawn up.
Q. So that, as I recall, some 200 would be transported
out of Cole under Part 1 of the Court’s decision? A. That’s
correct.
Q. And you are proposing that some 1,900 additional be
transported out of both Cole and other minority schools?
A. That’s right.
Q. Now, have the plaintiffs also prepared a plan as to
the only senior high school in the district which has been
designated by the Court for relief? A. Yes, we have.
Q. And that is the plan for Manual High School? A.
That’s correct.
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1641a
Q. And this plan is reflected in Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 506?
[186] A. It is.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we offer 506 at this
time.
The Court: Yery well.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 506 was re
ceived in evidence.)
* * # * *
[193] * * *
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. Dr. Bardwell, calling your attention to where we were
at the close of court yesterday, you recall that we were
discussing the Manual plan which is contained in a nar
rative statement which has been marked for identification
as Exhibit 506, and there are two alternatives in the courses
of action proposed in Exhibit 506. A. Yes, there are.
Q. Now, what is the first alternative course of action
with respect to Manual High School? A. Well, as the Court
will recall, in Resolution 1520 and 1524 there were certain
boundary changes for George Washington and East and
South, and consistent with the philosophy that is expressed
in those two resolutions, the plaintiffs have suggested that
the high school boundaries of the city be redesigned con
sistent with the redistricting that [194] was effected by
Resolution 1520 and 1524. Thus, for example, under those
resolutions the students in certain Park Hill areas were
assigned to George Washington and under our plan of re
districting these students would continue to go to East as
they were reassigned under those resolutions. Students
assigned to East from George Washington around the Ells
worth Elementary area-—these would continue to go to
George Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1642a
East. Students assigned now to South from south of Cherry
Creek area would instead go to East—that would go to
East, would now be assigned to Manual. Students now as
signed to East under the resolution around the Harrington
area would remain at East. In addition to that, Montbello
area would be assigned to George "Washington rather than
East.
Q. Have you prepared a map which reflects these sug
gestions, Doctor? A. We have.
Q. And that’s Exhibit 507? A. It is.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we introduce 507.
The Court: Now, this is all geared to next fall?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: This would take effect regardless of
the year the student was in high school?
The Witness: I suppose it would be conceivable,
for example, to continue those students now attend
ing those high [195] schools—to allow the effect of
the plan to take place. It would be an optional
feature to it.
By Mr. Greiner-.
Q. In other words, it would be done in stages? A. Yes.
Q. Has the introduction of the effectiveness of boundary
changes in stages by the child entering a certain grade level
•—has that been a device employed by the school district in
the past? A. It has in the past.
Q. And Exhibit 507, which has just been introduced—
that purports to depict at least our rough suggestions as to
how those boundaries could be redrawn, is that correct?
A. Yes, and the net effect of this would show that consis
tent with the philosophy of those two resolutions that the
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1643a
boundary lines for George Washington High School have
effectively been moved north; that the boundaries for East
High School have been moved south; and Manual High
School have been moved south, and in order to accommo
date those changes then certain other adjustments in the
boundary lines for other high schools in the city had to be
made as well.
Q. And those are shown on this exhibit. Now, if you were
to ignore for the time being the feeder relationship into
these senior high schools from the junior high schools and
simply send students out on the basis of geography as
£196] depicted in Exhibit 507, do we have sufficient data
at this point to know what the-—what exactly—where ex
actly these boundaries would have to be drawn? A. No.
Q. What would be necessary before we could predict
where the boundaries would have to be drawn in order to
achieve, say, a racial balance at Manual? A. Additional
information in the form of what kind of desegregation plan
would be adopted so that one would know the racial compo
sition of the various elementary schools.
Q. Well, let’s leave that aside. Let’s say just on the
basis of geography and feeder relationship. A. We would
not.
Q. Would you have to have a block count then? A. You
would have to know block statistics with regard to number
of students in these areas. Certain projections of school
population over a period of time in order to find out whether
or not these boundary lines are practical or realistic.
Q. Now, this is the same kind of information that was
necessitated in the formulation of Resolutions 1520 and
1524, for example, when the boundary lines were redrawn?
A. That’s correct, the sort of information that was gathered
on behalf of Barrett in order to find out—excuse me—
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1644a
under the resolution in order to find out what children—
£197] how many children were in various blocks of the
areas that were actually involved in those resolutions.
Q. So this again is a procedure which has been formally
employed by the District ? A. It is.
Q. Now, what about—
The Court: Before you get to that, could you tell
me—just describe generally where the new bounda
ries of Manual would be I
The Witness: There’s been no attempt, Tour Hon
or, to draw those boundaries along certain street
paths but rather to indicate as best we could—the
best we know at this point an approximation of what
elementary schools would be included within that
particular high school district. And the attempt
has been made here to try to keep the number of
students about the same in order to utilize effec
tively the capacity of the high school as we have
now; thus, for example, when a particular area has
been assigned to Manual, let’s say from the now
South High School area, certain additional areas
would have to be assigned to South in order to
effectively utilize the capacity of South.
And a similar philosophy has been used in the re
design and construction of the other high school
areas as well. Notice that the net addition and the
net subtraction from each of those areas is about
the same after the [1983 redistricting has been
done.
The Court: What I think you’re doing is main
taining the east and west boundaries and greatly
extending the north-south boundaries and—at East
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1645a
and Manual, is that correct? Generally, is that what
your scheme is?
The Witness: Excuse me, Your Honor?
The Court: Greatly extending the north-south
boundaries ?
The Witness: That’s right.
The Court: In other words, in effect to narrow
the corridors?
The Witness: In effect, they become strips, think
ing in terms of providing access for the predomi
nantly Anglo population in the south and southeast,
to be incorporated with Manual, East and George
Washington.
The Court: Thus, you take Manual’s—you take
Manual’s south boundary all the way to Washington
Park?
The Witness: It’s conceivable. That’s right.
The Court: And redistrict it on the east to York
Street or something of that sort?
The Witness: You will recall, Your Honor, that
Manual is a smaller school than some of the other
schools in the area so that its attendance areas can
be somewhat smaller than some of the other high
schools.
The Court: You’d do about the same thing to
East?
[1993 The Witness: That’s correct, but it is some
what larger.
The Court: From York to beyond Colorado Boule
vard?
The Witness: Well, excuse me. On the east, the
boundaries are considerably east of Colorado Boule
vard.
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1646a
The Court: Yes, I said beyond Colorado Boule
vard.
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: From York Street eastward beyond
Colorado Boulevard, and then it wouldn’t go all the
way to the city limits, I take it!
The Witness: That’s right.
The Court: And East High and Washington -would
take up where Manual leaves off, is that correct!
The Witness: That’s correct.
The Court: When you say you would send Mont-
bello on to—•
The Witness: Yes, that would include Montbello,
At the present time Montbello has been assigned to
East and even in terms of distance there isn’t too
much choice between East and Washington.
The Court: And Washington’s south—its south
boundary would be right near Washington!
The Witness: That’s correct.
The Court: And would project north?
The Witness: (Nods affirmatively.)
£200] The Court: Okay. Go ahead.
By Mr. Greiner-.
Q. Turning your attention next then, Doctor, to the sec
ond alternative for Manual, would you describe, please, for
the Court, what the concept is of the second alternative,
the first concept being the integration matter. A. We have
been impressed with the possibility of using Manual as
an open school and effecting some of the innovative pro
grams at Manual.
The Court: Well, you say “we.” Whom do you
mean?
George Bardivell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1647a
The Witness: The plaintiffs.
The Conrt: Your whole staff?
The Witness: That’s right.
The Court: You can only speak for yourself here.
Mr. Bis: I object to any testimony from this wit
ness—by his own testimony, his previous qualifica
tions as a mathematician and statistician—Now, when
he gets into other fields and we would object to any
testimony at all from him expressing opinions on—
The Court: Well, I agree that his last statement
—that “We have been impressed with the idea that
Manual become a special school” is perhaps not
within the field of his expertise.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, I think this becomes
apparent from the questions and responses in this
area'—[201] Dr. Bardwell is really talking about
what the Board itself has proposed.
Mr. Bis: Well, I will object to that. It’s not within
his specialty.
The Court: Quite true. I’m grateful, of course,
for any help I can get from anybody, you know. I
need it badly. At the same time, I ’m not going to
be greatly impressed with—I mean, I just feel that
the last statement ought to be stricken.
Let’s start all over again. I mean, undoubtedly
he has been impressed. And also, he can’t testify
for any group, I don’t believe. I’m sure you’ve got
a staff of people working but I don’t think it’s per
missible for him to express the summary of the think
ing of the group. I ’m sure you see what I mean.
Mr. Greiner: I think we can overcome this, Your
Honor.
The Court: Very well.
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1648a
George Bar dwell-—for Plaintiffs—Direct
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. Dr. Bardwell, with respect to the second alternative
for Manual, what is the philosophy depicted by this alter
native? What are we going to do with Manual? A. The
intent here is to consider Manual an open school.
Q. Now, what does that man? A. It effectively means
opening Manual to attendance by any high school student
in the city to participate in some of the special programs
that would be available at Manual.
[202] Q. Now, where does the idea of these special pro
grams come from? What is the source of them? A. It
comes from the School Board’s response contained in the
Board Resolution 1562.
Q. Can you specifically identify the reference that you
have? A. Yes, this is a report to the Board of Education,
a plan developed in accordance with Resolution 1562 sup
plied by Superintendent Gilberts in May, 1970, and I have
reference in this regard to Manual as an open school, Pages
125 to 135, approximately.
Q. This is part of the defendants’ plan, is that correct?
A. It is.
Q. So, essentially, what the plaintiffs are suggesting here
—suggesting that the defendants’ plan be adopted and
applied to Manual? A. As one alternative.
Q. Now, under this alternative, what children would be
able to attend Manual? A. Any high school student in the
District.
Q. Now, under the Board’s proposal, what types of pro
grams would be foreseen at that open school? A. There
are a number of programs that have been detailed in the
response to the Board Resolution 1562, which [203] is the
Board’s plan, and I might indicate as an illustration on
1649a
Page 127 some of the program activities that the Board
has in mind. For example, building trades; cosmetology;
power and transportation; metals and metal fabrication;
machine metals; home economics related occupantions. In
addition to that, certain professional programs: those that
would be in premedicine, prelaw, preeducation; the area of
data processing; communications; preengineering.
Q. Now, as I understand what the Board has described
on those pages, Doctor—these are programs which are al
ready in existence at Manual, is that correct? A. That’s
correct, or intended.
Q. Or in the planning stages? A. Or in the planning
stages.
Q. Now, where would the formal students who are now
attending Manual—what alternative would they be given?
A. It is our proposal that those students be given the
option of continuing at Manual or attending any other high
school in the area—in the District.
Q. Now, do you have any kind of an estimate of—-
The Court: That’s what the School Board recom
mended, too?
The Witness: No, I don’t think that aspect of the
optional attendance of Manual students is a part of
the Board’s plan.
[204] Mr. Greiner: I think this is one question,
Your Honor, as to whether the Board’s proposal—
new proposal for voluntary enrollment would be ap
plicable to Manual students. I believe that it would
be. That’s my initial understanding.
The Court: So then it would be just exactly what
you’re proposing here? Bight?
Mr. Greiner: Yes, in essence, that’s right,
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1650a
Q. Now, do you have any estimate as to what the maxi
mum amount of additional transportation might be that
would be required to effectuate an open school at Manual!
For example, what if everybody at Manual open to trans
fer—how many students would we be talking about? A.
The present time, if we considered all the Manual students,
transporting them out, this would mean about 990 students.
Let’s say, to utilize the capacity of Manual which would be
about 1,500 students, that we’re talking about a maximum
of about 2,500 that would require transportation.
Q. So that is outside transportation? A. Yes.
The Court: How many is that?
The Witness : Twenty-five hundred.
The Court: Would be transferred?
The Witness: Altogether.
The Court: What’s the total enrollment at Manual
[205] now?
The Witness: Nine hundred ninety, sir.
The Court: What’s the capacity?
The Witness: About fifteen hundred.
The Court: But this plan, I supose, would use the
facilities to a greater extent?
The Witness: That’s true.
The Court: Night classes and other things.
The Witness: Bight. So there—this would mean,
of course—the Manual capacity would be 1,600 stu
dents transferred in at the high school and all the
other students being transported out.
The Court: Twenty-five hundred?
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: But it is unlikely that nine hundred
would be transferred on an open enrollment basis.
Very remote, I suppose.
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1651a
The Witness: That’s right.
The Court: If half of them applied it would be
pretty—a pretty high number, I suppose; at first, at
least. Maybe later when they got accustomed to the
program—
The Witness: Quite conceivable.
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. Doctor, I have had a chance to consult with one of the
staff and I believe the number of students at Manual is
1,500, not 900. £206] A. You’re correct. Yes.
Q. Is that right? A. Yes.
Q. And the capacity is 1,800? A. That’s right.
Q. So then the maximum amount of transportation,
rather than being 2,500, would be about 3,300, if you had an
absolute turnover? A. That’s about right; about 3,100.
Q. Eighteen and fifteen?
Mr. E is: He doesn’t have his computer.
A. I messed up on that.
Q. That’s New Math.
Now, I would next like to call your attention, Doctor,
to the area of the second major component of the plaintiffs’
proposed plan, namely, the integration component, and
would you first of all describe what the common premise
of this integration component is?
Mr. Ris: If the Coxirt please, again I think this
is beyond the scope of this man’s expertise, and we
object to it.
The Court: Well, he is just describing it now, I
take it.
George Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1652a
Mr. Greiner: That’s correct.
The Court: Proceed. Overruled.
£2073 I don’t know what it is either, but we will
find out, I expect here. What is the component?
Mr. Greiner: The integration component, Your
Honor. You recall, Your Honor, that we’ve got de
segregation, integration and compensation as ele
ments of our overall plan. Now we’re talking about
integration.
The Court: You mean the Manual program alone?
Mr. Greiner: No, all of the programs at each level.
A. The proviso is that one of the desegregation plans have
been accepted by this Court—it is proposed that certain
plans be implemented to ease the transportation from a
desegregated status to a—an integrated status for the plans
that are being proposed here in which certain components
of integration regarding students parents, faculty and staff
are being proposed.
Q. Now, has the Board in its proposal—
The Court: What page are you on now?
Mr. Greiner: Pm in the memorandum, Your Honor.
The Witness: 49.
The Court: Okay. That would be of some help to
me to understand what he is—•
Q. Now, Dr. Bardwell, I believe the first component of
the integration aspect is that the plaintiffs are suggesting
in-service training programs for faculty and staff. Is the
concept of in-service training programs also reflected in the
[208] Board’s proposal? A. Yes, sir, it is.
Q. And does the Board indicate what the function is of
their in-service training program? A. (Nods affirmatively.)
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1653a
Q. Now, would you describe those for us? A. Yes, they
are essentially to instruct the faculty and staff in various
teaching techniques for dealing with the disadvantaged and
minority students; the cultural understanding and to im
prove attitudes and expectancies of teachers with regard
to minority children and perhaps, most important of all
are certain programs to help us recognize our own biases;
our own prejudices. So these would be the purposes of the
program of the faculty and staff in-service training.
Q. Now, has the Board also proposed the next compo
nent—their faculty and staff orientation program? A. They
have.
Q. And what is involved there? A. These are orienta
tion programs, faculty and staff orientation programs, are
designed to familiarize the faculty with the buildings and
facilities of the schools to which they would be assigned,
certain special programs that are available at those schools,
the materials, the resources, other facets of the building
facilities and the programs at those schools. And, in addi
tion, to familiarize the [2093 faculty and staff with certain
components of the community which that school would
serve.
Q. Doctor, if I can return your attention to the in-service
training program that you first described—in the past has
the School District employed such in-service training? A.
It’s my understanding they have.
Mr. Ris: Just a moment. This is getting way be
yond this man’s competency in describing what the
Board’s plan is. And it’s wholly improper—a wholly
improper approach, and I object to it.
The Court: Well, he’s not describing the Board’s
plan now, is he ?
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1654a
Mr. Bis: Well, I think that’s the only justification.
That’s the tenor of his testimony; that he was famil
iar with the Board’s plan as contained in the exhibit,
which has been offered, and this is all that he has
been asked. Now he has been asked to go beyond
that.
The Court: Now he is describing the detail of the
plaintiffs’ integration plan.
Mr. Bis: Well, he was just now asked, what have
they been doing in the past.
The Court: Well, he wants to know if they—if the
Board has any experience in this.
Mr. Greiner: I can make the question more—
[2103 The Court: I mean, in this kind of in-
service training.
Mr. Bis: This man doesn’t know. He hasn’t been
in—
The Court: Well, he can say he doesn’t know.
Mr. Bis: But he’s testifying from hearsay, is
what he’s doing.
The Court: Well, don’t you think they have any
experience along this line?
Mr. Bis: Well, I think any member of the public
knows generally about it but I object to this man.
I t’s beyond the question; beyond his knowledge;
he’s now just sounding out on various things that
have been told to him or that he thinks he knows.
Mr. Greiner: I can withdraw the question and
frame one that won’t trouble him so much.
The Court: Well, it’s not really a question of
troubling counsel, although of course I think we
ought to avoid anything that is going to raise the
boiling point of anybody here too much.
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1655a
Mr. Ris: Well, if lie approves of certain portions
of the Board’s plan, although he has—all he has to
do is say so. But now he’s going into describing the
next step here of how it compares with the past and
so forth. And this was not a part of the plaintiffs’
case. If they want to [211] propose any plan, why,
all they have to do is-—
The Court: That is an integral part of their plan,
isn’t it, this training program?
Mr. R is: It may very well be for a proper per
son, but this man is not that expert.
Mr. Greiner: I ’m sorry. Has the Court ruled
on the objection? I ’m willing to withdraw the ques
tion.
The Court: I think he can go ahead and describe
what the plan is, at least. We’re entitled to know
that. I could read it, I suppose. But it might be of
some help to have him outline it now and I don’t
see where that is any great amount of prejudice.
Surely there would have to be a lot of preparation
in anything as momentous as this in terms of train
ing and personnel involved and preparation of the
parents and the students as well. I mean, what you
propose is a momentous program. So I think—I
expect it would be proper to hear what’s involved.
That’s all I ’m doing.
Q. Doctor, do you have the question in mind?
The Court: What knowledge do you have as to
what the Board has done on previous occasions in
regard to training the personnel involved or the
community ?
George Bardwell—-for Plaintiffs—Direct
1656a
The Witness: I’m aware from certain publica
tions that they—the School Board has presented to
the public and to ourselves certain in-service pro
grams that have been instituted in the past. Our
program here is merely what you [2123 have before
you-—merely a conceptualization of—
The Court: What you’re saying then is that the
school administration is certainly competent to de
vise the details of a program of this kind to carry
it out, is that right?
The Witness: I ’m withholding judgment on that,
sir. What I ’m saying is that these are some of the
ingredients we feel are necessary if the plan of in
tegration is to be installed. And we have merely
outlined this on Page 49.
The Court: Well, then, the objection was to what
extent has the school administration done this in
the past. Isn’t that right?
Mr. Greiner: That’s correct.
The Court: What’s the object of it? Trying to
show they will do it in the future if they did it in
the past?
Mr. Greiner: Yes, and that—
The Court: And he says he is withholding judg
ment on that. So I guess we’ll have to take him at
his word. That kind of ends that question—that line
of questioning. He still is doubtful.
Q. Dr. Bardwell, in connection with the Board’s pro
posal for its implementation of Resolution 1520, 1524 and
1531, did those proposals contain a facet of faculty and
staff in-service training and preparation? A. They did.
[213] Q. What work—were workshops held last sum
mer for that purpose? A. They were.
George Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1657a
Q. Now, do you know whether or not in the past, for
example, in connection with the implementation of the
resolutions, the attendance at those in-service programs
was mandatory or voluntary? A. My understanding is
that they were voluntary.
Mr. Ris: If the Court please, I move that be
stricken.
The Court: Granted.
Mr. Ris: He obviously doesn’t know.
Q. Do the plaintiffs proposals propose that these pro
grams be voluntary or mandatory? A. Mandatory.
Q. Now, we’ve already covered the faculty and staff
orientation program and—is that also a part of the Board’s
proposal directed to the Court? A. It is.
Q. Now, the next major facet regarding community in
volvement—again, what is the basic premise with respect
to community involvement? A. The basic premise is that,
in order to have an effective plan of desegregation, integra
tion, that community involvement is an ingredient for the
three-part phase of [2143 this integration of the School
District.
Q. Now, what types of programs do we propose to
achieve in this community involvement? A. We are pro
posing that school and staff assignments be made quickly.
Mr. Ris: If the Court please, I’m going to again
object to this. Because he is now going into plan
ning, the administrative level of which he is not
competent to do.
The Court: I wasn’t paying any attention. I was
reading the next section. But, proceed.
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1658a
Mr. Greiner: Well, I can restate the question.
The Court: I can’t rule on it if I don’t know what
it is. But I suppose it’s of the same nature as the
rest of them.
Mr. Bis: Well, he was now going into what the
administration should do in the very near future
and so forth. He’s now asking about—going into
detailed planning, you see, on community involve
ment.
The Court: Well, I don’t suppose it will hurt us
to hear what he has to say.
Q. What’s one of the facets, Dr. Bardwell, which we
propose for this community involvement? A. One of them
is that the staff assignments, faculty assignments, be
made quickly so that the persons involved will be in a
position to know what those assignments are and—[215]
at an early time so that planning can appropriately take
place.
Q. So that teachers are—will knowT what schools they’re
going to be teaching? A. That’s correct.
Q. Do teachers have some responsibility in the develop
ment of programs at the schools, curricula and so forth?
A. It certainly should.
Q. So that this gives the most possible time for plan
ning? A. It does.
Q. And what other types of community involvement
programs are part of the plaintiffs’ proposal? What about
communications to the students and parents? A. I t’s im
portant that parents and students be advised quickly and
as early as possible what their assignments will be so the
programs might be set up to acquaint the students, as well
as the parents, as well as the various programs that are
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1659a
going to be instituted in that school. To get familiar with
certain of the resources at the school facilities. In other
words, to make this transition as comfortable and as pleas
ant as possible.
The Court: Is it your assumption that there
would be a final judgment here!
The Witness: Would be a what?
[216] The Court: A final judgment that every
body abide by and they could start their program—
instruction and planning at once so as to be ready
by September?
The Witness: That would be great, sir.
The Court: Well, that’s a dream.
The Witness: It may be.
The Court: Because I anticipate that one or both
litigants here will appeal this to the Supreme Court.
If they get any kind of a ruling by September 1st,
why, it would be pretty miraculous, I would think; a
final ruling. But, anyway, the essence and thrust
of what you’re suggesting is the program, perhaps,
and not the timetable, is that correct?
Mr. Greiner: That’s correct, Your Honor. That is
a problem we have faced ever since we instituted
this action.
Q. Now, what about the use of volunteer or parent aides
with respect to the integration program ? A. We are pro
posing that paraprofessionals be used extensively and
teacher aides and business aides and other ways in which
professional people whose energies and talents can be
taken advantage of by the School District itself. We are
proposing that recruitment of people themselves be under
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1660a
taken and recognition given to some of the services that
they can perform.
Q. Now, what about programs directed toward easing
the tensions, the rumors that go around when you have
this first [217] mixing of children in these schools? How
do we propose that that be handled? A. We are suggest
ing that programs be sponsored to inform parents of the
necessity for integrated education, to increase the under
standing between parents who might have some misgivings
about a program of integrated education. The same thing
would apply to students, as well. We are suggesting also
that a kind of ombudsman relationship be set up by the
School District to receive complaints, a clearinghouse for
problems that might arise in the process of such plans for
it.
Q. Are we proposing that the currently existing school
community relations office handle that job? A. Well, some
thing that functions.
Q. Now, Doctor, I’d like to next call your attention to
the general area of compensatory education programs.
What, again, is the major premise of such compensatory
education programs as proposed by the plaintiffs? A.
Again, we feel that an important ingredient of desegre
gating the schools, and then integrating will require a sub
stantial input of compensatory education as a package for
successfully integrating the schools that are involved in
this suit.
Q. Now, does that contemplate compensatory education
in an integrated setting? [218] A. Yes, it does.
Q. Now, would these compensatory programs apply in
general regardless of the plan of desegregation which
might be adopted by the Court? In other words, is there
George Bardivell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1661a
a general component? A. Yes, they would apply in gen
eral to all the plans.
Q. Now, what is the basis for these suggestions which
we are putting forth with regard to these compensatory
programs? Where do they come from? A. Most of these
came from the School Board’s suggestions in Plan—and
in response to the Board Resolution 1562.
Q. Whereas, the Board’s suggestions are not premised
on first segregating, ours are, is that correct? A. That’s
correct.
Q. Now, what considerations have been given to avail
ability of funds for the types of programs which the plain
tiffs are contemplating proposing? A. The Board’s plan
—their plans have been analyzed with regard to the ex
penditure and—or allocation of various funds or various
programs that have been proposed and we have taken
those funds and have indicated and have concluded that
the funds that the Board is willing to spend upon com
pensatory education alone would be quite sufficient for the
plans that are proposed here.
Q. What are some of the items? What is the source of
[2192 these dollar amounts? A. These dollar amounts are
taken directly from the plan developed in accordance with
Resolution 1562 submitted by Superintendent Gilberts in
his report to the Board of Education.
Q. So we are reallocating these amounts which the de
fendants have identified, is that correct? A. We are.
Q. Now, would you please identify for us some of these
specific amounts? A. Yes, there are funds that have been
allocated by the Board to the outdoor education in the
amount of about $247,000. Cultural arts, $165,000, to illus
trate. In addition to that, we find that certain moneys that
are earmarked in the 1970 school year would be available
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1662a
for implementing our program. For example, $160,000 for
Complex 1. And $167,000 for Complex 2. And in-service
training would be $201,000. These moneys would be avail
able for our program. And, in fact, some of the special
programs that have been proposed by the Board, moneys
that have been allocated for that, would be available for
our plan simply because the necessity for implementing
some of these programs would no longer be required.
Q. Why not! A. Because we would be desegregating
the schools.
£2203 Q. In other words, some of these plans proposed
by the defendants are for giving some sort of integrating
experience to children, is that correct? A. I suppose you
could say that.
Q. For example, that’s one of the things that is talked
about in the Ballerette program, is it not? A. That’s
right,
Q. And if the plaintiffs’ plans are adopted, Dr. Bardwell,
where will the child get his integrating experience? A.
He would have to have it on a day-to-day basis, so this
would be—there would be no way of him getting away
from this whole business here of a paternalistic kind of
desegregation which really doesn’t exist under these plans.
Q. Now, then, Dr. Bardwell, what procedures have been
suggested by the plaintiffs for measuring the efficacy of
whatever plan is adopted by the Court?
The Court: What is paternalistic kind of deseg
regation ?
The Witness: Oh, I suppose it’s a nice word for
simply saying tokenism.
The Court: Where does the paternalistic come in?
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1663a
The Witness: Well, paternalistic in the sense of a
generic term for simply saying one is skirting the
issue.
The Court: I don’t see that at all. I suppose there
is a certain amount of paternalism in all of these
[221] efforts in the sense that the family turns over
the children to the school administration for the day.
Isn’t that right?
The Witness: You mean under our plan?
The Court: Under any plan. I mean, they relin
quish a certain control when the child leaves the
neighborhood, I suppose. Isn’t that right?
The Witness: Eight.
The Court: And there is a substitution, I expect,
of official paternalism in any of these plans, isn’t
there ?
The Witness: Well, I use this in the sense—
The Court: I think you used it in the sense that—■
in a critical sense.
The Witness: Yes, I did.
The Court: This is the type of word that defines
something you don’t like, I ’m sure.
The Witness: Yes. I ’m simply saying that the
plans that we are proposing here face up to the
problem of desegregated education.
The Court: Thus, this is not paternalism.
The Witness: Eight.
The Court: Gro ahead.
Q. Calling your attention, Doctor, then to the procedures
which we are recommending for analysis of the efficacy of
these programs, would you please just briefly describe the
types of procedures and the reasons for them? [2223 A.
Yes. In order to make sure that the plaintiffs’ desegrega
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1664a
tion programs are being effective and to provide for modi
fication of these programs, a series of procedures are being
suggested for evaluating that effectiveness. One of these
being that the racial and ethnic composition of any school
affected by the Court’s order should not be allowed to de
part from the city average by more than one standard devi
ation. There are other suggestions here for measuring the
performance of students on standardized tests, and we are
suggesting certain quality control programs and certain
statistical programs to measure the effectiveness of the
desegregation plans that are being proposed. We are also
suggesting that the transportation patterns that are being
effected under these plans be efficient and effective by sug
gesting the use of linear programming and other—certain
other—a certain system analysis technique. We are sug
gesting, also, the use of costing principles and modern
accounting be used to measure the effectiveness and to pro
vide for modification of the compensatory programs that
would be put in operation. These are detailed on 57 and 58.
Mr. Greiner: We have no further questions of Dr.
Bardwell.
Cross-Examination by Mr. Ris:
Q. Dr. Bardwell, you have been referring to the [2231
plaintiffs’ memorandum for hearing on relief, at least para
phrasing certain portions of it, particularly to the latter
part of your testimony. You actually prepared this memo
randum, did you? A. Excuse me, sir?
Q. Did you prepare this memorandum? A. You mean
this memorandum?
Q. Plaintiffs’ memorandum for the hearing on relief to
which you have been referring throughout your testimony.
A. No, I prepared a substantial part of it.
George Bardivell—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1665a
Q. Who else prepared it? A. Dr. Klite.
Q. Who prepared the portion on community involvement,
for example? A. I think it was Dr. Klite that prepared
part of it and I prepared part of it.
Q. Who prepared the part on plaintiffs’ plans for equal
izing' educational opportunity at Manual? A. What are
you referring to? What page?
Q. Page 46, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 506. A. Oh, Manual High
School?
Q. Yes, sir. A. Dr. Klite prepared that.
Q. Who prepared the other part? A. I did.
[224] Q. And then all of these plans are basically the
product of you and Dr. Klite? A. Correct.
Q. And that is true for the entire memorandum filed with
the Court; plaintiffs’ memorandum, for hearing on relief?
A. Yes. That’s not entirely true because—
Q. Well, you tell me wdiat’s true. That’s why I’m asking.
A. Well, it’s a joint effort by us and if there—there might
have been a first drafting or something and we would
bounce certain ideas off the other members and—
Q. Other members of what? A. Other members.
Q. Of what? A. Mr. Barnes, Mr. Greiner, Dr. Klite
and myself.
Q. The four of you then prepared this plan? A. That’s
correct.
Q. And so the four of you are the authors of this plan
in this case? A. That’s correct.
Q. Throughout your figures you have been referring to
school capacity, and those—the rated capacity on the basis
that we discussed rated capacity at the February hearing;
generally 30 people per room? A. That’s correct. And
these capacities were figured [225] under the same capaci
ties that were used in the report of pupil membership of
George Bardwell-—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1666a
September, 1969, less the possible units or the temporary
structures at those particular schools.
Q. And the figures did not take into consideration—the
computer programming did not include any input with
respect to actually the rated capacity along the lines Dr.
Oberholtzer testified concerning? A. The standard that
was used was that, if the capacity that is stated by the
School Board published by the School Board of a certain
amount, then that capacity in the linear program wTas
within ten percent of that capacity.
Q. But you were present wrhen Dr. Oberholtzer testified,
were you not? A. I was.
Q. And you recall that there was testimony with respect
to certain schools wherein they had a lower pupil-teacher
ratio so that there was a lower number of students per
room for specific education rooms, that in certain instances
a school is fully utilized so far as the base is concerned but
with a number substantially less than its rated capacity ?
Do you recall that testimony? A. Yes, but you’re for
getting—
Q. You recall that testimony? A. I do.
Q. Now, did you, in your input computer programming
[226] consider any such deviations in the actual use as
compared to rated use? A. Yes, we did.
Q. What schools did you do that on? A. The rules that
we used—because these schools would be desegregated—
there would be no reason to consider one seat in a school
any different than any other seat simply because the utili
zation capacity under the segregation of that would equate
one—
Q. Dr. Bardwell, you have evaded my question. My
question is, did you in the input consider any actual utili
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1667a
zation less than the rated capacity as presently exists?
A. It was not necessary to do so.
Q. Yon didn’t do it? A. Absolutely not,
Q. Now, if yon would just listen to the question. Just
don’t argue with me and you can bring all your own
theories forward. All I’m trying to get are facts as to
what you did. Now, in connection with your transportation
and the distances involved, did you consider the distances
between one school, say the sending school, and the distance
to the receiving school? A. That’s correct.
Q. And if a child in the sending school was already liv
ing some miles further away from the sending school and
in [2273 a direction opposite that of the receiving school—
that was not put in your input at all? A. No, it was not
necessary to do that because the transportation plans that
are now within the District in which I have indicated the
average distance that the students that are now being
transported to get to school itself—we have not put into
the computer program the requirement or transportation
schedules necessary to bring those students from outlying
areas into these schools. This would be in addition to the
mileages and costs of the existing* program. But I might
add—and I think it’s worthwhile to add here that the sched
ule of transportation taking account of those students that
are not now being transferred in, could be utilized more
effectively, and the distances themselves would be some
what shorter than simply adding the average number of
miles under our plan, plus the average number of miles
under the existing plan.
Q. In other words, you are saying there could be some
judgments made? A. There certainly could.
Q. But your exhibits do not make those adjustments?
A. They do not.
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1668a
Q. That’s all I trying to get at, Doctor. Also, in your
pairing plan, you are considering that there are substan
tially the same number of students in [228] K-3 as in 4
through 6, is that correct? Do you have a breakdown on
that? A. We did. We used your report of pupil member
ship giving- the breakdown of the number of students in
kindergarten through Grade 3 and 4 through 6, and very
carefully calculated the necessary capacities to accommo
date K through 3 and 4 through 6.
Q. I don’t know whether that was in or not. Now, the
exhibits pertaining to the actual transportation—how many
would go from each school and so forth—are all those
numbers of students practical in your opinion, Doctor, to
send those as shown on the print-outs? A. Can you repeat
your question?
Q. Is it practical to send the children in each and every
instance as shown on your print-outs from one school to
another? I ’m not speaking theoretically. I ’m talking about
practically. Or, do you know? A. May I ask you to clar
ify what you mean by practical?
Q. For example, the program on Exhibit 501-C, trans
portation schedule for receiving Anglo students, you would
send from Bradley, for example, 373 students. Now, you
would only send one student to Mitchell. Is that practical?
A. I see what you mean. Yes.
Q. So would you transport just one student from Brad
ley to Mitchell? [229] A. No.
Q. Isn’t that what this says? A. Yes. The program
itself and the transportation schedule comes out with raw
information and then this is then—If one wanted to be
exact, the transportation schedule that is involved, ob
viously certain adjustments which are practical ought to
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1669a
be made in the plan of this sort so that if one, two, three
and perhaps five students are to be sent from one school to
another, it wouldn’t make much sense to the expense of—
Q. That was the gist of my question. Now, also further
look at Exhibit 501-C, which is the transportation schedule
for sending and receiving minority students. Now', the
very first item there—.Bryant—it will send 262 students
to the following—and there are two schools, is that correct!
The Court: What page are you on now ?
Mr. Ris: This is Exhibit 501-C, Page 18.
Q. Do you have that, Doctor? A. I do.
Q. So you would transport out from Bryant these stu
dents? A. I think the same suggestion that was made
before with regard to numbers, that there would have to
be, I think, an adjustment here as to a minimum number
to be transported [230] from any school. And actually,
according to your Exhibit 501-B, on Page 15, there are
only four Negroes in Bryant School at all, isn’t that cor
rect? A. 501-D?
Q. 501-B, as in baker. Page 15. A. Pm sorry.
The Court: Well, it only shows four Negroes, is
that right?
Q. Is there any purpose—segregation purpose in send
ing Negroes from Bryant-Webster ? A. No.
Q. Now, Fairmount, Exhibit 501-C, showrs you -would
send out two. A. Right.
Q. And there are no Negroes in Fairmount according
to 501-B. How does that happen? A. Well, in putting in
the—putting this in the computer, there are certain round
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1670a
values for the percentages and a tenth of a percent or
something of that sort that you would put into the com
puter, certain kinds of—what might be called spurious,
very small values, which you might attribute to School 1,
while a white person or two white people, where those
white children might not be there in the first place.
Q. And this is inherent in the computer programming?
[231] A. No, it’s not inherent in computer programming.
If you say there are a hundred students at a school and
you have 70.4 percent or 120 students in a school and you
have 70.4 percent of one racial group, if you calculate those
out you oftentimes get 32 and a half students. Well, there
are no such things. They have to be rounded to the near
est number. Well, when certain figures like that are put
into a computer, on a percentage basis, then the rounding
out will oftentimes attribute to a school one person here,
one person there, or it may be that the figure for the total
number of Negro students at a school might be one, two,
or three, and conceivably four students less than the en
rollment at that school. This is part and parcel of the—
Q. Here at Fairmount there are no Negroes, though,
according to your white chart, is that right? A. That’s
right. So, in other words, for example at Fairmount when
the figures were put in the computer it actually rounds the
figures off so the rounding percentage may come up to
99-percent Hispano or Anglo and the remaining number
would be Negro. This is by subtraction.
Q. Are you suggesting that there are some Negro stu
dents at Fairmount that are not shown on 501-B? A. No.
These print-outs—they reflect the—mainly the—
Q. The geographic proximity, is that right? [232] A.
well, sir, these I think at best are approximations.
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1671a
The Court: He means, what goes into the deci
sion?
A. I think that would go into the decision, if this plan were
adopted for example, would be a transportation schedule
much like you have right before you, with practical adjust
ments to that plan for, let’s say, sending only students
whose total number exceeded five of a particular kind. So
that, if transportation schedules called for, for example,
receiving at Mitchell one student from Bradley, it wouldn’t
make much sense to stop a bus for one student to be
dropped off at Mitchell.
The Court: Well, what are the ingredients of the
computer decision? That’s what I ’m trying to get
at. Do you understand this?
Mr. Bis: From a negative standpoint, I was try
ing to find out what it wasn’t doing or what it was
doing incorrectly since there are some figures here
that are obviously ridiculous. You can’t transport
two Negro students out of Fairmount when there
aren’t any there.
The Court: Well, that’s fairly obvious.
I would like to cut a little deeper here and find
out what the computer is thinking about. That’s all;
I mean, when it yields these results.
The Witness: Information that was put in, Your
Honor, indicated—
[2333 The Court: Does it ever give a capricious
or malicious decision?
The Witness: Sometimes it does. That’s right.
Hopefully we can control that.
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs-—Cross
1672a
The Court: Okay. What are the elements that it
is seeking? Its first mission, of course, is, I take
it, desegregation of a school.
The Witness: That’s correct.
The Court: And then, secondly, integration.
The Witness: That’s right.
The Court: Does it accomplish this task upon
the basis of geographic—a basis of geographic prox
imity or expediency?
The Witness: It does.
The Court: Primarily?
The Witness: No, there are a number of in
gredients here which I think are important.
The Court: That’s what I want.
The Witness: And one is that into this program
one of the inputs is that no school that would be
involved in the program itself would have an Anglo
composition that would depart from the city average
by more than one standard deviation. That means
that the lowest Anglo proportion in any one of the
schools affected in this plan would be no less than
54 percent. The highest being 60 percent. In addi
tion to that, [234] the capacity of each one of the
schools that is involved in the plan would be utilized
to within ten percent of its rated capacity. This
means that no school would be utilized to less than
94 percent capacity and none of them would be
utilized to more than 106 percent capacity.
The Court: Well, tell me this. Are you seeking
in your desegregation effort and integration effort
to get the middle-class students into these inferior
schools?
George Bardivell—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1673a
The Witness: I’m glad you raised that question,
sir.
The Court: In other words, I see that you are
sending Traylor students to Elmwood, which is the
worst building in the city, and to Fairview. I mean,
is Traylor—Traylor, as I understand it, is probably
the best facility in the whole city. What is the com
puter doing there?
The Witness: I wonder then if you would take a
look at Exhibit 501-A. That gives us an idea of what
would happen to the average achievement at each
one of these schools if the transportation schedule
that we have just indicated were put into effect.
And what it does here—the program did not take
into account some of the aspects of increasing in
achievement coming about simply from desegrega
tion, but simply was a linear combination of the
achievement scores of the students that would be
transported, for example, when the various—[2353
from the various schools into the various receiving
schools for those students, and I think what is re
markable about this is that average achievement is
rather uniform for all of the schools that would be
involved in this plan which suggests that not only
desegregation takes place on a racial basis, but de
segregation also takes place on an equivalent basis,
and the relationship between those factors is very
highly correlated with the socioeconomic class.
Thus, for example, in this particular exhibit we
find that no school would have an average achieve
ment even at its worst of less than 31 percent and
this is in considerable contrast to what we now have
of achievement scores varying all the way from 15
George Bardivell—for Plaintiffs—-Cross
1674a
percent in the school program to some of the schools
involved all the way to 73 percent, 75 percent, 80
percent.
Q. Dr. Bardwell, on this point, all you’re doing is taking
some low achievers from one school and putting them into
these high-achiever schools and vice versa, right? A. Ef
fectively, yes.
Q. And so that when you say you’re making these schools
more equal in achievement, percentages, average—which
ever those may be—and the chart does not know what
you’re doing—is just moving people around so that the
averages in each school is different not because of anybody
having increased this achievement, but merely by getting
new averages with pupils there, isn’t that right? [236]
A. By no means.
Q. Then what is this last column in 501? A. It essen
tially is what exists now without taking account of the
increase in achievement coming* about by desegregating
the students into the schools that are indicated on this
exhibit.
Q. That is your hypothesis as a result of this; that there
is going to be an increase in all these schools ? A. I think
it is supported throughout the country.
The Court: But as of now*, the average is just a
result of mixing the low achievers with the high
achievers ?
The Witness: That’s right.
By Mr. Bis:
Q. And that’s all you show in any of your charts? A.
We’re preparing our case in the worst light.
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1675a
Q. So you do not have any figures here to show what
these achievers will be in, in say three years, five years ox-
ten years? A. No.
Q. In fact, you don’t have any figures—Your computer
print-outs—do you have print-outs that would show that?
A. Eight.
Q. Now, I would refer you, please, Dr. Bardwell, ex
pressly to the Manual plan, Exhibit 506. As I gather from
[237] your testimony, your first alternative—what you’re
really seeking and asking the Court to do is to modify
what the Court has already indicated is going to be a part
of the permanent injunction? Correct? A. This would be
one modification.
Q. Under Resolution 1520 and 1524? So you say the
Court should not only reinstate as the Court has stated
the permanent injunction on Part 1, but go beyond that?
That, in essence, is your plan, is that correct? A. It would
be.
Q. Now, have you considered the transportation prob
lems for students at the high school level under your first
alternative for Manual? A. No, we have not calculated
any precise transportation schedules or any transportation
distances that would be involved.
Q. Would your plans contemplate transporting senior
high school students say from Fairmont Subdistrict to
South High? A. We have no plans for transporting high
school students.
Q. Now, as I look at your Exhibit 507, the map, is it
correct that Washington High would have the one feeder
junior high? And that would be Smiley? A. There would
be one feeder junior high in that [2381 particular high
school district.
Q. And for Kennedy there would be none? A. Well,
George Bardtvell—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1676a
that doesn’t necessarily mean that there are the junior high
school districts.
Q. This is under your plan, is what I’m asking-? A. Tes.
Q. A junior high district—these are presently set out?
A. That is right.
Q. At least no junior high located in the Kennedy area?
A. That’s right.
Q. And you would have three junior highs located in
the Manual area; Cole, Morey and Byers, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And three junior highs in the North High area? A.
Right.
Q. So either North or West—they would have one—One
would have three junior highs and the other would have
two junior highs, is that correct? A. Included in the geo
graphical area, that’s rig-ht.
Q. Again, may I go back just to the elementary school
busing once more and our computer figures—is it possible
from an economical and practical standpoint to set that up
on the basis of bus capacity so that you wouldn’t have
maybe [239] eight kinds in one bus time and time again
and— A. This information would have to be put into the
computer and it would be so extensive so as to make it not
practical to do so, and I think any kind of transportation
plan we’d devise, based upon the outline we have prepared
here, it would be a detailed analysis indicating whether or
not—indicating an efficient way to do this would be to pick
up, let’s say a certain number of students at this school
and at the same time going by another school in order to
make effective use of a bus in order to get those students
at the receiving school.
Q. Now, may I ask you this—
George Bardwcll—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1677a
The Court: Are you talking about high schools
now?
The Witness: No.
Q. So at the present time it would not be practical to
computerize it on a busload basis, is that correct? A.
Well, it’s not practical for us. We don’t have the man
power.
Q. But you understand what I ’m asking? With the
school reserves available to you? A. It is quite easy to
do this.
Q. Could this also take into consideration tinder your
theory, Dr. Bardwell, that the children who are beyond
the walking distance to an elementary school and who are
now bused because of that distance? [2403 A. By all
means.
Q. And they would be bused to that elementary school
and another bus picks them up there? A. By no means.
For example, some of the students that are bused into the
outlying areas—we indicate a student is to be transferred
from University to Park Hill—I don’t know whether they
are—but the transportation schedule would call for him
to be put into the program when it’s finalized that the
students are bused into the University Park, they would
then be put on the bus going to Park Hill.
Q. So from Southeast Denver it would take normally
26 minutes to get to University Park and you would just
bus them further north for the additional time and dis
tances involved? A. That’s correct, and the total mileages
involved would be considerably less than certain mileages
now, yes. Some of them would be less.
Q. Would you give us an illustration? A. Yes. There
are some students that are actually transferred from Sted-
George Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1678a
man and Smith in which the transportation route is almost
12.4 miles.
Q. How would that lessen? A. Well, I illustrated—
Q. Wouldn’t this still be in existence? A, Not neces
sarily, no.
[24] Q. You don’t know that it wouldn’t be in existence?
It’s a possibility under this arranging that some of it might
be adjusted out? A. That’s correct.
Q. Now, with respect to your boundary changes at the
high school level—you said a block count would be required?
The Court: I think we’ll take a recess now.
(Whereupon, the trial recessed at 11:00 a.m. and
resumed at 11:15 a.m.)
By Mr. R is:
Q. Hr. Bardwell, you referred to the necessity for block
counts on redistricting the senior high schools. If you were
going to do that that would require a block count through
out the city? A. Yes, that’s right.
Q. Now, with regard to the—
The Court: You are now talking about Plan 1 of
the senior high school redistricting ?
Mr. Eis: Under Alternate 1 of the high school
plan, yes, sir.
Q. And then after those block counts you would also have
to make projections as to what movement there might be—
there would be in the pupil population that—■ A. Yes, but
I would suspect that one would not have to be that precise
about the block counts to get an approximation [2421 of
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1679a
what the utilization of the capacity of each of these high
schools would be. But, to be entirely precise about it, one
would have to do that.
Q. Are there any other ways of doing it? A. Oh, yes.
I think that there are attendance records, let’s say, at the
school that could be used and at the same time the 1960
census information which would give a rough indication
of what kinds of population densities you would have in
various parts of the city. But this would be at best a rough
approximation.
Q. Now, with regard to the budgetary matters, you did
not attempt to go back and go over the entire school bud
geting to see what your proposed changes, what effect it
would have, did you? You didn’t go back to the proposed
budget for 1970, or ’71, for example, or the existing budget
for 1969 and 1967 and go through it to determine what
changes would be required in the budgets to effectuate your
programs? A. We did not.
Q. So that the availablity or priority of funds shown
on Pages 55 and 56 of the plan, the plaintiffs’ plan, entitled
Part 7, availability and priority of funds—that is just some
rough figures you put together? A. They are merely a
reflection of what you people had considered or the School
Board had considered was to be feasible to allocate there.
124:33 Q. You didn’t go back and figure out what the full
budgetary effect wmuld be? A. We did not.
Q. Now, the outdoor education item, you show on Page
55 under this part of your plan you would just do away
with that? A. Well, we feel that that has a lower priority
than some of the other items within the budget for deseg
regating the schools and integrating them and we felt that
that amount of money would be available for planning the
more important purpose.
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1680a
Q. But in 19701—the 1970 budget—there is $247,000 allo
cated for that and that would just—you would just with
draw that complete allocation?
The Court: Some of these are earmarked federal
grants, aren’t they? That couldn’t be used for any
thing else.
The Witness: That may be true. Which of those
funds are earmarked, I do not know.
The Court: Well, I don’t know either, but I know
at Manual and Cole they have special programs, so
I have been told, and the sources of these funds are
federal funds, as I understand it. Of course, these
funds wouldn’t be available for other uses, I assume.
They wouldn’t go back into the general fund.
The Witness: No, but there is the question of
[244] whether or not, under a desegregation plan,
whether or not the reason for the use of the funds
under that kind of a plan makes just as much sense,
let’s say, within a desegregated setting than in the
given setting where it is segregated. Whether or not
the funds would still be applicable in that case per
haps is a question, but, it seems reasonable to sus
pect that those funds would be available under those
circumstances as well.
The Court: Well, I don’t think reason has any
thing to do with it. When you’re dealing with the
Health, Education and Welfare Department, I think
they work in categories, probably. I mean, I have
been given to understand that.
The Witness: Something that would have to be
investigated, yes.
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1681a
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Cross
By Mr. B is:
Q. Also, did you take into consideration to what extent
this $217,000 budget for Ballerette in the outdoor educa
tion has already been committed? A. We have not.
Q. You did determine the cost for busing under your
Exhibit 511, is that right? A. That’s correct.
Q. Have you determined the cost for the in-service train
ing that you recommended? A. No, we have not.
Q. Did you determine the cost for the staff and [245]
faculty orientation you recommended? A. No, we have not.
Q. Do your figures consider the cost for compensatory
education, as you recommended in the integrated setting?
A. No, we have not.
Q. Did it consider the cost for the special programs at
Manual and Cole? Or, would you just do away with all
these special programs? A. We have not considered those
costs there.
Q. Did you consider the cost of testing all pupils three
times a year as you recommended in one portion of your
plan? A. We have not.
Q. Did you consider the cost of a block count for redis
tricting the high schools? A. We have not.
Q. Did you consider the cost for the public relations for
community acceptance? A. We have not.
Q. Did you consider the cost for capital expenditures
for buses or for changes made in the—changes made neces
sary in the high school, particularly under your Plans 2
and 4? A. We have not.
Q. Did you consider whether the changes in the physical
schools would be necessary; the size of the desks and seating
[246] and the heights of the blackboards and so forth
under Plan 2 and Plan 4? A. Would there be a change?
1682a
Q. You don’t know that there would be a change! A.
As far as we’re concerned, we feel there would be no
change.
Q. You think that the desks and seats for a first-grader
are the same as those for a fourth-grader? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And for a sixth-grader? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the height of the blackboard—they are all the
same whether they are first-graders or sixth-graders ? A.
Yes. In fact, many of those rooms are already—are kinder
garten through Grade 3.
Q. You don’t know what changes would be necessary? A.
No.
Q. You don’t know that any such changes would be nec
essary? A. No.
Q. Well, then, your conclusion that you stated before
that- sufficient funds are available within the current bud
get to implement the plaintiffs’ plans— that’s not a correct
statement? A. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that be
cause—
£247] Q. You told us about all these costs that you
haven’t even considered. How can you make that state
ment, Dr. Bardwell? A. That’s correct, we have not con
sidered the costs in detail, but we have nevertheless modeled
those programs very much after the plan that has been
presented by the School Board and we are merely con
tending that the funds that are made available under the
proposed plans to implement Resolution 1562 would be
also available for the plan that is being proposed here.
Q. But, nevertheless, despite the fact that you have not
considered all of these, you will stand on your statement
that all this could be done within the current budgetary
items? A. That’s correct.
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1683a
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Redirect
Mr. Eis: That’s all,
Redirect Examination by Mr. Greiner:
Q. Or. Bardwell, you were asked a question about the
source of some of the components of the plan and you
identified for us the authors of the plan. But the sources
were not limited to the authors. For example, one of the
sources is the Board’s own plan, is it not! A. By all
means.
Q. Now, do you know whether or not under the Board’s
[248] current proposal as implemented for voluntary open
enrollment, that some of the transportation under voluntary
open enrollment requires less than, let’s say, the best utili
zation in terms of the numbers of students being picked up
and deposited at various schools? A. Well, any plan that
is developed on an essentially haphazard or nonrandom
basis—or a random basis like voluntary open enrollment,
the chances are almost certain that it is not an optimum
kind of transportation plan.
Q. Now, you mentioned that we didn’t have the manpower
to develop the detailed transportation schedule that would
be involved. Does the School District have the transporta
tion department? A. It does.
Q. And it is Dr. Qlander’s department, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you have any idea of how long it would take
his department to prepare the detailed plan of transporta
tion, the actual bus schedules, if he worked hard? A. I
don’t know how long it would require.
Q. Are we talking about a couple of years? A. Well,
I know that, for example, to develop the kinds of linear
programming that was developed for our plans here, it is
essentially my own work and the work of some students
1684a
that helped me write some of the programs, and this [249]
effectively saved about three or four men working a couple
of years by the use of the computer. Well the same kind
of efficient use of manpower can be used by the School Dis
trict itself and with appropriate input of information like
that, allow the computer to take advantage of efficient use
of manpower, and I suspect it might take—it’s purely a
guess on my part—a couple of men, oh, three or four men,
four or five weeks.
Q. I suppose we can ask Mr. Olander about that. Now,
Exhibit 507, which shows the general geographic outlines
of the proposed redistricting of the senior high school
areas, does Exhibit 507 purport to show anything about
junior high school feeder relationships into those senior
high schools? A. It does not.
Q. Now, Doctor, in the District today are there some
junior high schools which in fact feed more than one senior
high school? A. Yes, sir.
Q. So that is not a different concept? A. No problem, at
all.
Mr. Greiner: No further questions.
Mr. E is: That’s all.
The Court: I assume—I gather from what you
said that on the elementary-high school program that
you have advanced that you think that the Plan 2 is
much preferable to [250] Plan 1, is that correct?
The Witness: Well, Your Honor, it depends upon
one’s point of view. In Plan 1, for example, and I
think this is in response to an earlier question you
made of me, that that plan minimizes the total
amount of transportation for all students that would
be involved.
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Redirect
1685a
'The Court: This is the one in which yon trans
ported classes, complete classes and changed the
character of the schools?
The Witness: That’s right. Now, it minimizes the
total transportation. And you see that there are
about 8,000 students that are to be transported under
that arrangement. In Plan 2 it increases the trans
portation that is involved and hence the cost, but
it has some other advantages, Plan 2, because the
assignment of students is automatic. The assign
ment of teachers would be automatic. And one would
avoid the agonizing problem that would be pre
sented in Plan 1 by what students are to be involved
in the program. So, there are advantages.
The Court: Well, the plan wouldn’t give you com
plete integration, anyway, would it?
The Witness: It would certainly give you com
plete integration for the 29 schools that are involved,
yes, sir. And, in fact, the most efficient way that it
could be done.
The Court: Let me see if I understand it, Doesn’t
[2513 this contemplate moving, say kindergarten
through the third grade to an Anglo school and vice
versa? Or, moving the fourth, fifth and sixth grades
of the receiving school to the sending school?
The Witness: That would be Plan 2. And that
would of course, involve more students.
The Court: Then once they arrive where they
would be, why, this would complete integration with
in each classroom, is that correct?
The Witness: That’s right.
The Court: I mean, that’s what you have contem
plated?
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Redirect
1686a
The Witness: That’s correct.
The Court: Turning to the high school proposition
that you have submitted, I assume that from what
you say that your alternative plan for making Man
ual a specialized school is not one you think is as
good as the desegregation plan?
The Witness: No, it would not.
The Court: Well, of course, it would achieve inte
gration, wouldn’t it?
The Witness: The concept there would he to
change the community image of Manual itself by
turning it into a specialized school with attributes
that would provide that school with a symbol of
excellence, of the kind of education that all students
would look to that school for the various kinds of
programs.
[252] The Court: But you would still retain its
general program as well?
The Witness: No, I would not.
The Court: Well, then, it would have to achieve
integration then because those who wish to take a
general high school course would have to go to
another school—
The Witness: To the extent that that would take
place, it’s true. And to the extent that the students
at Manual chose other schools for their high school
education, to that extent the integration would be
achieved.
The Court: Well, if they stayed at Manual they
would have to take a particular course that would
be offered there?
The Witness: That’s right.
George Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Redirect
1687a
The Court: To be sure, they could take pre-pro
fessional courses, but the great emphasis would be
on practical trades, wouldn’t it!
The "Witness: No, there would be some emphasis
upon that, of course, but we would conceive that to
change the image of Manual would be to implement
certain programs that would be visionary. Would
be innovative. And advanced training in engineering.
The Court: Well, what—in what respects does
your program differ from that of the School Board?
The Witness: None at all, sir, except to provide
[253] the option for those students that are at
Manual to stay at Manual or to transfer to any other
high school in the city.
The Court: Well, doesn’t the School Board pro
gram contemplate that?
The Witness: I ’m not certain that it does. I don’t
know.
The Court: But yours would be an absolute right
to transfer?
The Witness: That’s right. We want to guarantee
that right.
The Court: Well, I suppose there are variations
of that concept that could be applied here. I sup
pose that Cole could be utilized for example as a
specialty school as well, couldn’t it?
The Witness: It could.
The Court: A specialized school for the whole
city?
The Witness: It could.
The Court: Those two schools are sort of sym
bols, it seems to me, of segregation. I mean, they
seem to, for some reason to—to have that character.
George Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Redirect
1688a
The Witness: That’s true.
* # * * *
[2543 * * *
William Smith—for Plaintiffs—Direct
William Smith, a witness called by and on behalf of
plaintiffs, having first been duly sworn, was examined and
testfied as follows:
The Court: Please give us your name and address
and occupation.
The Witness: William Smith, 3401 East 26th Ave
nue, Principal, Barrett Elementary School.
Direct Examination by Mr. Barnes:
Q. Mr. Smith, how long have you held this position? A.
About eight and a half months.
Q. How long have you been employed by the Denver
Public Schools? A. Fourteen years.
Q. What was your position immediately previous to your
present position? A. I was the Assistant Principal at Gil
pin School.
Q. What was the racial composition approximately of
that school? A. Approximately 54 percent Hispano, 50—
well, let’s say 50/50 black and Hispano at Gilpin.
Q. In what other schools have you held positions in the
Denver Public School system? [2553 A. Well, I worked
prior to going to Gilpin—I worked at Hallett two years;
Barrett five years; Fairview three years.
Q. When were you notified that you would become prin
cipal of Barrett School? A. June of 1969.
1689a
Q. Did you know what the racial composition of the
school was at that time? A. Yes, I did.
Q. What was it? A. Approximately 95 percent black.
Q. What steps did you take during the summer of 1969
to prepare new programs for Barrett School to begin in
September? A. I went on vaction first of all and then I
came back in July and I did talk to Dr. Gilberts about the
second week of July and asked him if I might take over
the building before the principals normally take the build
ing, and he said yes, so I did officially take possession of
the building and I did go into the building and start look
ing at records, pupil records and so forth.
Q. Did you design some new programs to be implemented
in the fall? A. Yes, I did.
Q. Were these programs designed for an integrated
[256] school? A. No, they were not.
Q. Did you request any additional funds for these pro
grams? A. Other than just one set of books—I did ask
for a set of books into new words, and that was granted.
Q. Before discussing the details of these programs with
you, Mr. Smith, would you tell us how many children are
being bused into Barrett this year as the result of this
Court order? A. Approximately 300 youngsters, Anglo
and black.
Q. Three hundred—315? Somewhere in that area? A.
In that neighborhood, yes.
Q. How many children are within walking distance of
Barrett this year? A. Approximately 98.
Q. What race are they? A. Predominantly black, His-
pano, and that’s about it. Black and Hispano.
Q. And the total number then is about 415? A. Pour
hundred fifteen, right.
Q. Do you know what the pupil population of Barrett
William Smith—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1690a
was the preceding year, 1968-69? A. Yes, from the semi
annual report, the pupil population, this was June of 1969,
was 383 pupils at Barrett.
[257] Q. You have increased in size this year? A. That’s
right.
Q. How many teachers do you have at Barrett this year?
A. Sixteen and a half.
Q. How does that compare with the previous year? A.
We had nineteen.
Q. So you have more pupils and fewer teachers? A.
That’s right.
Q. The racial composition of Barrett this year under this
Court order is what? A. Seventy-fivg percent Anglo, twen
ty percent black, five percent Hispano and Oriental.
Q. Is the racial composition, Anglo and non-Anglo, gen
erally reflected in all of the classes of Barrett this year?
A. Yes.
Q. When a new child comes to Barrett during the middle
of the year or has come to Barrett this year, on what basis
has that child been assigned? A. Well, in the office I have
—let’s call it a book, a register for each youngster of each
classroom racially balanced. So that, if I receive an Anglo
youngster, a boy, in the fourth grade, I know exactly what
room he goes in. And that way you don’t have a segregated
classroom within an integrated school.
[2583 Q. Does this result in the exact same pupil/teacher
ratio in each class? A. You mean class size?
Q. Yes. A. The same class size. In our classes—-the class
sizes are different. One fourth-grade class may have 34,
the other may have 28. The important thing is to have
racially-balanced classrooms.
Q. Have you received complaints from teachers concern
ing the disproportionate size which you maintain in order
to have racial balance ? A. No.
William Smith—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1691a
Q. How many of yonr present teachers have requested
transfer for next year? A. One, so far.
Q. What was the basis of that request! A. Well, the
teacher was assigned as a music teacher and she knew very
little about music so I made the transfer within the build
ing and took a second-grade teacher and she agreed to
teach the music and the new teacher taught second grade.
And we made the transfer within the building.
Q. Is one teacher leaving' the building, however? A. That
would be the teacher that is leaving, yes, because the teacher
that has the—that agreed to that—the fifth-grade music,
she would like to have her room back. [2593 And since
she has seniority, she gets it back.
Q. Are these the same teachers who were teaching at
Barrett in 1968-69 before you arrived? A. Yes.
Q. And— A. Except for the new ones that I received
this year.
Q. Mr. Smith, you stated that you developed during the
last summer some special programs. Are those programs
now in effect? A. Yes, they are.
Q. Would you describe the high potential lab briefly?
A. The high potential lab is a lab that we have set up for
youngsters that have ability above that of the normal class
room work that is required. These labs are ungraded. We
have fourth, fifth and sixth-graders working in the labs
and they work in various areas—extended areas in the cur
riculum.
Q. H o w many children are in the high potential labs? A.
Approximately 60.
Q. About how many hours a day do they spend in these
classes? A. Well, it depends. A youngster may go in the
high potential lab for one hour in the morning or maybe
one hour in the morning and one hour in the afternoon.
William Smith—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1692a
Or the youngster may in two days a week, and we have
some youngsters that may [2603 go in three days a week.
They don’t go in there all the time. We have different pro
grams set up in the high potential labs and it depends on
the times that they require to go in.
Q. How do the children make up the time that they lose
from the regular classes? A. Well, my philosophy is that
if a child is truly high potential, then the things that they
miss in the regular classroom, they can do at home for
homework. And consequently they are excused from high
potential lab five minues early and go to the regular class
rooms and pick up the assignments that they miss and do
it for their homework.
Q. Can you give us an example—one example of the
curricula that might be offered, say, a fourth-grader in the
mathematics class? A. All right. You mean, what we’re
offering now in the high potential labs?
Q. Just a quick example. A. All right. We offer crea
tive writing, reading and geometry.
Q. Geometry that might be for what grade student? A.
Well, it’s ungraded, fourth, fifth and sixth. However, we
have one third-grader in geometry now.
Q. Did you have to take over any new space in order to
create these high potential labs? A. No.
[261] Q. Did you have to obtain any new materials in
order to outfit these labs? A. Yes, we had to get a few
books, and that’s about it. It wasn’t any big thing.
Q. Where did you get the teacher? A. The teacher was
assigned. One of the teachers that we had assigned to the
building.
Q. As part of the staff assignment to Barrett? A. Yes.
Q. How did you obtain her time? A. Well, if you want
to call it differentiating staffing, scheduling—whenever the
William Smith—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1693a
IMC center—and the youngster—this is the library, and
when the youngsters go into the library instead of having
two teachers in there, then the teachers—the teacher that
is relieved can be doing something else.
Q. So it was just more or less by making more efficient
utilization of the staff you already have! A. Of staffing,
right.
Q. Are the high potential labs integrated, Mr. Smith?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. Have you received any favorable comments from
parents concerning them? A. Yes, I have.
Q. Now, do you also have a program of learning labs?
[262] A. Yes, we do.
Q. Can you describe them briefly? A. The learning lab
—we have two, and these are for the—the word I like to
use is inexperienced youngsters. Some people prefer to call
them slow. I don’t like the word slow. So I use inexperi
enced. These labs are set up for the youngster that is
behind in reading or math programs.
Q. Approximately how many children participate in
these ? A. Eighty.
Q. Are they integrated as well? A. Those are inte
grated, yes.
Q. Where did you find the space for these? A. Well,
we had a teachers’ room upstairs that wasn’t being used
and so we put one lab in there. And, as I said, we only
have sixteen teachers there and the teachers agreed that
one faculty room was enough instead of two. So we have
a lab in one teachers’ room upstairs and then in the kinder
garten room we partitioned the back part of it off and we
have the other learning lab in that area.
Q. Does each teacher in each one of these labs have her
own deck and blackboard and materials, et cetera? A.
Yes.
William Smith—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1694a
Q. Where were you able to find those materials? A.
Well, we had them around the building. We have the
£2633 portable blackboards similar to this one right over
here, so we used them as a partition and set it off and made
a classroom out of it.
Q. I t’s a question of efficient use of existing materials?
A. We had the materials there, yes.
Q. What is the actual number of hours a child might
spend in this learning lab? A. Now, this depends. I t’s
based upon needs. If a youngster goes into a learning lab
he may go in there two days a week, three days a week;
maybe an hour a day, maybe an hour in the morning, may
be an hour in the afternoon. We have—we teach two dif
ferent things, as I said, in the learning lab. We have read
ing and math and a youngster, may go in the morning for
reading or he may have—we may have a youngster in in the
afternoon for math, and it kind of depends.
Q. Is there any case in which a youngster might spend
the whole day in such a lab? A. No.
Q. What might be the maximum? A couple of hours?
A. I would say an hour a day, maybe three days a week.
Q. And the rest of his time is in the normal classes? A.
In his regular classroom, right.
Q. What kinds of approval have you obtained from the
school administration concerning these modifications of the
[264-3 program? A. Well, I have the wholehearted ap
proval from the administration and they said, go right
ahead, and I wrote this thing up and in an instructional
study and it was approved. A program modification.
Q. Have you been authorized to continue these programs
next year? A. Yes.
Q. Have you had to request any additional money? A.
No.
William Smith—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1695a
Q. Have you received any parents’ comments about tbe
learning lab kinds of program in addition to the high po
tential lab? A. The parents are very enthusiastic about
both. The parents that I talked to are very happy with
the situation and I haven’t received any adverse comments
about the labs.
Q. Have you received any requests from parents request
ing to withdraw a child from either one of these labs? A.
No.
Q. Or any requests from parents to reorganize the classes
because they are integrated or not integrated? A. No.
Q. Mr. Smith, how do you organize the loading of the
school buses after school? A. I have three teachers on
duty at 3:20 and we line [265] the youngsters up at the
doors and the buses are there and then they are ready to
board the buses and leave.
Q. How long does it take? A. Five minutes.
Q. Did your teachers administer achievement tests
throughout the school at the beginning of this year—the
1969 school year? A. Yes.
Q. Were the same tests administered in January, 1970?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you had an opportunity to review the reports
of the school scores on these two sets of tests? A. Yes, I
have.
Q. Was a composite score for the whole school at each
grade level reached after each battery of tests? A. Yes.
Q. How did the January tests compare with the Septem
ber tests at each grade level? A. There was improvement
in all areas. Not all, most areas. Improvement.
Q. Was it improvement that was equal to the three
months they had been in the school? Or was it more than
the three months that they had been in school? A. Well,
William Smith—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1696a
I would say it was generally three months’ improvement.
The average.
[266] Q. There was no evidence of retrogression? A.
No.
Q. Of the tests that were given in January, it was the
same test that was given in December, was it not? A.
Yes.
Q. So the second test was a completely reliable indica-
tor of your progress at Barrett! A. Not necessarily, if
you use the same test twice. It could be.
Q. Children do become testwise! A. Yes.
Q. So the test is not completely a reliable indicator of
what’s going on! A. No.
Q. Have you administered any tests subsequent to Janu-
ary, 1970! A. Yes, the regular testing program that we
have—we have the test in by April 17th this year.
Q. Have you received the results of those tests? A. No.
Q. Are they expected momentarily? A. I think so. Usu
ally we get them in—
Q. Do you have any other better evidence that perform
ance of children at Barrett is declined or improved?
Teacher comments, or any kind of reliable evidence?
[2673 A. Now, will you rephrase that. Academically? So
cially? What do you mean?
Q. Are we overlooking any other source of reliable evi
dence about the progress of Barrett pupils? A. I don’t
think so.
Q. Mr. Smith, do you have any evidence that forced bus
ing has created hostility in the Barrett classrooms? A.
In the classrooms?
Q. Yes. A, No.
Q. Do you have any evidence that forced busing has
impeded achievements in any way in the Barrett class
rooms? A. In the classrooms, no.
William Smith—■for Plaintiffs-—Direct
1697a
Q. Is there a Barrett PTA? A. Yes.
Q. Has the PTA made any formal expression of opinion
about forced busing either to you or to the School Board?
A. They have to me. They have been concerned about the
busing.
Q. Have you planned any social functions through the
PTA? A. Other than the executive board meetings, and I
wouldn’t call that a social function—the executive board
meetings, we met one time and we met in the Barrett area
zone and the next time we met at the Lowry zone area.
[268] Q. Are these meetings attended by both Anglos
and Negroes? A. Yes.
Q. On the first day of school in September of 1969, when
Barrett opened, was there any evidence of parental hostil
ity about the busing expressed to you? A. Not hostility.
Concern, I would say.
Q. Did you then meet with those parents? A. Yes, I did.
Q. And discuss the general situation of Barrett? A.
Yes.
Q. Was there any incident of any significance, educa
tionally, that occurred after that meeting that upset the
program? A. No.
Q. What steps did you take during1 that few days pre
ceding the opening of school and immediately thereafter
to ease the transition? A. Sunday before Labor Day I
went to the school and opened the building. This was so
the parents could come over and look at the building and
on Labor Day we were there all day to make sure that
people wanting to see where the kids were going to school
and see—and then we wanted to be there, too, and we did
have-—people would come in—parents would come in and
we would take them through the [269] building on a tour
of the gym and of the lunchroom and so forth.
William Smith—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1698a
Q. Was that program effective so far as yon could tell?
A. I thought it was.
Q. What did you do on the opening day of school? A.
Other than registering kids, that was about the biggest
thing.
Q. Did you have a coffee and doughnut program? A.
Oh, yes, we did. We had coffee and doughnuts out in the
hall so that when parents came in they could feel at ease,
and this was rather difficult in that the school was inte
grated four days before we opened and we worked those
four days trying to set up classes and all this stuff and it
took a while, but we did get all the kids registered by 9 :15—
9:30 that morning. And I think it makes a—makes it a lot
easier if the parents can come into a building and if there
is a big long* waiting line, they can have a cup of coffee
and a doughnut while they’re waiting.
Q. Who helped you put on the coffee and doughnuts ? A.
The former Barrett PTA came over and assisted.
Mr. Barnes: That’s all we have.
Cross-Examination by Mr. Jackson:
Q. Mr. Smith, these programs that you have just been
discussing regarding the coffee and doughnuts and the
opening [2701 of school—was this necessitated in your
opinion solely because the school was to be integrated?
Or was this your general approach for the opening of a
new school for which you were a principal? A. I think
this was my general approach. This was my first principal-
ship and I would have done it.
Q. And it was really unrelated to the question of inte
gration ? A. Right.
Q. The programs which you have established at Barrett
William Smith—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1699a
■—as X understand your testimony these are programs which
you designed and developed almost simultaneously with
your appointment at Barrett as principal, is that correct,
or within a period of time after that? A. That’s true.
Q. And I believe you testified that these programs were
designed not for an integrated school but were designed
for the school as you then knew it, is that correct? A.
That’s true.
Q. Is it fair to summarize these programs, Mr. Smith,
as one principal’s innovative approach to the problem of
education today? A. Would you restate that?
Q. I say, is it fair to characterize these programs as one
principal’s innovative approach to the problems of [271]
education today? A. I might say so, yes.
Q. As a matter of fact, the length of time that you have
had to evaluate these programs is really insufficient to give
you any definite guidelines as to their effectiveness, is this
correct? A. That’s true, yes.
Q. Now you mentioned the testing of the students and I
believe you indicated that tests were given in September of
1969 and then in January of 1970? A. That’s true.
Q. And were the children who were tested the same chil
dren in each case? A. We have such a large turnover in
that many of the youngsters that attended Barrett are
transients in nature by the fact that they are military, so
that reason that I test in September is to find out exactly
where the youngsters were as far as academics. Then, we
knew who could go into the high potential labs and learn
ing labs and so forth. We wanted to find out exactly where
we were before we started. Three hundred brand-new chil
dren—it’s kind of difficult to just start teaching. And I
think the teachers realized this, too.
Q. So then I take it from your answer that the group
then that was tested in January was not the same group
William Smith—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1700a
that £2723 was tested in September1? A. We had the same
—basically, the same group but we had a lot of movement,
too; people that had transferred out, not to other schools,
but had received military transfers to other parts of the
world.
Q. And these students had come from various back
grounds, from various school systems'? A. Right.
Q. Some from Denver, I would imagine! A. And some
from Denver.
Q. And some from out of state? A. Right.
Q. What was the nature of this test? Is this what we
have variously referred to as the standardized test, or was
that a teacher-made test? A. This was the Stanford
Achievement Test.
Q. Which grade were you testing? A. Second through
sixth.
Q. You tested four grades? A. Right.
Q. Did you test them in all of the standard subjects for
the Stanford Achievement Test? A. Yes, we did.
Q. Did you have any opportunity to compare the level
of a student’s achievement as indicated by the September
test [273] with any prior test of that student? A. For a
few—it’s one that had been tested in April of 1969 at other
schools in Denver, but we received many youngsters from
out of state and we didn’t have the records.
Q. This movement that you just mentioned—does this
create problems in terms of achievements of students in the
schools? A. I don’t think it creates a problem so far as
achievement is concerned. It creates problems as far as
getting a group of kids together and following them
through. For example, if a youngster is in the building
four months and then all of a sudden his father is trans
William Smith—for Plaintiffs—-Cross
1701a
ferred to Vietnam or someplace, it’s very hard to do. I t’s
very difficult. But, with the youngsters that have been in
school at Montclair, Whiteman and Moore, you can kind
of follow this along. This is much easier. But we have a
great mobility.
Q. But don’t you think it means any particular problems
as far as the child—that child’s achievement is concerned?
A. No.
Q. Well, what generally speaking, Mr. Smith, is the ex
perience level of your teaching staff ? A. The average ex
perience ?
Q. Do you know? A. I would say eight years, the aver
age.
[274] Q. Now, do you have any new teachers? A. Yes,
we have four.
Q. By teacher, are you talking about new teachers in
the Denver Public School system? A. Right.
Q. Based on your experience as a principal in Denver
Public Schools system, do these teachers appear to be
capable and competent as those with more experience? A.
Yes.
Q. Are any of these new teachers presently engaged in
either your high potential lab or your learning lab? A. Yes.
Q. And do you feel that they do an adequate job in those
positions? A. Yes, especially the high potential lab, teacher
experience is excellent.
Q. How do you select a child for entry into the high
potential lab? A. This is done mainly by the teachers, the
teachers in the regular classroom. You will have a young
ster—for example, we have several that they can read a
book so much faster than the other kids and they get bored
so we take them and give them a trial basis in the high
potential lab and usually they work out all right. We try
William Smith—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1702a
to stay away from test scores if we can. And in some cases
we have— [2753 well, in one ease we have one youngster
in the high potential lab and the same youngster is in the
learning lab. He goes to high potential in math and then
he is in the learning lab in reading.
Q. Do I understand that the high potential lab from your
testimony is for fourth, fifth and sixth-grade students ? A.
Yes.
Q. And I believe I heard you testify, and I may be in
error—but it caused me some concern that you had one
third-grader student taking geometry in the high potential
lab? A. That’s right.
Q. How did he get it if it was for fourth, fifth and sixth-
graders? A. Because it was on a basis of—this kid is so
brilliant. He hasn’t any business sitting in a third-grade
class wasting his time, so we tried him in the high potential
lab. So he does there a very good job.
Q. So then you consider your high potential lab at least
theoretically speaking would be open to all student grades
so that, if there were a case for it, your high potential lab
as is presently constituted could function in this manner,
is that correct? A. Bight.
Q. Now, when a child goes into the high potential lab
[276] he misses some courses that he would otherwise
have in the—normally, let’s say, if a fourth-grader goes in,
he misses some courses he would normally have in the
fourth grade curriculum, as I understand it? A. That’s
true.
Q. You mentioned specifically social studies, I believe
and indicated that that child would be given homework
assignments which he would then have to turn back in to
his social studies teacher, is that correct? A. That’s right.
Q. Is it always social studies that the child would miss
William Smith—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1703a
to go into the high potential lab! Or might it be various
courses? A. No, because the high potential lab—it’s set up
in the afternoon. And the fourth, fifth and sixth-graders
generally have social studies and science and art in the
afternoon.
Q. What about the learning lab? Does the same thing
obtain there, that a child going into the learning lab must
miss some part of his regular classroom curriculum? A.
That’s true.
Q. And is there any uniformity again with the learning
lab as there is with the high potential lab in terms of the
class the child would miss? A. Well, generally the young
ster going into the [277] learning lab will miss probably
reading or math. And the philosophy is or the theory is
that if he is behind in reading why, then why have him sit
in the reading classroom and just sit there. It’s better to
pull him out of that classroom and put him in the learning
lab until he is barely able to hold on to a regular classroom
situation, and then we take him out of the learning lab and
put him back into the regular classroom.
Q. How many students might be in any one of these
learning labs at one—at any one time? A. I would say
eight to fourteen.
Q. And this is one teacher for that? A. One teacher.
Q. I understand from your testimony that you have in
the high potential labs, writing—creative writing, reading
and geometry? A. That’s true.
Q. Do you have any other courses? A. Not now, no.
Q. And in your learning lab you have reading and math?
A. Heading and math.
Q. You also have a free period, do you not? A. We have
a basic-choice period.
Q. And this is a period where you give each child [278]
William Smith—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1704a
in the school the opportunity to select one course that he
can take during that period of time? A. Not each child.
Each fourth, fifth and sixth-grader is given a choice of one
subject that they would like to take from 12:45 until 1:30
each day.
Q. And this choice is made entirely by the student him
self! A. By the students themselves. The parents have
nothing to do with this.
Q. The parents don’t get into the business at all? A. No.
Q. Now, have you made any specific requests to the ad
ministration for any increase in terms of teachers for the
next school year in order to continue your program in this
fashion? A. No, but I did make a request to the administra
tion—if I could keep the teacher ratio I would be willing
to take an additional 50 youngsters at Barrett School.
Bather than lose teachers, I would rather have more kids.
And we could handle it.
Q. You have, in effect, requested from the administration
that they assign more students to your school, even though
—• A. Right.
Q. Do you know what the rated capacity of your school
[279] is, Mr. Smith? A. I’ve got a sneaking suspicion and
I ’m going to guess. I’m going to say around 450.
Q. Now, at the present time you have somewhat less
than 450 students, do you not? A. That’s right.
Q. Are you utilizing all of the space at Barrett School
at the present time and then some? A. In the rooms?
Q. Yes. A. Yes, we are using all of the space, all of the
rooms.
Q. Would you say that you are underutilized? A. I don’t
think so.
Q. Even though you’re not up to rated capacity? A. Yes.
Q. Just one other question. Mr. Smith, since this is an
William Smith—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1705a
innovative program, if you determined at the end of say
two years that your program was not achieving those results
that you hoped it would, I would assume you as an educator
and principal would want complete freedom then to intro
duce new programs into school at that time, is that correct!
A. I think that, if I found that it wasn’t working, I would
probably drop it, and this is one of the reasons I did write
it up as a program modification, because I can’t E280] prove
it. There are a lot of—there are not a lot, but some people
wanted to tailgate this program and I said I think it’s edu
cationally sound but I want to make sure before anybody
else grabs part of the program because it might not be.
And if I find that it’s not a good educational program, then
I will drop it and try something else.
Q. I’m going to have to retract my statement and ask
you one other question. Did you mention that, so far as
the loading of the buses, that you have them ready at 3:20
and that they are loaded then ? Of course, if the bus doesn’t
happen to be there, then you can’t do that, is that right?
A. Then we’ve got a problem.
Mr. Jackson: No further questions.
The Court: The achievement levels of the minority
children are substantially the same aŝ —
The Witness: Your Honor, I can’t say yes or no
at this point. I don’t have the test scores back yet.
We did test the youngsters in September and I
haven’t received the final test scores back. I don’t
know. But, based upon the two tests that we gave,
the same form test, in September and January, there
was progress on both parts; both Anglo and blacks.
The Court: You said that the two special pro
grams are fully integrated. I would assume from
William Smith—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1706a
that that the same percentages that are persuasive
in the school are present [281] in the special pro
grams !
The Witness: Yes, except in the high potential
lab. We did not purposely balance the labs because
we feel that the labs—that should be based upon
need instead of color. But it so happens that in the
learning labs they are fairly well racially balanced.
In the high potential lab, I think we have, so far as
black youngsters, two or three in the high potential
lab. But we took it strictly on need and not on race.
On just these two programs.
The Court: Thank you very much. You may he
excused.
(Witness excused.)
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, at this point, other
than Dr. O’Reilly, who we plan to put on after the
presentation of the Board’s plans, the plaintiffs have
nothing further to offer at this time.
# * ^ # *
[282] Robert D. Gilberts, a witness called by and on be
half of defendants, having first been duly sworn, was ex
amined and testified as follows:
Direct Examination by Mr. Ris:
Q. State your name and address, please. A. My name is
Robert D. Gilberts, 3921 South Hillcrest Drive, Denver,
Colorado.
Q. And your occupation and profession! A. Superin
tendent of Schools, Denver Public Schools.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1707a
Q. You have previously testified in this case last August!
A. Yes.
Q. And your qualifications at that time have been ade
quately stated! A. I think so.
Q. And you have continued to be Superintendent of
Schools since that date? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you since submitted your resignation to the
Denver School Board? A. I have.
Q. Effective as of what date? A. September 1st, 1970.
Q. And at that time what new position will you assume?
[283] A. Dean of the College of Education, University of
Oregon.
Q. You also have a faculty rank of Professor of Educa
tion? A. Bight.
Q. Dr. Gilberts, shortly after March 21, 1970, were you
furnished with a full copy of the Court’s memorandum
opinion and order of that date? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you given much thought and study to the memo
randum opinion and order? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And have you given particular study to that part of
the memorandum and opinion and order that pertained to
improving equality of education in certain desegregated
schools? A. I have.
Q. In addition to your own personal study, have you also
called on members of your staff? A. Yes, sir, I have; both
central staff and the principals in the schools involved.
Q. Do you have certain staff members at the next echelon
below you who have particularly given this substantial con
sideration? A. Yes, all of the affected departments in the
central [284] offce staff have been involved one way or
another.
Q. And those principal staff members—have they been
in court during this entire hearing yesterday and today
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1708a
pertaining to remedy? A. Most of them. Not all of them.
Q. Will yon state who is here and their positions on your
staff? A. Mr. Howard Johnson, the Deputy Superinten
dent. Dr. Armstrong, Assistant Superintendent for Plan
ning. Mr. Olander, an Assistant Superintendent for Busi
ness Services; Dr. Keppe; Dr. Quincy, Director of Research,
Planning and Budgeting. Mr. Harold Spetzler of the Per
sonnel. Jerry Elledge was here some time ago. Dr. Beal in
Research. There may be—they may have been other mem
bers here from time to time.
Q. All of these individuals have studied the particular
problem at hand? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you conferred with all of these various indi
viduals in—pertaining to the benefits of their advice and
thinking as well? A. Yes, sir.
Q. With respect to the principals of the fifteen schools
designated by the Court in its opinion and order of March
21, 1970, did you have occasion to confer with those indi
viduals? [285] A. Yes, sir. My staff did it at greater length.
As soon as the order was given to us by the Board to meet
this plan, all of these principals were brought in, a review
was made of what our objectives were. They were asked
to submit their proposals, their suggestions. These were
considered in conjunction with other suggestions from other
staff and they were involved.
Q. Now, with respect to the initial meeting of these
principals, each of them were furnished with appropriate
portions of Part 3 of the Court’s memorandum and order?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were they asked to give this some thought and at a
later date submit their own recommendations and sugges
tions? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did these principals proceed accordingly? A. Yes,
they did.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1709a
Q. Did you get a substantial amount of information back
from these individuals on recommendations? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Subsequent to what you have just described with your
own staff members and with the principals of the fifteen
schools involved, did you then proceed to put together a pro
posed plan to be submitted to the Court in this case? A.
Yes, sir, we did.
Q. Was that plan submitted to the Board of Education?
£2863 A. Yes, sir.
Q. And were some modifications or changes—-was the
plan approved by the Board? A. Yes, sir, it was.
Q. Were the attorneys directed to submit that to the
Court? A. Yes, sir.
Q. The plan itself on the Court’s bench has been marked
as Exhibit B-A. Is that the plan which you then prepared,
Dr. Gilberts? A. Yes, sir.
Q. I hand you what’s been marked as Exhibit B-B. Is
that a copy of the resolution of the Board of Education of
Denver School District No. 1 to which we have previously
referred? A. Yes, it is.
Q. Was that resolution adopted on May 6, 1970? A.
Yes, sir.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
Mr. Ris: We offer in evidence Exhibits B-A and
B-B.
Mr. Greiner: No objection, Your Honor.
The Court: It will be received.
(Whereupon, Defendants’ Exhibits B-A and
B-B were received in evidence.)
Q. Dr. Gilberts, were you subsequently—I believe on
Friday last week, which would have been May 9th, I believe
[287] —furnished with a copy of the document entitled
1710a
Plaintiffs’ Memorandum for the Hearing on Relief? A.
Yes, I was.
Q. And within the limited time available, have you
studied that as well? A. Yes, I have.
Q. Have you—have you had members of your adminis
trative staff also review that particular document? And
particularly the portions thereof within their respective
specialties? A. Yes, I have.
Q. Have you been furnished their suggestions and advice?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, with respect to the plans in this particular case,
whether it be Board plans or plaintiffs’ plan, are there cer
tain matters of rationale that you yourself think are of sub
stantial importance that have to be considered as a basic
foundation in evaluating or formulating such a plan? A.
Yes, there are.
Q. With respect to the problem of low achievers among
a group of students, children generally and particularly
from the lower socioeconomic environment, concerning
which there has been considerable testimony here, is that a
problem that is peculiar to Denver? A. No, sir, it is not.
[288] Q. Is it a problem from your own reading, re
search experience in attending meetings and so forth, that
is a very common problem in school districts, particularly
of the larger sizes such as Denver? A. Yes, sir, it is, a
very common problem.
Q. Is it a complex problem? A. Very complex problem.
Q. Can you state some of the causative factors that enter
into this problem of low achievers, particularly on the
basis of the disadvantaged children ? A. Well, there are—
Mr. Greiner: Well, Your Honor, I object. It seems
like that’s a question which the Court has already
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1711a
determined. I don’t think the purpose of this hear
ing is to relitigate those questions.
Mr. Ris: I’m not attempting to relitigate, Tour
Honor. We are trying to get a basic rationale and
foundation, the factors that Dr. Gilberts believes are
of consequence in connection with a ease in which
there is a basis for the plan that he has proposed.
The Court: Overruled. He may answer.
A. Well, there are many different factors that are involved
in the lack of achievement of these youngsters. There are
factors related to causal background, certainly, of influence
on which youngsters relate themselves to the kinds [289]
of formal instructional process as conventionally offered
in our schools. The problem of communication. A good
many of these youngsters come from homes that are not
verbal. The kinds of opportunities they have to prepare
themselves to move into a verbally word-oriented instructed
program is certainly a factor. The kinds of experience that
these youngsters are provided with would have a great
deal of influence in terms with their readiness to recognize
some of the formal reading aspects. The matter of disci
pline—self-discipline in the classroom and in that kind of
instructional setting is a major problem. There is the
problem of health in some cases; youngsters not having
had adequate nutrition over long periods of time which
certainly has a great deal of influence over an individual’s
ability to learn. Dietary problems. Just generally health
problems. Broken homes. Lack of parental interest. x\ll
of these factors certainly contribute to the problem. These
are reinforced in many cases, not only by the home but by
the community as well.
Q. Are you aware of the fact that there have been many
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1712a
studies made of this particular problem! A. Yes, there
have.
Q. And the thousands of people that have participated in
these studies? A. Yes.
[290] Q. By whom have these studies been carried out
over a period of time? A. Well, there certainly has been
many, many studies carried out by colleges; universities;
regional laboratories established by federal offices; other
studies sponsored by the U.S. Office of Education; founda
tions; local school systems. I happen to belong to one of
the larger cities of the country, the Great Cities Research
Council. There have been many, many articles written and
many, many research studies reported by them.
Q. Has any one person or any one group of persons or
any one institution come up with a single answer to this
complex problem? A. I’m not aware of any single answer
to the problem that has been accepted widely in the field.
There are those who feel very strongly that they have, as
individuals, but as far as the field is concerned and I meet
with superintendents from larger urban cities at least twice
a year, and I’m not aware of any.
Q. Doctor, you heard the testimony today and yesterday
concerning the plaintiffs’ plan for proposed desegregation
by mandatory cross-transportation as the first step. Now,
based upon your study of that plan and the evidence you
have heard here and based upon your own education and
your own experience and your own knowledge of the Denver
Public School [2913 system, its pupils, its teachers, its staff,
and all of the factors that must be taken into consideration
here, do you have an opinion as to whether desegregation
as proposed by the plaintiffs is an absolute and necessary
first step? A. I see no evidence that would lead me to be
lieve that this is an absolute truth. The fact is, if this is a
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1713a
truth, then all the major cities in this country are beyond
help. Certainly there have to be other ways of approaching
the problems of educational deficiencies, because it is going
to be a long time before integration as such can be applied
in most of the major cities of this country. New York,
Philadelphia, and other cities such as this.
Q. Are there other cities that are worse off educationally
than Denver? A. I believe so.
Mr. Greiner: Objection, Your Honor. I believe we
are concerned with the problems of Denver; not the
problems of New York City.
The Court: Well, he is simply saying that—he’s
talking about the magnitude of the problem. He’s
just using it in that context. Clearly, we’re not going
to try to solve the problems of Philadelphia and New
York.
Mr. Bis: I don’t intend to.
The Court: Probably not solve the problems of
Denver, either, but we’re going to do our best.
[2921 Q. Based upon your general background and ed
ucation and experience and your knowledge of the Denver
situation, including its local economy, the sociological fac
tors present here in the schools, political and educational
background of the pupils, what is the first and foremost
change which might be made, in your opinion? A. I agree
with Dr. Sullivan’s comments that, if a—that some massive
changes are necessary in an-—in the entire form of educa
tion. I don’t know if I would agree in terms of types of
changes that he suggested, such as educational parks, but
it seems to me, as I have looked at this city as a large in
stitution, one of the first and foremost changes to recon
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1714a
struct the educational climate which is not going to be an
easy task because this involves changing of attitudes and
values and practices on the part of professional staff—•
certainly on the part of our students, on the part of the
community, parents, and all of those who have some input
into the educational process. Now, I think it’s absolutely
essential, changing this kind of climate at this time and I ’m
talking about those inputs, parents, community, et cetera,
a positive kind of supported influence and supported pos
ture with respect to the changes that are going on in the
schools. In addition, of course, to changing that climate,
which is, in and of itself, a very complex thing, and I ’ll talk
about some of the things later on as I talk about the plan
that I [2933 think will go together to assist in that process.
It is necessary, of course, for us to look at new ways of
approaching program differences; new ways of motivating
youngsters in terms of the curricula itself. Again, we will
talk about some of those changes. And I know that two of
the principals here who have made some of these kinds of
changes in the schools will talk about them, as well.
Q. Basically, so far as changing understandings and at
titudes, is that more qualitative rather than quantitative?
A. Yes, it is predominantly a qualitative change. However,
I think it can be influenced significantly by some quanti
tative changes in which we operate.
Q. Can you break this change in attitudes down, item by
item? You mentioned pupils; faculty; and community gen
erally ; parents and other members of the community. Will
you give us just briefly what you have in mind with respect
to pupils? A. Well, I think that probably the most sig
nificant factor in terms of pupils’ attitudes are going to be
—to get at first as early as possible the kinds of motivations
that are provided by the home, the family. We have begun
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1715a
working on preschool programs, edncational programs de
signed for youngsters prior to the common age of entrance
in our kindergartens. These programs are designed to work
with parents in helping those parents assume a more posi
tive role in terms of their youngsters’ education. So this is
one [294] element of changing the pupils’ attitudes.
Q. Does your plan—part of your plan—is it intended
to effectuate such changes? A. Yes.
Q. At pupil level? A. Yes, I didn’t quite finish.
Q. Beg your pardon. Go ahead. A. It seems to me that
another very important element is the format of the educa
tional process itself. The question of relevancy of course
is being raised by youth all across this country, at the col
lege level recently, of course, in a very obvious way. The
same thing occurs throughout our schools—throughout the
entire City of Denver, as well. And I believe that there
are some significant changes in the kinds of option that
youngsters should be provided once the formal educational
process begins, and we have in this plan, I think, identified
some of the elements that should make a difference over a
time in this direction.
Q. Now, can you proceed on, and in terms at this point
discuss the matter of changes and changing of attitudes,
understanding, as to staff and faculty? A. Well, this is go
ing to be probably just as difficult a task in that professional
educators have a great deal invested in current practice,
and it’s going to involve some rather substantial changes
in the way in which we organize and E295] operate our
schools; the roles that the professionals play in that proc
ess. It will have to be supported by some extremely well-
defined in-service education programs which will allow
those individuals to modify their behavior in these new
Robert I). Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1716a
kinds of roles and new kinds of situations. I think that
the entire matter of government, however, how decisions
are made—the kinds of opportunities that the professional
has to input at the local level where the problem is ex
tremely important and in living, and that solution can be
implemented and ultimately will effect a change in the way
in which the institution relates to children.
Q. With respect to teachers, is there any objective—
The Court: I ’d like to clarify something. I’m not
sure that I understand what he’s saying. When he
talks about the kinds of opportunities—I suppose
you mean the administrator has in carrying out a
program? Is that what you’re saying?
The Witness: I ’m talking about the opportunity
of the entire professional team—the opportunity that
it has which includes the teachers as well as the
administrators. I see the need for sufficient differ
entiation in the process of education so that the
professional is being used as a professional. Let me
give you an example, Your Honor, to make it a
little more clearer.
In the process of reading we assume that the—that
[296] most of the activities that are necessary for a
child to read are to be conducted by a professional
teacher. One of those activities is certainly the read
ing to a youngster to motivate that youngster to be
come interested in the process of reading. Also, to
give him experience with words, with somebody else
using the words. I believe that that process does
not necessarily require the talents of a college grad
uate. I think designing a program certainly does;
that some element of that may be there. But that
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1717a
might very well be handled by somebody with less
than professional training. An education by and
large—we have used up a good bit of the professional
talents of our teachers in some rather mundane
functions in education, as I see it, leaving very little
t i m e for the professional planning and evaluation.
The opportunity for professional teachers to deal
individually with the youngsters, looking at their
difficulties and trying to tailormake a program for
them. So what I ’m talking about is—it’s creating an
attitude change by allowing the professional to func
tion more professionally in the setting.
Q. Now, as to the teachers themselves, are there any
reorganization or any changes of planning and so forth—
are there any problems that exist in the Denver Public
Schools system that would have to be anticipated and con
sidered? I’m thinking of seniority and so forth. A. Yes,
we do have a relationship with our teachers in [297]
which we are hopefully beginning at least to share some of
the decision-making in our school system. We have nego
tiated with our teachers, making some decisions through
that process. We also have a professional counsel in which
we talk about any subject in our school system that is of
interest to each of us. And certainly the teachers as a
professional organization have a role to play in that proc
ess.
Q. And as a matter of fact, even though the Court may
note the record—the DCTA is the Denver Classroom
Teacher Association? A. Yes.
Q. And that is an independent organization? A. Yes,
and it is the elected representative organization of the Den
ver teachers.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1718a
Q. In fact, during this present school year they went on
strike for the first time in Denver Public Schools, is that
correct? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, with regard to community acceptance, we have
already had considerable testimony here, particularly by
Dr. Sullivan, the community acceptance, change of attitudes
and understanding of the community is important. Can you
elaborate on this as that applies to the Denver Public
Schools system? One, as to parents who are being affected
by any changes and, two, by the community in general;
non-parents. [2983 A. I believe I mentioned the necessity
of the support of the parents in order to assist youngsters
to be receptive of the educational process. Throughout my
twenty years of experience as a superintendent it has be
come pretty obvious that, without the support of the com
munity parents involved, it’s very difficult to make pro
grams function well, whatever that program. Consequently,
that understanding and that support is necessary, no mat
ter what the change necessary is in terms of operation of
our schools. A second very critical error is the need for
understanding and supporting the fact that we rely upon
the community’s acceptance of what we do and how we
function, and the financing of our schools. Without funds
there is very little that we can do. Consequently, we are
heavily dependent in this area in terms of bringing people
along so they accept the kind of programs that we propose
and are willing to support them financially.
Q. And is it this type of support that is very often re
ferred to as political considerations in the operation of an
administration of the school district? A. Yes.
Q. We have had several definitions during the course of
this trial as to desegregation, particularly as compared to
integration. Are you aware of that differentiation? A.
Yes.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1719a
Q. Just so that there is no misunderstanding, we have
[299] been referring to desegregation as a mere transfer
of students; integration being psychological, emotional,
philosophical acceptance. Now, keeping those two things
in mind, insofar as attempting to desegregate or attempt
ing to integrate, is there a substantial difference in what
can be forced or not, in your opinion? A. Yes, certainly.
Desegregation can be accomplished by fiat.
Q. What about integration? A. I think integration is a
voluntary process of change in which—one, in which peo
ple reserve unto themselves—and I don’t know how anyone
can accomplish this except through the process of convinc
ing people of its importance; of the necessity of their
accepting this as a goal.
Q. Do you know of any plan that has been created by
anyone in the country that can be used to be brought into
a system such as Denver and put into operation on a me
chanical basis that would take care of any of the equality
of education of the achievement results that exist in some
of our schools? A. Each city and each school system has
a personality with individual characteristics of its own,
and these have got to be considered on that basis.
Q. And have you considered the Denver situation ex
pressly in arriving at your proposed solution? A. Yes, we
have.
£3003 Q. Now, your particular plan has been broken up
into several parts, is that correct, Dr. Gilberts? A. Yes,
it has.
Q. The introduction is more or less a summary, is it not?
A. Yes.
Q. And the first major item is that of voluntary open
enrollment, is that correct? A. Eight.
Q. Now, during the previous hearing we have had con
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1720a
siderable testimony concerning the YOE, so we don’t have
to go into the details of it except that I wish yon would
summarize what is proposed in this particular plan with
respect to voluntary open enrollment, which is an extension
of what has been done in the past and how you think it will
affect the situation generally, particularly with the educa
tional opportunity. A. Well, it is really an extension of
the previous plan which is the current voluntary open en
rollment plan with the further provision of this element of
it, that we would effectively guarantee space for any young
ster who would like to attend school somewhere else in the
city where the racial composition would be improved. We
have, of course, before provided transportation for those
youngsters under the other plan but substantially—the sub
stantial difference [3013 here is that we are guaranteeing
space for these youngsters.
Q. And again, is the integrating effect of the VOE a
continuing qualification of the plan? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that is one of the intents of the plan? A. Yes.
Q. Again, without going into all of the detail, do the
matters contained in Exhibit V-A under the caption of Plan
for Raising Educational Achievements—is this substan
tially set forth, do you think, in planning in that regard?
A. I’m sorry. I ’m not sure I understand.
Q. Does that part of Exhibit V-A under the caption of
Plan for Raising Educational Achievements substantially
set forth the overall plan for the voluntary open enrollment
and the expansion of it as you just detailed? A. Yes, it
does.
Q. Is the guarantee of space, so far as the plan has been
projected to this date, is that related to the fifteen schools
designated in the school designations by the Court? A.
Yes.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1721a
Q. Now, the next major item that you have taken up in
the plan—that is a differential staffing- and we have not had
a great deal of testimony on it, but I wish you would de
scribe what is meant in this context by the phrase differen
tial staffing. [302] A. I t’s difficult to talk about differenti
ated staffing without really examining at the same time the
kinds of modifications that would occur in the program
which would be reflected in differentiated staffing. You
cannot talk about differentiated staffing in a vacuum. It is
merely a reflection of how one best deals with the educa
tional task; defined by a given educational program, utiliz
ing the concepts that I just discussed with the judge. It
seems to me that an education—we have done a very poor
job of examining carefully the elements of the educational
task. Recently some new approaches to this particular prob
lem have been taken in terms of planning, and budgeting
systems and systems analysis and I’m sure there are other
approaches to the problem as well, where we very carefully
—as carefully as possible define what our behavior and the
other objectives might be in our educational program and
then very carefully look at what kinds of steps need to be
designed to see that those goals are achieved and then
break those steps down in some way of distributing the re
sponsibility based upon the ldnds of competencies that are
necessary. Now, there are a number of differentiative staff
plans around the city. By and large, they have not been de
veloped on this basis. There are some that have been. But
I think, as we develop our skill in examining the educational
task and as we look at how we might redistribute the talents,
the abilities, the competencies, we [303] will be able to
identify effective systems of differentiating our staff. I
think the differentiated staff has a major implication for
both the instructional process, that is, what we teach kids
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1722a
and how we teach them, as well as providing an extremely
important motivational influence and opportunity for pro
motion and opportunity for input at a higher professional
level for our teachers. We have an example of this—By
the way, back in 159, where there is a field-tested differen
tiated staff program which has been operating I think about
three or four or five years in Wisconsin—it began when I
was there at Madison. The program was operated at James-
ville, Beloit. I was familiar with the Madison problems
and personally familiar with the Jamesville plan, which is
the beginning of looking at the problem of differentiated
staffing.
Q. So this innovation of differentiated staffing or exami
nation, I should say, is not peculiar to Denver! A. No.
Q. And is it being generally accepted in other school
districts! A. Two weeks ago at the largest superinten
dents’ meet in Vancouver, we were looking at the major
trends in terms of educational change today and differenti
ated staffing was one of the early major ones. Early child
hood changes as the second one. This is one of the major
topics at least among those superintendents that were there.
[304] Q. Is there contemplated that this will have an
effect on increasing the achievement levels of children, par
ticularly in disadvantaged areas? A. We believe so.
Q. Now, continuing on with this portion of the plan per
taining to staffing, could you tell what you contemplate the
plan to provide with respect to personnel assignment pro
cedures? A. Well, you’re talking about Page 6 now,—is
this the item you’re talking about?
Q. Page 53. A. In this section of the plan we discuss a
number of activities that we think will be important in
identifying people to teach in schools in the areas that are
affected by this plan. We talk about elements of an in
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1723a
service program that we feel will be important in preparing
them for service in this area of the city. And essentially
limited to that.
Q. Is it part of the plan, also—does it also include as
signment of teachers to bring about significantly more inte
gration throughout the system? A. We have been moving
on the process of increasing integration through our staff
throughout the city—the entire city.
Q. And this is nothing new? I mean, this is a continua
tion [3053 of what you have been doing? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, with respect to increasing experience of teachers
in the disadvantaged schools and to provide for more sta
bility of—the less mobility of those teachers, what is your
plan? A. I feel that the concept of differentiated staffing
has some implications if we begin to process in these schools
in terms of attracting people with ability, and talent. I be
lieve also that providing the necessary planning time for
those kinds of programs and paying teachers for the time
will also have an effect on that process. Under the staff
stabilization part of the plan we talk about incentives that
really provide as much—much more for the necessity of
planning educational programs as attracting teachers. Both
of these are important elements. But we feel that, given the
opportunity to use these teachers who would have an inter
est in working in this kind of setting, and allowing for the
changes that we describe in other parts of this plan, we will
be able to attract the most competent teachers that we have
into these programs.
Q. And for the additional planning time that would be
required for these teachers, you tell us you do provide for
additional compensation? A. Yes, sir.
[306] Q. How is that contemplated to be handled? A.
On a pro rata basis, on the regular salary for an extended
four weeks, I believe it was.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1724a
Q. Would that be four weeks during the summer? A.
Four weeks during probably the month of August prior
to the opening of school.
Q. Now, again, there is substantially more detail in that
portion of your plan under general—the general designa
tion of staffing that goes in more detail, is that correct? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Now, the next portion or the next section of the plan
pertains to improved in-service training for staff and—
Would you please elaborate on that, if you will? A. Well,
if we’re going to make some of the changes that are neces
sary in education that I have alluded to previously, it’s go
ing to be necessary to help teachers make the kind of ac
commodations that are necessary to these changes in edu
cational programs. We have listed on Page 169 a number
of activities that have already been conducted in the schools.
Some fourteen different kinds of in-service training pro
grams that are indicated there. We talk about the extension
of these kinds of programs, plus the identity of other in-
service programs relevant to the instructional process; rele
vant to attitudes and values held by our teachers and their
ability [3073 to relate to their students. We have talked
about the utilization of the black educators and the Hispano
educators to assist us in this process. We feel that the fif
teen schools have problems which can be best ameliorated
by the principal and staffing planning and that action at the
local level, we intend to allocate moneys in our budgets for
this process, and that in-service planning is really a part
of the in-service process.
Q. An illustration of individual school planning such as
Mr. Smith testified to today at Barrett? A. Yes, but ex
tended much beyond what he was able to do with the re
sources we gave him.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1725a
Q. But you have a planning on a local level with respect
to the fifteen schools? A. Bight.
Q. And which would he geared to their particular prob
lems in this subdistrict? A. Yes.
Q. And you contemplate increasing budgets toward those
schools and for that purpose? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is there anything else now on this in-service program
that you would like to highlight? A. I think the planning
element is probably one of the most significant, and into
that planning process obviously [308] there would have to
be input, the special knowledge and special talents for the
preparation of these teachers.
Q. Dr. Gilberts, if you were to go into the entire detailed
planning for in-service training, would it be practicable to
do so and put it in this particular plan you submit to the
Court? A. Yes, sir, because a good bit of what will prob
ably be necessary in this area is in the process of develop
ment in a number of places in the country. There is a great
deal of local planning involving people who are going to be
affected by it that will be necessary. And this is something
that will need to be worked out by not only other experts in
the area but our own staff who will be involved in the
process.
Q. And this takes time? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And development as it goes along? A. Bight.
Q. So could it be spelled out by book, chapter and page
insofar as this present plan is concerned, in detail, item by
item? A. Certainly not in the time limits we have.
Q. Now, with respect to the next portion, the school com
plex concept—
The Court: Before we come to that, I think it
might be well to elaborate on the actual curriculum or
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants-—Direct
1726a
changes [309] that are contemplated. I ’m sure that
you couldn’t delineate all of them hut what do you
know now about possible programs? You said you
were going to extend the length of service for the
teachers involved. Would you also, for example, ex
tend the school year for some students?
The Witness: Yes, sir. We do propose in here
the extension of our summer school programs offer
ing that opportunity to the students.
The Court: That would be a thirty-day period
before school starts?
The Witness: Not necessarily. The summer school
program for youngsters might be a later June
through early August program. The timing has not
been decided. This is our conventional summer school
period. And I would assume that it might fall in
that time, but it might not. It might be found advis
able by the staffs to have this immediately preceding
school. That’s not been decided.
The Court: What kind of special courses are pre
scribed in connection with this kind of problem?
What is the thinking of educators on this?
The Witness: At the present moment I think that
probably one of the most significant areas in wdiich
we can proscribe some educational opportunities
would probably exist at the preschool area. I was
just—I have just received this week a communication
here which is an educators’ dispatch [310] to ad
ministrators in which they review a number of ideas
that are presently relevant, I think, on education.
For example, it says if you are wondering what pre-
school children are teaching cognizant psychologists
today, you might find the following items interesting:
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1727a
“One, the children of the poor often fail to suc
ceed in school not because of genetic . . . but be
cause they lack the right kinds of sensory stimula
tion in the early years.
“Two, traditional tests . .
Well, in the area of developing programs for pre
school youngsters involving parents and so on, I
think this is probably a very significant area in get
ting at some of the early deficiencies of these young
sters. Precisely how those would be designed and
how they would be operating, I really don’t know. I
don’t consider myself an expert as such in that area,
but we do have and have had for the last year and a
half or so people who have been working on pro
grams in that area and we have begun to pilot test
those programs.
The Court: These then would work on the basis of
the Head Start programs, only they would be more
elaborate, I suppose?
The Witness: Well, I think they would probably be
somewhat different than the Head Start programs
in that we would be organized for a much more
specific objective and at £3113 least what I observed
in Head Start programs having been organized for—
The Court: Well, I suppose they would seek, how
ever, to compensate for the lack of innate knowledge,
so to speak, that the child has?
The Witness: Yes, sir. Now, then, I could go on
through the entire curriculum and talk about all
kinds of specific innovative programs, but I think
you will hear Mr. Ward later talk about some things
I consider to be particularly exciting in that school.
1 believe that the programs that he and his staff have
Robert D. Gilberts-—for Defendants—Direct
1728a
designed in that school to be some of the most excit
ing, disregarding the fact that the school is black;
exciting ideas in edncation that I have seen anywhere
in this country. I think they have tremendous poten
tial for Manual and for other schools, as well, prob
ably. I think that you heard Mr. Smith, of course,
talk about some of the ideas he has. Mr. Morrison
will talk about some things that are being done at the
junior high school level. The whole area of educa
tional program modification in the elementary schools
is a very complex one. We have some programs
identified in here that deal with bilingual education,
which we are having some very good results with.
The people, the staff, are quite enthusiastic about
the results. Mrs. Polvida (phonetic spelling), who
is in one of our elementary schools, has an approach
to teaching [312] youngsters coming from Hispano
backgrounds, which was reported to the Board a week
or two ago, and again, it’s difficult to describe these
programs without being there and feeling and seeing
what goes on, but all of these kinds of ideas I believe
have some tremendous implications for really sub
stantive changes in the process of education. By and
large, as one looks around the country and reads
reviews of what has been conventionally identified
as compensatory education programs, I call them
coping programs. They really have not gotten at
some of the fundamental issues that are obvious in
dealing with members of some of our minority
groups.
Today there are some new programs that are com
ing about that I think are a good deal more imagina
tive and really deal more precisely with the problem.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1729a
The old compensatory programs were largely more
of the same. We just did more of our reading pro
gram; more of our mathematics. But the format in
which this is presented, the climate that is created in
the instructional setting was not effectively changed,
and I think that climate is a tremendously important
factor in learning, obviously.
By Mr. R is :
Q. Well, skipping over to the section of early childhood,
is it more detailed as to what has been done and what it
proposes with respect to the youngsters at the elementary
disadvantaged schools? A. Yes.
[3131 Q. Is there anything more you wish to add to that
particular section at this point, Dr. Gilberts? A. I don’t
really think so. I think I presented some of the things we
would like to do in these programs that are in the process
of development. I think they are going to have to have
significant contributions to be made.
Q. Now, going then to the school complex concept, would
you state what you contemplate in that and what effect it
would have on the particular disadvantaged youngsters?
A. Well, the idea of the complex has very broad implica
tions, I believe. I have been superintendent of schools now
in the school system with some 32 teachers, one with some
1,500 teachers, and a corresponding number of youngsters,
and it has become quite apparent to me that the larger the
institution becomes the more inflexible and immobile it is,
that I believe from an operational or a government point
of view in terms of both the way in which it affects the
educational program and the way in which it relates to the
community which will have to support new forms, new
systems of organization and operation that have to be iden-
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1730a
tilled. There have been a number of them proposed around
the country. The complex idea has been tried in slightly
different forms in different school systems. But, basically
what we’re trying to do through the complex is, first of all,
decentralize the decision-making process so that the [3143
principals and teachers and community that are affected
by those programs have some immediate and direct input
into that process which I think is going to be very im
portant in terms of the kinds of qualitative—again, inter
relationships—that occur in that setting. The second por
tion or—another portion of this is how do we identify in
addition to having to decentralize decision-making regula
tions with professional staff, and how do we involve them
more effectively and how do we involve the community,
and I mentioned, in addition—in the process of relating
to the schools and institutions, hopefully improved com
munications between home and the school. This is certainly
one of the major problems, especially in a large school
system.
A third thing that we are trying to do within the complex
is to find new ways of organizing and supporting services
and special education programs for the youngsters that
are contained within those complexes and this, of course,
could cover an extremely wide range of programs from
diagnostic services for youngsters with learning difficulties
to cultural arts programs to student exchange programs.
Well, we have not defined precisely the entire range of
potential in this area. We have been planning during this
year and before the year is out we hope to have identified
through that planning process precisely what will be done
in the complex. It does indicate where we are at this
particular time. We hope to [315] involve effectively—
more effectively the agencies that have input into the learn
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1731a
ing process, into the families that live in these areas where
the complexes exist. Somehow to coordinate the services
provided by welfare agencies and other agencies that pres
ently are not coordinated in any effective way. I think
that in the description of this portion of the plan it talks
about, other things which I don’t know if you want me to
go through point by point or—■
Q. Well, if von have the basic portions, in the interest
of time, I think we’ll move on to the next portion.
The Court: I think what wTe ought to hear from
you as to what you would contemplate that the local
school would contribute and what this complex would
contribute, in general at least.
The Witness: I think that, in a general way—I am
not proposing that the complex remove from the
local school the opportunity of program changes
such as will be reported later here today. I think
that sort of opportunity for internal changes within
the local schools is certainly—certainly still has to
exist. The complex does not replace that function.
But in the complex there are a number of things,
some of which I did allude to, and on Page 67 there
are listed some advantages of the complex that we
think can supplement what can be done in the local
schools.
Q. What page, Dr. Gilberts? [316] A. Page 76. The first
of these is that there are obviously potential patterns of
pupil assignment for the total complex and to encourage
multiethnic education within the expanded school neighbor
hood. The utilization of present school facilities in such a
manner as to provide maximum educational benefits with
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1732a
minimum cost. Unlike the educational park concept which
would require the abandonment of the present school plan
—and effectively utilizes most existing facilities in which
the taxpayers have a large investment. Decentralization
again of the administrative organization involvement—
outstanding opportunities for economically providing sup
porting services to the individual schools.
Increased availability of staff and service personnel by
minimizing the—
Q. Now, this particular concept then—the children would
spend some portion of their time in the neighborhood
school and some time in the complex? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And in a complex, of course, they would then meet
in classes and other activities with children, from other
schools that were also in the complex? A. Those are possi
bilities, yes.
Q. When you refer to multiethnic education, there would
be at least a mixing that would lead to some change in
understanding and attitudes, as you discussed previously?
[317] A. Yes, I would certainly hope that opportunity
would be provided.
The Court: I still don’t know what they will be
studying in this center. Are they going to study
science? Are they going to study art, music? We
have been given to understand that these are going
to be cultural expeditions which don’t have any sub
stance, and I think you ought to clarify that; if it
does mean more than that. I mean, are they just
going to take a trek out to look at some paintings,
you know? Is that one thing? If you have science
laboratories or something of that sort, where they
can take chemistry or biology or physics, why, that
would be another thing.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1733a
The Witness: These are all possibilities, Your
Honor, but they have not been decided specifically
for each of these. One of, we think, the important
elements of the development of the complex is the
involvement of the professional staff and the com
munity in that process and they have not quite
reached the point where they have identified the
specific kinds of activities that will occur in these
complexes. It could include all of the things that
you mentioned. It could include things that may be
—that maybe neither of us have even conceived at
this particular time.
The Court: Well, then, I take it that this is sort
of an untried method?
The Witness: Yes, sir. I think that it is.
[3183 The Court: I t’s just not had very much
experience.
The Witness: That’s true. There has not. There
are a number of school systems that are taking this
concept, applying it slightly different, and Minne
apolis is using it, a proposal was made in San Fran
cisco for the use of it, and this is a—there is a com
plex in operation at the present moment differently
conceived in Chicago. There is a complex or two in
Los Angeles. Now, each of these has slightly dif
ferent elements. But the basic purposes of the com
plex are the same. Oklahoma City, I think, has at
least—I think temporarily adopted a desegregation
plan which embodies this approach and this objective.
By Mr. Ris:
Q. Now, in this complex, Doctor, just to expand a bit
more, each of your neighborhood schools would have its
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1734a
own staff, its own principals and so forth, is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And then would there be a so-called super-principal
or whatever you designate him to be or a senior principal
over the entire complex? A. I think at the present moment
the proposal—or at least what their thinking is about a
coordinating principal would have the responsibility for
coordinating the—certain elements of the program in the
complex. That has not been decided, but there would be
somebody with that responsibility.
[319] Q. Well, this program is probably set out more
in detail in your large document, planning equality educa
tion, is it not? A. Yes, I think it was in a little more detail.
Mr. Greiner: Well, I object, Your Honor. Pardon
me, Dr. Gilberts. I object. I don’t believe the Board
is saying that they are presenting Defendants’ Ex
hibit—I think it’s Exhibit E, Planning Equality Edu
cation, as a portion of their plan. I think that’s Plan
B-A as instituted.
Mr. B is: That wasn’t the question.
The Court: He says that some particular matter
here has presented some detail in Exhibit D. That
was the question.
Mr. B is: That was the question. That’s the whole
point, Your Honor. Being that, if each one of these
subsections was elaborated with every bit of detail,
why, we would have volume after volume and not
merely one volume that has been filed with the Court;
just as a practical matter, you can’t have every bit
of detail—
The Court: I have no doubt that it is in more
detail, Exhibit D. That’s all he asks.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1735a
Q. So then, with respect to this decentralized planning
that you have previously mentioned, you’re not speaking
of decentralizing—a decentralized plan such as—or, local
hoards of education such as in New York City and Brook
lyn and so forth, are you? [3201 A. No, sir.
Q. And decentralized planning in your complex and the
various principals and your super-principal or whatever
you’re going to call him, and the teachers there, and to
evaluate what is necessary or desirable for this particular
community? A. Yes, together with community representa
tion from each of the schools in the complex as wTell.
Q. By community representation, you mean parents or
other members of the community? A. Yes.
Q, So, rather than bureaucratic directives from Wash
ington, that you shall do this and do that, you have the
availability of the complex and the general plan and the
details implemented by the local individuals to satisfy the
local needs? A. Yes, sir.
The Court: Now, what’s the main objective here?
To have more economic use of central facilities and
central equipment? I mean, that you can’t afford to
duplicate in every school!
The Witness: I wouldn’t say that’s the main pur
pose, sir, but that’s one of the purposes that will
provide that. So far as I ’m concerned, the main
purpose is to get the schools in the local areas ac
tively engaged in the process of evaluating their
educational needs and designing programs that
[3211 they feel will meet these needs. I feel that
process needs to involve the teachers and the princi
pals in the communities within smaller areas than
a total city. There are tremendous differences in a
city this size to try to deal on some grand scale with
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1736a
all of the difficulties in the large city that we have—
that it has led us inevitably to the bureaucratic ap
proach, standard applications of solutions. And that
is not going to solve our problems.
The Court: Nor is its objective to bring about
integration. Right ?
The Witness: I believe that it will contribute to
that.
The Court: Well, it’s a by-product.
The Witness: Yes, sir, that’s a part of it. That’s
another one of the elements. But it’s not the ele
ment, it’s one of the elements.
The Court: But I think that its real value is that
it furnishes a local administrative—
The Witness: I think that’s probably—
The Court: —influence.
The Witness: —in my mind, the primary im
portance of it. And I feel that, coming out of that
kind of a setting we’re going to have better decisions
with respect to educational programming.
By Mr. R is:
Q. With respect to that part of the [322] plan pertain
ing to special programs at Cole or Manual, do you care
to discuss that or yield to the principals? A. I would pre
fer to have them do it.
Q. Now, with regard to special programs available under
the Educational Achievement Act of Colorado, Senate Bill
174, can you tell us generally what that is all about? A.
A year ago the State Legislature passed a bill, No. 174,
which provided additional funds for schools in the state
to develop exemplary programs for the improvement of
education. The programs that are listed in this document
are those programs that have been approved under that
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1737a
bill. These programs are also programs that were presented
to the Senate by onr staff in support of continuing the
provision of those funds, and I think were largely responsi
ble for the continuance of that support. These programs
are Fairview Elementary School, Baker, Cole Junior High
School. At Cole, at least, I assume that Mr. Morrison will
talk about that. Here at Fairview School in conjunction
with personnel of the Elementary Department, they have
developed a reading program that has been designed to
capitalize in on the talents of both the teachers and pupils
in the fields of science, arts, mechanics, sewing, Spanish
language, cultural and oral communication. The program
is an interest-motivated approach to improvement of edu
cational achievement and assistance for youngsters in
Grades 2 through 6, with emphasis on individualized
[323] reading instruction. Now, the program sets aside
ten classrooms as resource rooms or learning—with a
wide variety of supplementary materials and equipment
available for teacher and pupil use. It goes on to describe
this program which meets in the morning for all pupils
and Grades 2—
It is too early as yet to judge what the results are go
ing to be but those who are involved in the program are
quite enthusiastic. At Baker the bilingual program is in
volving the youngsters that—well, 85 percent of the Baker
pupils are Hispano and 15 percent of these are bilingual.
Sixty-seven percent read two or more years below their
expectancy and this program is capitalizing upon the bi
lingual aspects of the backgrounds of these youngsters
to again motivate them for better learning in their schools.
These programs again are reported by those schools, the
teachers, as being quite successful in motivating youngsters
and a report was made to the Board here a week or two
ago in which all the teachers were involved.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1738a
Q. Do these results—are they used in connection with
the other schools where similar problems exist 1 A. Yes.
We will build into each of these programs an evaluation
system which in time certainly wull help us identify whether
or not they have implications for better education. As
we learn whether they do or not, we either will be dropping
them or expanding them into other schools [324] where we
think they have some relevancy.
Q. So it is at Fairview, for example—-is that a test site
then for good reading at the elementary level ? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. A pilot plan, so to speak? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And of which the favorable aspects of it then will
be used elsewhere? A. Right.
Q. Is this a constant thing that is going on in the school
system such as Denver? A. Yes, sir. There are many,
many programs going on that are being evaluated and, if
they appear to have value, they will be expanded or recom
mended for expansion in other schools.
Q. Is there anything else now under the Senate Bill 174
that you would like to emphasize? A. Well, the Baker
and Cole program, assisting disadvantaged youths to im
prove their educational achievement, is a program which
is again individualized working very closely with youngsters
who have problems of accommodating to the school, the
way in which it functions. We provide what is called crisis
rooms where youngsters that have difficulties in school need
to cool off some place and go and get assistance—the as
sistance they need academically or emotionally. We [3253
have a couple of educational laboratories, a couple of ex
tension centers, one for each school, where youngsters can
have an aducational experience, not necessarily within the
school itself, but in another location. And again, I think
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1739a
that probably in the ease of Cole, Principal Morrison will
be able to describe it in more detail than I could.
Q. Now, the last section in the plan is entitled Instruc
tional Guidelines—Innovative Practices. Will you please
describe what is in this portion of the report? A. Well,
these—these are a number of programs, some of which
have been in practice for a while, where we have gotten
some experience and have had some evaluation. Evaluation
with others were very early in the planning stage and—
the first one was a program from which was—which was
financed under Title I, cultural understanding, where
youngsters from various areas of the city were brought
together in a program dealing with a number of different
cultural arts such as drama, music, general arts, and so
on, in an integrated setting. These programs have been
in operation I believe now—probably three and a half
years.
Q. Is that at the sixth-grade level? A. Yes.
Q. And is it contemplated to expand that? A. Yes, I
think so. I think the program has been successful and
should be expanded for all youngsters in the [326] school
system. The metropolitan exchange program which is—
which we have not really placed as much effort on as we
would like, but by and large, programs that have been
either developed locally within our schools or in suburban
schools in which we have exchange students for differing
periods of time.
Q. This is with other districts surrounding Denver? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Is that still in the embryonic stage, so to speak? A.
Yes, due to a number of activities this year, we have not
promoted it as much as we would like to. I think it has
a great deal of potential here if we have the opportunity
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1740a
to really begin pursuing it. This could be along the lines
that Dr. Sullivan indicated in the Boston area or other
kinds of exchange programs.
Q. Are the nature of the political setups as between dis
tricts—has that been done by agreement with each district
in each case? A. Yes, sir. The outdoor education center
on which is commonly called Ballerette—I believe that
provides us an opportunity to really get at some rather
significant changes in the process of education. This center
is not purely a natural-science laboratory. I t is an op
portunity, I believe, for a multidisciplinary approach to
education in a setting where youngsters can have practical
experiences, [327] where we can provide for integration
on a work-oriented basis. We see this as providing op
portunity in vocational education. We plan to take some
of the program elements out of the Outward Bound which
we feel will have many implications for this site, and I
think is probably another one of the most significant kinds
of programs that we have identified. A great deal of work
is left to be done in developing this program as well.
Q. Is this a phase of this, Dr. Gilberts, that you think
will have a significant effect on the children who attend
to give it an environment in the circumstances under which
they are living for the time being to get the understanding
and change of attitude that lend toward integration? A.
Yes, I would think the programs we develop in this center
should be of significant importance in promoting integra
tion.
Q. Is that one of the objectives? A. Yes. We have al
ready talked about expanded summer school programs. We
certainly feel that an expansion in many areas is necessary
here dealing with basic skills, innovative programs, and
cultural arts, recreation, job training, work experience, such
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1741a
things as that. We have an after-school program which is
presently financed with federal funds. The Denver Public
Schools open art centers which were planned to attract
cross-cultural attendance by offering exemplary [3283 in
struction in fine and graphic arts. The Denver Public
Schools after-hours program in recreation and vocational
areas will be continued. And these programs make it pos
sible for boys and girls and the faculty to participate in a
valuable integrated activity.
Another program which is a joint program with the
Jefferson County Schools is a metropolitan youth oppor
tunity center which is a school which has been provided for
youngsters that have dropped out of school, not completed
their high school. They can either finish their academic
programs for high school diplomas or work on vocational
skills or an—a combination of both.
Q. Is this actually being done! A. One site is at Kala-
math and just off Colfax. Another one is in Jefferson
County. It’s out past—it’s out past the lake there. I can’t
think of the address of that, but the enrollment in that
paricular school has skyrocketed in the last two years.
Q. Is this to bring kids together who dropped out back
into the system? A. Yes. The educational center that is
referred to here as a secondary center in which we hope to
provide a fairly wide range of educational offerings, both
vocational and academic, and will attract youngsters from
all over the city. We see this center as not being a full
time enrollment [329] center for children, students at high
school level, but part time, based upon the programs that
they might elect. We believe that we can put together a
program here which will attract youngsters from all over
the city and will provide another opportunity for a broad
range of social and economic and cultural backgrounds.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1742a
We are in the process of making some major changes in our
area of vocational education in all schools, not just in this
area, but I believe the opportunity to provide job skills at
the junior high school level is quite important. We have a
number of programs that have been developed, again, and
I think Mr. Ward probably talked about the program—a
program or two they have there. We have some cooperative
educational programs that are presently undertaken by
business and industry involving youngsters from all the
high schools. I think these are important learning oppor
tunities for youngsters. We have been working in the area
of curriculum, on Page 157, in providing changes in our
social studies and history classes dealing more adequately
with the contributions of minorities. We have purchased
books, films, film strips and a number of items to supple
ment these changes and have been encouraging and working
with staff members to deal across the city with these issues.
The item on intensified educational programs relates to
compensatory programs that—some of which we have al
ready talked about and others which will probably need to
be [3303 redesigned. The college-Manual High School proj
ect is one in which we have begun a relationship with the
University of Northern Colorado, I guess it is now, in
developing some programs at Manual and again I think
Mr. Ward talked about these better than I. The last item,
I believe, other promising innovations, really is a review
of this program that I referred to earlier which has been
field tested in Wisconsin and a number of different school
systems and one which we feel will make contribution to
looking at the problems of differentiated staffing and indi
vidualized instruction.
Q. All right, sir. Based upon your background, your
experience, education, your knowledge of the whole situa
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1743a
tion here at the Denver Public Schools, do you have an
opinion as to whether this program has the probability of
success to improve the education in the schools as indicated
by the Court?
Mr. Greiner: I object, Your Honor. I don’t think
there has been a proper foundation laid as a basis
upon which the superintendent can tell this Court
that these plans will in fact work or even have a
probability of working.
Mr. Ris: That isn’t the question.
Mr. Greiner: Well, I think there has to be some
foundation for the superintendent’s opinion.
The Court: Overruled. We will permit him to
answer.
[3313 A. Yes, sir. Based upon my experience and my read
ing in the area, I think they have the possibility of success.
Q. Do they have a probability of success? A. Yes, sir.
The Court: There’s quite a difference, you know.
The Witness: Excuse me. Yes, sir, I ’m sorry, I
meant the probability.
The Court: In law.
Mr. Ris: A great difference.
Q. Now, I would like to refer to the plan as presented
by the plaintiffs. As you indicated, you spent some time—
The Court: Before you get to that, this idea of a
center or cluster—do you contemplate needing new
building for this, I assume?
The Witness: I believe so, sir. However, we have
the opportunity right off the bat at the cluster sur
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1744a
rounding Cheltenham, using the old facility, which
is being vacated because of a new school that we’re
building there. I believe that some additional facili
ties will have to be provided at least in some loca
tions for some elements of the program.
The Court: Where do you have facilities that you
could use presently?
The Witness: Well, as I say, I think that the
Cheltenham School right now, the vacated building
will provide us with some facility there. There is no
question but that, [332] as Denver goes on down the
road there is going to have to be a bond issue passed
and we’re going to have to have additional facilities,
and when that is done, assuming a provision will be
made for additional space for programs that will be
developed here—
The Court: A center of this kind or a campus
would call for a good deal of ground and a substan
tial amount of space, wouldn’t it?
The Witness: Not necessarily, sir. It depends
upon the kinds of programs that are developed. I
think that probably the space that would be required
at least for the programs that we could envision at
this point would not require a great deal of addi
tional space.
The Court: Well, it’s very vague as far as I’m
concerned. I don’t know where you would do this.
I don’t know how much time would be required to
develop it. This is a long-term program that would
take ten years to get off the ground.
The Witness: We hope to have it in operation
next fall for some elements of Complex 1 and 2. We
have been planning all this year. Those elements
that are recommended to us by the planning group
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1745a
we hope to have in operation next fall. I would
assume that the planning process would continue
and we would continue to develop the program. I
would hope that certainly within several years we
could have [3333 a pretty well-developed program
in these two schools. Now, if the concept has validity
and I think some of these things are going to have
to be tested and measured like any kind of an edu
cational program, it seems to me the experience we
have had in the planning of Complexes 1 and 2
should shorten the planning process for other com
plexes if we feel this is the direction we should go.
The Court: Well, then, you don’t feel at this time
that this would fill the bill, so to speak, as far as
integration or improvement of the program as far
as either one is concerned! In other words, at this
point you would be experimenting and testing with
this concept ? Hoping that it would—
The Witness: I believe—my professional judg
ment is, after twenty years in this business, that this
will make a difference. Now, that is different than
having proved that. And I think that we are un
fortunately in the position as educators that a good
many of the things that we talk about are unproven.
We’ve got to test them.
The Court: You wouldn’t want to put all your
eggs in one basket! You would want to try out a lot
of other programs at the same time, I assume?
The Witness: Exactly. Right. If you will read
this, you will find that there are many, many other
kinds of approaches that are going to—that are go
ing on at the £334] same time.
The Court: Okay. We will take a short recess now.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1746a
(Whereupon, the trial recessed at 3:20 p.m. and
resumed at 3:40 p.m.)
By Mr. Ris:
Q. Dr. Gilberts, with respect to the plaintiffs’ plan which
you have heard explained this morning by Dr. Bardwell and
the exhibits that were admitted into evidence, could you tell
us your opinion with respect to that particular plan? A.
Yes, sir. I think this plan is based upon some unproven
assumptions. Dr. Coleman indicated that the perfect in
fluence on achievements, academic achievements, was a fac
tor of socioeconomic difference.
The Reporter: Your Honor, may I have that an
swer repeated?
The Court: The reporter is having a little trouble
getting everything you say. I think the problem
arises from the fact that both of you are reading,
and when you do this you drop your head. I don’t
know how we can remedy this but I believe, if you
would speak up a little and if the witness box were
brought around a little bit or else we could swing it
around—-
(Colloquy not transcribed herein.)
A. As I was saying, Dr. Coleman has indicated that the
perfect influence on academic achievement is a factor of
[3353 socioeconomic difference and not racial or ethnic
consideration, and based upon my reading from this par
ticular area the evidence is even a little thin on the matter
of perfect influence in terms of academic achievement just
based ujjon socioeconomic difference. I don’t believe that
I could in clear conscience as an educator recommend the
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1747a
approaches that are proposed by the plaintiffs on the scale
that they propose them at this time on the evidence that I’m
aware of in the field.
This plan is a mathematical solution to a problem which
has human dimensions. And I think that a good many of
the human factors have been ignored. I think that human
factors involving individual students as it relates to the
continuity and enrollments, in other words, the moving
along of the youngster through the schools with his friends
and his neighbors has been ignored. It seems to me that
there are some unrealistic recommendations in the plan
in terms of numbers assigned to some of our schools, and
I am not sure whether or not the kind of distribution that
has been proposed here provides a balance throughout
each of the grade levels. Certainly it does not take into
consideration the need for teachers in terms of dealing
more professionally with their responsibilities as teachers.
I think that the parents and members of the community
by and large have not been considered in terms of their
relationship to the school or the community [3363 support
for the schools. It seems to me that the proposals at the
junior high and senior high school levels could destroy
some of the new programs which are being developed
which I consider quite unique and exceptional in this
country and you will hear of several of them this after
noon. Certainly they have indicated a need for some of
the things that we have in our plan in terms of in-service
and some programs such as this, and I certainly would
concur that these are important. I have some concern as
to whether and how one would be able to provide some of
the compensatory programs which have been indicated as
necessary and with expanded—an expanded pupil base,
with these youngsters being placed in need of compensa
tory programs in many more schools in classes involving
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1748a
many more youngsters. I think it’s quite likely that this
might not only be more—might not be only more expensive
but it might even be more difficult to design.
The Court: Do you think there is some merit in
the proposition that, if they are in an environment
in which they must compete, that there is more
incentive for them to follow up these compensatory
programs so that they can compete?
The Witness: Well, what I am saying, Your
Honor, here is—
The Court: In other words, the compensatory
programs in the abstract seem to fail. I mean, the
evidence £3373 indicates that is not too effective
over a long-term basis particularly; that the chil
dren, when they return to their environments or
their home environments are inclined to forget what
they have learned. Rather, they haven’t assimilated
to the point where they could use it. Doesn’t that
seem to be the basic weakness of this compensatory
approach so far?
The Witness: I think that in general this may be
true, but the same thing can be equally true and there
is proof to substantiate the different points of view
that the same thing could occur in an integrated
setting. Now, it may not be—I’m not aware of any
proof that would indicate it wouldn’t be true, but—
The Court: Well, I just mention it in connection
with your saying that the compensatory programs
might fail—might fall by the wayside.
The Witness: No, what I said was—
The Court: —in this kind of— If you do pro
ceed to integrate the schools, because the—I gathered
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1749a
from what you said that there would be—an ac
celerated effort in the classroom, that it would just
be about impossible for the person who was there
to keep pace and also to take compensatory educa
tion. I mean, I sort of gleaned that from what you
said.
The Witness: That wasn’t what I was referring
to, but that might be a problem as well, Your Honor.
What I was £338] referring to was the distribution
of the resources that would be necessary to provide
the compensatory education and a much expanded
base; pupil population base. Now, that’s something
which, of course, one wouldn’t know until one de
signed the compensatory programs. But it would
seem logical to me that that certainly—that cer
tainly compensatory programs, if they’re going to
be effective in an integrated setting, would probably
in some way involve more than just the youngsters
that would be coming in, let’s say from the area
where compensation wTas necessary and that could
provide, as I say, a problem in the economic dis
tribution of the resources within the school system.
The Court: One other point that Dr. Sullivan
made—that when you get a group of homogeneous
origin together, that sort of brings out the worst
rather than the best in them when they are all to
gether.
The Witness: Certainly I wouldn’t disagree with
that.
The Court: Sort of like a convention of lawyers.
Individually, they’re great, but—individually they
are, you know, very intelligent. But you get their
group decision and it might not be too good. Some-
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1750a
how or other the psychology of their all being to
gether doesn’t add to their wisdom. It sort of de
tracts from it, perhaps. The same might be true of
other groups.
[3393 The Witness: I wouldn’t disagree abso
lutely and totally with that position, Tour Honor,
but I think there can be exceptions to it. I think
perhaps it can be designed to change that particular
attitude and that particular orientation in some of
these schools. Again, I ’ll let you listen to some of
these programs at Manual and Cole.
The Court: Also, isn’t there sort of a degree of
comfort when you have those you are accustomed
to around you? You don’t need to put forth extra
effort and you don’t do it. I mean, there is a tendency
along that line, as human beings; and don’t you think
that these are sort of predicates for this?
The Witness: I think these things might be true.
I don’t think they necessarily are true. I think there
can be circumstances where they are not true. And
I think those circumstances can be designed into
educational programs.
Now, I don’t think, as I indicated earlier, that we
have identified any pat solution to these problems,
but it seems to me that there are some potentials
in the areas that are now beginning- to develop that
may allow us to do that. For example, Your Honor,
two years ago at Cole Junior High we had a prob
lem which nearly caused us to close that school in
terms of attitudes. The very thing you’re talking
about. Now, some two years later we have a situ
ation that’s quite different.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1751a
The Court: Was that when Mr. Morrison was
installed?
[340] The Witness: Yes, sir. Now, this is an
example in change in climates and attitudes after—
or that reflected on the educational program. That
sort of thing I believe could occur in these schools
with the right kind of leadership; with the right kind
of programs and so on.
The Court: But you look forward to this integra
tion step as the only possible solution to avoid
polarization of the races, do you not?
The Witness: Absolutely.
The Court: You don’t want to have separate
cultures, do you ?
The Witness: Certainly not. I believe that integra
tion can come in many different kinds of form. I
don’t think one can identify one way of doing it
and say that that is the end, that’s the only way it
can be done; I think that integration can be accom
plished—and I am talking now about the psycho
logical, philosophical definition that has been de
scribed here. I think it can be aided by many kinds
of activities, a good many of which will probably
go on outside of the school through other institu
tions and through other kinds of activities. I think
that integration is an essential. It’s not important.
It’s an absolute necessity. It has to occur. That
definition which is in this case. I would remind the
judge that I did recommend—
The Court: Higher education has been integrated
[3413 since—oh, for twenty years.
The Witness: Eight.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1752a
The Court: I suppose longer than that in most
parts of the country, and everybody would feel that
it was pretty ridiculous to have a Negro college and
a white college in the North and West, wouldn’t
they!
The Witness : I think so, yes.
The Court: I mean they would just think it would
be absurd.
The Witness: What I’d like to point out, Your
Honor, is that I did recommend last spring a con
siderable amount of change affecting the—affecting
literally thousands of youngsters in the school sys
tem which the Court sustained and at that time I
indicated there were two reasons why I felt that
was important: number one, to see whether or not
that kind of a move in that area could in fact stem
the tide of resegregation which was occurring in
the northeast area of the city; secondly, to provide
us a basis upon which to gain some more experience
to see whether or not the claims for integration
could in fact produce what is claimed for—
The Court: Well, has it been successful?
The Witness: I think, by and large, it has been.
However, our evaluation that we are undertaking
this year is not completely completed in terms of the
evaluating measures that we’re going to be using.
I have—it seems to me that [342] it’s going to
take more than one year to really judge whether or
not it’s going to be effective.
The Court: For example, at Smiley which was a
real testing ground—hasn’t that been a successful
experiment, by and large?
The Witness: As far as my subjective judgment—
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1753a
The Court: Because there was more feeling and
more resistance there perhaps than any other place.
The Witness: If we’re talking about academic
achievement and equating this with success in schools,
then we have yet to see the evidence as to whether
in fact it does or does not do it. I have some biases.
I think, by and large, the operation of that school has
been successful but I don’t have the objective mea
surement upon which I could recommend we do this
to the entire city at this time.
The Court: Oh, I see what you mean.
The Witness: This is my point.
The Court: I see what you mean on that. But the
parents’ attitude and so on in that area of the city
I think were pretty much resistant to this movement
and at this point they have settled down a good deal,
have they not?
The Witness: I believe so. But I don’t have much
-—as much information on that as I ’d like to have.
The Court: You don’t feel the pressure, I don’t
suppose, that you did.
[3433 The Witness : Sir, I can’t tell the difference
between the pressure from one day to another.
There is always pressure; all kinds of sources.
The Court: Well, that’s the hazard of your oc
cupation.
The Witness: Right.
The Court: From that particular source you
don’t—
The Witness: Yes. I have been receiving current
pressure on problems at Smiley.
The Court: So you’re not prepared to say that
it’s either successful or unsuccessful?
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1754a
Tlie Witness: No, sir. I think that a good deal
of more careful evaluation in my subjective judg
ment at this point is indicated.
The Court: You wouldn’t recommend it be aban
doned at this point, I don’t suppose?
The Witness: No, sir, I would not.
By Mr. R is:
Q. In this regard again, you’re speaking of—you still
don’t have any objective evidence from Smiley? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Are you speaking in terms of the testing results?
A. Not only Smiley but all of the schools and all of the
youngsters that were involved in this program.
Q. Or that Smiley—the fact that they were bused out
[344] of the Smiley Subdistrict or into the Smiley Sub-
district? A. Eight.
Q. Do you have any evidence at all from testing from
these that there has been any improvement on those who
were bused out? A. Not as yet.
Q. Is that what you mean by that, that you have no
objective evidence? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, again getting back to what we discussed previ
ously, before, is this the type of innovation or the type of
thing that you say you recommended for that particular
area on a testing basis, a trial basis? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And if it succeeds, then you will recommend it be
expanded into other portions— A. Yes, sir.
Q. And—now, as to transportation, is transportation
per se a problem with you, Dr. Gilberts, in busing? A.
Yes.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1755a
Q. I ’m not speaking of just the— A. Just general—
Q. General transportation? A. Yes, sir. This has been
one of my major projects, I guess, through some twenty
years of—well, seventeen years [3451 of my experience.
Q. And the evidence previously has been in the trial that
without any mandatory busing you’re— you are already
busing some 12,000 students. That was the figure as I re
member, was it not? A. I believe that’s correct.
Q. But that is considered by you to be a permanent
thing that is desirable or was it a temporary transient
thing to get more money? What is the background of that?
A. Well, the background is that Denver has not had a
bond issue since 1955 and we have tried to build building’s
on a buy-as-you-go basis and I think the assumption has
been all along that certainly space will ultimately be pro
vided in areas where there is no space.
The Court: Is busing 12,000 students from these
newly-annexed areas and distances beyond walking
distances and so forth—has it been contemplated
to be a permanent condition that you intend to leave
there forever?
A. I don’t believe it’s been contemplated at this—that this—
Q. Ag*ain, just a temporary expedient until more funds
are available? A. Yes, sir.
The Court: You hope it won’t be a permanent fix
ture, I take it?
[3463 The Witness: Yes, sir. I think that pro
grams—that plan for transportation, especially in
urban settings poses unique kinds of problems and
probably ought to be minimized as much as possible.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1756a
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
Q. And then yon—
The Conrt: Certainly not desirable, per se.
The Witness: That’s right.
By Mr. R is:
Q. Dr. Gilberts, as far as any specifies of the plan are
concerned, is there anything specifically you wish to dis
cuss with the Court in the matter of the critique here?
A. I had one final point that I didn’t get an opportunity
to make. It seems to me that in this plan it proposes to
eliminate some programs which in my judgment have a
great deal of significance in terms of educational improve
ment in the future, not only for this area but in general
and we can’t ignore our responsibilities for that improve
ment for all youngsters. We have had not as much time
as I would like to review this plan, but I have had my staff
go over it. I have read it myself—
The Court: You mean when they talk about utiliz
ing funds that are devoted to particular programs
that you now have—
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: —you feel that the unbalance in the
[3471 programs-—that the programs might be more
valuable than the integration—the busing program?
The Witness: I consider them important things
to be doing for the school system, looking at some of
the specific concerns that members of the staff have
identified, under proposed Plan 1, wherein twelve of
the Court schools—designated by the exchanging
students with seventeen predominantly Anglo schools
—these are a few of the points that were raised that
I think are significant.
1757a
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants-—Direct
By Mr. R is:
Q. And with which yon would agree? A. Yes.
Q. Go ahead. A. In some cases the number of pupils
involved in busing from one school to another is negligible
and Bradley will send only a small number, and this was
discussed this morning, but the matter of adjusting indi
viduals is a lot different than adjusting numbers. It’s
easy to say there are four kinds and, well, okay, we can
accommodate them. But how do we identify—how do we
make decisions when those are not the four we are going
to take and we take eight somewhere else and so on. These
are complicated human decisions to make, wThich cause great
difficulty. It’s much easier to do this on a computer than
it is in the community. There is no assurance that the
interchange of pupils will provide the necessary numbers
of pupils at each grade level.
[348] Q. Can you elaborate a bit on that? What do you
mean by that? A. Well, I’m assuming that the intent at
least here was to integrate not only the school but each of
the classrooms as was discussed yesterday. I can’t tell—
and my staff can’t apparently tell from reading this whether
or not that consideration has been taken into account. How
do we go about—on Grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6—that there is a
reasonable distribution to produce the results that they
have indicated? In order for me to quote, as outlined in the
transportation schedule, an arbitrary method of selection
must be designed. For example, if “geographical areas were
used and annual adjustments . . . might be necessary, which
could result in pupils attending several schools during at
least the elementary program and probably beyond that.”
In other words, it could cause us to have to move young
sters about more than we would like. And “No. 7, rather
than another item here—it not clear that we plan—how the
1758a
average achievement factors were determined.” Conse
quently there is a question on the validity of the projected
average achievements. Another item, in some cases these
plans—this plan does not take into consideration the human
element or the actual limitation which exists in the school.
For example, Bryant-Webster has four Negro pupils, three
of which are to be assigned, and here again we get into these
difficult human kinds of problems to [349] deal with. A
leveling of achievement scores of low-performance schools
would be due to moving in high achieving pupils and moving
out low-achieving pupils. The population shift rather than
improved test scores of low-achieving pupils. The plan
tends to mask the extremes of achievement without actually
improving performance.
The Court: Well, at the outset that was explained
that you couldn’t expect any improvement in the low
achievers as of the day that the exchange occurs.
The Witness: Maybe—it may be argued that the
capacity of a school facility as reported by school
authorities is not an accurate reflection of the school’s
ability to properly accommodate the educational pro
grams and we discussed this one morning, as well,
considering delivering and picking up of pupils, there
would be the possibility of some kindergarten young
sters could be on the bus almost as long as they would
be in class and consideration must be afforded the
impact of this plan on the federal and state assistance.
Now, how do we redistribute them and reallocate
them to provide the help that they were intended to
provide ?
On Plan 2, this involves the pairing of elementary
schools. This plan requires additional expense—an
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1759a
additional expense not considered by the plaintiffs,
and there was mentioned this morning the modifica
tion of facilities. You can’t take care of kindergarten,
first, second and third-grade £3503 youngsters in the
exact kind of facilities that one would with the fourth,
fifth and sixth grade. There are differences in cer
tain appointments in the room that would have to be
changed.
Q. Such as what? A. Well, a simple example would be
the blackboard. We have youngsters that work on the board
in the classroom. Primary youngsters—the board is much
lower for them to reach than the older youngsters. Seating
is a problem, of course, that could be accommodated by
moving seating from one school to another, so that is not a
particular big problem. But, sizes of bathroom facilities
and such things as this pose a problem with primary young
sters. I think that some of the same concerns that I ex
pressed in Plan 1 would probably apply in this one as well.
And Plan 3 and Plan 4, here again, it’s just a matter of
expanding the application. Therefore, the problems aren’t
really changed.
The Court: How long would it take to implement
this plan—a plan of this kind?
The Witness: Well, I think that Dr. Sullivan’s
estimate of two years is a fairly realistic one. It
might take longer than that if wre were to accomplish
the objectives identified by each phase of this plan
ning process, community acceptance and so forth and
staff preparation, et cetera.
The Court: I ’m not talking about this exact plan.
[351] The Witness: Well, any modification of it—
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1760a
The Court: You might feed a few additional items
into the computer, you know, in order to come up
with—in order to introduce some human aspect,. But,
you said it would take two years to accomplish a
program of this magnitude, you think.
The Witness: I would assume that Dr. Sullivan’s
estimate of time with his experience would be fairly
accurate.
The Court: Do you think that there could be an
integration program that would be more efficient,
that would accomplish the same objectives and
wouldn’t require 6.5 miles each way of transporta
tion, for example? Have you thought of it in that
light?
The Witness: Yes, sir, I have. And I think the
approach they have taken here in terms of efficiency
by reducing—assuming they’re shooting at the racial
composition, they are probably as efficient a means
of doing it, again in terms of numbers, distribution
of kids, as you could come about. I can’t think of
any that would be simpler to apply, using this cri
teria of what they are proposing.
The Court: Does the staff agree with that?
The Witness: I believe so, so far as I’m aware.
The Court: Although, this cluster or campus idea
would cut down substantially on transportation?
The Witness: It would, but it doesn’t meet the
[3523 criteria that, the plaintiffs have established in
their plan. I think it meets other criteria that are
more in—more important in my mind. And under
that definition, under those criteria, then I think it
will accomplish the end that we’re looking for.
The senior high school level I would just comment
that the boundary changes are not defined sufficiently
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1761a
that one can absolutely be certain of the problem.
But certainly it would cause attendance problems by
elongating districts and so on. I would have some
concern that it would certainly upset the factors that
were involved in the initial resolution that the judge
has sustained and I think this could pose a problem.
Walking distances can be problems. The only stu
dents in the northeast tip of the city near Smith
School would be more than two miles from their
senior high school. It is not consistent with the fact
that some present South students living near Wash
ington Park, live nearly four miles from Manual. I
believe you mentioned that—this morning, Your
Honor—since numbers of pupils being transferred
to Manual are not given, no comparisons can be made
of the capacity of the high school involved, sending
Anglo pupils from East to Manual and minority pu
pils to East, would increase proportions of minority
pupils at East, was the thing I was mentioning. No
plan is offered to ameliorate the resegreation which
could occur at East. North High School was pres
ently [353] overcapacity and transfers could cause
some problems. And then I would reiterate that I
think that some of the items that they have measured
or identified as those things that could be conveniently
left out of any kind of our planning in my judgment
is not true. I don’t believe that Denver can afford to
ignore looking at those concepts and testing and
evaluating them.
Q. Will the adoption of the plaintiffs’ plan constitute a
gamble, in your opinion, Dr. Gilbert? A. Yes, sir, I cer
tainly think it would.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1762a
Q. As between the two plans, considering your back
ground, your experience and the circumstances that exist in
Denver, which plan do you think has the greater probability
of success in improving education in the fifteen schools?
A. I believe that what we have proposed would indicate
better probability of success.
Mr. Ris: You may examine.
The Court: I ’m not clear on your plan for eventual
integration. How it would really take place. You
said that this is the only solution eventually.
The Witness: Well, sir, the definition of integra
tion used here in the case is that integration is a
psychological, social, philosophical kind of process
for individuals where individuals accept one another
for themselves. With no bias exhibited as a result
of race, color or creed, et cetera.
[354] Now, it seems to me that there is a—this is
a state of mind. That is, not necessarily a state of
how one distributes within our society. Now, sir, if
that is our end, if that is our ultimate end is to truly
open our society so that all individuals can live and
operate with that kind of philosophy, it seems to me
there are many ways that we are going to go about
doing that, not all of them are going to occur in the
school. Certainly, they are going to occur in busi
ness. They are going to occur in oother governmental
institutions. They are going to occur in our daily
life, so I’m not saying that ultimately our society
has to be totally desegregated, which is the physical
aspects of the distributing of people of different
ethnic and racial backgrounds, equally throughout
our country. I’m not sure that has to be the end. I
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Direct
1763a
think the free and—and the option to do that if one
chooses to move where he pleases, live where he
pleases, work where he pleases, is the ultimate end.
I’m sorry. I don’t necessarily accept the fact that
we have got to have people distributed physically in
that manner. Therefore, I say that the programs
that we are proposing, carried out appropriately and
developed appropriately, will contribute to produc
ing that end result along with other things that I
have mentioned.
The Court: But you don’t have any plan or—I
misunderstood you. I thought that you anticipated
that [3553 eventually this isolation of schoolchildren
would be eliminated?
The Witness: Well, I think eventually it will and
I think it will be eliminated on the basis of choice
of the individuals involved. I’m not putting a time
on the eventual—I don’t know when that will be.
The Court: Very well.
Cross-examination by Mr. Greiner:
Q. Dr. Gilberts, I guess—unless I indicate otherwise, my
questions are going to be directed to the fifteen schools
which the Court has selected for relief in this case. Since
the Court has selected the schools, Dr. Gilberts, what kind
of examination has been made of those schools with regard
to the conditions that obtained in those schools ? What has
your staff done ? A. What do you mean by conditions ? All
factors involved in those schools ?
Q. Well, now you already knew something about those
schools. A. Exactly.
Q. A lot of the data is right in the Court’s opinion of
March 21st, is it not? A. Right.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1764a
Q. Now, we have heard during the course of the trial
[3563 for example a great deal of testimony primarily from
Dr. Dobson—and I believe you were present when he testi
fied—regarding the psychological environment of these
segregated schools. Do you recall that testimony? A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall that it was Dr. Dobson’s opinion that
it was the schools themselves that caused the unequal edu
cational opportunity that existed in the schools?
Is that right ?
A. I’m sorry. I don’t recall that. I don’t recall him saying
that.
The Court: Well, he wasn’t here the last time.
Mr. Greiner: I believe—
The Court: He didn’t hear him testify.
The Witness: Last summer I was here at the
hearing.
Q. But you were not here this spring when Dr. Dobson
testified? A. No, sir.
Q. Now, have you done anything to—
The Court: That’s what he said, though, in effect.
Mr. Greiner: Yes.
Q. Have you done anything to study whether or not
those psychological conditions, low student self-esteem,
feelings of hopelessness, lack of experience with ever suc
ceeding, no control over one’s destiny, teacher attitudes
which don’t [357] expect the minority child to attain any
level of meaningful achievement—have you done anything
to check to see whether those factors do exist in these
schools? A. Not on terms of any kind of basic research
here in our school system. Certainly we have been reading
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1765a
the literature that comes out and are aware of some of the
feelings of various people in the profession, various pro
fessions, that these are factors.
Q. Now, I assume, Doctor, that an integral part of your
plan would be to test the children in these integrated
schools, since you’re going to leave them there basically.
Are you going to test them for these psychological atti
tudes? A. Yes, I think that certainly any plan of evaluation
of any kind—any kind of an educational program would
have to involve examining those elements.
Q. What tests are you going to use? A. I ’m sorry. I’m
not an expert in that particular area and couldn’t identify
what tests would be used.
Q. Where is that in your plan? A. I think we have
alluded in the plan to evaluation systems. We have not
talked about precise kinds of evaluation. Those are part
of the plan in terms of future development.
Q. Who is going to do it? A. Well, I assume my own
research and development department will have a fairly
important role in that process. [358] The psychologists and
the psychiatrists and social workers will probably have
some input into that. I think we will use experts in the
field of testing in these areas beyond our own staff. I would
assume all these resources would be used.
Q. Has your staff ever done it before? A. I couldn’t
answer that. I don’t know what individual members of my
staff have done in this area.
Q. Now, as I recall, we’ve got about 9,000 minority chil
dren in these schools, Doctor. What would it cost to test
those children? A. For what?
Q. For the presence or absence of these psychological
attitudes? A. Well, again, I said I ’m not an expert in this
area. The forms of evaluation as I am aware of—some of
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1766a
which could be very expensive if they are individually ad
ministered.
Q. Now, this is a part of your plan? A. I say, this would
be a part of the plan.
Q. Well, is it or is it not? A. It is in the state it is right
now, but it would be a part of the evaluation system that
would be designed.
Q. And you agree it’s an important factor? A. Sure.
[359] Q. Are you making a commitment that it will be
—that it in fact will be done? A. Well, sir, I’m not able
to make a commitment considering the fact I’m leaving
here September 1st, but I think any responsible profes
sional would see that it was a piece of the evaluation proc
ess.
Q. Where is the Board’s commitment that this facet or
program is going to in fact be undertaken? A. Well, the
Board has accepted the fact that we’re making this proposal
a piece of which is evaluation, and I would assume that
they would leave the professional judgment of what kind
of evaluation that would be necessary to us. They usually
do.
Q. Now, you have attempted to evaluate certain costs,
that is, your plan for relief that these schools will entail.
Can you point to one of those costs? A. Of evaluation?
Q. Yes. Where is the cost of this testing program re
flected in your figures? A. Well, in the first place, this
would be something which wnuld be done in succeeding
years. It wouldn’t be done in this budget year and there
is no identification of testing costs in here other than those
funds which we provide in our budget for testing. I do not
have that available, but there are funds that are used for
tests and evaluation both in the [360] Department of Re
search and Development and Testing Services.
Robert D. Gilberts—■for Defendants—Cross
1767a
Q. You’re not trying to—■ A. Excuse me. I t’s very
difficult to make an estimate of the costs in the area of test
ing when one doesn’t know what the total design of that
testing process is going to be, which we don’t. And I have
just admitted that. It needs to be developed. Once it is
developed, the estimate of cost can certainly be developed
too.
Q. Well, before you can start solving some of these prob
lems that exist in a minority school, you first have to find
out whether or not the problems exist, don’t you? A. I
think we’re quite aware of the problems that exist in the
schools.
Q. Well, are some of the problems which I have described
—do they exist? A. I think—yes, they do.
Q. Are you going to have to test to confirm the presence
of those problems in the schools then! A. I think we’re
going to have to test probably more to see whether or not
we have corrected them than whether they exist. I think
they exist without a great deal of question. But we will
probably have to do that to provide a research base, yes.
Q. Now, you’re familiar with the literature, I take it,
relating to these segregated schools, are you not? [361]
A. Reasonably so.
Q. And you’re awTare of the fact that there is literature
to the effect that these segregated schools simply reinforce
all of the so-called cultural deprivation which the minority
child brings to this seg'regated school? You’re aware of that,
are you not? A. Yes.
Q. Do you agree or disagree with that proposition? A.
I think in the forms in which these schools have existed,
this is true. I think there are ways, though, to have—ways
of countering that within the school setting. And again I
think you will hear about some of these later from members
of our staff.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1768a
Q. Now, you’re aware, Doctor, that when the plaintiffs
talk about integration, they’re talking about a concept which
has as its premise the mixture of various racial and ethnic
groups in the city in the schools? A. I thought the first
step was desegregation and the second step was integration.
Yes. If you mean in this context, I’m aware of it.
Q. As I understand it, when you talk about integration,
there need be no mixing? It’s simply a change of attitudes
and elimination of racial prejudice? A. No, I think that
each are needed.
Q. Well, when one reviews the plan that has been [362]
submitted in response to the Court’s request by the Board,
I see references to integration. For example, in—this plan
has embraced a program of voluntary open enrollment with
space guaranteed, is that correct? A. Yes.
Q. And the heading of that is a plan for raising educa
tional achievement, is that right, Page 16 of your plan? So
I take it you feel there is some correlation between the inte
gration that would follow from YOE and the raising of
educational achievement, is that correct? A. I believe that
that is sort of a general introductory statement.
Q. For the whole YOE program, right? A. Well, not
only for that, but for the rest of the plan as well.
Q. Well, it’s under the YOE tab, isn’t it? A. I realize
that.
Q. Well, is that a misnomer? A. Well, as I recall in
reading this it had implications for all of the elements of
the plan and that may have been where the tab was put. I ’m
not sure.
Q. Well, is there a relationship between the VOE pro
gram as it applies to these fifteen schools and improving the
educational opportunities of the minority children that par
ticipate in that program? [363] A. There may be.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1769a
Q. You’re not sure! A. Not absolutely.
Q. So it’s a gamble? A. Yes.
Q. But it’s a gamble which you are recommending! A.
Yes.
Q. Do you have any idea of the kinds of participation
that you’re going to get out of these fifteen minority schools ?
Have you made any kind of survey at all! A. Not as yet.
The Court: Do you have any predictions as to the
extent to which this will be utilized if it is on a free—
The Witness: I think—
The Court: I don’t like this descriptive phrase
that you have here. It ought to be called free transfer
program or something like that.
The Witness: We’ll be glad to change it.
The Court: It would be a bit more descriptive.
The Witness: I think it probably would be. In this
particular section my recollection is, and if I ’m
wrong somebody can correct me, that we have ap
proximately 1,500 youngsters involved in the volun
tary open enrollment plan right now.
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. In these fifteen schools? [364] A. No, in the entire
city.
Q. How many in the fifteen schools? A. I’m sorry. I
can’t answer that. But to answer the Judge’s question, this
increased, as I recall, approximately 500 from the previous
year and this increase was accomplished with what I would
consider a very minimal amount of information and making
the knowledge available to people that such an option was
there. How much a concerted effort of informing people
if they would choose to—what they would choose to do on
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1770a
this option was available, what it would accomplish, I don’t
believe, Your Honor, I could honestly make an intelligent
estimate.
Robert D, Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
The Court: But you do agree that it would have to
be an organized effort through the PTA or some
other citizens’ group?
The Witness: I certainly think that kind of plan
would enhance its chances of getting more young
sters, including the ones from the fifteen schools that
Mr. Greiner is referring to.
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. Well, this kind of VOE that would guarantee space—
that is a privilege that is restricted to the minority children
in the fifteen schools, is it not? A. It is a specific provision
for these fifteen schools. I don’t believe, in operation, the
limitations that existed in the previous plan have been a
practical 13653 problem. I think that, by and large, we have
been able to accomodate all the pupils who have asked for
such transfer. Now, there may be some exceptions.
Q. Well, then, is the space guaranteed in your mind? Is
it going to contribute then substantially to the increased
participation in VOE? A. I don’t believe that it will con
tribute nearly as much as the matter of making the informa
tion available and so on. It may have an influence, possibly.
I can’t say how much.
Q. Now, as I understand it, if a minority child in one of
these fifteen schools happened to pick an Anglo school which
was at more than 100 percent of capacity, the child would
be allowed to go into that school and presumably an Anglo
child in that school would get bumped, is that right? A.
No, I don’t believe so.
1771a
Q. Well, what does space available guaranteed mean? A.
Well, it means that they will be assured an enrollment.
There are, as I recall, in the plan provision for three op
tions, three choices, and within those three choices space
will be provided.
Q. It’s not an absolute—■ A. In the event that there is
need, additional space could be provided for the school of
mobilities, as you people had proposed. Certainly, the po
tential addition of space, [366] as we receive funds, I hope,
for additional buildings, and there is also a possibility of
extended days which allows some latitude in terms of en
rollments and such things as this.
Q. Now, this is a program that is going to be implemented
on September 1970, is it not? A. Right.
Q. Now, that’s for a—for the budget year which has al
ready been established, is it not? A. Right.
Q. Now, where is the money in the current budget com
ing from to fund the YOE program? A. You mean on—
in terms of transportation?
Q. Yes, first. A. Well, I hope that there are funds in
the transportation budget, what with adjustments of routes
and so on, that will accommodate it. If there are not suf
ficient funds in there it will be necessary for the Board
then to consider transfer of funds from other budgetary
areas to take care of whatever the needs are.
Q. Do you have any idea at all, Dr. Gilberts, of how
much participation you could stand under your current
budget before such transfer of funds would be required?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Now, as I understand it, then, the guarantee is just to
guarantee that the child’s first, second or third choice [367]
will be accommodated, is that correct? A. Yes.
Q. There is no guarantee that his first choice is going to
get accommodated? A. No.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1772a
Q. So it’s a conditional guarantee, is that right? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. And I take it that, if the Anglo school is over-capacity,
then what you’re going to do is simply increase the capacity
of the Anglo school, is that correct? A. Well, either in
crease the capacity as I indicated by mobile units or look
at modifications of the program itself and I suppose that is
increasing the capacity, yes.
Q. Now, then, if you’re talking about an Anglo school
that is at your capacity limitations as you have established,
for every 30 minority students that transfer into that school,
if you go to—go the mobile-unit route, that is a capital
cost of how much? Those mobiles aren’t cheap, are they?
A. No. I’m sorry. I would be guessing if I gave you the
figure.
Q. Well, the figure is in evidence as to what the District
has paid for mobiles? A. Yes, it is.
Q. And what it will cost to install them? A. Yes.
[368] Q. Now, what about additional construction? What
provision do you have for additional construction in Sep
tember of 1970, should it be found necessary? A. I believe
that in January 1971 that the moneys that are available
under the two-mill levy will become available for assign
ment by the Board of Education. There is also the possi
bility, of course, of increasing that two-mill levy to some
other number of mills to meet our needs. Now, that can’t
be done until January. There is no way that we can, except
by moving facilities, maybe—we already have mobility in
the mobiles in the fall to make the additions.
Q. What kind of project could that two mills be used
for? Any restriction on the use of that kind of money? A.
Yes, there are. It needs to be used for new construction. I
don’t know—there are some restrictions, but it’s generally
new construction of equipment.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1773a
Q. Equipment? A. I believe so.
Q. Can it be used for compensatory education equipment?
A. It could be used for any equipment, I believe.
Q. Can it be used for teacher training? A. No.
Q. Or for hardware? A. Capital expenditures.
Q. You’re quite sure of that? [369] A. Yes.
Q. Then you mentioned increasing the two-mill levy. Is
that a procedure whereby you go to the public with a
proposed budget? A. No, sir.
Q. How do you increase the two-mill levy? A. The Board
of Education has the authority to increase capital expendi
tures at its discretion.
Q. With no limits? A. I don’t believe there is a legal
limit. There is a practical political limit, I suppose.
Q. Why does the Board ever bother to have bond issues
if the Board can just keep raising the mill levy? A. Because
when one makes substantial capital expenditures, it’s not a
very sensible kind of economics to pay for those out of the
immediate pay-as-you-go. The more appropriate approach
is to amortize your costs over a longer period of time. This
is the general reason the school systems across the entire
country use bond issues.
Q. I see. So, bond issues provide for deferred payment?
The increase in the two-mill levy is for immediate pay-as-
you-go type of—A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, the mobile units that you refer to on Page 5 of
the summary of your plan, are those mobile units in [370]
existence today? A. Some of them might be.
Q. You don’t know? A. Well, for example, with some
of the changes that could occur at some of the schools
presently having mobile units—if students would transfer
out of these schools they would be available. If they do
not, they would not be available. Now, if there is a need
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Gross
1774a
beyond the availability of them for whatever reason, then
we would have to provide funds.
Q. Well, Dr. Gilberts, in assessing the amount of space
currently available in what would be the Anglo receiving
schools, would you tell us, for example, at the elementary
level how many spaces are currently available on the basis
of 1969 and 1970 enrollment? A. I’m sorry. I could not do
that.
Q. There isn’t even a thousand spaces, is there? A. This
is based on rated capacity.
Q. Eight. Well, aren’t you using—when you say extend
ing building capacity ten to fifteen percent, what kinds of
capacity are you extending? Is that rated capacity? A.
Yes.
Q. So you’re using rated capacity, are you not? A. As a
base, yes.
Q. Well, then, we’re using the same basis. But you [371]
couldn’t tell me, based on rated capacity, how much space
is available in those Anglo schools? A. Not without ref
erence.
The Court: He might be able to compute it tonight
and give it to you tomorrow.
Mr. Greiner: I think that might be helpful, Your
Honor.
The Court: Very well. It might be helpful for me,
too.
Mr. Ris: Do you have in mind what he wants?
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: This would be an estimate of how
many pupils could actually be accommodated in a
program of this kind.
Mr. Greiner: Before we had to look at construc
tion or mobile units or some increase—
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1775a
The Court: —before we at least have to look at
new buildings. I don’t know about—I say “we”, may
be the School Board doesn’t appreciate that. But
certainly I think that it would be well to have some
idea as to the number of students at every level who
could be accommodated in a program of this kind.
The Witness: Yes, sir. I can provide that to you
by tomorrow morning, I’m sure.
The Court: Very good.
By Mr. Greiner:
[3723 Q. Now, Dr. Gilberts, I notice with regard to the
Hallett School that Hallett was exempted from the benefits
of this VOE program. Why was that? A. Because in the
Hallett School we have a special program already under
operation covered by resolutions this spring providing for
an integrated school.
Q. Well, Hallett is not an integrated school, is it? It’s
not a predominantly Anglo school, is it? A. No.
Q. Pardon? A. No.
The Court: You mean there is some activity there,
I guess. There is some movement at Hallett, at least,
isn’t there?
The Witness: I just can’t recall right off the top
of my head.
Q. My recollection is that Hallett has got about 35 per
cent Anglo enrollment. Would you agree with that? A. I’m
not sure.
Q. Another thing I wasn’t clear on, Dr. Gilberts'—I take
it that the new VOE program would apply to Manual High
School, since Manual was one of the Court-designated
schools, is that correct? A. Yes.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1776a
Q. So you would actually be transporting senior high
[373] school students away from Manual? A. If they
choose to go, yes.
Q. And the whole concept of this VOE with space guar
anteed is one-way busing, is it not? It’s busing the minority
students away from minority schools? A. Not necessarily.
A student from a predominantly Anglo school could volun
teer to go to Manual.
Q. On a space-available guarantee? A. On the same
criteria that it’s guaranteed in the other districts.
Q. I understand, Dr. Gilberts, that there is some sort of
a ceiling imposed by state law on increases in the schools’
budgets of six percent from year to year? A. Some limited
portions of the budget, yes.
Q. Now, what parts of the budget are exempted from that
ceiling, Doctor? A. Well, those portions of the budget that
relate to capital expenditures; those portions of the budget
that relate to vocational education; those portions of the
budget that relate to special programs. Well, roughly that
equate with Title I programs of the federal program.
Q. Compensatory programs? A. Compensatory pro
grams, right.
Q. Anything else that is exempted? A. I have missed
something. I can’t recall what it is. [374] I think those are
substantially the ones that are excluded.
Q. Now, at Page 21 of the plan, Dr. Gilberts, I assume
that you’re talking now about the minority students in the
schools. You say, “Few would deny that intensive programs
can prepare students academically to meet the demands of
our society”. Now, to date, Doctor, I take it you would
agree that those schools have not done the job of preparing
students academically, those minority students, would you
not? A. I don’t think they have been done as well as they
can and should.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Gross
1777a
Q. Well, these are schools that are all achieving at, I
think, an average of about the 22nd percentile, is that
right ? A. Right.
Q. So those schools have failed so far, have they not!
A. Those schools have not produced the results that we like
to see. And that, of course, is a national phenomena. Again,
youngsters from lower socioeconomic backgrounds have
this reflected achievement in all schools throughout the
entire country.
Q. Now, you say that also in this—in the same page that
integration is the value which must be cherished as an
objective, and I take it that there you’re talking about your
kind of integration, namely, altitudinal change, is that
right! [375] A. I’m talking about the definition that has
been used here. I think you used that, too, did you not!
Q. No, my kind of integration assumes a.—a desegrega
tion to start with. A. I’m sorry.
Q. Now, also on that same page, you say that tantamount
to such a plan is the provision of leadership which will
result in the deliberate improvement in the educational
process, and result in the lasting integration of the Denver
Public Schools. Now, what kind of integration are you
talking about there? A. I think it is misused in that par
ticular place.
Q. What are you talking about there? A. I’m talking
about the kinds of integration that you have described here,
promotion of mutual respect, understanding, elimination
of unwarranted fears, and—
Q. What I’m talking about there is an integrated setting.
A desegregated setting. Is that what you’re talking about ?
A. I’m talking about this as a general condition within the
community.
Q. I see. Well, is there any particular program in this
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1778a
plan, Dr. Gilberts, other than the voluntary open enrollment
that directly and immediately addresses itself to the elimi
nation of the racialization that exists in these [3763 fifteen
schools? A. Not directly, as you have in your plan.
Q. What about indirectly? A. Yes, I think indirectly in
terms of the kinds of programs we have designed or will
design, in terms of opportunities for these youngsters to
have experiences in an integrated setting by your defini
tion, special programs and so on, the opportunities for
these youngsters to develop a sense of self-importance, of
self-direction, et cetera, within the schools due to programs
or as a result of programs that can be developed, and I
think these will contribute to my definition of integration.
Q. Dr. Gilberts, these problems that you have just de
scribed, the frustration, the lack of control over one’s des
tiny— Now, those are all attitudes which have been known,
to exist in these minority schools for a number of years,
isn’t that right? This isn’t a brand-new discovery, is it?
A. Eight.
Q. And for a number of years there has been a massive
effort, particularly under Titles I and III of the federal
act to remedy those deficiencies in those segregated schools,
has there not? A. Yes, there is.
Q. Some $4 billion has been spent? [3773 A. Yes.
Q. And yet those programs have not been successful?
Would you agree with that? A. No, I would not agree
with that. I think that is a generalization that is unwar
ranted by the evidence that’s available. I think many of
the programs have been successful. I think many of them
have not. And I indicated in my earlier testimony that I
felt a good many of those initial programs once created
and-—were what I called coping education rather than really
compensatory education. I think there is the potential
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Gross
1779a
of developing programs that will be more successful than
many of those that have not been.
Q. Now, relating that feeling to these fifteen particular
schools, what is the basis for that optimism! A. Well, I
think a certain amount of experience which has accrued
in the last few years in the process of looking at how we
begin approaching educational change, is a part of it.
I think the fact that there are some new ideas in terms
of how we begin approaching this process of educational
planning have some implications for it.
Q. What is the new idea! A. I think the new ideas that
have not been applied in very good form, at least, through
out the country is the involvement of the people at the
local level who have immediate knowledge of what the
problems are in conjunction [378] with those people who
have certain specific kinds of expertise. Many programs
have been designed at a systemwide level, not taking into
consideration variations of staff, facilities, commitments,
et cetera, and I think this will make a difference.
Q. Is there any evidence that it will make a difference?
A. There is at least as much evidence that it will make a
difference as there is that your desegregation will make
a difference.
Q. Is that right? A. I think so.
Q. Well, would you cite for me some studies, some data
about the success of what you’re proposing, Doctor? A.
Well, I ’m sorry that I can’t cite specific ones because there
is a great deal of literature available in this area. Some
of it is fair, some of it is poor. Some of it is maybe better
than fair. But I know that there have been research and
studies that I have read and I ’m sorry I can’t cite them.
And these are dealing with programs—programs dealing
with compensatory in nature and that have shown success
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1780a
in the evaluation. I wish I could be specific but I ’m sorry
I can’t.
Q. You can’t identify one of them? A. Not by citation,
I cannot.
Q. Isn’t there anybody on your staff that might be able
to furnish evidence? [3793 A. I’m not sure.
Q. Who on your staff concerns himself with evaluating
the efficacy of compensatory educational programs? A.
Well, there are right now two departments; one is the
Department of Federal Programs—
Q. Who heads that up? A. Bob Hirsch.
Q. Who is the other person? A. The other department
that has something to do with this is our Department of
Research and Planning—the Budgeting, Research and Plan
ning Department, Dr. Brizinsky (phonetic spelling).
Q. So perhaps Dr. Brizinsky or Mr. Hirsch—he was the
other person? A. Yes.
Q. And Mr. Hirsch—perhaps he may be able to help
you out on an indication of which of these new programs
have been successful? A. Perhaps?
Q, Now, do you have any recollection as to the types
of—I understand that you have a feeling that each school
community, each school district has certain unique attri
butes, is that correct? A. Yes.
Q. I take it you also agree that each urban school [3803
district has certain common characteristics with other
urban school districts, is that right? A. Yes, certainly.
Q. Now, do you recall the kinds of school districts that
these successful compensatory programs were tried out in?
A. Well, I can think of one. Dr. Shepherd’s work in St.
Louis is—was one that I—and I can’t cite the research, but
I think that in that particular case in a midwestern large
city there have been evidences of success. I think there
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1781a
are other programs that probably are fairly representative
of a cross-section of the largest cities across the country
where individual programs have been evaluated as having
been successful.
Q. Now, what do you mean by successful? What criteria
do you use? A. Successful in terms of achieving the ob
jectives that were established as the reasons for the pro
gram.
Q. Now, I take it some compensatory educational pro
grams are not even directed, are they, at improving student
achievement and particular skills? A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct? A. That’s correct.
Q. In other words, not all compensatory programs are
directed towards teaching minority children to read better,
[381] are they? A. That’s true.
Q. Or to understand mathematics better? A. That
monopoly will be an outgrowth of most of them, I believe,
though.
Q. Now, with regard to the area of improved achieve
ment, is it your recollection that some of these successful
compensatory programs have been successful in the area
of improving achievement? A. It is my recollection that
they are.
Q. Have other successes been in the psychological areas,
is it your recollection? A. I can recall a few I have read
about, yes.
Q. But I take it the basic thrust of this plan aside from
this new program of open enrollment, the basic thrust is
that the racialization that exists in these schools can
be allowed to continue, yet the problems in those schools
can be solved, is that right? A. I think the basic thrust
in this plan is that we believe that through some of the
changes here within the settings of those schools we can
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
178,2 a
make sufficient changes to improve achievements of these
youngsters and in effect the other aspects as well; psycho
logical solving of these things you were talking about.
Q. Segregated settings, racially isolated settings! [3823
A. Yes.
Q. So you’re going to create schools which are separate
but equal? A. I’m not going to create them. I ’m going to
offer programs within these schools that I think will have
an effect in my judgment.
Q. And they’re going to be separate schools, aren’t they?
A. I’m not going to create them. They are separate schools.
Q. You’re going to continue them, is that right? A. At
this point in time there is no recommendation for dis
tinguishing them.
Q. Well, I don’t see even a prospective recommendation
for discontinuing them in this program. A. There is none.
Q. Now, was the Board’s approval of this plan unanimous
at the Board meeting the other day? A. No, sir.
Q. What was the vote? A. Four to two.
Q. You said that you consulted with the fifteen princi
pals in these schools, is that correct? A. They were
brought in and worked with my staff.
Q. How long did that consultation take place? [3833 A.
I was not present so I can’t tell you.
Q. You don’t know whether it was a short meeting or a
long meeting? A. No, I don’t.
Q. Do you know who on your staff actually conducted
those meetings? A. Dr. Keppe was primarily in charge
and other members of his staff.
Q. Were the principals asked to give their views as to
how some of these problems might be solved in their schools?
A. Yes, I believe so.
Q. Was the question of desegregation of those schools
Robert D, Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1783a
raised by any of the principals to your knowledge! A. I
have not seen all of these individual and specific recom
mendations of the principals, so I really can’t answer that,
Q. Was desegregation of those schools even one of the
alternatives that was even considered in the discussion with
the principals, to your knowledge? A. I have no knowl
edge of that.
Q. Did you seek the opinion of the principals as to
whether desegregation in an integrated setting might he
more effective than compensatory programs? A. I can’t
answer that either.
[384] Q. Now, again, as I understand it, you feel that
one of the problems with the plaintiffs’ plan is that it’s
ramming mixing down the throat of the community that is
not yet willing to accept it, is that right? A. I indicated
that I felt that the basic problem was that it is based on
an assumption that I believe is inadequately proven at this
particular point in time for the kind of application that
you’re recommending.
Q. But I take it that at least on some kind of scale, for
example, when you formulated Resolutions 1520, 24 and
31, that you felt that there must have been some validity
to that kind of an approach, is that correct? A. I think
I explained that a little bit earlier. There are two basic
reasons why I recommended that. One was to see whether
or not it would have an effect on desegregation in an area
of the city; in making, I think, greater efforts to try to
stem the tide, and the second, to provide a broader base
upon which to evaluate; whether or not that kind of integra
tion really would make a difference academically.
Q. And there was a third reason. And that was the
Board—that the Board actually directed you to prepare a
plan which at least in part implemented the Noel Resolu
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1784a
tion! A. Yes, there was a Board direction; however, I
would have provided it without that direction.
Q. Well, Resolutions 1524, 24 and 31 were not a part,
[3853 were they, of planning equality education? A. They
were not in the specific form, but in planning equality
education I indicated I felt it was important that we pro
vide an opportunity here—or provide some kind of sug
gestions for stabilizing the enrollment in those schools in
Northeast Denver. That was part of it. That was an out
growth of that element—of that development of that ele
ment.
Q. A more specific plan than your original plan had
contained? A. Yes.
Q. What are the programs which are now in existence,
Dr. Gilberts, for evaluating the success of Resolutions 1520,
24 and 31? A. I ’m sorry. I can’t describe it in detail.
My research department has worked them out with the
assistance of some of the colleges—or one of the colleges
or universities in this area and I’m sorry I can’t give you
details.
Q. Can you give us some of the general concepts that
are being employed in that evaluation process? A. Well,
I ’m not sure it would be inclusive. Certainly the achieve
ment aspects are an important part of it. I think the at-
titudinal aspects have importance, and I think that they
are a part, but there may be others.
[3863 Q. Now, there is some sort of testing being done
this year to try to get the pulse of the attitudinal changes
that are—that have been brought about by this program?
A. I can’t say for sure but I think probably so, and certainly
I ’m not looking at this as a one-year evaluation process.
It’s going to take longer than that.
Q. Well, when are you going to start evaluating? A. We
have begun.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1785a
Q. Now, community support for a plan you have indi
cated is one of the major important components of any
plan that is going to be successful, is that right? A. I
believe community support in any public school system is
extremely important.
Q. How do you get community support for a plan of
desegregation and integration? A. Well, I suppose you
would get support by proving to people this was an im
portant thing to do; that it in fact achieved results, provide
time for them to understand and accept, by and large, the
tenets of that proposal.
Q. How long do you think that would take? A. Well, I
suppose it would be quite different in different communi
ties. And depending upon the kind of plan. But I just
indicated to the judge recently that I thought that probably
as Dr. Sullivan’s suggestion, you have two years of concen
trated effort, that would be possibly [3873 realistic to
apply that to the Denver system. Really, I don’t know.
Q. Now, Doctor, where in this plan has the Board sub
mitted their—a provision for even the beginning of that
kind of effort to change community attitudes? A. As it
relates to desegregation?
Q. Yes. A. Well, I think that the elements of evaluation
and—not this plan but part of a provision of the plan which
is in existence under the three resolutions you have talked
about, is a place to begin developing some of the data I
think that will be important if it proves out to be successful
for selling it in the community.
Q. But there is nothing in this plan about that, is there?
A. No, there is not.
Q. Now, there are multiple provisions here regarding
in-service training of staff, for example? Now, are those
provisions directed only at these fifteen schools? A. No.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1786a
Q. Wliat portions of them are directed towards solving
some of the problems of these fifteen schools! A. Well, I
think all of them have implications for solving some of the
problems of these fifteen schools but £388] they also have
implications for other schools than these fifteen schools.
Q. Dr- Gilberts, if I understand—this school district does
not have an unlimited amount of money at its disposal,
does it? A. No, it certainly doesn’t.
Q. Well, is it necessary to correct the problems in these
fifteen schools to implement district-wide programs? Isn’t
that a basically—basically a district-wide plan, a total con
cept of education for Denver? A. I think there are some
things in the plans that have implications for the total
systems. They grow out, by and large, of our planning
quality education. We think it has implications both for
these fifteen schools and the other school systems in our
community. I don’t know how you separate these ideas
in saying that these are only relevant to fifteen schools. I
think they have relevancy beyond that.
* * * * *
[394] * * *
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. Dr. Gilberts, you recall one of the questions that came
up during your cross-examination yesterday was the ques
tion of how many spaces are available for the new open
enrollment program. I have been handed a resume that
reflects your understanding. Do you have a copy of that
in front of you? A. Yes.
Q. I ’d like to ask you a few questions about it. First
of all, with regard to the spaces available on the basis of
normal capacity at the elementary school level, that shows
878 spaces, is that correct? A. Yes.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1787a
Q. Now, of those 878 spaces, are they all in predomi
nantly Anglo schools? Do yon know? A. I think this in
cludes all of the elementary schools in Denver. That’s my
understanding, at least.
Q. So that then would include the Court-designated
schools? A. Yes.
Q. And would also include plaintiffs’ target schools, these
ten other schools? A. Yes.
Q. Now, a black child wouldn’t be allowed to transfer
[395] into any of those schools under your program, would
he? A. No.
Q. So, as far as the availability of space for minority
children is concerned, how would that 878 spaces be af
fected? Do you know? A. I have a modified sheet like
you have here which is—which has removed the capacity
available in the twelve Court schools, and that reduces the
capacity at the elementary level— Shall I read these to you?
Q. Yes. A. At normal capacity it is reduced by 258,
leaving 620. Ten percent is reduced by 1,019, leaving 5,363.
And a plus 15 percent is reduced by 1,676 leaving a capacity
of 7,457.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
The Court: None of this makes any sense to either
the record or me, you know, because I don’t know
what he’s talking about; these figures.
Mr. Greiner: This goes to the question, Your
Honor, of—
The Court: I know that, but he’s reading from a
document that we don’t have before us, so we don’t
know what he’s talking about.
Mr. Greiner: There is an extra copy we might
have marked for identification.
The Court: We just don’t know what these figures
1788a
[396] represent that he’s reading, the various fig
ures. I have the 878 reduced by the number of spaces
that esist in the so-called Court schools.
Q. Leaving a balance of how many spaces? A. 620
spaces.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
Mr. Greiner: Now, we have marked this piece of
paper Exhibit 517.
Q. Is that right, Dr. Gilberts? A. Yes.
Q. So that subtraction that you have just made reflects
the fact that the so-called Court-designated schools are not
predominantly Anglo schools, is that correct? A. Yes.
Q. Now, there are other schools in the District at the
elementary level that are also not predominantly Anglo, is
that also correct? A. Right.
Q. For example, we have some 5,000 students in the
so-called plaintiffs’ target schools, is that right? A. Yes.
Q. Or about ten percent of the elementary school enroll
ment, is that right? A. I believe that’s correct.
Q. So that, if we were to further reduce these capacity
figures by subtracting other predominantly Anglo space, do
£3973 you have any idea as to how much of a further re
duction would be required? A. I’m sorry. I don’t have
that information available and I would just be guessing.
Q. But, even just taking into consideration the Court-
designated schools, the available space is brought down
below the total number of minority students in the Court-
designated schools. Isn’t that right? A. Yes.
Q. Because there are about—some 9,000 minority chil
dren in these Court schools? A. True.
Q. Now, have you made a similar adjustment with re
1789a
spect to the asserted available capacity of the junior high
school level? A. Yes.
Q. What is that adjustment, please? A. The normal
capacity reduced by 737, leaving 1,088. The plus ten per
cent is reduced to 3,048. The plus 15 percent is reduced to
4,029.
Q. Now, I take it then that those figures that you have
just read me as being net figures, those figures still include
capacity at Morey Junior High School, don’t they? Be
cause Morey is not a Court-designated school? A. I would
assume that is true, but I don’t know that [398] to be a fact.
Q. And Morey, of course, is not a predominantly Anglo
Junior High School, is it? A. No, it is not.
Q. So perhaps there is a further reduction that would
have to be made in that 4,000 figure, is that right? A. Pos
sibly.
The Court: These figures are within the rated
capacities of these schools?
The Witness: Sir, the rated capacity is defined
as the capacity normal here and then the plus ten
percent is adding a ten-percent factor onto that, and
a fifteen-percent factor on that. The base is a nor
mal capacity.
The Court: So these figures then contemplate that
you’re going to be using these schools substantially
over capacity?
The Witness: Yes, sir. As we said yesterday, we
felt that we would probably have to provide space
through mobiles, possibly, to modify schedules to
possibly add on to these buildings to produce the
space that could possibly be necessary.
The Court: And you would do this with mobile
units?
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—-Cross
1790a
The Witness: It could be clone.
The Court: Or whatever else yon can muster, is
that right?
[399] The Witness: Yes, sir. These ten and fif
teen-percent capacities we feel we can operate with
pretty much—pretty much within the existing facili
ties. If we went beyond this we would then probably
have to begin providing additional space through
adjustments in schedules or additional facilities.
The Court: This doesn't take into account possible
double sessions?
The Witness: No, sir, this does not.
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. Dr. Gilberts, have you made a similar adjustment on
Exhibit 517 with respect to the senior high schools? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. And would you read those figures for us, please, the
net figures? A. The capacity normal is a deficit here of
337 pupils over capacity, as I read this. This is adjusted
to 478.
Q. Is that plus or minus ? A. Minus, I assume; an addi
tional minus of 141. The ten percent is 1,697, a minus of
297, leaving a capacity of 1,382. The plus fifteen percent
is a minus 375 with an adjusted capacity of 2,311.
Q. Now, one other question with regard to these net
figures, Dr. Gilberts. Do the net figures now reflect the
[400] fact that some of these available spaces are cur
rently being filled by students participating in the District’s
regular VOE program? A. Yes, I believe they do.
Q. They do? A. Yes.
Q. Now, one of the other questions—there was a ques
tion with respect to the description of the new YOE pro
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1791a
posal, Dr. Gilberts. We are assuming, and I ’d like you to
confirm this, that there is a racial balance condition being
imposed under this special YOE program. Is that correct?
A. There is a paragraph, I believe, where it mentions
that we will try to keep a ratio of some sort. I don’t be
lieve it’s defined precisely.
Q. But I am right in my assumption, am I not, that under
the new YOE, a minority child couldn’t transfer into a
predominantly minority school? Is that right? A. That’s
correct.
Q. I’m going to be referring to the Board’s plan, Dr.
Gilberts. Do you have a copy of that in front of you? A.
Yes, I do.
Q. Now, before we leave YOE, I assume that if a minor
ity child transfers into a predominantly Anglo school that
you feel that it will be necessary to undertake some pro
grams in that receiving school in order to properly [4013
prepare the school for the minority child, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And what kinds of programs do you conceive as being
necessary in these Anglo receiving schools? A. I think
essentially the same kinds of programs that are going to
be necessary in those schools that are predominantly min
ority.
Q. Well, could you be a little more specific, please? A. I
suppose the information that we have included under our
in-service education, those areas would be covered. Those
areas would include the nature of the minority community,
the child and his problems, his strengths, his weaknesses in
terms of our program, teaching techniques that it may be
appropriate to be used with these youngsters. Certainly
understanding of the cultural, social heritage of the groups
that are brought into the school.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1792a
Q. So this is a program directed not only toward teach
ers in the Anglo receiving schools but it is also directed
towards the Anglo students in the Anglo receiving schools,
is that correct? A. Yes, it would have to be.
Q. And I take it that your description of what is to be
done in the Hallett program receiving schools is a pretty
accurate description of what you have in mind for all Anglo
receiving schools, is that correct? [402] A. I’m not just
sure exactly what you are—the one in the plan here that—
or, which description are you talking about?
Q. As I recall, and correct me if I’m wrong, the proposal
contemplates an allocation of certain of these minority
schools. A. For in-service?
Q. For in-service, or for anything else, as I understand
it. A. Planning.
Q. Additional salaries, for example, extended school
year; that type of thing. A. Yes.
Q. I’m looking here now to see if I can find the exact
place. Well, at any rate, you do talk about this—in this
plan, what you’re going to do with the Hallett program
receiving schools, and as I recall the proposal it is to give
the Hallett plan receiving schools approximately one-half
as much aid in terms of dollars as that which is going
to be directed towards the Court-designated schools, is
that correct? A. I ’m afraid you’ll have to refer me to the
place in the plan here that you’re talking about.
Q. If you would look, please, at Page 66' of your plan,
down towards the middle of the page, it reads: “Budget
[403] allotments should be made to the schools which
will receive the Hallett pupils at the same rate as that
recommended for the twelve minority schools except that
the time involved for the extended work year would only
be one-half as long or a period of two additional work
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1793a,
weeks per year. It is estimated that the total cost for
these receiving schools for this purpose would be $114,-
500.” And that is the cost, I believe, for ten receiving
schools—no, nine receiving schools, is that correct? A.
I ’m afraid I don’t see where you’re reading.
Q. Page 66. A. Yes, that’s correct.
Q. So, if you divide nine into 114,500, you get some
what over $12,000 per school, is that right, per receiving
school? A. Yes, I presume you’re correct.
Q. Now, you’re going to have a multiplication, are you
not, Dr. Gilberts, of Anglo receiving schools under the
Board’s concept of special open enrollment? A. I wish
you would define what you mean by that a little more.
Q. Well, for example, there is not going to be any limi
tation placed—well, let’s take an example. Approximately
how many predominantly Anglo elementary schools do
we have in the District? [404] A. I’m sorry. I don’t have
that figure right at hand.
Q. How many elementary schools do we have in the
District? A. Eighty-six—87.
Q. And would you say that about half of those are pre
dominantly Anglo? A. Yes.
Q. So let’s say there are 42 predominantly Anglo
schools. Now, under your program of special open en
rollment, a minority child could transfer into any one of
those 42 schools, is that correct? A. Correct.
Q. So it’s possible that you may have 42 receiving
schools that are going to require these special receiving
school budget allocations, isn’t that right? A. That’s pos
sible, but it seems to me that one would have to apply a
little bit of judgment with respect to the nature and the
size of the problem. If there are two or three youngsters
transported into one of these receiving schools I doubt
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Gross
1794a
very much that the investment there would have to be as
great as it would in a school where substantial numbers
of youngsters are transported.
Q. But you don’t contest the fact that some sort of
program is going to be required? [4051 A. Yes.
Q. Even for one minority child? A. I think some kind
of program, yes.
Q. So, actually, you have a potential for more receiving
schools under your proposal of open enrollment than un
der the most comprehensive of the plaintiffs’ plan? A.
We already have that potential under the plan we pres
ently have.
Q. Now, I ’d like now to call your attention to Page 6
of the summary that is entitled Staff Stabilization. Now,
over in the right-hand column there is a figure given for
the estimated cost of 1970 under the voluntary incentive
program of $633,000 per year. Out of that 633,000 how
much of it is going to be spent for two of the items—or
three of the items over here in the left-hand margin? For
example, how much is going to be spent on superior mate
rials? A. I ’m afraid I couldn’t define that at this point.
Q. How much is going to be spent on special programs?
A. I can’t define the precise costs in any one of those
elements at this time.
Q. Now, if I understand, that $633,000 figure reflects
the fact that in these twelve minority schools—there are
fifteen minority schools designated by the Court—there
are 633 teachers, is that right? A. Yes.
[4063 Q. And it contemplates that each one of those
teachers would receive an extra $1,000 per year for addi
tional—for this additional four-week work period, is that
correct? A. That’s certainly a possibility.
Q. So it’s one of the possibilities that all of this $633,-
000 is going to be—going to go toward teacher salaries?
Robert D, Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1795a
That’s one possibility, is that correct? A. It’s a possibil
ity, yes.
Q. Now, as I understand it, another possibility is up
to one-half of that amount, depending on a decision made
at the local school level, up to one-half of the amount
would be allocated for other purposes, is that correct? A.
Yes.
Q. But any such allocation would automatically cut
down, would it not, the amount of funds available to pay
teachers for this extended work year? In other words,
you can only—you can only use this $633,000 once, not
twice? A. Certainly that would be true if it were spent
on some of the programs that are identified here.
Q. Well, for example, if money were spent on superior
materials, it wouldn’t be available for teacher compensa
tion, would it? A. Right.
Q. And if money were spent on special programs, would
[407] it also be available to pay teachers for their four-
week extended period? A. These special programs could
involve teachers, yes. It could be available for extended
employment.
Q. How about pre-visitation to assigned schools? A. I
think that would be a matter of additional pay for
teachers.
Q. And the orientation program? A. That, too.
Q. So some of this is to pay teachers for the extra
time? A. Right.
Q. Some of it is available for other resources. Now,
this $633,000—is this to pay teachers only in the Court-
designated schools? A. Yes, I believe that’s correct, the
way it was written in this proposal.
Q. And then you contemplate spending an additional
$114,500 in the Hallett receiving schools, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1796a
Q. And then we have also, I think, agreed that you’re
going to spend something like—we don’t know how much
—for the other Anglo receiving schools, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, the orientation program is a separate expense
[4083 under this itemization, is that correct, on Page 6?
A. Yes.
The Court: What’s your point? In that this is
going to be expensive?
Mr. Greiner: Very, very expensive, Your Honor,
and a lot more expensive.
The Court: You’re not really worried about the
costs here, are you? I mean, that’s not a real prob
lem? I mean, this is not a great issue from your
standpoint ?
Mr. Greiner: Well, not only I am not worried
about the cost but evidently the defendants aren’t
worried about the costs, either, Your Honor.
Q. Now, this orientation program of $15,000, that’s a
thousand dollars per Court-designated school, is that cor
rect ? A. Bight.
Q. Is it going to be necessary to have similar orienta
tion programs in receiving schools? A. Again, I say this
would depend upon the number of youngsters and individ
ual—the individual school’s evaluation of whether or not
this would be necessary.
Q. Now, turning your attention to Page 7, differentiated
staffing, I wonder if you could distinguish for me the dif
ference in concept between that of a paraprofessional and
a teacher aide. Is there a difference? [4093 A. Well, I
think there is no difference that one could identify that
would hold true across the entire country. These terms
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1797a
are used in a number of different ways in a number of
different school systems.
Q. How are you using it? A. I would use the para-
professional as somebody who has some specialized train
ing. Let me give you an example. For example, an indi
vidual who had been trained as a technician in the use
of audiovisual instruction materials would probably be a
paraprofessional. I suppose that one could consider indi
viduals who have had degrees in various academic areas
who would assist teachers, work with them, as a parapro
fessional and not a certified person—but somebody comes
in as an aide to the teacher. I ’m sure there are other kinds
of positions.
Q. I think that clarifies the question. Now, in the im
plementation of your differentiated staffing program, and
bearing in mind your current contracts with D.C.T.A., is
differentiated staffing now entirely compatible with the
current school district contract? Or, is some sort of nego
tiation and agreement of D.C.T.A. going to be necessary?
A. I think that certainly some conference and involvement
with the D.C.T.A. will be important. I think the Board
has the authority to move in this direction if it chooses
but obviously the professional organization has an interest.
[410] Q. So you wouldn’t force this down the D.C.T.A.’s
throat? A. My impression, I would not. We have dis
cussed this over the last year or two and people I have
talked with at least are interested in examining—
Q. Because, in essence, it’s going to make the teacher’s
job a little easier, isn’t it? A. I don’t believe so. I don’t
think it would make it—I think it would make the teacher’s
job more difficult.
Q. By giving the teacher more assistance? A. No, by
giving the teacher more responsibility in more difficult
areas of professional—
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1798a
Q. Now, with regard to, first of all, paraprofessionals
and bearing in mind the character of the Court-designated
schools, can you give us at least an estimate, Dr. Gilberts,
of how many paraprofessionals are going to be required
in these schools? A. No, I don’t believe that I can. I did
try to describe yesterday how I felt one would arrive at
effective—an effective system for differentiating. If one
were to take the model that is proposed in the—in back
here, under those circumstances, I could give—
Q. That’s all I want. A. —that’s the kind of solution
of the plan that we will be pursuing.
[4113 Q. Well, if you were to apply this reference that
you just made, how would you come out? A. Well, let me
—I really don’t believe that I can give you an intelligent
estimate. Let me cite an example of where differentiated
staffing is being used locally which you could examine, if
you choose, in Cherry Creek where they have differenti
ated staffing in such a way as to staff the schools within the
regular budget for elementary schools. Now, that’s pos
sible. I t’s been done.
Q. Do you think that’s going to be feasible in these
minority schools, Dr. Gilberts? A. I think within the
budgetary limitations that we are proposing for these
schools with existing support programs, yes.
Q. You might say that the Cherry Creek School District
has a minimum number of minority pupils, is that correct?
A. I certainly would agree with that.
Q. And as I understand it, this differentiated staffing
concept, as you are proposing here, is somehow directly
tailored to the problems of minority schools, is that correct?
A. Eight.
Q. So, is the Cherry Creek example really even relevant
here, Doctor? A. Well, only relevant in that an existing
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1799a
educational program was taken. The staff was differenti
ated to deal with 1412] the educational task that was there
within the budget already provided. We already have
budgetary provisions in many of these schools that are in
excess of many of the other schools in the city. And un
der this circumstance, I think it’s quite likely that we could
stay within it. Now, possibly—we won’t know until we be
gin working with the problem.
Q. So the concept would be to remove numbers of pro
fessional teachers from these Court-designated schools and
add paraprofessionals and teacher aides, is that correct?
A. I don’t know whether that would be true. It might be.
Q. Well, you would have to do that to stay within the
current budgets? A. We already have aides in many of
these schools.
Q. Do you have enough? A. No, we’re proposing more.
Q. And do you have paraprofessionals in these Court-
designated schools today? A. Very few.
Q. Now, one area that I couldn’t find a description of on
Page 7 is master teachers. And there is an allocation of
$212,000 for master teachers. What does that figure rep
resent? A. Well, this represents additional pay for addi
tional responsibility for individuals who would assume lead
ership roles and instructional programs—I believe if you
look at E413J the end of this proposal, the program which
is on Page 159, it would give you a general idea of what
is being referred to. On Page 160 it talks here about the
unit leader, teachers, instructional aids, clerical aids. Now,
these are arbitrary decisions with respect to how one dif
ferentiates. I am not sure that particular description is
what ultimately would be the description used. You’ve got
to keep in mind that we put this plan together in about a
week. The complete development of some of these concepts
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1800a
is going to take time. Many of the elements—nearly, if not
all of the elements within this proposal were in certain
stages of consideration. I t’s not possible for me at this
point to even be assured that this is the kind of organiza
tional structure that will be appropriate under differenti
ated staffing. This is what my staff recommended to me.
I have a fairly sizable staff. Each of these elements, work
ing on these plans that are in here—in this period of time
it wasn’t possible to work out the kinds of interrelation
ships, the kinds of definitions, the kinds of program descrip
tions we would like to have.
Q. Now, at Page 160, the diagram there that shows five
of these unit leaders in the elementary school—that’s the
diagram of the model which Denver is going to follow, is
that right? A. This is a diagram of a model that Denver
is going to test.
[4143 Q. So that there might be as many as 60 of these
master teachers in the Court-designated schools? Twelve
times five? A. I think that’s entirely possible.
Q. And then you would allocate this $212,000 among those
people? A. If there were that many and if that were an
appropriate sum of money for the additional responsibility
in time and employment, yes, that’s probably what would
be done. We wouldn’t arrive at their salary—which, tak
ing this amount and then dividing the number into it—I’m
sure we would arrive at some more logical system than
that.
Q. So it’s not going to be a per capita distribution? A.
I don’t know.
Q. Now, I understand from Page 7 that in these minor
ity schools you are not going to—the District overall is not
going to need any more psychologists or social workers, is
that correct? A. I don’t think that decision has been made.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1801a
Q. Well, I see here that there is no provision budgetwise
for hiring additional psychologists or social workers. A.
I’m sure we have not reflected every consideration in what
will have to be there in the future.
Q. Well, you infer by assigning these that you can meet
these needs'? [415] A. We think so.
Q. So you’re not sure? A. No. No, we’re not sure.
Q. Now, the extended work year at the bottom of Page 7
which is given as a $114,500 price tag, is that included in
the $633,000 figure that we find on Page 6? Or is that in
addition to it? A. It could be. It is not necessarily. If
this plan were to operate in one of the schools that we’re
talking about, then certainly we wouldn’t need two sums
for extended school year.
Q. Now, turning your attention to the improved in-
service training program, could you describe very briefly
for the Court the kinds of in-service training programs that
were developed for teachers and were attended by teachers
last summer that related to the implementation of the reso
lutions? A. I’m not sure I can do this inclusively. There
were several, I can remember. There wms one conducted
at Colorado College, I believe, which was an extension of
the year before. Last summer there was a—
Q. Pardon me, Doctor. What was the subject of the ses
sion at Colorado College? A. I’m sorry. I can’t recall
exactly but it had to do with the cultural contributions of
the minorities.
[416] Q. At Page 69 of your report there is a list. Per
haps that would refresh your recollection. A. Thank you.
It doesn’t indicate where these were held so it would be
difficult for me to judge which one is which.
Q. But I take it, referring to the list on Page 69, Dr.
Gilberts, that these are all in-service programs that really
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1802a
relate quite directly, don’t they, to the problems of teach
ing minority children? A. Yes, I think so.
Q. So the School District has already worked up a lot of
things—a lot of this in-service training program, has it
not? A. These you see listed, at least, yes.
Q. Now, in the past was a teacher’s attendance at an
in-service training program mandatory or voluntary? A.
It was voluntary.
Q. And do you think, Dr. Gilberts, bearing in mind these
special problems at these Court-designated schools, do you
think it is reasonable to require that every teacher in those
schools be required to attend these in-service training pro
grams? A. Yes, I do.
Q. And is that contemplated in your plan? A. It would
be, yes.
[4171 Q. If you make such a requirement, do you also
then get a concomitant obligation to pay the teacher or
give the teacher time off to attend the program? A. Yes,
and this is contemplated in the extended school year. Some
of the provisions that are already reflected in the budget.
Q. So all teachers in the target schools are going to be
required—in the Court schools are going to be required to
attend these sessions, is that correct? A. Eight.
Q. Now, in view of the achievement levels and the simi
larity of problems at such schools as the ten additional
schools which the plaintiffs would like to see included in
relief, would it also be a good idea to have the teachers in
those schools attend this on a mandatory basis? A. Yes.
Q. And that, of course, would increase the cost of the
program in terms of teacher time off, is that correct? A.
Yes. And those also would—those will be things that will
be required no matter what we do.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1803a
Q. Now, you say that, for September of 1970—and I am
on Page 8—that improved in-service training will be im-
plementd to the extent of currently budgeted available
funds. What does that mean in terms of dollars, Doctor?
A. I ’m sorry. I can’t tell you what is left in that [418]
fund for next fall.
Q. Do you have any idea? A. No, I don’t.
Q. I take it that your estimate was that it would cost
about $100,500 to fund a similar program in 1971, is that
correct? A. I think this is a mistake. I think this was
supposed to be $200,000, and somehow in the reproduction
of this document, it was not changed.
Q. So that cost there should be $200,500? A. It should
be $200,000, period.
Q. I see. All right. Now, Doctor, that contemplates
mandatory participation by teachers in all of the Court-
designated schools, is that correct? A. Yes, and other
schools as well.
Q. Oh, and other schools as well? A. Eight.
Q. So this is going to be a district-wide program? A.
Yes.
Q. Does it contemplate that teachers in all of the Anglo
receiving schools would also be required to attend these
programs? A. Yes.
Q. And what estimate of that $200,000 do you allocate
to that part of the program? [4193 A. Well, in view of the
fact that a good bit of these programs could be made avail
able in the Court-designated schools during the additional
time period that has been provided for employment, I would
assume that most of this could be spent in that direction.
Q. Now, what about the human relations seminars and
the workshops in the history and cultural aspects of mi
norities—how much is available this year for that program?
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants'—Cross
1804a
A. As I indicated to you, I ’m not sure what’s left in the
budget and how much is committed to these programs.
Q. Can you give us a ball park figure! A. No.
Q. Can you assure us that there are sufficient funds to
adequately run these programs! A. I don’t believe that I
could assure you of that at all. As a matter of fact, I ’m
sure in terms of what we contemplate in the succeeding
years when we can budget for these funds, there are not
enough funds to do what needs to be done.
Q. Now, programs directed toward the special problems
of teaching disadvantaged pupils aren’t scheduled to begin
under this timetable until a year from this coming Septem
ber, is that correct! A. "Well, it appears that way on this
schedule. It E4203 doesn’t make that much sense to me that
that would be the case. I would assume that these would
begin immediately after funds are available when we have
budgeted for them.
Q. Now, the cooperative workshops put on by black edu
cators and the Hispano teachers—that’s a program that’s
already in existence, is it not! A. It is being contemplated
for this fall.
Q. And this is a separate cost for that program? A. I
think that’s included in the amount of moneys in the in-
service budget that we have included for this year.
Q. Now, I ’d like to call your attention, Dr. Gilberts, to
the school complex concept which is summarized on Page
9. First of all, you have in mind, I take it, the identity of
the Court-designated schools, do you not! The Columbine,
Bryant-Webster, Elmwood, Fairmount, Fairview, Green
lee, Hallett, Harrington, Mitchell, Smith, Stedman and
Whittier. Now, as I understand it, it is your proposal to
implement first, Elementary Complexes 1 and 2, is that
correct! A. Yes, we are working on those this year.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1805a
Q. Now, how many schools are involved in Elementary
Complex 1? A. One. Wait a minute—-
Q. What’s the total number? A. Not in Complex 1. One
in Complex 2.
Q. I ’m sorry. What’s the total number of all kinds
[421] of schools contained in Complex 1? A. Eleven.
Q. And of those eleven schools there is only one Court-
designated school, isn’t that right? A. Yes.
Q. And that’s Hallett, is that correct? A. Right.
Q. Now, how does the implementation of Complex 1 in
your view afford relief to any of the other schools which
the Court has designated? Does it? A. Not in a direct
way, but as I indicated yesterday, I believe that this con
cept has some important implications for all the schools
in Denver. I believe that the things that we will learn out
of the planning of these complexes will have some implica
tions not only for the Court-designated schools but all the
schools in the city.
Q. Now, when we turn to Elementary Complex 2, what
is the total number of schools in that complex? A, Twelve,
I believe.
Q. So in this complex—and there is only one Court-
designated school in that complex, is that correct? A.
True.
Q. So in the implementation of Complexes 1 and 2, you
are dealing with 23 schools? A. Yes.
[422] Q. Only two of which are Court-designated
schools ? A. Exactly.
Q. Now, as I understand the complex theory, one of its
premises is decentralization, is that correct? A. Yes.
Q. And you look to this committee of teachers, staff and
local community representatives to sort of put the meat on
the skeleton of the complex concept, is that correct? A.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1806a
Along with central office personnel and any kind of re
sources that they should ask for.
Q. Now, am I correct in my understanding, Dr. Gilberts,
that these kinds of committees composed of teachers, staff,
community representatives and so on, were in fact desig
nated for Elementary Complexes 1 and 2 sometime last
fall! They do exist, is that correct? A. The planning com
mittee ?
Q. Yes. A. Yes.
Q. When were they appointed? A. I ’m sorry. I couldn’t
give you the exact time, but last fall I think is reasonably
accurate.
Q. And they have been meeting and working continu
ously since then, have they not? A. I believe the heavy
effort on this began probably in about December, but I
could be mistaken.
[423] Q. And have you had any kinds of input or out
put from those committees? Are you familiar at all with
what they have planned so far? A. Yes.
Q. How much integration has been planned so far in the
schools of Complex 1, Dr. Gilberts? Do you understand
what I mean? A. Yes. I ’m sorry. I just couldn’t be sure
that any has been planned in terms of special programs.
As I recall, and this is from recollection, I may have missed
something—that in the complexes are some ideas that have
been developed at this point. The instructional centers,
diagnostic learning center approach, the cultural arts type
program, all of these could provide for some integration
within the programs.
Q. But that would go only to relieve the minority chil
dren of Hallett, isn’t that right, in Complex 1? A. As far
as the Court-designated schools, yes.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1807a
Q. As a matter of fact, Hallett is the subject already of
a special program, is it not? A. Yes.
Q. Now, what about the input and output with regard to
elementary Complex 2, Dr. Gilberts? What sort of inte
gration is currently being provided for that complex? A.
Essentially the same as in Complex 1 at this [424] point.
Q. In other words, none? A. Only through special pro
grams.
Q. Now, Elementary Complex 5, the planning for which
starts in January of 1971, and implementation in Septem
ber of 1971—is that correct? A. Yes.
Q. In other words, this is another program that is a year
off, is that right? A. Yes.
Now, it contains some more of the Court-designated
schools, does it not? A. Yes.
Q. For example, Columbine, Harrington, Mitchell, Smith
and Stedman, is that right? A. Eight.
Q. Now, as I go down that list of schools of Elementary
Complex 5, Dr. Gilberts, am I right that those are all pre
dominantly minority schools? A. Yes.
Q. Well, where do the children in the schools of Complex
5 get their integration experience? A. I wasn’t aware that
the Court ordered us to produce a plan of integration. The
plan to improve educational quality in these schools. There
fore, that plan is not [425] necessarily aimed primarily at
integration.
Q. Well, it’s not aimed at all at integration, is it, Dr.
Gilberts? A. In this particular case, if these are the only
schools that will be involved, you are right.
The Court: Well, this Complex 1 and 2 ,1 thought
you said was put together long before I issued any
judgment.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1808a
The Witness: Yes, sir. It began last fall—the
planning began last fall.
The Court: So you were not offering this in re
sponse to any order that I issued?
The Witness: No, sir. But we certainly have been
planning to improve the educational quality in these
schools before you issued an order.
The Court: Well, I thought you just said now
that you thought I was seeking to improve the qual
ity of education and that is what this has to do with ?
The Witness: No, I ’m just showing that this is a
response that we think will have an effect on that;
that’s already begun.
The Court: Well, then, your famous Exhibit 20,
one of the important objects is to bring about some
integration?
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: And you have just abandoned that in
these two programs?
[426] The Witness: Not totally.
The Court: Well, it’s just so minimal it doesn’t
amount to a thing. How do you explain that? I
can’t understand what your thinking is. What’s the
use of doing it if you’re going to do it this way?
The Witness: Well, I first began my presentation
yesterday—I said I felt that one of the major needs
in education in terms of improving the quality of
education, and this includes these schools and other
schools as well, is to reconstruct the climate of the
educational institution itself. Now, this is a good
deal more than integration. This involves the kinds
of programs that are developed.
The Court: True.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1809a
The Witness: It involves the kinds of input the
staff has. It involves the kinds of attitudes the com
munity has. It involves a host of things. One of
which can be certainly desegregation. No question
about that. Now, I believe—
The Court: Well, you wouldn’t put a new system
together that would perpetuate—
The Witness: Sir, we are not changing the schools
that exist within the city in this complex. Possibly
I didn’t get that across. We are using the existing
facilities that are presently there. We are not
changing that. We are merely putting them to
gether in an organizational structure [4273 which I
think will allow us to free up the educational proc
ess to do some of the things that I have been talking
about. We’re not changing the physical structure of
the school system; merely the operational structure
of it. Now, I think that’s a significant requirement
in the improvement of education and I think it’s
significant in all the schools of the city. That is my
professional judgment.
The Court: Well, that may wrnll be, but it makes
very little contribution in this kind of setting. That’s
all I can say.
The Witness: Well, it doesn’t make a contribu
tion—
The Court: I mean, this is what we’re concerned
with. I submit that we are definitely concerned with
these complaints of discrimination. I mean, that’s
what we have been trying here, I take it, for almost
a year, off and on.
The Witness: Sir, if you look at the entire plan,
there are all kinds of things that I feel will change
Robert D. Gilberts-~for Defendants-—Cross
1810a
the educational climate. I thought in your decision
you had asked that educational achievement be im
proved in these schools. That was the direction that
I read in that. In my judgment the things we are
talking about here will contribute to that end. Now,
not this alone. I think this is only a piece of it. I
think all of the other elements that we talked about
will also contribute to it. I think when you have an
opportunity this morning to listen to Mr. Ward and
to Mr. [428] Morrison, our elementary principal,
you will see some things that are going on that
are qualitatively oriented to better education. I
guess -what I’m saying is that one can’t assume that
one can solve this problem by any one approach.
You’ve got to use a very broad approach to chang
ing the character of education. And certainly de
segregation is only one of those.
The Court: Well, what I’m expressing really is
that your whole cluster approach is described in
Exhibit 20 was designed in response to a demand
for integration and in this you say, “Well, you get
the best of two worlds. You have a home school.
At the same time you achieve this integrating ex
perience in a campus atmosphere.” These evidences
would indicate to me that the thread that runs
through all of his would be to bring about some
kind of integration and either you didn’t anticipate
this at all or somebody put it in here without your
knowledge or else you abandoned your former prin
ciples. That’s all.
The Witness: There are some other schools in
Complex 2 not identified by the Court that certainly
will provide some integration in those cases. The
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1811a
important schools that the Court has identified are
only two, as is indicated here. But there are other
schools in which this can occur.
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. Dr. Gilberts, Elementary Complex 5 [429] and the
schools contained therein, those are the same schools that
were put in Complex 5 in Exhibit 20, Planning Equality
Education, is that correct? A. Yes.
Q. Now, is my recollection also correct, Dr. Gilberts,
that when you originally drafted—or in Exhibit 20—actu
ally I think it’s Exhibit D, Planning Equality Education,
that in Complex 5 you were going to leave the minority
children in those schools for Grades K through 3? A. Yes.
Q. And then you were going to mandatorily transport
them into Anglo schools, isn’t that correct ? A. That was
my original recommendation.
Q. And you have abandoned that concept completely?
A. I have not abandoned that concept.
Q. Well, it’s not in the plan, is it? A. No, it’s not.
Q. Well, does it continue to exist somewhere? A. No,
it does not exist in any other way than my recommenda
tions.
Q. So that concept has been abandoned, hasn’t it? A. I
don’t believe it’s been considered as a separate issue.
Q. Now turning your attention, Doctor, to early child
hood education, as I understand it, the Head Start program
[4303 which centers upon three- and four-year-olds is now
being conducted in 18 separate places in the city and en
compasses about 600 children, is that correct? A. Yes.
Q. Now, which schools do these children go to? Do you
have any idea? A. I couldn’t recall that.
Q. In other words, this Head Start program is not specif
ically tailored in particular to teach children or to reach
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1812a
children who are ultimately going to end up in these twelve
minority elementary schools that the Court has designated?
Isn’t that right? A. These programs are tailored to young
sters that qualify under the Title I area of the city, which
is determined by parental income and so on, I believe.
The Court: Where are you now?
Mr. Greiner: Page 10, Your Honor, of their plan.
Q. What is the Title I area of the city, Dr. Gilberts?
Can you roughly describe it for us? A. Well, I think that,
by and large, with the exception of south—part of a south
central area, generally beginning with—well, with the dots
you have following in that general area around that part
of the city.
Q. Well, referring now to what has been designated in
the Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 415, which is a map of the school
E4313 district—for example, is Smedly in the Title I area?
A. I believe so but I could not be absolutely certain.
Q. Bryant-Webster? A. Yes.
Q. Garden Place? A. Yes.
Q. Elyria? A. Yes.
Q. Swansea? A. Right.
Q. How about Harrington? A. Again I’m not sure but
I think so.
Q. Somewhere here in the east is a divided—a dividing
line, is that right? A. Yes.
Q. Do you know whether or not Stedman, Hallett or
Smith are Title I schools? A. I believe so. I think there
are some programs in those schools.
Q. Under Title I? A. Again I can’t be absolutely cer
tain.
Q. What about down in southwest—the southwest sec
tion here, Pairview, Greenlee? A. Yes.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1813a
Q. Elmwood? [432] A. Right.
Q. Fairmount? A. Yes.
Q. Now, as I understand it, Title I has an economic
premise to it, doesn’t it, Dr. Gilberts? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is the economic premise? A. $3,000 income, as
I recall.
Q. So there is a very high correlation, is there not,
between these minority schools that we have just listed
and low socioeconomic status? A. Yes.
Q. In fact, every one of those schools is low socioeco
nomically, is it not? A. Yes.
The Court: Now, the school facilities are not
necessarily used for the Head Start program, are
they?
The Witness: No, some are outside the school
facilities.
The Court: They are just put in neighborhoods?
The Witness: Right.
The Court: That probably are involved in—they
probably are involved in a particular school area,
but, as I understand it, these are conducted in store
buildings or whatever they have available, is that
correct?
[433] The Witness: Yes.
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. Now, as I understood—is it your understanding, Dr.
Gilberts, that these Head Start programs are directed
throughout the geographic area that we have just been de
scribing? A. In general, yes.
Q. Now, are there children, Dr. Gilberts, who qualify for
Head Start but who can’t be accommodated into the pro
gram? A. Yes.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1814a
Q. Can you give me any idea of how many children must
be turned away each year under the current funding? A,
Again, this would be a guess on my part. I can’t give you
that figure.
Q. Well, can you tell us if half the children who need
it are getting it? A. No, I don’t believe I could. I don’t
believe I could hazard that guess.
Q. Is there anybody on your staff that could?
The Court: I think we can take notice of the fact
that there are many that are not getting it. I mean,
do you need the exact number?
Mr. Greiner: No, I don’t think so, Your Honor.
I’d just like to get some idea.
The Court: I think it’s a matter we can take
judicial notice of; that it’s not an adequate program
in [434] terms of the demand.
The Witness: Yes, that’s true.
By Mr. Greiner'.
Q. Is that correct, Doctor? A. Yes.
Q. Now, there are 90 children currently participating in
the early childhood educational centers, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And as I understand the marginal comments on Page
10, this is a program that is not funded by public funds
at all? A. The early childhood education program is a
pilot program and it is being funded by Denver Public
Schools.
Q. Now, no federal funds, though? A. No federal funds.
Q. Is federal funding possible? A. Not unless we would
get a special approval of this under Title I.
Q. Now, again, with only 90 children in the program, I
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1815a
take it there is no doubt that there are many, many hun
dreds of children who might need this program but who
are not getting it? A. Exactly. This is a pilot program.
This is the first year we have operated it. It is an outgrowth
of the committee that was—that was recognized in 1968, the
design program.
Q. And the same is generally true, is it not, of the
[435] follow-through program where you have only 370
children affected? A. Yes.
Q. And the other follow-through program, Garden Place
and Gilpin, where you have 100 children? A. Yes.
Q. And then the national follow-through which is now
a proposal—that would increase the coverage at Garden
Place and Gilpin from 100 to 200 children, is that correct?
A. Yes, I believe so.
Q. Now, what kind of expansion of coverage for Head
Start, early childhood educational centers, follow-through
—what do you contemplate in the way of expanded cover
age? A. I believe that these programs, as I indicated
yesterday, are going to be of extreme significance regard
less of what kind of other programs go in this school sys
tem, and, as you have pointed out, these are by no means
covering the needs in the city, and there will have to be
substantial increase in funds for these programs.
Q. Now, do you have any information that indicates that
these additional increased funds are in fact going to be
available? A. No, sir. That will be an individual yearfy
budget problem.
Q. Now, you will recall that Dr. Sullivan mentioned
[436] something about the $500' million which the Presi
dent has allocated for desegregation and for the education
of minority children. Does anywhere in your plan—do you
reflect any of such moneys becoming available to Denver?
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1816a
A. Only possibly in the educational center at the secon
dary level, and that is only a possibility. It has not been
determined that that will be what we will apply for. As
soon as we have more adequate guidelines which somebody
informed the Court the other day are in the process of be
ing developed, we will know what it is we can apply to.
Q. Yes. I believe it was Dr. Coleman who was talking
about that; not Dr. Sullivan. A. Yes.
Q. Do yon have any idea when these moneys would be
come available? A. It is my impression that the early
funds will become available for next fall.
Q. And do you have any idea how much of those funds
Denver might expect to receive? A. There is no way to
know until we have programs designed, and that can’t be
done until guidelines are available, and it will be on an
individual program basis.
Q. Now, I take it that you do not have a lot of personal
knowledge about the particular programs that are going on
at Manual, Baker or Cole, is that so? [4373 A. Not nearly
as extensively as Mr. Ward or Mr. Morrison would have.
Q. When did you first find out, Dr. Gilberts, about the
kinds of programs that were being put on at Manual? A.
Well, they began, really, the first year I was here.
Q. I ’m asking you when you first became personally
aware? A. I became personally aware of the beginning
program—some of the things Mr. Ward was thinking about
the first year I was here.
Q. And have you had occasion to visit these programs
while they have been in operation? A. No, I have not.
Q. What about visitation at Baker or at Cole? A. I
have been in the schools but not specifically for that pro
gram.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1817a
Q. So we will direct, then, our questions about those
programs to those persons. Now, the Educational Achieve
ment Act of Colorado—the Senate Bill 174, as described on
Page 14, as I read Senate Bill 174, the funds allocated by
the State Legislature were directed toward the improve
ment of reading, is that correct? A. Yes.
Q. Now, how many children in Fairview in this interest-
motivating program—how many of the children in Fairview
[438] participate directly in the Fairview program? Is
every child in Fairview participating? A. This is Grades
2 through 6.
Q. And every child is participating? A. I believe so but
I ’m not absolutely certain of that.
Q. And how many children is that? A. I’m sorry. I
don’t have that figure.
Q. Fairview is one of these Court-designated schools, is
it not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, this program was implemented at Fairview
when? A. Well, I believe it began in late or the middle of
this year, and—the funds were not certain until after
school had begun and after school had opened.
Q. Now, there are 825 children, I am told, at Fairview.
And is it your impression that all 825 children are fully
participating in this program ? A. That is 825 in all grade
levels ?
Q. Yes. Total school population. A. Well, it wouldn’t
be that because there is just Grades 2 through 6.
Q. Do you know how many first-grade and kindergarten
there is at Fairview? A. No, I don’t.
Q. We’re talking about some 500 children perhaps? [439]
A. I don’t know.
Q. Now, what is the new concept being employed at Fair-
view? How does the Fairview program differ from pro
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1818a
grams which you can characterize as coping programs ? A.
Well, I think that these programs are rather unique in the
sense that they are very much individually—the youngsters
are very much individually handled. They are dealing with
high-interest areas. They are using the talents of teachers,
I think, in a creative way. The staff at Fairview is using
individualized reading instruction; multimedia communica
tions ; communication with the parents and home, in a way
that I think is at least—or on this report is producing
results that they are looking for.
Q. Now, Doctor, there is nothing new about the concept
of ungraded classes, is there? A. No, there is not.
Q. There is nothing new about the concept of individual
ized teaching methods, is there? A. Well, I don’t know.
There is nothing new in the concept of it, I guess, but I
think the application of it one may question.
Q. And multimedia communication, that just means using
films and tape recorders and things such as that, isn’t that
right? A. In general, yes.
E440] Q. And that is something that’s been going on for
a long time, isn’t it? A. Yes.
The Court: I don’t suppose there is any guarantee
you will come up with something brand-new in any of
these programs. Are they effective? I expect that’s
what we’re interested in.
The Witness: I think the manner in wdiich they
are put together and the way in which the staff has
committed the program is extremely an important
element of it, and that is dependent upon how the
programs are developed and implemented in a large
way.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1819a
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. Now, have you figured out a cost per child of the
Fairview program? A. I have not, no.
Q. Well, you’re spending $110,671. And, even if every
child in the school, some 800 were in the program, that
would be over a thousand dollars a child, would it not?
A. On that basis, it would, yes.
Q. Or would it? No, it would be over—it would be over
$120 a child, is that right? A. Right. I shouldn’t agree
with you so quick.
Q. I’m like Dr. Bardwell. My arithmetic isn’t very good.
The Court: We’d better get a computer in here.
[441] Q. Is that a pretty expensive program, Doctor?
A. No, sir, not for the problems that are involved with
these youngsters.
Q. Well, that’s in addition to the school’s normal bud
get, is it not? A. Yes.
Q. And say, if there were 500 children in the program,
that’s about $200 per child, is that right? A. If there were
500, approximately, yes.
Q. Now, if you spent $200 per child every year for all
of the 9,000 elementary minority children in the Court’s
schools, how much money is that? A. A lot of money.
And if we don’t, no matter what kind of program we have,
we’re not going to meet the problems that are before us.
The city is going to have to do that in one form or another.
Q. Where is the money going to come from for these—
this expensive program, Doctor? A. Well, by and large,
under present conditions it’s going to come from the prop
erty taxpayer, some support from the state and some from
the federal government. And unless those other two forms,
1820a
federal and state support, are increased substantially, this
city is going to be in the same kind of trouble that other
major cities are across the country. But, as I said, I don’t
care what kind of program [442] you implement, these
kinds of funds are going to be necessary.
Q. Now, as I understand it, Senate Bill 174 expires by
its own terms after next school year, is that correct? A.
Yes.
Q. So the source of this money, at least the current
source of this money is going to disappear, is that right?
A. Not necessarily. It might be extended.
Q. But we don’t know that? A. That’s right. That
would not necessarily have any implication for these pro
grams because these are funded as pilot programs; inno
vative programs, to test whether or not they have general
application. It was not intended to finance those programs
that will be generally applied throughout the school system.
So, we have the financial problem, I ’m sure.
Q. Now, do you have any idea how much the expenditure
of these $110,000—how it was broken down between equip
ment and teachers? A. Well, on Page 136 there is a bud
get breakdown, approximately $30,000 for salaries and
about $43,000 for supplies and materials. Equipment, an
other $28,000.
Q. Now, these are the same kinds of expenditures that
would have to be made in each of these twelve Court-desig
nated schools if this program were to be implemented, is
that correct? [4433 A. Yes.
Q. But you don’t contemplate any expansion of that
program out of Fairview next school year and into any of
the other Court-designated schools? I t’s not in your plan?
A. It’s not in the plan. Whether it will be in our budget
or not is a question yet to be determined. We are in the
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1821a
process this year of completing our development, our long-
range planning system, and this involves some of the
things we have tried to do in a big hurry, but on a much
more comprehensive and intensive basis than we could do
in this period of time, and I am sure we will add a number
of things that need to be included in that budget that are
not included in this plan.
Q. Now, Dr. Gilberts, I asume that you have the—you
have established some sort of a procedure for evaluating
the effectiveness of the Fairview program, is that correct?
A. I believe that an evaluation is one of the requirements
of the plan.
Q. Now, what kind of objective criteria have been es
tablished as an objective of the Fairview program! A.
I’m sorry. I have, as I explained before, a good many
people on my staff who were responsible for literally hun
dreds of different programs in this school system. There is
no way I can be familiar, sitting here off the top of my
head, talking about those kinds of specifics; I just don’t
[444] have it available.
Q. So you don’t have in mind what the particular objec
tives of the Fairview program are! A. Certainly the basic
objective is to improve the youngsters’ academic achieve
ment in school through reading, as the bill implies.
Q. But you don’t know what goal you set for yourself?
A. I couldn’t describe it precisely, no, not without reading
the plan.
Q. Well, then—
The Court: Well, I take it that the whole mission
of the program at Fairview is to improve the per
formance of these students, is that right?
Robert D. Gilberts-—for Defendants—Cross
1822a
The Witness: Yes, sir. Eight. But I thought he
was asking for a more precise definition of goals
than that.
The Court: One of the faculty there wrote me a
letter after the opinion telling me in some detail
what they’re doing there and saying that, if I’m go
ing to be an expert, I ought to go down and see
what’s happening.
The Witness: Sir, I think that’s a very good idea.
I’d certainly like to invite you to see some of the
programs in school.
The Court: You ought to visit some of them, too,
I think.
The Witness: I think that would be very nice.
E445] The Court: Maybe we could do it together.
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. Dr. Gilberts, on Page 143 of the plan, we were talk
ing about the innovative practices—it says the strenuous
efforts are required to eliminate factors that result in a
negative self-image of a child and a feeling of inferiority.
Practices that underestimate the child’s learning capacity.
Now, is it true, Dr. Gilberts, that this kind of environment
exists today in these minority schools? A. Yes, to some
degree.
Q. Now, in the cultural arts program, as it’s currently
being run, you are spending $165,000 on the program, as
I understand it, is that right? A. I believe that’s correct.
Q. Now, we’re on Page 15 of your plan. Now, last year
can you tell me how many Anglo children participated in the
cultural arts program? A. No, I can’t.
Q. Can you give me the total number of children that
participated in it? A. No, not off the top of my head.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1823a
Q. The cultural arts program is now being implemented
only for 6th graders, is that right? A. Yes.
Q. And is there any—is every 6th grader in the school
district participating? [4461 A. No.
Q. How many 6th graders of the school district are par
ticipating? Can you give me even a rough proportion?
A. It would be strictly a guess. Half. That’s a guess.
Q. Now, one of the objectives of the cultural arts pro
gram, as I understand it, is to bring children of ethnic
and racial groups together in an intercultural experience,
is that correct? A. Yes.
Q. And this is a form of real integration—in other words,
you have these different children there physically present,
one with the other, is that right? A. Yes.
Q. Now, in the cultural arts program, when we look at
one minority child’s participation in it, how many hours
of such integrated experience does he get out of the cul
tural arts program? A. I believe it’s a week’s participa
tion; a week-long participation.
Q. For a full school day? A. No, because there is trans
portation involved. A large portion of the day, as I recall.
Q. So he gets maybe twenty to twenty-five hours of ex
perience? [4473 A. That’s possible.
Q. And gets it in the 6th grade? A. Eight.
Q. Now, the outdoor education center—the Bailerette
program—as I understand, in order for the District to
maintain its right to the development of Ballerette, it made
a commitment that over a five-year period it had to invest
a half million dollars in the site, is that correct? A. Cor
rect.
Q. Through this current budget year, Dr. Gilberts, how
much has been allocated to Ballerette, total? A. I’m sorry.
Again I couldn’t be—
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1824a
The Court: During this current budget year, how
much has been allocated to Ballerette? That’s your
question, is that right?
Mr. Greiner: I was thinking in the development
of Ballerette—as it started a couple of budget years
ago.
The Witness: Last year, I think, was the first
year that we made our—that we budgeted our costs.
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. And for this current budget year, Page 15, that shows
that there is $247,000 allocated, is that right? A. Eight.
Q. Now, was some money allocated last budget year?
A. Yes.
[448 J The Court: This is what I can’t recall.
Q. Can you give us a ball park figure on it? $100,000?
A. Pardon?
Q. $100,000? A. A little over a hundred thousand. I
guess it’s a hundred and sixty or seventy thousand; there
abouts.
Q. So then this is the second budget year of the pro
gram and by the end of this budget year you will have
allocated four hundred of the necessary five hundred thou
sand dollars, is that correct? A. No, sir. That’s not nec
essarily correct because this $500,000 commitment was a
capital expenditure commitment. These figures include op
erational costs and this is not a part—that does not respond
to the needs of $500,000.
Q. It doesn’t? A. No.
Q. What does? A. That portion of that figure and
whatever portion of the estimated one hundred sixty or
seventy thousand that was allocated for capital expendi-
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1825a
tares on site development, buildings, et cetera, sucb things
as these.
Q. For what other purpose is this money being used for?
A. I ’d have to see the budget. Part of it is for staff, plan
ning staff, development, part of it is for educational pro
grams that will be conducted. Essentially those other two
[4493 items.
Q. When is Ballerette going to open? A. Well, we hope
to have some programs beginning this next fall. We had
hoped that we could do it last fall but, due to some prob
lems that occurred at that time, we didn’t get it off the
ground the way we expected.
Q. What is your time schedule for having Ballerette in
full operation? A. I would say that it would be a mini
mum of five years and probably a fullblown operation, it
could be more than that.
Q. Well, now, when it’s in full operation-—or let’s say
about five years from now, and with a frame of reference
of a single given minority child, Doctor, in the operation
of the Ballerette program, how often would that minority
child get to Ballerette? A. Well, this is a guess and an
estimate based upon a supposed program which is not
designed and approved as yet. But I would say probably
an opportunity in a regular program of at least twice,
maybe three times during the school year for a period of
a week or so. In addition to that—
Q. Pardon me. I will let you finish your answer, but
that is three times in twelve years? A. Well, no, I don’t
believe it would be quite that. I would say probably three
times within, say, six years of the [4503—-well, it could
be twelve years, yes. It could go lower than that.
Q. Please continue. I didn’t mean to cut you off. A.
There will be some other programs that will be special in
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1826a
nature; vocation oriented, as we are presently contemplat
ing, at least; resident opportunities for some youngsters
to participate in the management and operation of that
center. These would be fairly small numbers of pupils,
hut for the bulk of the pupil population, probably wThat I
originally indicated.
Q. So then we are looking at the experiences which Bal-
lerette offers to give minority children for these intercul-
tural experiences—it really doesn’t amount to much, does
it, Doctor? A. Well, I think that the quality of the pro
gram will have something to do with how much it amounts
to, if you’re talking about—surely the time—it’s not a great
deal of time, twelve years.
Q. Now, what does the Metropolitan Youth Opportunity
program do? A. Well, this is an institution that was de
veloped primarily to recapture youngsters that had dropped
out of school. It provides opportunities both in terms of
academic offerings, allowing people to finish their high
school education. It offers, also, some vocational offerings.
[451] Q. And that is to continue as presently con
structed? A. We have some thoughts of expanding this
operation into another location or two. Nothing is decided
on that, as yet.
Q. Now, one of the other concepts described as individ
ually-guided instruction—now, it is scheduled for imple
mentation in 1971, is that correct? Looking again at Page
15. A. Yes. This would be as soon as our budget year is
begun or we have the funds to finance it.
Q. Now, as I recall, the $200-per-school-year figure is
based on the assumption of a given standard-sized, school,
is it not? A. Yes.
Q. How many classrooms was it? A. I ’ll have to refer
to it.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Gross
1827a
The Court: This would be a counseling program,
wouldn’t it?
The Witness: Pardon?
The Court: Wouldn’t this be a counseling pro
gram ?
The Witness: Well, that would be a part of it,
sir. It includes the entire instruction of the young
sters in the school, skills as well as that.
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. A 24-room school, Page 169! Now, applying that
criteria to the Court-designated schools, £452 J are some of
those schools smaller than 24-room schools? A. Yes.
Q. How many of them? A. I’m sorry. I can’t answer
that.
Q. Well, have you made any attempt to tailor this budget
allocation of these particular schools in terms of their size?
A. No, I think it has taken the figure of 16,200 as the
standard.
Q. So it may be a greater amount or it may be a smaller
amount, depending’ on the size of the school? A. Yes.
Q. And it also depends on the number of teachers in the
school, does it not? A. Yes.
Q. Because most of that money goes for some sort of
additional teacher compensation, is that right? A. Yes.
Q. Now, is that teacher compensation money—is that the
same as that master teacher figure that we have talked
about earlier? A. It could be.
Q. But not necessarily? A. Not necessarily, but it could
be, yes.
Q. On Page 157, under Programs to Build Understand
ing, [4531 you’re going to establish programs to build
understanding of the contributions of Negroes, Hispanos,
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1828a
and others to your common culture? And some of these
programs have already been implemented. Now, how does
that program work in a 90-percent Anglo school? A.
Well, it has become part of our curriculum in social sci
ences primarily.
Q. But there aren’t any real live Negroes or Hispano
kids in that school, are there? A. No, we don’t have any
real live nuclear reactors in our schools either, but we
study about them.
Q. So you teach human relations through book learning,
is that right? A. I think you can develop an understand
ing of the contributions of these groups that way, yes.
Q. Do you think a little physical—bicultural physical
presence, interreaction, might also be beneficial, Doctor?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, the resolution that the Board of Education
passed when it authorized the presentation of this plan
in response to the directions of the Court, which is Defen
dants’ Exhibit Y-B, as I read that resolution, I get the
definite impression that regardless of what the Court does,
vis-a-vis relief in this case, the Board of Education is going
to go ahead and implement that plan, anyway, is that right?
[4541 A. I don’t know.
Q. Well, I ’m looking for the language of the—
The Court: Really, I don’t think he should be
called upon to answer for the Board. If it says so,
why, it does, I expect.
Q. Perhaps I misspoke, Dr. Gilberts. On Page 3 of the
Board’s plan being presented here—
Mr. Ris: The resolution speaks for itself, Your
Honor, and I don’t think Dr. Gilberts—
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1829a
The Court: We will all agree that it says regard
less of the outcome of this litigation this Board re
affirms its intent to continue improvement in the
quality of education offered to all the children of
Denver.
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. Now, Dr. Gilberts, as I understand it,—and we have
gone through now most of the details of the Board’s pro
posal, and we find that of the fifteen schools designated by
the Court, we’re going to have some special programs
which already were in existence at Baker and Cole and
Manual; that is, three schools. And at Fairview. That’s
four schools. Now, how many other of these fifteen Court-
designated schools under this plan for the opening of school
this coming fall are going to get something out of this plan!
A. Well, as I indicated earlier, what we can do this fall
is pretty well limited to the funds that have already
[455] been budgeted.
The Court: What he’s saying is, he is suggesting,
I think, that this is merely a description of what
you’re now doing in the schools. It’s not any—
The Witness: No, sir. I t’s not. I think when we
talk about the increase in planning and in-service
time, this is to a great—this is a great expansion
beyond what we’re doing right now. When we talk
about some of the programs that we feel have impli
cations for these schools, there obviously has to be
a wider implementation in those plans in other
schools. Differentiated staffing as a concept is cer
tainly something that has implications for these
schools. I believe I mentioned in-service—
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1830a
The Court: Well, is that really what your inquiry
was, Mr. Greiner ?
Mr. Greiner: No, not really, Tour Honor. What
I wanted to try to determine was this plan as it is
now being presented—I wanted to see exactly how
it related to the Court-designated schools with re
gard to the opening of school next fall.
The Witness: It seems to me that anyone who has
any understanding of the problems involved in get
ting at improvement in the quality of education
would understand that one just does not snap one’s
fingers and expect those changes to occur automati
cally. There is a great deal of time in [456] develop
ment of programs, training of teachers, the implica
tions of these programs. There is no way one can
next fall move into—move these programs to the
nature we have talked about here or what—or expect
to implement them completely and totally and effec
tively. That can’t be done. That’s not the way
schools operate, and it just isn’t going to apply—
Q. Do you know how much time southern school boards,
Dr. Gilberts, are being given by the courts to implement
integration and desegregation programs these days?
* * * * *
Q. Dr. Gilberts, I take it that in these minority schools
and the Court-designated schools that teachers in those
schools have to spend a good deal of their time enforcing
classroom discipline, is that correct? A. I don’t think I
could make that general statement.
Q. Do you have crisis rooms in Anglo schools? A. Not
probably in the same definition that we have in some of
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1831a
these schools, but I think we have some of the same kinds
of problems.
Q. Now, as I understand it, you have resigned as Super
intendent of Schools and a new superintendent will take
C4573 over September 1, 1970, is that correct! A. Eight.
Q. Now, it’s possible, is it not, Dr. Gilberts, that the new
superintendent may not agree at all with your complex
theory, is that right? A. I t’s possible. However, this is a
matter of Board policy and the Board is committed to
explore this idea, and I ’m sure the new superintendent will
do that.
Q. But there may be a lot of changes in concepts with
the new superintendent, is that right? A. I don’t think I
could answer that.
Q. Now, as I understand it, it’s the position of the de
fendants and it is your position that these minority chil
dren come into these minority schools with a lot of environ
mental and family background type of problems? Now,
for example, the limited education of the parent is one, is
that right? A. Yes.
Q. Now, what in this Board proposal, what particular
program speaks to that deficiency? A. Well, I think there
may be several that can. Certainly the early childhood edu
cational program is aimed at that among other parental
deficiencies the youngsters may have. It seems to me that
as the complexes develop that there can be programs de
veloped within those that would deal with this.
,[458] Q. How does that relate to limited education of
the parent? A. Well, I don’t believe that there is anything
we can do about limited education of the parents, but I
think that we could offset some of the deficiencies that are
a result of that by additional programs in schools.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1832a
Q. What about lack of reading materials in the home?
A. Again, I think that some of the early childhood pro
grams speak to that issue.
Q. Is anything in your program going to put reading
materials in the minority child’s home? A. Conceivably,
yes.
Q. What about the problem of limited verbalization with
the child? A. Again I think early childhood programs
would have something to do with providing additional ex
perience for the child in this area. I also believe that some
of the new programs like the Fairview program and some
others that are being used in the schools can provide for
some assistance in that area.
Q. How about poor language patterns in the family? A.
Again, I think these same programs may have some impli
cation for those deficiencies.
Q. And a feeling of inadequacy by the parents ? A. I t’s
difficult to overcome that, but again, as I [4593 say, I think
some of the programs that we have identified may help off
set some of those programs.
Q. The negative attitudes towards schooling by the
parents? A. I think in this particular area the involve
ment of parents, the development of programs that are
motivational, not only to kids but to the parents, can have
quite a bit to do with the problem.
Q. Do you think these minority parents like desegregated
schools, Dr. Gilberts? A. I don’t think I could answer
that.
Q. You can’t? A. No, I don’t think I could.
Q. You think minority parents prefer segregation over
integration? A. I would say I don’t believe I am in a posi
tion to answer for minority parents.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1833a
Q. What about small vocabulary on the part of the par
ents? A. Again, as I say, the programs that we are talk
ing about will be designed to help offset some of those early
deficiencies that the youngsters experience.
Q. How about the parents’ distaste for reading, for con
versation and for nonverbal outlets for frustration!
The Court: What page are you on?
Mr. Greiner: This is Mr. Manley’s cross-examina
tion [460] of Dr. Dodson, Your Honor, from the
transcript of the summer preliminary injunction
hearing.
Q. How about the parents’ aversion to study or reflec
tion? A. Again I respond the same way.
Q. And the absence or limited use of writing materials
in the home? A. My response is the same.
Q. What about the broken family that this minority child
comes from? A. I don’t know any program that can com
pensate for those kinds of problems, totally.
Q. How about the absence of father figures? A. I be
lieve again that there are some ways in which the school—
if it approaches the child properly and provides motiva
tion for him, can to some extent substitute for some of
those problems.
Q. Well, I take it that you believe, don’t you, that many
of these minority children come into these schools with
these kinds of problems that I have been describing? A.
Yes.
Q. And I believe that you agree that not all of those
kinds of problems can be solved by these programs that you
are proposing, is that right? A. Ho, I ’m sure that we
can’t solve all the problems.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Cross
1834a
[461J Q. Now, do you have any opinion, Dr. Gilberts,
as to how an integrated school environment with a heter
ogeneous student body might help give these minority chil
dren some of these experiences, some of these role models,
some of these feelings of self-confidence and expectancy to
succeed? The Anglo children have those feelings, don’t
they? Some of them? A. Not all of them.
Q. Do you think that might make a valuable contribu
tion to these minority students? A. I suppose to some of
the youngsters it might. As I maintained before, I think
there are some other ways of getting at those problems.
Mr. Greiner: We have no further questions.
Redirect Examination by Mr. Ris:
Q. Dr. Gilberts, do you know of any evidence that man
datory busing would provide for lack of reading materials
at home? A. No, sir.
Q. Or would substitute for negative parents’ attitude
toward the schools? A. No, sir.
Q. Or would substitute or provide for the lack of the
father figure at the home or these other things Mr. [462]
Greiner was just talking about? A. No, sir.
Q. Dr. Gilberts, generally, there are how many schools
in the system? A. 127.
Q. How many employees? A. 7,000, total.
Q. How many pupils? A. 96,000 plus.
Q. As superintendent, are you able to keep track of all
of the various statistical figures? A. Unfortunately, no.
Q. And be personally familiar with every detail of every
program that is going on, whether it be at Pairview or
Cole or wherever it might be? A. No.
Q. Do you have men who do keep on top of the specifics?
A. Quite a few of them.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Redirect
1835a
Q. Major staff people here available? A. Yes, there are,
but there are many more than these.
Q. One thing I neglected to ask you during your direct
examination, —• and so this would not particularly be in
redirect, but if I may, did your staff analyze Plan 1 in the
plaintiffs’ proposal to determine how many buses would be
required just as a proposal now—as the proposal now
[463] stands? A. Yes.
Q. Additional buses? A. I believe that the estimate was
that, if they did not duplicate the use of vehicles, just use
the vehicles that were assigned to special areas, it would
require 147 buses.
Q. Then did they further study to determine if—for the
target schools and the hours and using a bus on more than
one route—
The Court: How many buses in Plan 1?
The Witness: 147.
The Court: Additional ?
The Witness: Additional, yes. By doing the things
you have described, it would probably—and this is
purely an estimate—we probably could get by with
65 additional buses.
Ry Mr. R is:
Q. And this would necessitate in some schools having a
starting time of eight o’clock and in other schools a starting
time of nine o’clock? A. Or some similar arrangement.
Q. This would also necessitate, of course, additional driv
ers? A. Yes.
Q. Additional mechanics? A. Yes.
[464] Q. Additional parking space? A. Yes.
Q. Additional driver training? A. Yes.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Redirect
1836a
Q. And a host of other allied matters? A. Yes.
Q. Now, through some of the testimony, Dr. Gilberts,
there has been some indication that one of the problems
that a minority child has is that he has a lack of sense of
power or destiny as to what he can do and what he can’t
do and to what school he can go and to what school he
cannot go. A. I believe that was testified to by Dr. Dodson
last summer.
Q. And that one of the things that the—that voluntary
open enrollment obviates is to the extent that parents—that
the child or Ms parents for him can select another school?
A. I would suppose some—
Q. Now, with respect to the Hallett program, that has
been an exchange voluntary program, has it not? A. Yes.
Q. And with special emphasis given on that one school?
A. Yes.
Q. On Page 40 of the Exhibit Y-A, there is a chart. Does
that chart reflect the changes that have occurred in the
[465] participants? A. Yes.
Q. And does that chart reflect the Anglos who are bused
into Hallett and the blacks that are bused out? A. It indi
cates the number of Anglos and Negroes in Hallett School.
Q. And does it show also the in and out numbers? A.
Yes, it does.
Q. And have the numbers of Anglos coming into Hallett
increased each year? A. Yes, it has.
Q. And what was it the first year? A. 76.
Q. What was the second year? A. 132.
Q. And how many whites are there this year? A. 290.
Q. Could you give us the same figures for those being
bused out, the Negroes? A. In 1968 it was 634. In 1969
it was 575.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Redirect
1837a
Q. Now, in preparing your plan, Dr. Gilberts, there has
been submitted to the Court as Exhibit Y-A—did you draw
upon your past thinking or past experience as well as in
novative things strictly pursuant to the Court’s memoran
dum opinion of March 21? [466] A. Yes.
Q. So that everything in that plan is not brand-new and
had never been considered before? A. No, it’s not.
Q. Are there things in there that you considered before
and had plans on which—but which had not been approved
or accepted by the Board? A. Yes.
Q. So it’s correct then that there is a compilation of a
mass of experience to which was added additional items
which you understood would be required in accordance with
the Court’s memorandum opinion? A. Yes, it was.
Q. And is any one portion of this plan intended to be an
entity in itself? Or does it all have to be considered to
gether.
Q. Do you have the Exhibit 517 before you? A. Yes.
Q. You indicated that the adjusted figure, ignoring the
spaces in the twelve Court-designated elemental schools,
that there would be 620 spaces available. Correct? A. Yes.
Q. In the elementary schools for transfer out of the
twelve schools. Now, if you added the ten percent over
capacity [467] in the other elementary schools, what would
be the figure? A. 5,363.
Q. Available spaces? A. Yes.
Q. And if it were 15 percent, how many available spaces
in the other schools? A. 7,457.
The Court: Has that summary sheet been intro
duced into evidence?
Mr. Bis: I don’t think it was ever offered.
The Court: I have not seen it.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Redirect
1838a
Mr. Greiner: We would offer it.
Mr. Ris: We have no objections.
The Court: Very well, it will be received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 517 was re
ceived in evidence.)
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Redirect
By Mr. R is :
Q. Dr. Gilberts, as there were whites transferring out of
those other schools—that would also make available addi
tional space available? A. Yes, it would.
The Court: Do you think there is any reservoir of
white students to be had to transfer voluntarily to
black schools?
The Witness: I think there are some; it would be
difficult to estimate.
[468] The Court: Pm sure you put on quite a
drive in order to get this Hallett program off the
ground.
The Witness: Yes, but that was in a very limited
area in Southeast Denver and not really going be
yond that area.
The Court: Is there any indications that you could
get high school people to make this kind of a switch
voluntarily? Do you anticipate there’s going to be
any sizable number of openings from this source?
The Witness: As I indicated, I feel that the pro
gram has to be promoted if it’s going to be success
ful. People have to know about it. A year ago when
the voluntary open enrollment plan began there was
a considerable amount of interest at the senior high
school level especially and I believe that, with con
tinued emphasis in this area, that there probably
1839a
would be a substantial number of youngsters that
would be interested.
Tbe Court: But, anyhow, you’re going to go for
ward on tbe assumption that you’re going to have
to accommodate these people with existing openings ?
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: And create some more, if you need
to, is that right?
The Witness: Yes, sir, if we need to.
By Mr. Ris:
Q. Now, with respect to the questions 1469] that were
asked you by Mr. Greiner on budgetary matters pertain
ing to in-service training, compensatory education and so
forth—now, do you recall that Dr. Bardwell testified yes
terday that in effect they would adopt some of these same
programs as ancillary matters to their programs ? A. Yes.
Q. Would the budgetary requirements be any different
if they were part of the plaintiffs’ plan as compared to part
of the defendants’ plan? A. I think that they might be
higher. Because there would be more schools involved.
Q. Now, with regard to Complexes 1 and 2, are there
in some of those schools involved in those complexes some
Negroes and some Hispanos? A. Yes, there are.
Q. So when you take the groupings of the schools as a
whole, there is a substantial mixture of races? A. Yes, I
think there is.
Q. Now, Dr. Gilberts, yesterday in response to questions
by the Court in regard to Northeast Denver and the schools
that were affected by the temporary injunction, have there
been any problems in connection with the transportation of
pupils in the exchange of students—student personnel in
the affected schools? A. Yes, there is.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Redirect
1840a
E470J Q. Could you tell us what some of those problems
have been? A. Well, the problems have largely concen
trated to the junior high school level and they tend to fall
into the areas of transportation, the moving of youngsters
back and forth to schools. We have had quite a lot of diffi
culty in terms of behavior on our buses, on these routes.
We have had quite a number of incidents that we have a
file on in our office indicating difficulties in terms of human
relations which we certainly hope to promote in these
schools.
Q. Are you still talking now about—during the busing?
A. No, I ’m talking about in the school itself.
Q. What type of incident reports come to you in this
connection? A. Well, usually incidents relating to rela
tionships between whites and blacks in the schools involv
ing all kinds of interpersonal relationships; fighting, et
cetera.
Q. Have you had any communications from either pupils
or the parents in connection with this? A. Quite a few.
We have a rather thick file on it.
Q. With respect to the program itself or the results, I
should say, you indicated yesterday it was too early to
assess the results. A. Tes, sir.
Q. So objectively, as you indicated, this would be a
[471] pilot program? And it was your thinking originally
and objectively then, so far as academic results or achiev
ing—achievement results—you still don’t know? A. We
have no results yet.
Q. So then, insofar as the actual operation, you have
had various problems. So, there are some pluses and some
minuses, is that correct? A. Yes.
Q. It’s certainly not been exactly a Sunday school picnic,
so to speak? A. No.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Redirect
1841a
The Court: I suppose you would have the prob
lems if you were busing them on a voluntary basis,
too, wouldn’t you!
The Witness: I don’t believe that we would. We
do bus some on a voluntary basis and my feeling is
that the problems have been largely confined to
those areas in which we have transported blocks of
areas out into the schools at junior—at the junior
high school level. Now, those buses may also include
some voluntary pupils.
The Court: Why would it be different!
The Witness: Well, I think that there has been
certainly some feeling on the part of those that were
transported that this was not exactly what they
wanted to do. I think that some of the youngsters
found the environment hostile [4723 where they
found themselves. At least, in their minds. And
the incidents that have occurred I suppose are fairly
representative of the kinds of problems that are go
ing on around the country. This problem is one
which has been true in many other cities as well. I
think, though, largely—probably it comes from the
feeling of these youngsters being moved to schools
that they were—that were not of their choice and
at that level youngsters, junior high school young
sters are very volatile youngsters to begin with.
The Court: You mean both black and white stu
dents !
The Witness: Yes, all adolescent youngsters of
this nature, the combination of these things has pro
duced some problems.
The Court: Well, the problems wouldn’t be dif
ferent if you were mandatorily moving them to re-
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Redirect
1842a
lieve the overcrowding, I don’t suppose. Wouldn’t
every element you mentioned be present in this kind
of a situation, too?
The Witness: Yes, sir. I think that, if this were
done for that reason too, you would have the same
kinds of problems. Most of our busing for relief of
overcrowding has been at the elementary level and
not at the junior high school level.
By Mr. Ris:
Q. Have you had any increase in disciplinary problems
in the classroom? A. Yes.
[473] Q. And can you give us some further elaboration
on what the problems have been? A. Well, I had communi
cations from various faculties in the city, reporting their
reflections on the same kinds of incidents that I have re
ferred to in a general way. That there have been concerns
expressed on the part of the teachers as to how they are
to handle—cope with the disciplinary problems that de
velop. Certainly a desire to make the experience success
ful, a sort of concern on their part as to how to react to
these situations in a way that doesn’t cause problems with
other youngsters so far as discipline is concerned in the
schools. I believe that generally covers the problem.
Mr. Ris: That’s all. Thank you.
Recross-Examination by Mr. Greiner:
# # # # *
[4783 * # *
Q. Now, you said that you would need a minimum of 67
additional school buses to implement Plan 1 of the plain
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Recross
1843a
tiffs’ plan? A. That was Mr. Olander’s estimate, at the
lower limits, if we duplicated routes and dual use of the
bus.
Q. And Plan 1 of the plaintiffs calls for the transporta
tion of somewhat less than 9,000 school children at the ele
mentary level. Do you recall that? [4791 A. 8,380.
Q, And Plan 2 calls for the transportation of how many
elementary school children? A. I have here 11,109.
Q. Now, under Plan 1 of the plaintiffs, we would be
transporting less than 9,000 elementary children. If yon
have complete participation in the minority elementary
schools of the limited open enrollment program, you would
be transporting about 9,000 minority children into these
Anglo schools, wouldn’t you? A. I’m not sure of that fig
ure but if that is the total number, that’s the total potential,
I suppose.
Q. So your capital requirement for buses would be ex
actly the same? A. The problems of transportation would
be relatively the same.
Q. And the annual budget for the School District is what?
About $100 million, Dr. Gilberts? A. Eoughly.
Q. And buses cost about $9,000 apiece ? A. Smaller units
do. The larger ones are twelve, thirteen thousand.
Q. What does a smaller unit carry? A. Sixty-five pas
sengers. The larger ones are seventy-five and up, as I re
call.
[480] Q. So, if you had to buy 67 buses at $9,000, that’s
$603,000? Do you agree with that arithmetic? A. That
arithmetic I think is right.
Q. That’s about half of one percent of the School Dis
trict’s budget, is that correct? A. That’s correct.
Mr. Greiner: No further questions.
Mr. Eis : That’s all.
Robert D. Gilberts—for Defendants—Recross
1844a
James D. Ward—for Defendants—Direct
(Witness excused.)
Mr. Jackson: Call Mr. James Ward.
J ames D. Ward, a witness called by and on behalf of de
fendants, having first been duly sworn, was examined and
testified as follows:
Direct Examination by Mr. Jackson:
The Court: Please state your name, address and
occupation.
The Witness: James D. Ward. I live at 2618
Adams Street. Pm the Principal of Denver Manual
High School.
By Mr. Jackson:
Q. Mr. Ward, how long have you been Principal at Man
ual High School? A. Pm completing my fourth year.
Q. And how long have you been with the Denver Public
Schools? A. Twenty-two years.
[481] Q. Immediately prior to your taking over the
principalship at Manual, what was your assignment? A.
Principal at Wyatt Elementary School.
Q. Was Manual your first senior high principalship? A.
Right.
Q. What generally, Mr. Ward, is the racial and ethnic
composition of the school student body at Manual? A.
Out of the student body of 1,500 original registrations,
perhaps 69 percent black; 27 percent Hispano, and the rest
other.
Q. How would you generally describe the socioeconomic
status of the area from which these students come to school?
A. It would be low.
1845a
Q. For all students? A. A large majority.
Q. At the time you arrived at Manual in terms of cur
riculum then being offered at the school, did you find that
it was the equivalent of the general curriculum then being
offered at other Denver High Schools? A. Basically the
same.
Q. And if we may refer to the traditional concept of a
high school curriculum as the three R’s type of program
which is offered in most high schools, that’s a program
offered at Manual? A. Yes.
[482] Q. In addition to the regular high school curricu
lum there has been some testimony throughout this trial,
and I’m certain that you have heard some of it as you have
been seated in the courtroom these last two days about
some special and specific programs which are presently
under way at Manual. You have heard that testimony? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Ward, these programs are, as you are testifying,
in addition to the regular academic programs at Manual?
A. Yes.
Q. How did you first approach this question of devising
or innovating new programs for Manual? A. Well, when
I was assigned to Manual I took a look at the curriculum
offerings and, knowing the economics of the area, some of
the problems we were having in the East Side area, I felt
that the basic traditional program at Manual was not meet
ing the needs of certain students, a significant number of
students at Manual. And when we talked with business
agencies about hiring Manual graduates, we were concerned
about their opinions and we found that many of our kids
were not—they were having to seek lower types of employ
ment once they graduated from Manual. So we came up
James D. Ward—for Defendants—Direct
1846 a
with the idea that if we could establish what we would
call a Head Start approach to do some—actually some train
ing in the skills that were necessary to go into certain
[4833 fields, to do some changing in the academic disci
plines that were offered to make them more relevant to
students, perhaps we could do something with this problem.
Q. How did you identify these students in the first in
stance! A. I might explain the program at Manual is a
three-phase program. It begins with sophomore orienta
tion; juniors, we go into what we call a more in-depth
program where the students then select the area that he
wishes to go into, and then in the senior year we go into
the co-op approach which is part time in school and part
time on the job. We presented the program to the incoming
sophomore class at the 9th grade level. We went over to
the junior highs and talked to them and told them what it
was. We had parent meetings to explain the program, let
ting’ parents know that it wasn’t purely a vocational pro
gram; that there would be opportunity for students. We
went into the program and explained to them that if they
desired to go into college, they would possibly be required
to go to a junior college because we would be taking time
from the—they would be taking time from the regular pro
gram. It was purely on a voluntary basis from the stand
point of the kids. They were able to make the choice. If
they wanted to go in. But at the sophomore level to have
a chance to explore five or six areas before they went in,
before they decided to go into the program. [484] It’s
not a track program.. Students can either be in it or out
of it. It’s entirely up to the student.
Q. Backing up for just a minute, Mr. Ward, in terms
of examining some of the problems which you faced when
you came to Manual, you mentioned the problem of em
James D. Ward—for Defendants—Direct
1847a
ployer reluctance to employ Manual graduates. Were you
also at that time aware of certain community resentment
toward this school? A. Tes.
Q. Did you talk to students who had at that time either
dropped out of school or ones that you could identify as
being potential dropouts from school? A. Tes.
Q. Did you discuss with the students as well as the
community some of the problems which they were experi
encing with the school? A. Yes. May I add a statement
here, please?
Q. Certainly. A. One of the concerns we had when we
began this program at Manual was that the school would
not be identified as a vocational school. We went to some
length in attempting to explain this to both the parents
and the students. In the initial program, in an attempt
to get at the dropout problem—this was a program that
we first attempted which was what we call a hard-core
counseling program where we put additional counselors
into the field to go out and work with kids who [4853 had
dropped out or who were potential dropouts. But one of
the things we found, there was not a strong interest on the
part of the kids to go back into basically the same pro
gram. And that they had desires and wants to learn some
thing that they felt would be beneficial to them upon grad
uation. So the program that we began, which was, as we
called it, the vocational skill program, was geared as a
holding program, a program with holding power, attempt
ing to keep kids interested in school and to humanize the
school in the eyes of some students.
Q. Was this program which you started—had you iden
tified students solely on the basis of their race and having
particular problems? Or did this deal generally with all
of the students at Manual at that time? A. No, we don’t
identify any by race.
James D. Ward—for Defendants■—Direct
1848a
Q. Were you concerned also with the academic achieve
ment at Manual as measured by a standardized test score
at that time? A. Yes.
Q. Did you consider this in terms of the establishment
of your program? A. Yes. I personally looked at the
academic achievement, one of the necessary ingredients is
highly-motivated kids or at least motivated students. And,
as far as I ’m concerned, you don’t get motivated students
until they are [4863 interested in school. And if we could
put in programs where kids would be interested in it and
stay in school and see the needs for going to school, then
we can possibly look at a higher academic achievement
record.
Q. And this is what you meant when you talked of mak
ing your school program more relevant to the students?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, in order to conserve a little time, Mr. Ward,
your first effort was basically within the vocational skills
program, was it not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And could you explain to us generally the philosophy
behind that program and some of its facets? A. Well, I ’m
sure those who read the report have read or at least under
stood that our basic philosophy at Manual is all education
for career; that this is why kids go to school. To become
effective in later life, to be able to be productive, and we
have gone on this philosophy to point out that there are
many levels for achievement, many ways kids can go, and
we also attempted to use this approach to help the commu
nity take a look at vocations as not something dirty; that
if you can’t do it here, you do it there. We also built into
our program the vocational programs more than what we
call just the skill programs. For example, in trades we
are more concerned than a hammer and saw program. We
James D. Ward—for Defendants—Direct
1849a
devised [4873 the program where we took two of the aca
demics and put the teachers right into the trade programs.
In other words, there is an English teacher and a math
teacher right in the program working with the vocational
teacher, with the carpenter, as a team. The job of these
people is to find ways as they see the program to develop
—to make changes in the offerings, in English and math
and these kinds of things, to make it relevant to what the
kids are actually learning in these particular areas.
We also assigned two of our strongest counselors into
the academic program—into the vocational program, those
who had vocational backgrounds and who could work with
the kids, and their job, too, was to be involved in the total
program. And this is one of the ways that we see educa
tion as being important in that you have to—you’ve got
to get the teachers concerned with the discipline and should
have some knowledge of—in the direction in which the kids
are going.
We feel that some of the best and most effective coun
seling can be done by a counselor right in the shop, side
by side with the kid, working. So, what we have attempted
to do since is to build a strong academic program right
with the vocational program. In other words, the kids
don’t go on the third floor to take their math. They take
their math right there where it’s meaningful, in the class.
Q. In terms of the staffing of your programs, were you
[4883 able to draw primarily on your existing faculty?
A. From the standpoint of the vocational teacher, yes, and
the counselor and the teachers are involved in the academic
—we had to go outside to get paraprofessionals. We actu
ally hired carpenters and tradesmen right in the program
on the faculty.
Q. This represents in reality a new approach to the edu-
James D. Ward—-for Defendants—Direct
1850a
actional process, does it not? A. Well, I think it was a
new approach to the edncational process at the high school.
Q. Are yon aware of any similar approach taking place
at any of the other Denver high schools? A. I think some
are looking at programs like this and have expressed an
interest, wanting to go into this area.
Q. Because of your experience with the program? A. I
don’t know whether you could say it was my experience
with it. But I think we should—there are many positive
things about the program, and I think if you can develop
the program to meet the problems—I’m not concerned about
programs just because they’re programs. They have to be
designed for some purpose as far as I ’m concerned.
Q. When did you actually begin to implement your
vocational skills program? A. I was at Manual one semes
ter and began the second semester.
[489] Q. And did you start the entire program at that
time? Or, was that one that was established in stages?
A. We developed the basic program at that time.
Q. And could you tell us, please, and tell the Court some
of the specific trades which are concerned in the vocational
skills program? A. Well, we are concerned with what is
known as the building trades which includes carpentry,
plumbing, electrical work, bricklaying; some of the so-called
gray areas like linoleum laying and things of these kinds.
Everything that goes into the building* trades. That’s what
we called the trades program. We have a program that is
called power and transportation which deals with the begin
ning program in small motors and advancing to automotive
motors and the introduction to diesel. We are looking at
jet engines if we could find ways in the building to hold
the noise in there. We are looking at cosmetology, which
is an actual program, state-sanctioned program, for girls;
James D. Ward—■for Defendants—Direct
1851a
a program which is called HERO, which is home economics
and related occupations, which takes in nurse’s aides, takes
in food preparation, sewing, different types of sewing,
power sewing, commercial-type work. Machine metals,
which is fabrication. Welding. Different types of welding.
And we have what we call machine shop where they deal
with the lathe and cutting-type machines.
Q. Do you have any present plans for an expansion or
[490] adjustment in any of these programs! A. Yes, we
are trying to build additional dimensions in these programs.
For example, I just touched lightly on what we want to
do more than skill training. We want to give kids as much
knowledge about what goes into the total picture. An ex
ample was in the trades when we built a house. We actu
ally built a house.
Q. Would you tell us about that, please! A. Well, my
advice is, don’t get into the house-building business. But
we were concerned with—the kids were actually involved.
All things that go into it. They establish their companies
and we are strong believers in this, which is the experience
and the kind of leadership and opportunities the kids have
in school. It was the experience where the kids went down
to the Urban Renewal and presented their plan for the
use of the property. They had to go to the First National
Bank and borrow $16,000 as construction money, and they
had to listen to subcontractors and weigh bids with help,
of course, to see what goes on. What they learned about
property: How do you buy property? What are the zon
ing laws? Spending time in the Engineer’s office; spending
time in architectural offices downtown; finding the kind of
house, the type of house they could build, and that would
be attractive in the area. Then, having this experience,
actually constructing the house. What it did to them in
James D. Ward—for Defendants—Direct
1852a
trinsically to see themselves building [4913 something; and,
the attitude of people in the areas while they are building
something rather than tearing something down. These are
many of the experiences and many of the values that we
feel are important in these programs. On an extension,
on one of the programs, the students in the metal shop
will be making all of the bulletin boards for the Denver
Public Schools. We have the contract now. This is a mean
ingful thing. Here the kids have a chance to establish a
company, here they have a chance to really utilize the math
and measure means and figuring out the cost of materials,
and these kinds of experiences. The power and transporta
tion program—we are now running a filling station in co
operation with Standard Oil Company. This gives them
the introduction to small business. How do you buy? What
is this thing called marketing? How do you figure out
profits? And these things of experience. This is what we
try to build into these vocational programs.
Q. Do the children who participate in the construction
of the home and those who participate in the operation of
the filling station receive instruction in the general academic
areas? A. Yes. Here, again, the power and transporta
tion—we build in a math and English person that worked
right there in the shops with the kids. This is also done
in the metals shop, cosmetology. No, there is a specific
program for that E492] where young ladies have to be in
the program 1,600 plus hours. They are there for clock
hours a day and then they go to their regular subjects
during the day. In the home economics, in the HERO pro
gram, the academics are not built into that program. The
kids go to their regular program.
Q. And do you intend to continue these programs at
Manual? A. If funding is available, yes.
James D. Ward—for Defendants—Direct
1853a
Q. What observations have you been able to gather in
terms of the success of these programs as it relates first
to the students involved ? A. I think we have seen changes
in attitudes. To many kids, school is more human. They
see means for school; how it can function as far as they
are concerned. Academic achievement, I have not seen
great gains in this area yet.
Q. Is it an area that you would normally see fantastic
gains over short periods of time? A. No, it’s something
you hope for.
Q. What about the community acceptance of these pro
grams and of the school? A. I think the community’s
acceptance has been positive. I think they, the commu
nity, some parts of the community feel that we are working
with the kids to the best we can in trying to give them as
many experiences as we possibly can. I might say what
we are attempting to do in essence is developing* [4933
comprehensive high school, where there are many things for
the kids to make selections to do.
Q. And I assume you are continually reevaluating these
programs and learning as you experience their operation?
A. The building committee right now, which is the teach
ers’ evaluating program—those in the program and some
of those out of the program—are attempting to evaluate to
see what we need to put in and what we need to take out.
Do we need to expand? Do we need to remove the program?
Q. Speaking of teachers, Mr. Ward, what generally is
the experience level of your teaching staff at Manual? A.
It’s in that book there, I think. We have quite a few teach
ers—I’m satisfied with them.
Q. Do you feel that the new teachers are capable teachers
in terms of being assimilated either into the District’s aca-
James D. Ward—for Defendants—Direct
1854a
demie program or into your vocational skills program! A.
Yes. As a matter of fact, I’m a firm believer that the old
teachers are the best teachers. I think some with young
ideas who are coming in now with this changing society—
I think many of those have a very fine ideâ —have fine ideas
to put into the program.
Q. Following your experience with your vocational skills
program, did you establish a new program in the pre
professional area! [4943 A. Yes. I might point out that
the vocational program runs in blocks of time. You can’t
do the laboratory-type program in a 45-minute period, so
we’ve blocked this at three periods at a time. So we looked
at the program to see what were the values of it, and there
were some things that we saw that were interesting. We
were introducing students to many areas that they were
not familiar with, because many of our kids come from
not-affluent backgrounds or homes. We saw also a value
of our kids getting the experience of going out of the school
and working with people, not basically school people. In
other words, working with people from unions; working
with people from businesses. And I think it’s a reciprocal
type of thing where people on the outside get a chance
to take a look at the kids, too, and see—and have a chance
to better understand how kids think. So we took a look at
some other areas that are generally considered by society
as basically professional areas. We were concerned about
the number of youngsters who went to college and we
started to examine some of their pursuits and we were
concerned about large numbers going into areas like into
the social studies areas; sociology, social work. These kinds
of things. And also we looked at the results of a ques
tionnaire that we put out for career day. Now, career day
is where a lot of people come into the building from all
James D. Ward—for Defendants—Direct
1855a
over, businesses and the broad community, and say what
they think to kids and tell [495] them about opportunities.
But, when we looked at the choices, we were a little bit
alarmed that there were very few kids who wanted to
listen to a doctor; very few wanted to listen to a lawyer;
engineers. No takers. So we wondered, could we take a
little piece out of the academic program. And we thought
we could do it without disturbing the educational studies
because kids can graduate from Denver Public Schools in
two and a half years. They can get their requirements in.
So we said, well, let’s try to work at that semester time
where we could use these experiences, credit these experi
ences as electives to the kids. And talked to the kids in—•
small groups of students about their interests in going to
college; what they would like to take a look at. How they
feel about the medical and the allied health fields. What
do you know about engineering? Are you interested in
seeing more about these things 1 In other words, attempting
to expose them to these areas. So we selected the areas
based on students’ interest. One was the medical and allied
health fields. One was engineering. One was elementary
education. One was communications. We were concerned
about minorities being in front of the camera, what goes
on behind and how about being a technician or a photog
rapher or running a camera, or writing, producing. We
looked at the aviation—the area of aviation. I’m sure there
was one other but I can’t— So, we started working, meet
ing with the people concerned and the agencies, [496]
schools, et cetera, talking to them about the program. How
could you assist in setting up experience-type programs for
our kids? But also letting them know that they had to be
more than just to sit there and listen and watch. The kids
had to get involved. Data processing was the other one.
James D. Ward—for Defendants—Direct
1856a
So, we got a few takers. And in the medical program
the C.U. Medical Center said, “Well, we would like to work
with them.” They got doctors to volunteer to lecture kids
and to help them and set up experiments for them. The
Denver University picked up the engineering program. The
telephone company said, “We’ve got millions of dollars’
worth of business machines. We would be very happy to
work with the kids here.”
Our own Channel 6 supplied the television area, the
support from Channel 4 and Channel 7 were received. So
rather than attempt to buy the equipment and put it in the
schools we feel that these people have to have updated
equipment—have the best, why, then why can’t we go out
and use theirs. So we bused the kids into these programs
where all of them spent a period of time. WTe had some
interesting results in it. I ’m looking anxiously at the re
ports from the kids who are doing the medical research.
They are studying tissues—scar tissue after operations.
We feel this is very interesting kind of exploratory work
for kids. They watch things like circumcision and heart
transplants on dogs [497] and animals and these things,
and from this we have a number of kids who have elected
to go to college into the medical area. This is the purpose.
We have one youngster who has received a scholarship
already to the Denver University, going into the field of
engineering, and we feel the experience he had there at
the university in preengineering courses was perhaps one
of the things.
Q. Did the students actually take courses at the Univer
sity of Denver? A. Yes. They are right in there with
engineering students—beginning engineering students.
Q. Your medical program—this is not a program run at
the school, but at the University of Colorado Medical Cen
ter? A. Yes.
James D. Ward—for Defendants—Direct
1857a
Q. Your preeducational program, Mr. Ward—-what basi
cally does that provide? A. One of the concerns in col
leges has been that black male students have not been
interested in going into the field of specifically—education
specifically at the elementary level, so we were concerned
about how could we work into this area. So, we went to
the Northern Colorado University, at Greeley, and worked
with them on a program and we received cooperation from
elementary principals in the area and our kids started what
we call laboratory experience, [498] working with teachers
in six elementary schools in the area. We did not want
them to have experience like running off materials, march
ing the kids to the lavatory. We wanted to have them to
have a chance to work with teachers, working with specific
kinds of youngsters doing what we might call backyard
counseling with them, helping with their reading problems
in the classroom, assisting the social worker and working
with the kids, counseling with youngsters. And we found
—we had many letters from principals expressing pleasure
in having this program because it did a lot to establish
an image for some of the kids. The second semester they
have been going, still at the elementary schools, but a pro
fessor comes down from the University of Northern Colo
rado and the kids were in a lecture course, general psychol
ogy or something like that, psychology courses, and they
spent the last three days—the last week they were up on
the campus at Greeley studying this to finish their work.
This gave the kids a chance to look at Greeley, to talk to
some of the professors about going to school there. We
have a number that are going there and, of course, they
received both high school credit and college credit towards
it.
James D. Ward—for Defendants—Direct
1858a
Q. In connection with the University of Northern Colo
rado, I think we’re now, are we not, supposed to call it
that? Is this a recent understanding in which you have
finally been able to achieve with them? [499] A. Yes.
Q. Is this a basic program looking forward—as opposed
to anything you have had going for any period of time?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have any advanced placement opportunities
for your students in the college area again? A. Yes, we
utilized this—here again, we utilize this time the kids have.
We were concerned about this because when kids know they
are graduating, they receive their hours-—the last semester,
and grades start to go down, and attitudes change and you
have more kids getting in trouble with teachers because
they’re sort of fed up with it, you know, and they are
through. So, to motivate these kids to go on, we developed
with the Denver University a program where these kids
could come out to be bused right out to D.U. and take col
lege courses. Now, we were not talking about orientation
courses. They were taught actually freshman courses. Some
of the kids got in a two-year program—no, in the one-year
program—some of them last year. So, the kids had 20
quarter hours ready to go before they had actually entered
college. We were also working with Community College
on the same basis, where the kids are bused there in the
morning. These are limited programs. I think we have 27
going to D.U. and there’s about 14 going out at Community
College.
Q. There was some testimony at the February hearing,
[500] Mr. Ward, regarding the percentage of Manual grad
uates going on to college, and I think perhaps they’re talk
ing about students now taking college courses. This would
be an opportune time to straighten this out. What, gener
James D. Ward—for Defendants—Direct
1859a
ally speaking, last year, was the percentage of your gradu
ates that actually went on to college ! A. Fifty-one plus in
the graduating class.
Q. This was not applications to college but was actually
a matriculation into the college program! A. Yes.
Q. As part of your continuing program for the motiva
tion of the students, have you developed a plan or have you
a plan under consideration to continue your connection with
the students once they leave Manual and enter college cur
riculum! A. Yes. We are very concerned about when our
students leave because, with the kinds of support they get
and which we feel is a very close support, we are concerned
about when they leave us, the kinds of help that they will
get. We understand that they have to be weaned sooner
or later. But we worked out a program with the University
of Colorado. We just experimented with that last semes
ter, of sending one of our counselors up on the campus
two or three days a week just to see how the kids are doing.
It can be a home base; a reference point; where the kids
need help, and perhaps, because of the vastness of the school
don’t know some of the [501] ways in which to go. So we
are utilizing this approach. We are also calling back many
of our students to make contributions back to the school
in terms of ways they have been helped and ways that we
could help other kids going on, too, so we could hold onto
these kids as long as possible.
Q. In terms generally of the preprofessional type pro
grams which we have been discussing, the premed, prelaw,
preeducation, these programs—when were those instituted
into the curriculum! A. We began on those programs be
ginning in the fall.
Q. Of last year! A. This school year. The fall of this
school year.
James D. Ward—for Defendants—Direct
1860a
Q. Now, you mentioned earlier in your testimony that
having identified some of the problems which you felt ex
isted in terms of the students at Manual when you arrived,
one of the foremost problems apparently was in—the ques
tion of student motivation as far as school was concerned.
As a result of your experience with these programs, have
you any observations regarding the motivation of the stu
dents as a result of the institution of these programs? A.
They definitley have holding power. We have kids that are
staying in school. At the present time our enrollment is
1,380 kids, which is much higher than it has been in the
past. This is one indication. The attitudes of students in
terms of wanting to learn something. What kids talk about
[502] now. I see in them having a much broader idea of
what is happening; what is going on in the world. And
through the opportunities that they have in making a go
at it. You see these kinds of things.
Q. How about the reaction in the community, in the
employers you mentioned? A. Well, this has been very—
a very interesting experience for us, to see some changes
in some people. Now, I don’t want to be understood that
we have changed the world out there. We haven’t. But I
think our employers are seeing minority students, specif
ically black students, in a little different light. They’re
seeing abilities that they didn’t—that someone else told
them the}7- didn’t have in the past. Many of the experiences
have been very positive and many of the employers want
to continue to go along with the program.
Q. What about the community support and recognition
of the high school? A. Well, as I said before, I think
the feeling of the community is positive. Still, you don’t
know what really is going on, but the experiences that we
have had from the standpoint of parents, the community
support that we have had, I think it’s positive.
James D. Ward—for Defendants—Direct
1861a
Q. Is part of your program in reality an educational
process for the entire community as well as for the students
themselves? [503] A. We feel it is. And I think it’s
probably something that we should just briefly allude to
at this time. The school in the community like Manual High
School cannot necessarily operate like a school in many
other kinds of communities. We are located in the commu
nity—in a community that a few years ago had a number
of socializing agencies. But, as the community becomes
older, people become more affluent. People become better
off financially. They move from the area and the leadership
is constantly drained from the area. And it’s very difficult
to get input from these people after they leave. Churches
move out where the constituents are moving. The recrea
tion centers, other kinds of socializing agencies move out
where the people are. Consequently, it leaves the school in
a difficult position, and the role of the school is different,
I believe. I think the school has to do what it can to supple
ment those forces that move out. Probably Manual High
School is utilizing more from the standpoint of commu
nity after school and on weekends than any other school
in the city, because it has become the center. But the physi
cal aspect is one, of course, that we can easily look at,
easily see or identify. But one of the most difficult things
is to attempt to develop a program, attempt to develop
knowledge for kids, for people in the community, where
they will be effective citizens in the community, politically,
socially, and the school has a very difficult role to play. In
other [504] words, it has to be more than an agency. We
felt that one of the important things in this vocational pro
gram wTas to get the kids out into the community; get
them away from there. Let them see something. Let them
experience things. Let the majority of the community see
kids can do something. This, in a sense is one of the re
James D. Ward—for Defendants—Direct
1862a
sponsibilities we felt we bad to do. We are right now con
cerned about a program that we call the environmental
design program. Can kids learn in a school like that to
redevelop their own community! No one else is going to
do it. Outsiders can’t come in and rebuild it. It has to be
redone by the people. Can kids who will be voting for
something perhaps as the eighteen or nineteen-year-olds—
and I would sure hate to see them voting for nothing. It
seems to me they have—they ought to have some roots.
They ought to have some belief or concern about their own
community if they’re going to be successful people. So I
think the role of the school is, you can’t wait for George to
do it. We have to attempt to put it in. In our prelaw course,
if kids don’t desire to be lawyers, they at least learn some
thing about law that affects them, you see. We can at least
get some of these kinds of things done. And when we talk
about law and order and things of this kind, maybe if they
understood the law sometimes or how the law is supposed
to be interpreted maybe they can see their own relationship
to it.
Q. You started to mention one of the future programs
[5051 which you envision for Manual in the environmental
design program. Would you tell us a little bit more about
that, please.
The Court: I think we might break at this point
for lunch. And we will take up at 2 :00 p.m.
(Whereupon, the trial recessed at 12:28 p.m. and
resumed at 2 :08 p.m.)
By Mr. Jackson:
Q. Mr. Ward, prior to the break for lunch we were start
ing to discuss some of your future programs. I believe yon
James D. Ward—for Defendants—Direct
1863a
were preparing to discuss your program on environmental
design. Would you explain that to the Court, please? A.
Well, as we have looked at the—here again, the role of the
school, what can the school do in providing educational
programs, better education for kids? What can it do in
helping to improve the social climate and also what can be
done in terms of the political climate ? And we, as I stated
before, we were vitally concerned with what these seven
teen, eighteen and nineteen-year-old young people who are
citizens in our community, how can they look intelligently
at the political picture in the community when it comes to
voting? What can they look at as needs for the community,
if they haven’t any involvement in it? So we worked out a
program with the architectural school, the University of
Colorado, and with the Urban Renewal, and we are wonder
ing if £506] young people who are in schools learn to work
with many mediums, like clay and wood and metals and
paper and so forth—are they creative enough to work with
the guidance of engineers and architects to start working
with larger areas? Can our kids redevelop blocks in the
community? Can they build, design miniparks, and can
they give suggestions for recreation centers and where
houses should be and these things? We do this on a small
scale within the school. Can we use the community then as
a much larger learning laboratory? So, if funding is avail
able in the fall we want to work in the summer to design
the curriculum for this program and to work in this. We
think it has some interesting dimensions for youth in terms
of having a piece of the action in their own community,
hoping that, if kids can get action programs like this going
in the broad community in the Northeast, will families and
other agencies in the community join in and see what can be
done in the redevelopment.
James D. Ward—for Defendants—Direct
1864a
Q. Do you also have plans for an outdoor education cen
ter? A. Yes, and I don’t want this to he confused with the
Ballerette program. We are concerned about the acquisi
tion of a Job Corps Camp. In some areas these camps are
declining in use, and we have asked assistance to obtain
one of these camps that we would like to use for an exten
sion of all programs. We would like to look at the pos
sibility of taking [5073 up youngsters, not only from
Manual but from other parts of the city; kids who may be
working on joint kinds of programs, to spend a few weeks
at a time with their instructors, bringing in. tutors from the
University of Colorado and Greeley that would be with the
kids on—to continue their educational programs. But we
feel there is a lot to be gained from this kind of relationship
and association. Also, our young people come from an
urban setting. We feel that an exposure to some of the
activities that we see more out in the open, in the mountains
and plains and things where our kids don’t have the chance
to participate, and that we feel this would be a broad ex
perience. Also, we wanted to use this as a training ground
for our young people in the elementary education program
where they can get some counseling and training and we
could set up camping opportunities for the youngsters in
the surrounding elementary schools and where kids could
get the experience of providing a camp experience for the
young people. We could also use many of the resources of
our own young people in our home economics area and in
our trades area to maintain the camp and to provide the
maintenance-type facilities for the kids. It would be an ex
tension of our regular program.
Q. And you have an airline cadet program that you are
considering? A. Yes. We have looked—we have gone into
the trades, building trades area and to other areas and we
James D. Ward—for Defendants—Direct
1865a
realize that the [508] airline business is a huge business,
and our kids ought be involved more into opportunities
there. And United Air Lines is coming in the area with a
huge plant in the Denver area where it will be increased.
We talked to United Air Lines people—we talked them into
working with us in a program that would be—we use the
word “cadet”—because it would be a beginning program
of learning and operating and working with the people in
there and in the many, many jobs in the airline business.
And we’re talking about ticket agents; we’re talking about
hostesses; we’re talking about stewards; we’re talking about
many of the kinds of jobs. It would also give us an op
portunity to extend the training of these young people into
the Community College, in the publication at the Denver
University. We’re working with Community College where,
once they finish high school, to extend their training they
could go into the Community College and their kids could
either go on performing’ the skills to work in the airlines or
it would give them a chance to go on to college. It would
be an entry-type thing into college.
Q. If I could back up for just a minute, Mr. Ward. You
mentioned the problems which you had experienced or
which your students had experienced in the industry. At
the time of the trades program did you have any particular
problem either in setting up the program or finding union-
type trades that would accept your students? £5091 A.
When we began the program, and when we made our first
inquiry we were told that this would be foolish to attempt;
to attempt to work with the unions, because they weren’t
interested in working with schools. And they want to have
their own people do their own training*. But we found that
this was not necessarily so; that, if you can get anyone to
listen to you, you would have a fifty-fifty chance of con
James D. Ward—for Defendants—Direct
1866a
vincing them that they can do something for you. So we
went ahead and we utilized their people—called their co
ordinators—to help us develop the curriculum. I put them
on the advisory committee. They wanted us to build tool
boxes and sawhorses as training projects, but we ended up
building a house. They will go along with you, I think, if
you involve them. And we involved them on a participation
level.
Q. Now, in addition to these preprofessional programs
and your vocational skills programs, do you also have plans
to develop a teacher resource program directed more
towards the basic academic areas? A. Yes, we are con
cerned about this, and the direct effort here is in this thing
called academic achievement. I ’m concerned about using
teachers who are educators to ride herd on kids in lunch
rooms, and be on ground duties, and we feel this can be done
with trained paraprofessionals. And since we are limited
in the time that we can schedule a teacher in the classes and
we feel rather than put a teacher [5103 in that kind of
duty, we could better utilize the teacher’s talents to work in
individualized construction programs. Briefly, the way we
intend to do this—if we can get support to put parapro
fessionals in the building under the supervision of a
teacher or one of the officers, then students would have the
opportunity to come from their scheduled study halls and
the teachers would be on duty, not in the teacher’s lounge,
but on duty in certain rooms, certain places in the building
utilizing what we call study materials and visual aid ma
terials and resource materials that they have there to help
kids. One of the kinds of things that we are concerned
about is that juniors and seniors have difficulty many times
in writing term papers and reports. Teachers would be
available. We attempted to do this with remedial approach
James D. Ward—for Defendants—Direct
1867a
to tutors from the neighboring universities, C.U., Denver
University. But a tutor lacks something. Sometimes they
lack philosophy of the school. Sometimes they lack some
of the techniques that some teachers use, plus the fact we
realize that just because someone wants to help you does
not mean necessarily you want to receive their help. There
has to be a relationship and we feel this kind of approach
would help us develop a relationship between teachers and
students.
Q. And this, again, is a program which you now have
under consideration and are developing? A. For the fall,
yes, sir.
[511] Q. Has it been possible, up to this moment, Mr.
Ward, to gauge the impact which your relationship with
the University of Northern Colorado will have on your
program and on your school? A. Not just yet. There are
many problems that have to be worked out. IBs not an
easy situation for a school—a public school to work with
an institution of higher learning. There has to be some
trust and confidence developed on both sides. But I think
we have taken some significant steps. We have the advisory
committee. We have interested people in the community
that are attempting to work with the program. We have
some teachers that are bending a little, both ways, to work
it out, but at this point I couldn’t say that we are ready
to move in that direction.
Q. Does the same basic philosophy apply to all your pro
grams, that your initial planning appears to be sound?
Or is there still additional work that needs to be done in
these areas ? A. I would be the last one to say that every
thing is running smooth. We have many problems.
Q. But you feel generally that it holds some prospect
for success in terms of the ideals that you have set for the
James D. Ward—for Defendants—Direct
1868a
program? A. Philosophically, I think it’s sound. Some
programs have to be changed; a change in attitudes. But
I think all [512] these things have to be taken into consid
eration, and with continued work we can develop it into a
meaningful program.
Q. Do you think you have achieved some success at this
point? A. I think so.
Mr. Jackson: You may examine.
Cross-Examination by Mr. Barnes:
Q. Mr. Ward, the vocational training program began
about three and a half years ago, was that correct? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. And you have about 1,380 students at Manual? A.
In school now.
Q. About how many are involved in the vocational pro
gram? A. Oh, roughly 250—300.
Q. Somewhere between 15 and 20 percent? A. About
that.
Q. Now, the students coming into Manual—the feeder
school for Manual is Cole, is it not? A. One of them it is.
It’s the largest feeder school.
Q. What are the others ? A. Morey Junior High School.
A few from Smiley. Horace Mann.
Q. The majority of them come from Cole, do they not?
A. The majority come from Cole.
[513] Q. And one of the problems, is it not, is that the
children who do come from Cole are achieving in the 9th
grade at the 20th percentile grade, is not that correct? A.
I believe the figure is correct.
Q. It’s about in that area? A. (Nods affirmatively.)
Q. So then they come in there already substantially be
hind academically? A. (Nods affirmatively.)
James D. Ward—for Defendants—Cross
1869a
Q. And they may be reading- technically two to three
grade levels behind the citywide average, is that correct?
A. Yes, sir. I think it’s correct. I don’t know specifically.
Q. But that’s in the neighborhood, isn’t it? A. Bight.
Q. So they are having trouble with reading and they
have a low percentile rating on their achievement score
when they get there and as they go through Manual they
take what’s called the par test when they get to the end?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And do all of them pass that test? A. No, not all
kids pass it.
Q. Can you give us some idea of what the percentages
are on that? A. Probably Mr. Cavanaugh, who tested
them, can probably [5143 give you a better percentage.
I’m not evading the question, sir. Some of them take it in
summer school and some of them take it at Metro, but we
attempt to give it as many times as possible and use our
clinics—our par clinics to help them.
Q. Those are special training programs to try and get
them through the par test? A. Yes.
Q. Those who get the par test—do all of those who pass
the par test also graduate? A. That’s basically true.
Q. Is it the same thing, that you get a certificate of
graduation for passing the par test? Or do you have some
further requirement? A. To pass the par examination
and to secure the minimum number of hours for gradua
tion, something like 150 hours, plus the required that’s in
here.
Q. So those who pass the par test, even fewer who actu
ally get a certificate of graduation or diploma? A. Those
who do pass the par test?
Q. Yes. We start off with a certain number who pass
the par test, and then an even smaller number who get a
James D. Ward—for Defendants—Cross
1870a
diploma, isn’t that correct? A. I would say that would be
true, sir. I feel accurate in saying that generally those who
pass the par test graduate.
Q. You also have, do you not, at Manual, some special
[515] education programs? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Can you tell us approximately how many students you
have in special education? A. In special ed we have 60
students.
Q. Sixty out of 1,380? A. (Nods affirmatively.)
Q. Has there been a problem in the past of getting—I
think you said there was—a problem of getting graduates
from Manual or people with par certificates employed? A.
Yes, it’s a job we work at.
Q. And your vocational training program is geared pri
marily at that employment question, is it not? A. Certain
kinds of employment, yes.
Q. I t’s not a substitute for the early academic failures,
but rather it is created because of those failures, isn’t it?
A. Yes, and it’s really a slushing program on the part of
the student.
Q. When you put it together you took a poll of some of
the businesses in the community to find out what their im
pression should be of the more relevant program? A.
(Nods affirmatively.)
Q. Can you say audibly, so the record will pick it up,
please? A. Yes. I’m sorry.
[5163 Q. And you took a poll of students themselves?
A. Yes, talked to students.
Q. So the choice of this vocational training program was
in part based on the expectations of the community about
employment of your graduates and expectations of the
students themselves, was it not? A. But also student in
terest. I ought to point out that many students do not want
James D. Ward—for Defendants—Cross
1871a
James D. Ward—for Defendants—Cross
to go to college.
Q. Well, isn’t it true that many students want to see that
they have a job at the end of where they’re going? Isn’t
that the problem? A. Yes.
Q. And those that somehow feel they’re not going to be
frustrated when they end up with all this education? A.
Yes.
Q. So they’re really trying to avoid the fear and isola
tion of not getting a job, aren’t they? A. Yes.
Q. And the program is in part based therefore on the
community expectations of what kind of jobs your gradu
ates can get? It’s aimed at that, is that correct? A. You’ve
got me around in there someplace.
Q. Well, is it correct? A. I think it’s right, yes.
Q. And the failure to get these other jobs— Well, E517]
it’s the acceptance of reality, isn’t it, for these kids?
The Court: I suppose it’s an acceptance of reality
for everybody. I mean, to do the best you can.
The Witness: I would say yes.
Q. It’s based on an acceptance of the past failures to get
better jobs, isn’t it? A. Yes.
# # # # #
[518] * * *
Q. You don’t disagree, do you, Mr. Ward, that the— A.
No.
Q. —that the peer group has an important influence on
the classroom? A. Yes.
[5193 Q. You do agree? A. Yes.
Q. And what aspect of the vocational training program
would be continued if Manual were integrated? A. I
would answer that question by saying I would continue,
1872a
cut back or increase any program that I felt met the needs
of the kids in the school.
Q. Would you expect the needs to change if it were
integrated? A. I don’t know. I think we have some pro
grams at Manual that many young people would like to
take a look at.
Q. Turning your attention, Mr. Ward, to the pre-profes
sional program, can you tell us specifically how many chil
dren are in the premedical program? A. Twenty-seven.
Q. In the law program? A. The law runs about 35.
There’s about 35.
Q. And you have an engineering program? A. Yes, 14
in engineering.
Q. And the education program? A. Fifty-two.
Q. And you have a social work program? Or, do you?
A. No, sir.
Q. And you have communications ? A. Communications,
15.
[520] Q. So you have somewhere— I’d better do my
arithmetic. A. About 150, something like that.
Q. Let’s say a hundred and fifty or so—somewhere
around ten percent in these preprofessional programs ? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. And somewhere around fifteen to twenty percent in
the vocational programs? A. I think we should say closer
to twenty percent, I think.
# # # # #
[531] * * *
Q. Would you agree that a major part of the academic
problem at segregated schools results from the failure of
the peer group to present linguistic challenges to the
minority student? A. I will agree that could be a part of
it, yes.
James D. Ward—for Defendants—Cross
1873a
Q. And isn’t there a learning factor just in the terminol
ogy and the language that other students around one stu
dent might use that challenges that student to expand his
own vocabulary and his own horizon? A. I ’m sure it
would affect him.
Q. Would it affect the academic performance of the stu
dent to be challenged in that way?
The Court: I don’t think he has ever said that a
[532J desegregation program might be useful or
valuable. All he did was describe his program. And
I don’t think you’re disparaging his efforts, either.
But I just don’t think we’re getting anywhere. May
be we are, but it just doesn’t strike me that we are.
What do you wish for him to admit to? I mean, do
you want him to say that he could get more mileage
out of an integrated setting? Why don’t you ask him
that if you do?
Q. Can you answer that question, Mr. Ward? A. What
was the question?
The Court: Did you get that question?
The Witness: I got it.
The Court: I mean, that’s what you’re driving at,
isn’t it?
Mr. Barnes: Yes.
Q. Would you expect an integrated setting to produce
higher academic achievement? A. I think it would have a
definite effect on academic achievement, yes.
Q. And your classes at Manual are still 96-percent seg
regated, are they not? A. That’s right.
Q. Are you familiar with the academic achievement—the
James D. Ward—for Defendants—Cross
1874a
progress of academic achievement at Manual over the past
three or four years? A. Am I familiar with it?
[533] Q. Yes. You’re aware of the fact, are you not,
that it has declined? A. That’s right.
Q. Since 1965? A. Yes.
Q. And Manual was at the 34th percentile rate in 1965
and had fallen to 28 by 1968? A. I’m familiar with the
figures, sir.
Q. Are they correct? A. I would have to say that they
are correct, sir. They are based on the tests made of the
kids.
# # # # #
[535] * * *
G eorge M orrison-, J r ., a witness called by and on behalf
of defendants, having first been duly sworn, was examined
and testified as follows:
[536] Direct Examination by Mr. Jackson:
The Court: Please give us your full name and
address.
The Witness: George Morrison, Jr., 3055 Cherry
Street, Denver, Colorado.
By Mr. Jackson:
Q. Mr. Morrison, what is your present occupation? A.
Principal, Cole Junior High School, Denver, Colorado.
Q. And how long have you held that position? A. A
year and a half in June.
Q. How long have you been employed by the Denver
Public Schools? A. Sixteen years.
Q. And prior to your going to Cole a year and a half
ago, where were you at that time? A. Principal of Wyatt
Elementary School.
George Morrison—for Defendants—Direct
1875a
Q. Had you been principal of a junior high prior to your
going to Cole? A. No.
Q. Mr. Morrison, I wonder if you would explain briefly
for the Court and for counsel the situation as you found it
at Cole when you arrived there a year and a half ago?
The Court: I wonder if you would bring your
chair around a little bit so the reporter can hear you.
[537] A. I have a bad leg and I can’t—-
(Colloquy not transcribed herein.)
A. I would say that the situation at Cole in January of
1969 was one of turmoil, confusion and conflict. These
terms as I use them are not necessarily in that sequence,
but they had many problems that had been publicized in
the newspapers and also by word of mouth where Cole was
concerned and that is the type of situation that we run
into. Students, teachers, the community, this type of thing.
They just weren’t together in their endeavors at all.
Q. The students looked upon the school more as a jail
than they did a school? A. They used that term; that they
were in prison. Of course, here again, this is youngsters’
terminology. I think what they meant by that'—they didn’t
have many opportunities to do some of the things that they
thought they should be able to do as students.
Q. As a part of your analysis of—in your job, did you
have occasion to consider then current achievement test
scores of the students at Cole? A. Not immediately. Be
fore the end of the school year I did get a chance to go
over this information in regard to our students’ achieve
ment levels.
George Morrison—for Defendants—Direct
1876a
Q. Did you find that they were generally low! A. Yes,
I did.
£538] Q. Mr. Morrison, do you feel that the test scores
are indicators as such! Or do you figure that they are
absolute measures of the students’ ability! A. No, they’re
not absolute measures at all. There are too many intangi
bles that standardized tests do not measure. And also I ’m
not sure if standardized tests reflect the abilities of all of
our youngsters because of the basic fact that they are
standardized and they assume certain prerequisites, pre
classifications on the part of the students, and I think many
times we have found in order for us to determine how much
progress students are making, that teacher-made tests are
more effective.
Q. Are you at present utilizing teacher-made tests for
your students! A. In part. We still use the standardized
tests but we use teacher-made tests in terms of determin
ing progress and areas in which we need to improve our
instructional program.
Q. What specific efforts have you made, Mr. Morrison,
to attempt to raise the achievement level or to make the
educational practices at Cole since your arrival there! A.
Well, the first thing I attempted to do was to sit down with
our faculty and find out just what many of the problems
were at Cole. I was very much concerned about teacher
attitudes; also pupil attitudes. And the community atti
tudes. £539] All these things are an integral part of the
total situation there at Cole. So we sat down with the
teachers first of all and they had many problems and many
demands that had been submitted to the central adminis
tration, and we took these one by one and tried to reconcile
them. And then I talked with the students very frankly
about their role there and their function there in the school
George Morrison—for Defendants—Direct
1877a
and in terms of “This is your school. We care about you.”
And I think this is something that many of the youngsters
didn’t feel prior to the change, that someone really cared
about them and what they wanted to do, and their aspira
tions and this type of thing. And very frankly, I said to
them that, if we’re going to have a black school here, we’re
going to have a good black school. And we’re going to have
a good black school with the help and cooperation of every
one involved, meaning students, teachers, and everyone
else. And once they got the feeling that this is the way
things were going to move, then we began to sit down and
talk with teachers about educational philosophies, exactly
what is our purpose in the school where kids are concerned.
What are we here for? Are we here to serve kids? Or are
we here to go through the motions and draw a paycheck
and this type of thing? And I tried to be very frank. I
don’t pull many punches when I ’m talking to the individu
als. I thought that it was a reciprocal responsibility of
teachers and students, getting together, the role of the
student in the [54031 building, the role of the teacher. We
all are a team and we have to work that way in order to
be successful. And when the team isn’t pulling in the same
direction, we’re not making any progress.
Q. What is the racial and ethnic composition of Cole
Junior Hig*h, Mr. Morrison, at the present time? A. Cole
is 72.1-percent black, 25-percent Hispano, 1.4 Anglo, 1.2
Asian, and ,3-percent American Indian.
Q. And you came to Cole during the middle of an aca
demic year, did you not, Mr. Morrison? A. Yes.
Q. And did you not have available to you then any addi
tional time prior to the commencement of your job within
which to make plans and programs ? A. I certainly didn’t.
Q. This was kind of—you are here one day and there the
next, is that right? A. Yes. 1
George Morrison—for Defendants—Direct
1878a
Q. When were yon able to institute new programs or
new approaches to the educational process! A. Septem
ber, 1969.
Q. And could you detail some of those for us, please. A.
Well, before I do that, may I make another statement!
Q. Sure. A. I have been much concerned, in fact all my
teaching [5413 experience in Denver has been in the Man
ual area, and I have observed that what we have been do
ing with youngsters hasn’t been successful. Our young
sters are going into high school, going into junior high with
reading deficiencies, and two or three—even four years be
low grade levels. So I have had some ideas of what I would
like to try. So I sat down with the faculty and the admin
istrative staff and said, “What we have been doing hasn’t
been successful. So let’s try something different; a differ
ent approach.” And I can’t say that these things are new
because, as more learned educators than I will testify,
there is not an awful lot new under the education process,
the approach to it, that you can take.
So we decided that we would try to go to what we call
a laboratory approach to education over at Cole in an
attempt to give youngsters more opportunity for indivu-
alized instruction and also in an attempt to give youngsters
more actual experiences as opposed to vicarious experi
ences. So we started out in the area of reading because
this is one area that we definitely are lacking in. And we
went to the laboratory approach here. We set up what we
call a reading laboratory on the third floor of our building
for the staff of eight periods a day with teachers who have
backgrounds in reading. Now, the key to this whole thing
is, as I see it, that kids love to read what they want to read.
And I’m not saying that black and brown kids are inferior
in terms of [542 3 their ability to read, but I don’t see much
George Morrison—for Defendants—Direct
1879a
sense in giving youngsters Dick and Jane to read in school
when Dick and Jane actually have no relevance to these
kids in this area. Ton see, these kids don’t see their father
getting up in the morning, putting on a business suit and
taking a briefcase and kissing mother good-bye and getting
into an automobile and going to work. They don’t see
mother going to bridge parties or having time to chat with
the neighbors and this type of thing. You have to face
things realistically with these kids. So let’s get away from
this approach and find out where these youngsters’ inter
ests are. And to me this is the key to teaching reading.
In reading, if we find youngsters’ interest—and they are
all interested in something—it might be auto mechanics;
it might be cosmetology. They wouldn’t call it cosmetology
at their age, of course. Hair dressing is probably what
they would call it. Automobiles. Anything. And then, we
center these kids—these youngsters’ reading around their
interests now at Cole. And what we do, we identify these
interests or interest, even, and then we try to get reading
materials in these areas where the youngsters have ex
pressed an interest and we go from there. Because, if a
youngster wants to learn how to put an airplane together,
if his interest is model airplanes, you give him model air
planes with all the parts. He has to do something to figure
[5433 out where those parts are, rather than trial and
error. Because, if he breaks a part of that airplane, he
is lost, and he—if he loses an essential part of the airplane.
So he’s going to try to figure out some words in those
directions. All right. This kid is learning to read. He’s
improving his reading.
Now, when you centralize the youngster’s ability and in
terest in reading around his own interests—and this has
proven to be successful, we think, at Cole this year. And
George Morrison—for Defendants—Direct
1880a
we also approach it from another viewpoint. Many young
sters have a background—an inadequate background in
reading because of lack of phonics. Now, we have tried the
phonic system in the Manual area for many years. It was
supposed to be so effective that every youngster who had
a good background would know how to read. Well, that
hasn’t been necessarily true at all. So when we do find a
deficiency in phonics we go back and we try to correct this
deficiency and then immediately begin to capitalize on this
idea of interest in reading. And I think that this has done
more for our kids. We have kids who voluntarily go to
the reading laboratories we have set up now. The old
conception of the study hall is something else that we did
away with at Cole. When I went to Cole many years ago,
I did some things at study hall that were pretty wild for
that day and age. And the same thing prevails today. Study
hall, as a study hall, just does not [544] make too much
sense to me. So we give youngsters the option of going
to all of our laboratories on the voluntary basis to pick up
additional help in areas in which they are deficient, the
mathematics laboratory, the reading laboratory, the sci
ence laboratory, social science laboratory, and things like
that. And we have found youngsters on their own going
to these labs and picking up some additional help which
in turn helps them to become more proficient in their aca
demics.
Q. You discussed the reading laboratory. Will you tell
us a little bit about the establishment of the mathematics
laboratory? A. The mathematics laboratory is one that
we’re working on very hard to improve. We have machines,
calculators and adding machines and things like that in
the laboratory and, through the innovative and creative
ness of our teachers we are able to assign youngsters to
George Morrison—for Defendants—Direct
1881a
the lab or else have them go voluntarily to figure out the
problems through that manipulative process, of course,
which they enjoy quite a bit. Basically, what we try to do
here, we don’t let the machines actually do the thinking
for the youngsters. I think if it’s one thing we have to get
across to youngsters in school is the ability to think out
your problems, whether they are right or wrong in terms
of the outcome, but give it some thought, so the youngsters
solve these problems and then they prove they are work
ing by going to the math lab and £5453 actually verifying
the—on the machines what they have done. And if there
is an error in their written work, then the machines show
them that is—that the answer is incorrect. We go back
and we think out'—go through the thought processes.
Where did I do so and so wrong? And then find their
mistakes and they go back and check them. They are be
ginning to use slide rules in the mathematics laboratory.
We’re going to try to get them into IBM to see how other
machinery works and this type of thing with these young
sters, and we are finding that many of our kids who were
given homework assignments—there is no philosophy of
mine that says homework has to be done at home. If a
youngster wants to go up in the lab and work at school,
we have it available for him, and he goes up there, and if
he wants to go up there during the day, he can get help
from teachers who are able to give him this opportunity
to get some of these things done in school where I think
the opportunity is greater than in many of our homes in
our area.
Q. Have you also established a social science laboratory?
A. Yes. This was established before I came to Cole and
we have tried to improve it in terms of the addition of
audiovisual equipment, soundproofing the room. We had
George Morrison—for Defendants—Direct
1882a
the room carpeted. We had one whole wall torn out and
glass windows put in where we can operate between two-
rooms now without having to go all the way around through
a door. We [546] can observe youngsters who are work
ing at their own individual rates and their own individual
ability levels, although we do emphasize that youngsters
will try to improve their rate of speed and their efficiency
in these labs. The social science lab is very popular. A
youngster can tune in on his own lesson, using earphones
and get all his directions. He can do the same thing with
tape. Move right along. And we have teacher supervision
there, at least two teachers in the lab.
Q. Going back for a moment, Mr. Morrison, to your
reading laboratory—are there new programs which you
started this year that were not specifically related to the
laboratory approaches? For example, the 9th grade read
ing improvement and the 7th grade programs? A. Yes,
the 9th grade reading improvement program—one of the
things we’ve doing this year is that we’re trying to use our
students on a peer relationship with other students to help
them in reading. We have some of our students tutoring
other students. Here I think this gives a youngster a sense
of pride, a sense of accomplishment. And it helps him to
stand out and feel that “I have had some success.” So much
of our trouble in the schools and with youngsters in partic
ular is that we never experience success, and I think it’s
a terrible shame that we tell youngsters so many times all
the things that they cannot do. You’re not good at this.
You can’t do this. Why don’t you do better here? Instead
of [547] capitalizing on the positive things that they can
do. And we are working along this line with some of our
students there in the building. Our 7th graders coming in
have had a little bit more of the self-contained classroom
George Morrison—for Defendants-—Direct
1883a
approach and many of them who are behind, we are work
ing with them through the remedial-type programs in read
ing, based again here on their interest level and this type
of thing’.
Q. There is also in operation a science laboratory? A.
Yes. I don’t see much sense in a youngster reading a book
about an experiment and saying, well, this is great. I’d
rather have them get in there and try to do something on
his own and experiment. This learning-by-doing theory
that we have heard so much about in education for many
years, we’re trying to provide more opportunity for stu
dents at Cole to have actual experiences rather than these
vicarious experiences that I mentioned before. That’s
where the pleasures—some of the pleasures of going to
school come in, as I look at it. Kids like to be involved in
things, and they should be involved. And if they make a
mistake, okay, we made a mistake. Let’s try it again. This
is the type of philosophy we’re trying to give our people
and the same thing with our teachers. And it is very diffi
cult for teachers to admit that “I’m wrong” sometimes in
their classrooms, and I think it’s an important—a more
physcial thing when they do, and they say to the young
sters, well, okay. I didn’t do this just [548] right. But I
think that, if we try to solve our problems together, we will
have a better success next time. And I think youngsters
like to realize that teachers and principals and everybody
else is human. We’re not tin gods.
Q. Now, do you also have different approaches to cer
tain of the other fields as well, and without going into de
tail on them, for example, the home economies, the in
dustrial arts program? A. I think that in home economics
programs, we talked about home economics, and it’s nor
mally something that is associated with girls. So we
George Morrison—for Defendants—Direct
1884a
started a boys’ home economics program; boys’ foods.
Some of the fellows were very masculine, of course, and
they didn’t see the value of being around the building with
an apron on, mixing foodstuffs in bowls and things like
that. But that was back in September. You could hardly
get them into an apron. Along about December, January,
it wasn’t uncommon to see these youngsters walking down
the halls with their aprons on, saying, “I ’m in the boys’
foods class.” We have tried to provide alternatives for
youngsters in our program which I think is needed. I
think, really, the alternatives are needed in the junior high
school program. Many youngsters are adverse to taking-
physical education as such. Many of our young ladies are
adverse to this. So we have tried to give some alternatives
rather than saying, if you don’t take P.E., then you’re
going [549] to be sent to the dean’s office, or something
like this, or you possibly will be suspended from school.
Because it is my philosophy that youngsters belong in
school and it is our job to provide adequate programs to
keep them in school. Innovative programs. So we have
the cadets, which is an auxiliary of the R.O.T.C. program
at Manual for young ladies. For the young men, we have
the R.O.T.C. program. We have gymnastics laboratory
where they begin to become more proficient in the areas
of tumbling, gymnastics, and this type of thing and we’re
trying to offer more and more alternatives. There are
boys’ cooking classes and thing like this so that youngsters
have experiences that are meaningful.
Now, here’s something else I want to bring out. That
these just aren’t off the top of my head. They are things
that will be of a great deal of value to these youngsters,
not only now but as a concomitant assist later on in life.
George Morrison—for Defendants—Direct
1885a
Q. Are there at present certain programs which you have
instituted at Cole under what’s been commonly referred to
as the Senate Bill 174, Educational Achievement Act? A.
Yes.
Q. Will you describe those programs? A. Well, that is a
three-phase program and it takes into consideration the
many different types and personalities of youngsters that
we have at Cole. The first phase of it C5503 is called the
Crisis Boom and it is designed for youngsters who are
having troubles either of their own or of the teachers’
making, period by period. Youngsters might come to
school the first period and he gets along quite well. The
second period he bugs the teacher or vice versa and gets
into a little trouble. Now, heretofore, youngsters were be
ing suspended from Cole and let out and they were out on
the streets. And I think this is entirely wrong. We need
to provide things to keep them in school. So this youngster
will go to the Crisis Room. And he will stay there for one
period or any part of that one period and he will receive
academic instruction while he is there. Now, he might and
he might not come back to that Crisis Boom that day. If
he can make it through the rest of the classes successfully,
the more power to him. That’s great. Now, the second
type of youngster we have is one that might be able to
tolerate the total program of the school for let’s say three
or four periods a day only. Well, the alternative is either
to put him on a half-day schedule or else discourage him
from coming to school at all. Well, we have another alter
native and that is put him into the educational laboratory.
And this program—he is given all of the academic areas
that he would normally miss with the exception of physical
education, home economics, and industrial arts. And music,
of course. But, if it’s an academic situation that he can’t
George Morrison—for Defendants—Direct
1886a
compete with, then he goes to the educational [551] labora
tory. Now, history has proven to us that the reason that
most kids are bugged by the schools is because of tradition,
that is to say, the traditional approach to educational prob
lems. The structure, the pressures and things like this.
And many youngsters just cannot endure these types of
programs. But this is not to say that they cannot make it
through school if somebody cares about them and wants to
help them. So this program in the educational lab does
this. It’s an informal setting. They have chairs in there,
they have all types of reading machines. They have a tele
vision set that is not always tuned to Channel 6, either,
incidentally. It’s tuned to other channels because many
times what a youngster needs when he is in there is this
type of—or this frame of mind, or some relaxation. And
we try to counsel with youngsters. We try to provide them
with opportunities to express themselves and tell us what’s
wrong so that we can help them. Now, I agree that a great
many teachers don’t have time for this, so the educational
lab is there for that purpose. Then we have another type of
youngster who has decided that school is just not for him.
And he has either dropped out or he’s a potential dropout.
And in an attempt to get him back into school this young
ster has said to me or someone in the building, “I just
refuse to come to Cole Junior High School. This building
just turns me off,” so to speak. So we have an extension
center. It is located at [552] 2563 Gflenarm, and here we
have a program that is built around a reading specialty as
well as teachers who are very proficient in the areas of
social science and mathematics. And these youngsters have
—after we do a lot of screening, we do have consultation
with the parents. We have visitation with the parents and
with the youngsters and they go to the extension center
George Morrison—for Defendants—Direct
1887a
each day. Now we have around 21 youngsters registered
to go to the extension center and of these 21, not one of
these youngsters has had a successful experience in Cole.
Many of them refuse to go to school at all. But now they
are going to the extension center. They go there on their
own. At first we accommodated them to a degree where we
would even go by and help them to get there, but now we
figured, “You have some responsibility in this matter your
self. So, if you’re interested in what we’re doing down
here, you get down there on your own.” And these young
sters are attending between 70 and 80 percent of the time.
Now, here’s another program or here’s another way we’re
trying to help kids. The kids have something to say about
some of these things. Not only in our main building but in
our special programs. It isn’t the type of program where
we sit there and pour out all of our wisdom to kids and
expect them to digest it and this type of thing. We try to
get them involved. And if anything has made a difference
at Cole—and we're not taking credit for any miracles at
all because we have problems galore [553] at Cole right
now—but if anything has made any difference over there I
think it’s the fact that kids feel that they are part of the
situation and they can come in and talk to any of the ad
ministrative staff. They can come in and talk with their
counselors and with teachers and some of this fear that
was so rampant at Cole when I first went there on the
part of teachers in terms of their attitudes with children
has disappeared. You don’t find teachers leaving in groups
any more for example because that was the safest way out
of the building. “Don’t go out there by yourself. Go out
there with somebody else.” We don’t see this any more.
Teachers come and go freely and the youngsters seem to
be even a little bit more relaxed in the building. People
George Morrison—for Defendants—Direct
1888a
are talking to them. And we’re friendly with them. And
they seem to have an idea that, well, maybe somebody does
care enough about me to speak to me in the morning, any
how, and if I’m having a problem, to take time to find out
what it is. And I think these types of things have helped
as well as these other programs that I mentioned earlier.
The Court: We will take our afternoon recess now.
(Whereupon, the trial recessed at 3 :30 p.m. and
resumed at 3 :47 p.m.)
By Mr. Jackson:
Q. Mr. Morrison, we have been discussing programs
which you instituted at Cole following your assignment
there. Are there other programs which you are [5543
presently considering for implementation next fall? A.
Yes, there are. If funds are available, we would like to go
into photographic darkroom programs, a darkroom with
our industrial arts program, and we would like to obtain
an IBM Varityper that we can use to help prepare our
youngsters for this line of work. We have presently an
offset press that we’re using and a Varitype headliner in
our printing shop, and I can see some real value here, not
only for our youngsters at Cole but I could see youngsters
from Manual coming back to Cole getting this experience.
And if the funds are available we would like to certainly
move along this line. We were also planning to work co
operatively with Manual next year in moving more of our
students to Manual in the 9th grade into some of the pro
grams that are existing there. We have what we call a
biomedical program going on at Cole which is not a part
of the regular curriculum, but is proving to be very in
teresting and important for youngsters who have designs
George Morrison■—for Defendants—-Direct
1889a
on getting to the area of medicine. This program is spon
sored by Mrs. Shirley Carter of onr school, who is a com
munity aide. And we are able to work with hospitals in
the summertime. We have youngsters going into hospitals
working with doctors, technicians, this type of thing. And
we would like to expand this. We would also like to go into
a prelaw type program at Cole in terms of identifying
youngsters who have an interest here.
[556] Q. Are you also considering expanding the lan
guage program? A. You mean the total language arts
program ?
Q. The foreign language program. A. The foreign
language program, yes. We are able to work cooperatively
with Manual here this year in sending some of our young
sters over there to take French. We didn’t have the staff
to do it at our own school, so we worked out a program
with them and we hope to expand this into the area of
Latin next year for those who are interested in the bio
medical program, particularly, and in law as well.
Q. How about an expansion or an implementation of the
work study program ? A. The work study program we have
found to be very helpful to our youngsters. It teaches them
responsibility and we would like to expand this program.
This is part of the ESEA funded program that we have
now. We would certainly like to continue along that line.
One thing that we’re trying to do in our business education
department which I think will prove to be meaningful to
our youngsters is, instead of them typing letters out of old
traditional books to fictitious companies and individuals-—
we are using these youngsters who have shown ability to
work right within the building to help prepare masters,
ditto masters, and this type of thing. They are learning
how to do this work neatly and efficiently [557] for teach
George Morrison—for Defendants—Direct
1890a
ers. And this type of thing of getting experience of doing
many of the jobs that will help prepare them we hope for
successful endeavors in the area of secretarial science.
Q. Mr. Morrison, have you been able at this point in
view of the fact that these programs were instituted only
last September to come to any conclusion as to whether or
not the achievement levels have been materially affected
by the institution of these programs! A. I have no hard
data on it. I have what teachers have told me, what I have
observed and what I have found out from talking with the
youngsters in the building in terms of what do they think
of some of the things we’re trying over there. And we have
found that from these sources we have been able to get
some positive data verbally from these individuals. I think,
also, the fact that we notice a decline in our discipline cases
in the assistant principal’s office and the dean’s office, which
is indicative of some meaningful things going on in class
rooms.
Q. What generally is the composition of your teaching
staff in terms of its experience level? A. We have, I think,
around 22 to 23 teachers who are tenure teachers. We have
around 53 who are either in the first, second or third year.
Q. How do you find the activities of these teachers in
[558] their first, second or third year? A. I’m pleased to
say that the group of new teachers that we received last
September has been one of the most outstanding groups
of new teachers I have ever had the experience to work
with. They have seemed to come in and make the adjust
ment very well at Cole. They were for the most part new
teachers. And I think their assignment was satisfactory
to them from the way they are performing at Cole this year.
Q. Mr. Morrison, do you know at the present time, based
upon the data available to you, what type of teacher turn
George Morrison—for Defendants—Direct
1891a
over you will experience this next year? A. If every teacher
gets his or her wish, that will he a total of 18; that is to
say, either for sabbatical leave, maternity leave—of course,
there you have no choice—or else transfer.
Q. Are there any who have requested transfer to other
junior high schools? A. Not to my knowledge. The ones
who have asked for transfers wish to go to senior high.
Q. None of your present junior personnel are trying to
get out of Cole into another junior high, to your knowledge ?
A. Not to my knowledge, no.
Q. Now, Mr. Morrison, you described briefly earlier
£5593 in the testimony the situation briefly at Cole when
you first arrived there. Does that same situation prevail
today? A. Now, you mention—you mean in terms of—
Q. Community attitude and student attitude. A. I think
that we have seen an improved attitude in the community.
People that I visit and chat with on different occasions,
and those who come into the building, the student attitude
seems to be much more positive than it was when I first
went to Cole. The teacher attitude seems to be much
better. And I think that—well, there are just little things
but perhaps to people outside of Cole these would sound
very trivial, but this year we had a Christmas tree. Now,
this doesn’t sound like it would be something to anybody,
but it was my understanding that they couldn’t have a
Christmas tree in the hall because the youngsters would
tear it down and that type of thing. This year we got a
tree, put it in the hall and the youngsters decorated it and
almost defied anyone from going in there trying to damage
the tree. This type of thing. The class of 1969, which was
a pretty rough class—they had a lot of problems. I think
that they had three principals in three years over there and
this type of thing. But this class showed their feeling for
George Morrison—for Defendants—Direct
1892a
the school in that they left us an inlaid linoleum letter C
that they designed themselves. It has the letter C in gold
and the eagle on it and this type of thing, and they raised
the money [5603 for this and left it to the school last year
before they left. I see other signs of pride in the youngsters
at Cole. Some of our athletic leaders—fellows on our bas
ketball team and football team—will actually go down the
halls occasionally and tell other youngsters who are run
ning or misbehaving, in their language, to just “cool it.”
We don’t want this going on at Cole. Well, these are some
early indications, I think, of some pride that they are de
veloping in their school. And we like to think that it is
their school and let them know that this is your school, to
take care of it.
Q. Do you expect then that pride to carry over into
their classroom work1? A. Yes, I do. Unfortunately,'—and
I would like to see more of this pride carried over into the
classroom work. I don’t think that there is enough of it.
Mr. Jackson: Thank you. You may examine.
Cross-Examination by Mr. Barnes:
Q. Mr. Morrison, how much of the regular curriculum
is left? Are there any standardized programs or regular
textbooks and regular tests? How much is left? A. Not an
awful lot. There are still some phases of the regular school
program that we use but we’re trying this new approach
for the entire student body. I think that’s the [561] best
way to state it, and to actually find out what’s effective and
what isn’t effective.
Q. I just want to focus on the reading, English aspects
of your presentation and what is in Defendants’ Exhibit
V-A, which I think you probably wrote for the special pro
gram now being implemented at Cole Junior High. A. Yes.
George Morrison—for Defendants—Cross
1893a
Q. In reading laboratory, that is a voluntary program,
is it? A. It’s voluntary three periods a day and it can be
used by a regular English class, English-reading classes
the other periods of the day.
Q. Is it a supplement or a substitute for the regular
reading classes? A. I would say it would be a supplement.
Q. So they are still required to take the regular reading-
class as well? A. Yes.
Q. How many students would you estimate participate
in the reading laboratory in a given day? A. I would say
one-half to three-quarters of all of our English classes.
Q. In the reading improvement program, that is an ex
perimental program, is it not, a 9th-graders’ program? A.
May I refer to this just to make sure that we’re [5621
talking about the same thing ?
Q. Yes, Page. 116. A. Yes, this program was set up in
one English class because of the prohibitive cost. This
activity is concept English or—the kit costs us nine dollars,
I believe, a kit, and we were experimenting with about 40
youngsters with this. And this is a new concept in the
approach to reading in that it differs from the SEA ap
proach in that youngsters are able to move along at a more
effective rate at their own level than they can with the SEA
approach. And the reason we experimented with only 40 of
these this year is because we didn’t have any more money.
But we are hoping that we will be able to get additional
money to work with this because the teacher who is in
charge of this is very high on it and he has shown me some
results as far as the reading improvement is concerned
with these youngsters that have been really outstanding.
Q. What is the total enrollment at Cole? A. 990.
Q. And of—you have 40 participants in this program.
How many do you have in the special reading classes for
George Morrison—for Defendants—Cross
1894a
the 7th grade? That’s 20 for each of four teachers? Or is
it 20 altogether? A. Actually, all the youngsters in the 7th
grade are in a reading program. And we hope to keep
the numbers down £563] to around 20 so that the teachers
can give these youngsters more individualized instruction.
Q. And the total of how many students, though, Mr.
Morrison, in this program? A. I would say about 160.
Q. And is that all of the 7th grade or is that a portion?
A. All the 7th graders have reading, but these are young
sters who are three to four grade levels below their normal
grade level in reading.
Q. Now, as I understand it, all of the other programs in
mathematics and social science and science would have
been under way even without this Court’s order and were
not prepared specifically for this plan, is that correct A.
Without this Court’s order?
Q. Yes. These other programs are not conceived espe
cially for this program, are they? A. No.
Q. They have been in effect for some time? A. Well,
they went into effect last September. Are you speaking of
the laboratories?
Q. I’m speaking of the social science laboratory and the
science laboratory and the mathematics laboratory. A. Yes.
Now, those went into effect with the exception of the social
science laboratory last year. The social science [564]
started a few years before that.
Q. And the other things you have listed in this plan: the
art classes and the home economics and the music class,
industrial arts, phys. ed., work study and extracurricular
programs, business education—those are not seriously con
sidered to be programs which will raise academic achieve
ment, are they? A. I would certainly hope they would.
Q. Are those subjects tested under the achievement test?
George Morrison—for Defendants—Cross
1895a
There is no test— A. No, but if I may say, sir, I would
like to state again that, here again, I don’t like to measure
youngsters only in terms of a standardized test. I don’t
believe that this is fair. I don’t believe that it is really
conclusive as to what the youngster is actually able to do.
The standardized tests measure various areas of academic
work, of course, but many youngsters who might excel in
the areas of industrial arts, home economics and other
programs—other areas, might not score so high on the
standardized tests. But I wouldn’t say that this isn’t help
ing his academic progress. I wouldn’t say that at all.
Q. The educational laboratory and the extension center
are relatively new, aren’t they? A. Yes. As far as the
funding under Senate Bill 174.
Q. Doesn’t that give you, together with the Ci’isis [565]
Room and the special education programs, a total of four
different kinds of programs where troubled students or
difficult students are isolated by themselves? A. Well, I
guess you could put it this way. I figured them with stu
dents with problems, really.
Q. And there are four different kinds of ways in which
students with problems are put with other students with
problems? A. Yes.
Q. So, as far as the peer group effect for those is con
cerned—for those students is concerned, with the Crisis
Room, they are all students with discipline problems or
something of that kind, isn’t that right? A. Well, I wouldn’t
classify special education in that category at all. That’s a
program for the mentally retarded youngsters and I cer
tainty wouldn’t say they are all discipline problems. But
the other three programs are designed specifically to help
the alienated youth.
Q. Do you think that being in an integrated program
George Morrison—for Defendants—Cross
1896a
would help these students in any way? A. Well, yes, I think
an integrated situation would help.
Q. And do you think that it would alleviate some of your
problems if they were integrated programs at elementary
level, for example?
[566] Mr. Jackson: I’m going to object to that,
Your Honor. We’re talking about programs specif
ically at Cole.
The Court: Well, he may not be able to answer, but
maybe he can. You can try him out.
A. Well, I would think, yes. I think, if this thing is going
to be effective it would have to start at an early age and
not wait until junior high school to get going.
The Court: This wouldn’t eliminate these other
programs that you speak of, would it?
The Witness: No, I would certainly try to adapt
these programs to any students that attend Cole
Junior High School, because I think that they have
some merit. And I think the approaches that we are
trying to make here would benefit the students from
any part of the City of Denver, yes, sir.
Mr. Barnes: I have nothing further.
Redirect Examination by Mr. Jachson:
Q. Mr. Morrison, the Crisis Room and the extension
center—these are programs designed to keep children in
school who would otherwise not be in school, is that true?
A. That is very true, yes.
Q. And has the program demonstrated that it can func
tion in that fashion? A. Yes, definitely.
George Morrison—for Defendants—Redirect
1897a
Albert C. Reamer—for Defendants—Direct
[567] * * *
Albert C. Reamer, a witness called by and on behalf of
defendants, having first been duly sworn, was examined and
testified as follows:
Direct Examination by Mr. Jackson:
The Court: Give us your name and address, please.
The Witness: Albert C. Reamer, 1710 South
Kearney.
By Mr. Jackson:
Q. Mr. Reamer, what is your present position? A. I ’m
Principal of Bryant-Webster Elementary School.
Q. How long have you held that position? A. I have
had that position four years. I’m completing my fourth year
now.
Q. How long have you been employed by the Denver
Public Schools? A. Twenty-one years.
Q. Prior to your assignment at Bryant-Webster, what
was your position? A. Assistant Principal, University
Park, out by the [568] University of Denver, for three and
a half years. Teacher assistant at Knapp for one-half year.
Prior to that time, eight years as teacher at Asbury School,
and prior to that time, five years as a teacher at Ashland
School in North Denver.
Q. Mr. Reamer, what is the general racial composition
of Bryant-Webster? A. The makeup is this: Hispano,
75% percent; Anglo, 23.4 percent, as I recall, and a very
small percent—-less than one percent Negro and Asiatic.
Q. At the present time, are there any Negro students at
Bryant-Webster? A. This is very difficult to say. There
is one child who is half Hispano and half Negro this year.
Q. As principal of an elementary school, do you have oc
1898a
casion to examine the achievement results of your students ?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And could you characterize present achievement levels
for the Court, please? Is it generally low? A. The per
formance level is below that of what we would expect by
grade level reference. I think maybe this would be an
indication. I would say at the 3rd grade, based on 1968
statistics, about half a year below where they belong, and
at the 5th grade, somewhat near a year below from where
we would expect the child to be by grade level.
Q. Mr. Reamer, during the period of time that you have
[569] been principal of Bryant-Webster, what has been
your experience with regard to the mobility rate of pupils ?
By that, I mean, does a child entering Bryant-Webster in
the kindergarten or first grade generally continue through
the 6th grade in Bryant-Webster? A. Well, we have prob
lems—we have some children who continue right on through.
Generally, as an overall statement, as I recall the facts, the
turnover is about 34 percent a year. As a matter of in
formation, I can recall one cumulative record that came
across my desk recently where the child had been in 16 dif
ferent schools. A 5th-grade child. So, we do have signifi
cant problems.
Q. Is this mobility factor—does it create any specific
problems as far as the school is concerned? A. Yes, tre
mendous problems in terms of the school’s ability to rally
its forces and to bring effective education into focus for
that youngster. Yes.
Q. After your assignment at Bryant-Webster, did you
and your staff or the staff undertake any comprehensive
type of study to determine what was available to you in
terms of either altering the educational approach or by
other new, innovative approaches, raising your achieve-
Albert C. Reamer—for Defendants—Direct
1899a
inent level? A. Yes, sir. This did happen. In the fall of
1968 and throughout the entire year, the entire staff under
took a very extensive study involving the cost of several
thousand [5701 dollars in terms of releasing teacher time,
of having experts in the field come in and discuss the matter
with us and this type of thing. As a result of this study,
we did come up with a document in terms of what we felt
we could do to help the youngsters in a better way.
Q, This was a study which took a little over a year to
perform? A. Yes, it did.
Q. And again you started this in the fall of 1968? A.
Correct.
Q. As a result of that study, Mr. Reamer, have you in
troduced any new programs or new approaches to the edu
cational process at Bryant-Webster? A. Yes, sir, we have.
I have taken the liberty this year to give continuous atten
tion to the things that we called for in here. It is true, at
the same time, inherent in this study were demands for
financial needs and this type of thing and some limitations.
However, just to give you some ideas of the things that we
achieved, we did ask for a counselor. We did get a guidance
counselor this year. We asked for and in our early educa
tion program we got one of these—one of the three pro
grams.
Q. Would you explain that briefly to us, please? What
this early education program is? A. Well, I think as a
result of this study teachers, [571] principals and the com
munity sensed the need to get at the problem of education
and orientation as a start at a far earlier age with regard to
the youngster. We sensed in the Head Start programs and
other research available and in publications and whatnot
that really this was a hopeful thing in the future. Actually,
our program involves some 30 youngsters. They are not
Albert G. Reamer—for Defendants■—Direct
1900a
housed in our school. They are housed at Eemington Ele
mentary School, due to the fact that we do not have suffi
cient space. But it is a problem that—I mean, it is a pro
gram that focuses on considerable involvement on the part
of parents and the bringing in of highly-skilled teachers and
aides to work with these youngsters.
Q. As a result of a child’s participation either in the
Head Start program or in the early education—early child
hood education program, has experience shown you and
your teachers that these children become identifiable in the
kindergarten? A. Well, I was thinking just the other day
the reference that the two kindergarten teachers in my
building have made to this very subject area, and they said
they could tell the children who had been in the Head Start
programs. So I think, in terms of assessing it in terms of
what they have said, there has been success in it and there
can be success in it.
The Court: Is this a grant that you are working
£572] under from Congress!
The Witness: No, this was a program financed by
the Denver Public Schools; one of three programs.
Q. What other programs did you institute! A. One of
the concerns, of course, had to do with pupil-teacher ratio
and we were effective this year in reducing the pupil-teacher
ratio by two pupils per classroom. Another significant one
as far as I ’m concerned had to do with the involvement of
parents in the school. I personally believe this has been a
great and critical loss in terms of large cities in America,
having come from a small rural area in Colorado myself, I
knew what the school meant to my family personally. Our
involvement in it. I think in the city the size of Denver
Albert C. Reamer—for Defendants—Direct
1901a
here, this close attachment was not available. So therefore
we were bent on programs of trying to confer with people
in our school—a special means of parent-teacher confer
ences ; the creation of a truly significant advisory commit
tee that is run literally by the people in our community
where they say anything they want to. I merely sit as a
spectator in this. These kinds of things. I think involve
ment was one of the big areas we worked on. I think may
be another thing that we have accomplished, too, had to do
with acting as the coordinating agency between other pro
grams available to early childhood education, such as the
Day Care Center under the Model City. We have been very
close to that program [5733 and we do meet in our building
to coordinate that.
The Head Start people have come into our building and
it’s a three-pronged effort, and in these early education
programs currently we are initiating* the forward thrust,
trying to bring all these elements together in the interest of
children to be served.
Q. Are there any other new approaches which you have
taken directly and specifically toward this question of your
school’s achievement that you have already instituted? A.
Well, of course, the question of overcrowdedness. It prob
ably is important to say that the school was built for 660
youngsters and we have been serving this year 750, and at
one time well over 800. I did raise some basic questions of
double sessions and these types of things. Our advisory
committee did go down to the Board of Education and seek
relief, and we are lucky in that at least we helped in some
small measure the bringing in of a mobile unit in this area
•—in school this year. So that has lessened the pressures
there. We felt that through our advisory council, through
their efforts and the school’s efforts, something happened
in that field.
Albert C. Reamer—for Defendants—Direct
1902a
Q. Prior to the installation of mobile units, was the com
munity given an opportunity to express its opinion on the
question of double sessions or busing at Brvant-Webster?
A. Yes, sir. This was a part of the plan. The problem
E574] was faced up to in the fall of 1968 when we came
back and found that we had a hundred more youngsters
than we expected. I think, in part, this was due to the re
arranging and the closing of some of the parochial schools.
These youngsters were thrown off into public education.
Two alternatives on our—occurred to us in terms of how
the school could meet the educational needs of these young
sters. We had talked with our advisory committee. Our
PTA, we discussed this with them and other groups and the
two alternatives were arrived at. One was busing and the
other was double sessions. And we didn’t know which one at
the time. But they did go for the double-session program
twelve to one. I think it involved about a hundred and
twenty children and our returns were based on how the—
probably 98 or 99, as I remember—eight of which said they
did not want to bus.
Q. Now, in addition to the programs which you have pres
ently instituted and—
The Court: What was the total vote?
The Witness: Pm just trying to recollect, Your
Honor, but I think it was 98 who participated of the
120 people. Some didn’t send them back.
The Court: In other words, you gave one vote to
each family?
The Witness: Yes, each child who would—
The Court: And you have 120 in the school?
[575] The Witness: 120 who were affected by the—
The Court: Oh, this is your overflow?
Albert C. Reamer—for Defendants—Direct
1903a
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: And you say they voted twelve to—
The Witness: Twelve to one, as I recall.
The Court: These were predominantly Hispano?
The Witness: Yes, sir. There are indications—I
have lived among the Hispano people all my life in
Northern Colorado. As a child, I have thinned beets
with these kids. Have been poor with them. They
are very—a very tight-knit family really and they
feel very keenly about their children and I have heard
expressions to our PTA against busing any number
of times. I think maybe this whole question—
[5763 * # *
The Court: Do you have any Spanish language
program?
The Witness: Yes, sir, we do. In 5th and 6th
grades.
The Court: And that’s been very successful? I
mean, is this—is there a great deal of interest in it?
[5773 The Witness: We did an intensive study,
sir, I guess maybe two years ago, and we were very
interested to find out how many of our families and
youngsters spoke Spanish. On a determination of a
survey made with every third Hispano family made
by another Hispano person, a community aide, we
discovered that about eleven percent, as I recall, of
our youngsters spoke Spanish yet and 66 per cent
of our adults spoke it. And, oddly enough, one of
our—one of the outcomes was that the adults were
using it to keep secrets from kids. This would be a
clear indication that the language—
Albert C. Reamer—for Defendants—Direct
1904a
The Court: Well, that figures, I would say.
The Witness: This is probably a clear indication
that in another generation the language will be lost,
unfortunately.
The Court: But has it been successful in the 5th
and 6th grade programs that you have followed
out? I mean, it’s pretty young, I’m sure, but are
they interested?
The Witness: I would say there is an interest,
yes, sir.
The Court: More interest generated in a subject
like this than other subjects?
The Witness: No, I wouldn’t say that. Two years
ago we had the option of letting the children and
the parents choose whether youngsters would be
involved in these programs, [578] and that year,
two years ago, quite a number of the families de
cided not to do it. But this year we had an extremely
competent person in the field who really wanted to
do it and all children are involved this year. I would
say it’s successful.
# * # # #
[5793 * * *
Q. How do these relate to the overall problem which you
[5803 indicated that you identified and that being the rela
tively low achievement? A. I think they have meaning. I
think they have meaning in terms of self-identity that these
youngsters have to acquire for themselves; how they feel
about themselves. I think, for example, a new reading pro
gram, a newly-designed one that is designed just for us
by our teachers can have a real impact. I think outgoing
experiences in terms of many more field trips—one of the
Albert C. Reamer—for Defendants—Direct
1905a
things I neglected to say in here has had a greater impact
for our children. This year we have practically doubled
the number of excursions into the community and—as an
outgoing, outreaching experience for the children.
Q. How do these programs relate to any increase in the
achievement level? A. Well, we have said in here that we
would sincerely hope that within two years we would hope
to eliminate one-half of the deficiencies.
Q. Through these programs that you have been mention
ing and the staff study which you have? A. It’s a goal to
shoot for.
Mr. Jackson: I have nothing further.
Cross-Examination by Mr. Greiner:
Q. Mr. Reamer, who authored that report that you keep
[5811 referring to? A. Is this the one that I spoke of with
regard to the 34 pages on our study?
Q. Yes. A. This was put together by the teachers in our
school.
Q. Did this advisory council that you had reference to
play a part in the preparation of that report? A. Yes, the
parents were involved in the process.
Q. Now, we have been told, Mr. Reamer, that the educa
tion of minority children is a very complex area. Would
you agree ? A. No question in my mind.
Q. And it’s one that requires a great deal of specializa
tion or special background and so on ? A. I think that would
be a fair statement, yes.
Q. Are the people on this advisory council—are they
possessed of this kind of technical training? A. Well, this
is the citizens and the patrons of the school—I don’t know
quite what you’re driving at.
Albert C. Reamer—for Defendants—Cross
1906a
The Court: Well, the answer would be no, that
they are not. They’re not professional educators nor
do they have any specialized training.
The Witness: Yes.
Q. Now, with regard to the faculty at Bryant-Webster,
I understand you indicated it’s a very stable faculty, is
[582] that correct! A. Yes.
Q. What is your annual rate of turnover for all causes?
A. Well, let’s see. Let’s go back three years. Three years
ago it was 23 percent. At that time—I don’t have the exact
facts in front of me, but I think—23 percent involved five
teachers; two for maternity leaves; two or one on retire
ment ; and one or two resignations—
Q. What about two years ago? A. Two years ago, one
or two teachers; I’m trying to think back and I think
maternity may have been one of the reasons for one of
them.
Q. Are you familiar with the educational background,
experience and training that the teachers of your faculty
have as members at Bryant-Webster? A. I have a fair
understanding, yes, sir.
Q. How many of these teachers have ever engaged in
special education programs directed toward the problem of
educating minority children? A. A part of this study had
to do with in-service programs, of bringing Daniel Valdez,
a noted sociologist, from Metro State. Father Torres and
some of the other people in the field who were helping us
understand and comprehend the problems that we were
dealing with. It was an in-service involvement.
[5833 Q. Well, have you had that in-service program?
A. Yes, sir, as we developed this.
Albert C. Reamer—for Defendants—Cross
1907a
Q. And it’s finished now? A. It’s finished now.
Q. And all the staff in fact have participated in it at
Bryant-Webster? A. There were fonr teachers who did
not choose to give study to it.
Q. What was the subject of that in-service program?
What did the teachers learn in it? A. It had to do with the
understanding of the cultural heritage of these youngsters.
The history where these people come from, what their
problem,s were, what their aspirations in life are. These
kinds of things.
Q. What their aspirations in life are? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What does that mean? A. Well, what they aspire to;
what they want to be; what they want to make out of their
lives.
Q. Is it different than for other people? A. No, I don’t
think it is.
Q. So the program was—to say that its bounds were
basically the same as far as the aspirations were concerned,
is that right? A. I would say so.
[584] Q. Now, how many Hispano teachers do you have
at Bryant-Webster? A. We have one surnamed Hispano
teacher. She’s an Anglo. Her husband is a teacher in
Denver and he is Hispano.
Q. Now, Bryant-Webster in the past, Mr. Reamer, has
added, has it not, a certain compensatory education pro
gram, one entitled Cultural Education? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you have tried team teaching? A. On a very
limited basis.
Q. And it was discontinued, is that correct? A. That’s
right.
Q. And you have tried study activities, is that correct?
A. We’re still doing those extensively.
Q. And cultural arts? A. Yes, sir.
Albert C. Reamer—for Defendants—Cross
1908a
Q. And lots of field trips ? A. More so now.
Q. Trips into the community? A. ITh-huh.
Q. Individualized instruction? A. Uh-huh.
Q. Differentiated staffing? A. No, I think that is a never-
never land. I ’m not quite certain.
[585] Q. Is it? A. Yes, it’s new and emerging and it’s
difficult for me to assess exactly what the—
Q. You use paraprofessionals? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You’ve got community aides? A. We have one com
munity aide four hours a day. Teachers’ aide, is what we
call them.
Q. And you have tried counseling? A. This is our first
year.
Q. This year? A. This year.
Q. Do you have a phychologist? A. We do have a school
psychologist one-half day a week.
Q. You have lowered the parent-teacher ratio—or pupil-
teacher ratio ? A. Yes, sir.
The Court: That would be quite an undertaking.
Mr. Greiner: I’m sorry.
I didn’t get the witness’s response.
The Witness: Yes, sir, we did.
Q. You lowered the pupil-teacher ratio? A. Yes, and—
Q. From what to what? Over what time period? [5863
A. It was lowered two pupils per classroom.
Q. What is it today? A. The pupil-teacher ratio? It
fluctuates; give or take twenty children a building, due to
the mobility, standing at about 24.5. You could have, of
course, in the process—you may well understand that a
certain—that certain teachers are counted who do not keep
records until—it’s strictly an accounting system. This
Albert C. Reamer—for Defendants—Cross
1909a
means that if you went in a schoolroom at Bryant-Webster
you could well see 28, 27, 29 children.
Q. You’re giving* me an average and you’re going over
the range there, is that correct? A. Yes, sir, that’s right.
Q. Well, did the parents at Bryant-Webster vote against
busing? A. The parents at Bryant-Webster were involved
in the decision, children coming out of kindergarten and into
first grade voted on this issue in the fall of 1968.
Q. These were very young children, is that right? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Kids just entering first grade? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that was the fall of 1968? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Before school started? [587] A. At the time, we didn’t
discover that.
Q. Until they all arrived at school? A. Until they got
there and it was about two weeks after school started that
the decision was made.
Q. Now, that vote then was taken, wasn’t it, before the
School District released the achievement data on the schools
of this District? A. In the fall of 1968? I don’t know when
that—
Q. That was in October, November 1968. A. Uh-huh.
Q. So that the people voting about that question really
didn’t realize how comparatively bad Bryant-Webster was
at that point, did they? A. They wouldn’t have known
these facts, no, sir.
Q. And the program that you have described, Mr. Keamer
—these programs are—these are programs that are de
signed to—designed especially for a predominantly minor
ity school? A. I would say by and large they are, yes, sir.
Q. If Bryant-Webster were integrated, could certain of
those programs be continued for the benefit of the minority
children ? A. They could.
Albert C. Reamer—for Defendants—Cross
1910a
Q. In other words, the integration of Bryant-Webster
wouldn’t necessarily destroy the presence of those pro
grams? A. No, sir.
[588] Q. Or their efficacy if they have any? A. Yes.
Q. Do you have any opinion as to whether it would help
the scholastic achievements of Bryant-Webster children
to integrate them with Anglo children of a higher socio
economic class? A. This is a very difficult question to as
sess. I think there could be some benefits.
Q. What kind of benefits do you foresee? A. Human
understanding.
Q. Cultural? A. Cultural.
Q. How about language skills? A. Very possibly.
Q. How about vocabulary? A. Very possibly.
Q. Perhaps a more competitive atmosphere? A. That
could be a by-product.
Q. So all the benefits just aren’t in terms of cultural
understanding, isn’t that correct? A. Bight.
Q. But there might be very significant benefits in that
area, too? A. There could be.
Q. And that is an important area, isn’t it? [589] A. Yes,
it is.
# # # * #
[593] * * *
Robert O’Reilly, a witness called by and on behalf of
plaintiffs as rebuttal testimony, 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,
and occupation.
The Witness: My name is Robert O’Reilly. I am
a psychologist and I live at 10 Alona Lane, Lock-
ville, New York.
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1911a
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Direct
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. By whom are yon currently employed? A. The New
York State of Education Department.
Q. And what is your current position?
The Court: What’s the organization.
The Witness: The New York State Education
Department.
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. What is your current position? A. I am Chief of the
Bureau of School and Cultural Research.
Q. How long have you held that position? A. I have
had that position for a year and a half and a related position
for an additional year and a half.
Q. And that was also with the same bureau? [594] A.
The same bureau.
Q. Would you tell the Court just briefly what your edu
cational background is? A. I have a Ph.D. in educational
psychology and a Master’s degree.
Q. From what school? A. From Cornell University.
And I have a Master’s degree in educational psychology
and I have four years of teaching experience, including ex
perience in teaching in a black school.
Q. Where was that? A. In Buffalo, New York.
Q. Now, what are your primary duties and responsi
bilities with the New York State Department of Education?
A. Well, I direct and formulate research for other depart
ment units which serve all schools in the state at the ele
mentary and secondary levels. I direct the programs de
signed to yield new educational programs in accord with
the educational needs of the schools in the state, and I
consult and design research programs relating to compen
1912a
satory education in New York State, where we have ex
penditures of approximately $200 million in this area.
Q. These are programs—- A. There is one more.
Q. I’m sorry. [5953 A. I also provide the research basis
for the formulation of state policy.
The Court: What?
The Witness: Relating to public school education.
The Court: Let’s have it all again.
The Witness: That was the fourth. You want me
to repeat that?
The Court: Yes.
The Witness: The last one is to provide—we are
the research arm for the State Education Depart
ment, the regents of the State of New York; in ques
tions of policy we provide the research basis in the
form of reports and so on which relate to making
major educational decisions at the state level.
Q. Did you also then make recommendations in the nor
mal course of your duties to the regents of the State of
New York? A. Yes.
Q. And this is educational policy for the entire state, is
that correct? A. Yes.
The Court: Over the entire school system, at every
level ?
The Witness: Elementary and secondary and pre
school.
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. That includes such urban areas as [596] New York
City? A. Yes, more than half of our efforts are directed
at New York City.
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1913a
Q. Now, in the course of your work have you had occa
sion to direct a study of the efficacy of compensatory edu
cation programs at racially or other segregated schools
within the State of New York? A. Yes, I have.
Q. Now, did you then study and evaluate compensatory
education programs carried on both in New York State and
throughout the United States? A. Yes.
Q. Approximately what time period was covered by the
compensatory education programs which were studied? In
other words, how long has compensatory education been
going on? A. Well, the major effort of compensatory ed
ucation began in 1965 with Title I, ESEA, but it goes back
before that, to the late ’50s when schools started to develop
some of their own compensatory education programs, such
as New York City developed a number of them at that par
ticular time. It is at least ten years old. But actually, it
can be traced back considerably further than that.
Q. Now, in the course of this study and evaluation, Dr.
O’Reilly, how many compensatory education programs did
you have cause to study? [597] A. We have effectively re
viewed more than 1,200 programs.
Q. And these are programs both in New York State and
nationally? A. Yes.
Q. And did these include compensatory education efforts
in large urban areas such as Denver? A. Yes.
Q. And did it include the study of compensatory educa
tion programs carried on in segregated schools? A. That
is typically where they are carried on. So, the answer would
be yes.
Q. Now, what was the purpose of this study which you
drafted? A. Well, the major purpose was to advise the
regents of the State of New York who are responsible for
formulating policy—educational policy for the whole state.
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1914a
It was to advise them as to what was the best thing to do
in relationship to the problems of the disadvantaged stu
dent in New York State, primarily Negroes and Puerto
Ricans, and with respect to integration versus compensatory
education.
Q. Now, at the conclusion of your study, Dr. O’Reilly, did
you in fact make a recommendation to the regents of the
State of New York? A. Yes, we did.
Q. And what was that recommendation?
[5983 Mr. Ris: If the Court please, what was made
to the regents of the State of New York I don’t think
is relevant here. I object for two reasons: one, in
sufficient foundation. He said he made some studies
in the abstract. No evidence to show what he studied
and how he studied it and what evidence he developed
and analyzed, and secondly, what his recommenda
tions were to the State of New York is not of any
help to the School Board of the City and County of
Denver.
The Court: Well, I suppose that, if he does de
scribe the scope and extent and character of the
work that he did, that he can express an opinion as
an expert as to the value of this.
Mr. Ris: With a proper foundation, I think he
can.
The Court: But I don’t think that what he said in
New York has any great evidentiary value in and of
itself.
Mr. Greiner: Well, it simply points out—
The Court: I suppose he could be cross-examined
on that.
Mr. Greiner: Certainly, because it does point out
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1915a
what the nature and conclusion of this rather com
prehensive study was, Your Honor.
The Court: Well, he can give us his opinion once
the foundation is laid. It’s like any other expert’s.
Q. Now, you said that you have studied some 1,200 com
pensatory education programs. Would you give us some
idea [5993 of the procedure which was employed? A. Yes,
we gathered studies from every major source. These are
empirical research reports.
The Court: If you could just keep your voice up,
you know—
A. We gathered studies from every major source. In the
State Education Department we have an excellent setup for
reviewing research all over the country and our interests
in compensatory education programs were to see whether
or not we might be able to find anything that might be use
ful in New York State, so our review was national. This is
not a review in the state. This is a review that covers the
whole country. One of the programs that we reviewed in
some detail is Title I, ESEA, which is the major source of
funds for compensatory education in the United States.
One of the studies reviewed was based on an examination
of 20,000 programs all over the nation, and from that 20,000
programs random selection of 1,000 programs was taken
and these were then studied in detail. We have also re
viewed programs like the Baniker Project in St. Louis,
which I believe was referred to here the other day. We have
studied major compensatory education programs in New
York City.
Q. Does that include, for example, the Higher Horizons
project? A. It was one of them.
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1916a
£6003 Q. And More Effective Schools projects! A. The
More Effective Schools project—we have reviewed that
hut it’s not in this report.
Q. And the All Day Neighborhood Schools project? A.
Yes.
Q. Dr. O’Reilly, to your knowledge, is there any major
compensatory education effort which has been carried on
up to the point of your study which was not considered or
reviewed? A. I don’t believe that we have missed anything
that is important.
Q. Now, at the conclusion of this study, then, you did
make a recommendation to the regents of New York, is that
correct? A. Yes.
Q. Was that based upon your opinion of the relative
efficacy of the choice as to what is effective for teaching
minority students ? A. Yes, it was.
Q. And what was your opinion? A. Well, our opinion—
Mr. Ris : Just a moment, please, Doctor. The same
objection, lack of foundation.
The Court: I don’t know what he did. He says he
reviewed them all. What did he study? That’s the
thing. I mean, how can we derive any value from his
opinion unless we £6013 know what type of thing
he considered. Was he just reading narrative re
ports from these various sources? Or was he actu
ally examining raw material—raw data? I mean,
this is the type of thing I think we need in order to
know whether his opinion has probative value.
Mr. Greiner: Thank you, Your Honor. We will
proceed along that line.
Q. Dr. O’Reilly, what was the nature of the evaluation
which you carried on? A. We reviewed in most cases orig
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1917a
inal sources, the actual research reports turned out by the
people who manned the programs. These were educational
researchers; psychologists; school districts; their bureaus
of research who tendered reports. Some of them were done
by national agencies like the American Institute for Re
search in California. In general, these are scientific reports,
not narrative reports, not opinions, not ideas. This is what
is considered empirical evidence in the field.
Q. Now, with regard to this empirical evidence, for ex
ample, did it include studies of achievement data related
to these compensatory education programs? A. This is
the major factor in studies in compensatory education pro
grams.
Q. Can you describe for the Court what we are talking
about in terms of achieving data? How was it evaluated?
[602] A. Well, we are typically talking about standardized
achievement tests which are generally accepted as measures
of a student’s achievement all over the United States.
Q. And what did this achievement data—was there some
comparison made of the achievement of students before
and after these programs? A. Yes, there are a lot of dif
ferent ways in which comparisons are made. Some of the
studies employed experimental groups who received com
pensatory education treatment and compared them with
groups—well, in some instances with students who were
in an integrated school without compensatory education.
In other cases we have compensatory education compared
to no compensatory education, comparable groups of stu
dents. And the usual indexes of achievement used in these
studies are reading, mathematics, sometimes the studies go
beyond that and give a more detailed account of the factors
of the achievements that are being subjected to considera
tion.
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1918a
Q. Now, Dr. Coleman in court the other day identified
the nature of his study, which also included achievement
data. In the course of your study did you also have cause
to review Dr. Coleman’s study? A. Yes, we reviewed Dr.
Coleman’s study and all major studies of racialization in
the schools and formed these studies into a—well, we did a
comprehensive review on these studies and came out with
what are regarded as justifiable [603] generalizations rela
tive to the efficacy of school integration in improving stu
dents’ achievement.
Q. And this evaluation of achievement data—is this a
typical component of each and every one of these evalua
tions ? A. Yes. It is a major component.
Q. And a major objective of each of these compensatory
education programs was what? A. The major objective is
to generally improve educational development as measured
by the standardized achievement tests.
Q. Now, did you also have any occasion to check the
actual raw data upon which these reports which you evalu
ated were based? A. Yes. There are different levels of
checking raw data. In evaluating reports like Coleman
reports and reports like this one here—
Q. Eacial isolation?* A. Eacial isolation in the Public
Schools. We did not focus to any great extent on the au
thor’s interpretation of the data but went directly to the
appendices of the reports where the results of the analysis
are given in tables and examined this and based our con
clusions on these. We have also had occasion to examine
the data—actual test data summarized, coming back from
the schools in New York State, in which these are Title I
schools where we expended—well, this year, we have been
* The parties have agreed to correct the tran sc rip t to read “Eacial
Isolation” instead of “racialization” .
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1919a
spending $180 million on Title I £604J programs. The data
are grouped in accordance with where the schools are.
They are all disadvantaged students. And from these we
can tell whether they are segregated schools or whether
they are not segregated schools in general. We have three
years of data of this type in which we are able to look at
what proportion of the students are below the 23rd percen
tile in these schools from year to year. I have examined
these data for the New York State Education Department
this year and a report on this and my conclusion was that
the changes above and below—
Mr. Ris: If the Court please, now we’re getting
into the conclusion. I think we’re still on foundation.
So I will object to that.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. That’s all right, Doctor. We will get to your conclu
sion in a moment.
Then I take it the nature of your evaluation of these
compensatory education programs and the result contained
in the study—I take it the study has been marked for
identification as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 508, is that correct? A.
That’s correct.
Q. And the evaluation is contained in Exhibit 508. Are
they just mere parodies then of the evaluations set forth in
the evaluations which you studied of these plans? A. Would
you ask that cjuestion again, please.
[6051 Q. Well, in the course of your evaluation did you
make an independent examination? A. Of these studies?
Q. Yes. A. Yes.
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Direct
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, at this time we would
offer Exhibit 508.
Mr. Ris: May I voir dire the witness?
1920a
Voir Dire Examination by Mr. Ris.-
Q. Dr. O’Reilly, is this the Bureau of School and Cul
tural Research? A. Yes.
Q. That you are director of ? A. Yes.
Q. How many people do you have in that bureau! A.
Well, we have, now, eight. We will be adding three, and we
effectively have about 40 other people working for us.
Q. For a total of how many? A. Well, that would give
us 62.
The Court: These are all psychologists ?
The Witness : Primarily we work with people who
—whom you would consider technicians. People who
have certain kinds of specialized training. They may
be [606] psychologists. They may be psycholin
guists. Many different fields which can be considered
under the rubric of psychology or related fields.
By Mr. Ris:
Q. What is the relationship of the New York State De
partment of Education to a local school district? A. Well,
Pm not sure. You would have to be quite specific in asking
me that question. The relationship is—the relationships
are extremely complex.
Q. Well, does the New York Department of Education
set policy for the New York City Public Schools System,
for example? A. Yes.
Q. How do they do that? Do they hire the personnel?
A. No, they don’t hire their personnel, but—
Q. Do they establish the curriculum for the elementary
schools? A. They do have an effect on the establishment of
curricula.
Q. I didn’t ask you that. I said, do they set— A. These
questions really can’t be answered in black and white terms.
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Voir Dire
1921a
Q. Well, you have been sitting through this trial, have
you? A. Yes.
[6073 Q. You know the general setup, I presume, from
what—
The Court: They probably lay down general prin
ciples of policy, is that right?
The Witness: Yes, they do lay down general prin
ciples of policy.
The Court: But they don’t seek to implement the
details of the curriculum at every school, do they?
The Witness: No, but there is a general curricu
lum outline for the schools in New York State.
Q. This is recommended or is it required of the districts
to follow? A. Some parts of it are required.
Q. And some parts are not required? A. They would be
sort of in between being required.
The Court: What are your goals? Do you want to
make everybody the same? You want the Spanish
to all fit into this pattern? Do you want everybody
to become part of the Great American Dream? Is
this your object?
The Witness: No, sir.
The Court: Then how can you apply these things
across the board willy-nilly?
The Witness: These are general. And there is
considerable flexibility and latitude within the kind
of control that the state exerts over the schools.
The Court: Well, you wouldn’t recommend, though,
[608] a similar standardizing of every single school
in New York, would you?
The Witness: Not at all.
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Voir Dire
1922a
The Court: Doesn’t it have to have its own char
acter ?
The Witness: I think perhaps maybe my re
sponse is being somewhat misunderstood at this
point. The kinds of policy that have any direct effect
on the schools are only relatively as gross as that
you have so many years of English.
Mr. Ris: I’m sorry, Doctor. I can hardly hear you.
The Court: The kind of policy, he said, would be
to require that you have so many years of English,
for example. Is that correct?
The Witness: Yes, this is very broad and very
general, and the way in which a particular program
is conducted—the particular approach to education
in school, is pretty much up to the school because—
well, community control is also a very significant
thing in New York State.
By Mr. Ris:
Q. Well, all of the public educational facilities then in
New York State are not administered by the New York
State Department of Education? A. Well, the New York
State Department of Education is there to serve the schools.
Q. Provide them with research and advice? [609] A. Yes.
Q. And set minimum standards in certain areas? A. Yes.
Q. But the day-by-day, year-in-and-year-out implementa
tion of the educational process is done by local boards and
local administrations? A. Yes.
Q. Now, with regard to your particular work that you
have been describing, do your people in your bureau ac
tually go out into the various local districts and give tests
to pupils ? A. Yes, that includes me.
Q. Pardon? A. That includes me.
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Voir Dire
1923a
Q. That’s in New York State? A. Yes.
Q. And do you also prepare the tests or do you use stan
dardized tests prepared by other agencies or both? A. Well,
both. We have a statewide testing program in which we
administer tests of reading and mathematics to Grades 1,
3, 6 and 9. And I, myself, am now involved in the develop
ment of a testing program for Title I schools in which we
are developing our own testing instruments.
Q. And then does your department actually take these
test results back and correlate them and run them through
[610] your computers, I presume? A. Yes.
Q. And is it down on a computerized basis now? A. Yes,
it is.
Q. Now, with regard to studies that you make that are
not in New York State, take St. Louis as an example, that
you mentioned, and I personally know what the St. Louis
study is. A. The Baniker program.
Q. All right. You say that you studied this report? A.
Yes.
Q. And you have not been in St. Louis to examine the
programs yourself, T don’t suppose? A. No.
Q. Or to test the students? A. No.
Q. Or to review the test results in their raw form that
have come back ? A. No.
Q. That haven’t been executed by the students ? A. That’s
right. I haven’t been there to do those.
Q. And this is a—this is typical of what you’re talking
about outside New York State? A. Yes.
Q. You don’t go outside of New York State yourself
[611] ordinarily? A. It’s not typical.
Q. Nor members of your staff? A. That wouldn’t be
typical, either, but it does happen.
Q. I’m sure you go to meetings and conventions and
things of that nature? A. No, some of our staff in the State
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Voir Dire
1924a
Education Department do go to other states around the
country and other programs and actually look at the pro
grams.
Q. But basically what your studies, insofar as these other
programs outside of New York State—you’re studying the
reports made locally in the school district, for example,
w'ho haven’t made their own studies'? A. They may be made
by local districts. They also may be prepared by consul
tants or they may be prepared by educational research or
psychologists.
Q. And you’re studying somebody else’s studies then, is
that right? A. Yes.
Q. And when you’re talking about the Coleman report,
you are studying the Coleman study? A. That’s correct.
Q. And the various other studies—these 1,200 you men
tioned—are they all outside of Newr York State? A. The
1,200?
[6123 Q. Yes. A. Are they all outside New York State?
Q. Yes. A. No.
Q. How many are outside New York State? A. The
largest proportion of the studies would be outside of New
York State.
Q. And with respect to those studies, if you wanted to
find out what they’re doing in Missoula, Montana, you
would ask them for their report of such studies as they had
made ? A. I might do that.
Q. You wouldn’t ask them to send you all the raw data
or analyses? A. Not usually.
Q. So that you then studied all the various studies and
then made and submitted a report of your studies, is that
correct? A. That’s correct.
Q. And is the volume that he just offered on Exhibit 508
based on such a premise then as a study of studies? A.
Not entirely.
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Voir Dire
1925a
Q. A substantial portion of it? A. Yes.
Mr. Ris: If the Court please, we again object,
number one, that this is a study of studies and not a
study [6133 of raw data to arrive at his own con
clusions, and, secondly, there is no showing that this
has any relevancy to the Denver situation.
May I ask one more question?
By Mr. R is:
Q. Have you been to Denver before to study the Denver
system? A. No, but I do have a little bit of exposure to
Denver before.
Q. What has been your exposure? A. I looked at a good
deal of material before I came here for about a week.
Q. Submitted by plaintiffs’ counsel? A. Yes.
Mr. Ris: That’s all.
Direct Examination by Mr. Greiner (Cont’d) :
Q. Dr. O’Reilly, this so-called study of studies, I believe
you did say that you looked at the data that was compiled
in each of those studies, is that correct? A. Yes.
Q. And you made an independent evaluation of that data?
A. Yes, I did.
Mr. Greiner: We offer 508, Your Honor.
Mr. Ris: Same objection.
The Court: I think you ought to tell me what the
[614] purpose of this offering is besides proving
your thesis, of course. But what particular use do
you want to make of it?
The Witness: In New York State—
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1926a
The Court: I want him to tell me.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, it’s really not offered
in a testimonial manner but it does give a full indi
cation of this man’s in-depth consideration of com
pensatory education programs.
The Court: You’re just offering it as a basis for
his opinion?
Mr. Greiner: That’s correct.
The Court: To qualify him?
Mr. Greiner: If you will recall, Dr. Coleman from
the stand the other day called Exhibit 508 the most
comprehensive study in existence of compensatory
education.
The Court: Well, I’m going to reserve a ruling
on this for a while. He can express his opinion. Go
ahead.
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. Now, these study programs—
The Court: We may get confused if we have too
many of these, too much of this.
Mr. Greiner: I guess we’re always giving some
thing to the Court to read.
The Court: This is a real hazard.
Q. Dr. O’Reilly, these compensatory education programs
which you have studied and evaluated, I’d like for you to
[615] describe some of the elements which they typically
contain. For example, do they contain programs directed
toward adding additional teaching staff to the segregated
schools? A. That is a typical characteristic.
Q. And a low range of pupil-teacher ratios? A. Yes.
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1927a
Q. The use of paraprofessionals ? A. Yes.
Q. The use of teacher aides? A. Yes.
Q. Diagnostic laboratories to try to determine quickly
what the deficiencies of the minority child were ? A. There
are some studies that have included that.
Q. Did it also include, typically, some sort of increased
group counseling?
Mr. Ris: If the Court please, I don’t think any of
these have any evidentiary help and—he ought to just
say some of these studies contained some of these
things. Unless we know what studies contain what
and what he is relying on—
The Court: Well, let’s get to his conclusions. Then
I think we can evaluate it thereafter. Go ahead.
Mr. Greiner: Well, Your Honor, the point of these
questions, of course—
The Court: Go ahead. You do whatever your pro
gram is. We will check it out as you go along. You
go ahead and [6163 carry out your list as to what
he considered and we will see what they look like.
Q. Did these programs also typically call for the addition
of psychologists to the local school staff? A. Yes.
Q. Did they have programs directed toward cultural un
derstanding? A. Yes.
Q. At below the teacher and student level? A. Yes.
Q. Were there programs directed towards improving the
child’s self-image? A. Yes.
Q. What about directed toward improving parental in
volvement in the educational process? A. This has been
tried many times.
Q. And I assume that these programs also contained
remedial efforts? A. Typically.
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1928a
Q. And in such skilled areas as language and mathe
matics? A. Yes.
Q. And social science? A. Not social science.
Q. Were these programs directed towards objectives of
trying to motivate the minority child? [617] A. Yes.
Q. Did they involve efforts to make the curriculum more
relevant to the minority child? A. That is an implied as
sumption in most studies, that relevance is being increased.
Q, And were efforts also directed toward teaching teach
ers how to teach minority children? A. Yes.
Q. Did the evaluation include evaluation of the early
childhood programs such as Head Start? A. Yes.
Q. Was tutoring also one of the methods adopted in these
compensatory programs? A. Yes, it was.
Q. The use of multimedia teaching aids? A. You would
find that in compensatory education programs, but it’s a
peripheral kind of surface component.
Q. Did it include such things as field trips designed to
remove at least temporarily the minority child from his
local environment? A. Yes, this has been tried both gen
erally and in components of preschool programs and has
also been a component of elementary programs and secon
dary programs.
Q. Now, after considering these compensatory programs,
Dr. O’Reilly, did you come to a conclusion and view and
[618] opinion as to the efficacy of these compensatory
programs in these segregated schools? A. Yes.
Q. Does the efficacy insignificantly raise the minority
child’s achievement? A. Yes.
Q. What is that opinion?
Mr. Ris: Objection, lack of foundation again.
The Court: Overruled.
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1929a
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Direct
Our opinion is, after—
The Court: Whose opinion? Yours?
The Witness: My opinion, sir. Sorry.
My opinion is, after reviewing the studies and
their results that there are no general practical ef
fects accruing to students’ educational development
as a function of compensatory education programs
which typically include these kinds of components.
The Court: Are you saying that the system based
upon these components is valueless?
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: And the individual elements in it—in
its totality has no value whatsoever?
The Witness: I don’t think so. They constitute
basically giving the minority, the disadvantaged—•
The Court: Don’t even the psychologists help at
[619] the local level?
The Witness: No, not typically.
The Court: Amazing.
The Witness: I was going to say—you see, these
things have already been done by the schools. They
have been done for years. And what this really con
stitutes is giving the minority child more of what the
schools already have. I t’s nothing particularly new
about any of these things.
The Court: But none of it has any value?
The Witness: No, sir. Not only do I have this
opinion but—
The Court: Are you saying it’s not any value in
combination with integration?
The Witness: There is no indication that these
particular kinds of approaches would necessarily
1930a
work in an integrated setting. The evidence is just
not generally available on that area on that question.
The Court: And it’s valueless at every level?
The Witness: Equally valueless from a practical
point of view, yes.
The Court: The lack of value is the same at every
level?
The Witness: Basically, it has turned out that way.
And perhaps I should define what I mean by practi
cal value. We mean that—rather, I mean that the
studies result in [620] differences as a function of
compensatory education programs which would in
dicate that they have some potential in improving
the—some real potential in improving educational
development among minority students relative to
those who don’t get this kind of compensatory edu
cation. The gap between blacks and whites or Puerto
Bicans and whites is just hardly affected or is not
affected at all.
Q. Well, these programs then do not succeed in teaching
a child to read?
The Witness: Generally not.
The Court: Or to express himself?
The Witness: I would have to qualify that, now.
It’s not minority students don’t learn to read—it’s
the level of reading capability that they show. Typ
ically the minority child is one to two years behind
his age mates.
The Court: We’ve heard that before.
The Witness: Now, these programs just generally
do not have much of an affect or a sense of affect on
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1931a
the gap between whites and blacks or whites and
Puerto Ricans or Mexican-Americans and whites.
The Court: Well, what about whites who are in the
same condition?
The Witness: Under the same conditions? Most
of the studies that we are talking about here that I
reviewed have been done on minority students. Most
typically whites £621] are not included. Although
there are studies with whites in them. And—or they
are included as parts of the group of disadvantaged
children. That is more typical than anything else.
We really couldn’t say too much about the effects on
whites.
The Court: Well, you recommend that, if they
are integrated in these white schools, that they get
any special attention?
Yes, sir, but I wouldn’t go about it this way.
The Court: Pardon?
The Witness: I wouldn’t go about it in this par
ticular way. I would recommend special attention,
yes.
The Court: In other words, you have some rem
edial plans, then?
The Witness: We have identified some tentatively
that we feel have potential for—•
The Court: But they have never proven them
selves ?
The Witness: They are experimental programs.
They have not been tried with large numbers of stu
dents. We don’t really know their potential nor how
well they would operate in a broad-scale school sys-
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1932a
tem. And the field really is—of compensatory edu
cation is really quite unsettled. For example, in the
area of language development, we did a very intensive
review—excuse me now. We did not do this review,
but I have—a friend of mine in Syracuse University
£6223 who is an expert in the field of language de
velopment, and we commissioned him to carry out a
detailed comprehensive review of compensatory ed
ucation programs in the area of language develop
ment. As a result of this study which covers most
of what is available in the field, we were not able
to make any really strong recommendations about
what ought to be tried in the schools. We were only
able to say that—well, here’s two or three programs
which look like they might have some potential. But
then a few weeks later we received a study on one of
those programs and it had been validated and stud
ied and tested out in a very small test setting with
about 15 kids. Then another fellow tried the pro
gram out after a two-year period in the schools and
we received that report after this report was written
up and it turned out that when it was tried out in
the schools it had no effect whatsoever.
So, what I ’m trying to communicate to you, I
guess, is that this is a very unsettled field. There are
no hard and fast rules to go on. It’s very unlikely
that anybody is ever going to come up with a treat
ment that is going to be generally effective with
minority students at all. What has to be done is
basically many, many years of experimentation in
which we slowly and carefully identify and develop
specific programs designed for specific groups, spe
cific minority groups. Because they differ so greatly.
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1933a
The Court: Well, then, you’re not recommending
any [623] doctrinaire approach to this problem at
all!
The Witness: No, sir. The work that has been
done in the field doesn’t allow it.
The Court: But you are convinced that there is
no validity to anything that has been tried so far?
The Witness: Basically, what the schools have
tried—
The Court: I just can’t understand how you can
be so sure that it can’t be refined or developed.
The Witness: May I explain a little further? The
studies in compensatory education can be divided
into two groups. One group of studies in develop
ment of compensatory education have been those ap
proaches that have been developed basically by school
personnel. To some extent they may have been helped
by consultants. But, as I mentioned before, what
these studies boil down to generally is to give the
kids, the minority kids, what the school already has;
what it already knows how to do. This is not based
on a detailed study of the psychological—
The Court: I don’t agree with you at all.
The Witness: Pardon?
The Court: I don’t agree with you at all. I would
say a person-to-person approach to a child does
proceed on a psychological thesis; that the kid has
no promise, home. He has no figure to look to and
he has got to find some substitutes. Where is he
going to find them if he’s in a completely impersonal
[6241 atmosphere of the survival of the fittest?
The Witness: Some of them will. There is no
doubt about it.
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1934a
The Court: What happens to others who are
strangers, who are in an atmosphere in which they
are inferior and they feel inferior? Where are they
going to find some kind of consolation? Have you
been through this? I have.
The Witness: I grew up in that situation.
The Court: Now, what does he do? He may fight
his way through. It will take a few years. But he
may not. The probabilities are that he will drop
out and get a job, or worse. You don’t think this is
true ?
The Witness: Well, sir—■
The Court: I mean, psychologically, the school is
taking over for the family in many instances. It has
to. I know this is abhorrent to all of you. You just
disregard it all at paternalism. But you can’t. I
mean, this is the fact of life. The church has fallen
down somewhat. The family has collapsed, and there
is not much left. And a kid has to relate to something,
to an institution, and to people, doesn’t he? Where is
this substitute? So, you say there is no psychological
foundation for this? There is no foundation in ex
perience? That you can just substitute this competi
tive atmosphere? And this impersonal competitive
atmosphere of the integrated school and let him sink
or swim?
£625] The Witness: I think the idea of competi
tion in the integrated school has been overempha
sized. That element is there. What I think may be
emphasized more than anything else is the fact that
the integrated school by itself represents an accep
tance of other cultural groups because they are mixed
together, because they are living together, working
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1935a
together towards essentially the same goals. When
students are separated in different schools, as they
are in Denver Public Schools—
The Court: Well, that’s a different matter. We’re
not talking about this.
The Witness: Well, I though you were—
The Court: Well, I ’m talking about— We’re not
debating whether it’s valuable to have them in an
atmosphere that is integrated. What I ’m questioning
is your statement that the integrated setting can be
just a substitute for everything else that we have
ever learned.
The Witness: I wouldn’t say that, sir.
The Court: Well, that is what’s implied here. That
this is a cure-all.
The Witness: It can help.
The Court: I t can help ?
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: That’s all you’re saying?
The Witness: That’s all.
[6263 Mr. Greiner: May I proceed, Your Honor?
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. Dr. O’Reilly, you stated that you studied some 1,200
different compensatory education programs in segregated
schools. In the course of your study represented by Exhibit
508, did you also have occasion to analyze the results of
integration programs? A. Yes.
Q. Now, did you have 1,200 integration programs to look
at, Dr. Reilly? A. They are not that easy to find. We had
the studies that I reviewed on integration cover about 40
individual studies and desegregation was initiated on a
local district level. And then the major studies of existing
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1936a
degrees of racialization in the schools, like the Coleman
study, which includes this report, which includes a major
re-analysis of the Coleman data.
Q. And that was Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 27? A. Yes. And
also includes a new study on integration done by Wilson
and in Oakland, California.
Q. What was the basis of Wilson’s study? A. Oakland,
California, is a segregated school district which is some
what similar to this particular district here, from what I
know of both of them. And there are different degrees of
racial and social isolation in the schools in Oakland, Cal
ifornia.
[627] Q- Is there also integration in Oakland schools?
A. When I say different degrees of it, this would mean
that schools vary from being virtually segregated schools
to schools that are partially integrated.
Q. What did Wilson study? A. Wilson studied the effect
of segregation in the schools on achievement, on psycholog
ical development, and on delinquency.
Q. Now, with regard to these studies of programs of
integration, for example, did you study the Berkeley pro
gram? A. Yes.
Q. That Dr. Sullivan has described to us? A. Yes.
Q. What other integration programs did you study? A.
We had a program—several programs in Rochester, New
York. T vto or three programs in Syracuse, New York. The
MEDCO project in New Haven, Connecticut. Several other
small individual studies of desegregation in the schools.
Q. Now, did these studies also present you with, for
example, comparative achievement data, comparing what
were—comparing achievement data for minority students
before and after, for example, integration? A. Yes.
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1937a
Q. What did those data show? A. The individual studies
generally tend to show that—
[628] Mr. Ris: I object. I ’m sorry, Doctor. I
object on the grounds of lack of foundation again.
The Court: Overruled.
A. The desegregation studies—these are the small indi
vidual studies where a school district has either been
ordered to desegregate or at least primarily a school dis
trict where they desegregated by themselves, and the re
sults generally show that the educational development of
the desegregated minority students tends to be facilitated
or tends to improve within a year or two after the de
segregation experience is initiated.
Q. Now, is this improvement—can you compare or con
trast the degree of improvement under the integration
programs with that which you found under the compensa
tory education program! A. There are fewer studies
available on this but there are five or six in which com
pensatory education has been compared with integration.
And the results here tend to show that the integrated stu
dents perform at higher levels on achievement tests as
compared to students in segregated schools receiving com
pensatory education.
The Court: This helps, I’m sure, the ideas, at
least, of the better students.
The Witness: This is—there is quite a bit of
variation, sir. Not everybody experiences or—
[629] The Court: I mean those who have better
abilities.
The Witness: I don’t believe the question has
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1938a
been studied of students with different ability levels
and who is most affected on it.
The Court: How about the dropout rate? Does it
increase?
The Witness: The question of the dropout rate—
there is really not that I ’m aware of enough evidence
on the dropout rate in desegregation studies at this
particular point. A great many of them occurred at
the elementary school level.
The Court: .But there is no evidence as to whether
it increases or not?
The Witness: But you could make an inference
like this. The dropout rate is related to how well
you do in school. If you fail miserably then you
tend to drop out of school. Now, if, as the evidence
indicates, integration has a facilitating effect on
education achievement, this would tend to make—-
would tend to lower the rate of failure of minority
group students. You would then predict from that
that the dropout rate would be generally decreased.
The Court: Because they are competing with
students who are one to two years ahead of them?
The Witness: More successfully, though.
The Court: Well, that is, the upper level of them,
[630] but not necessarily the lower level? They
get frustrated and start wearing black leather jack
ets? I mean, they can’t do anything. Then they
start acting out?
The Witness: Sir, that may happen to some stu
dents but the evidence from the studies, the big
studies of integration like Coleman would indicate
that the students have developed a more positive
attitude towards school; that they begin to develop
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—-Direct
1939a
a sense that what they are doing has some effect on
their future, and I think in general that you could
predict more positive effects on psychological de
velopment rather than educational development it
self. They go hand in hand. If an individual begins
to experience success in school then he begins to
feel more positive about something.
The Court: Let me ask you this. Do you think the
impersonal approach would be preferred, even at
the elementary level?
The Witness: No, sir. I think it should be—
The Court: Sink or swim?
The Witness: No, I think it should be as personal
as you can make it.
The Court: Well, then, you do have to baby them
along to keep them in school and to keep them alive,
don’t you?
The Witness: I think you have to show basically
that [6313 you regard them as worthwhile human
beings and that, if that kind of baby attitude of
respect for a member of another minority group is
there, then—
The Court: This means you have to really be
geared for it because, if you get teachers who are
petty, objectionable personal habits or appearances
or things of that sort, or for the individual involved,
it can have a traumatic effect?
The Witness: Well, the studies that I reviewed
on desegregation didn’t take any great pains to do
anything really extensive in the school situation
to prepare—
The Court: I get letters from these teachers.
They say this is an impossible thing. I mean, I
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1940a
probably shouldn’t read them but I have. They say,
“He runs down the hall. He can’t understand why he
should walk. He squirms in his seat.” Pretty soon
he drops out. But what I’m saying is they en
counter oftentimes, I’m afraid, completely unsym
pathetic receptions.
The Witness: I’m sure there are people who
are—
The Court: How are you going to combat this
kind of thing? If it isn’t on a personal approach,
I mean?
The Witness: I agree with you that these repre
sent problems.
The Court: They are formidable problems.
The Witness: Yes, but I think they can be handled.
[6323 The Court: Well, then you are not say
ing that ipso facto that we can cure everything by
simply—
The Witness: No, I ’m not.
The Court:—by simply integrating the schools?
The Witness: No, I think you’ve got to take time
to plan it. If you initiate the process, work at it as
you go along, try to develop a school in which you
have a multi-cultural atmosphere in which mutual
respect is possible among the students, I think, you
know, these things are required. There are things
that have to be done with teachers; things that have
to be done with students. There is a great deal that
can be done with students and they are—particu
larly at the elementary school level. The easy things
to do are the least expensive.
The Court: Well, what I’m really leading up
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1941a
to—I suppose that there may be some value in these
remedial efforts after all?
The Witness: In a certain context, sir.
The Court: Eight.
Proceed.
Excuse me, Mr. Greiner.
By Mr. Greiner:
Q. Dr. O’Reilly, you have also reviewed the plaintiffs’
plans for relief in this case, have you not? A. Yes, I
have.
[633] Q. Dr. O’Reilly, do the plaintiff s’ plans contem
plate simply throwing the blacks and whites together and
letting the blacks sink or swim? A. No, they do not.
Q. And have there really been, for example,—the Berke
ley program which Dr. Sullivan described to the Court the
other day—now, in Berkeley they attempted to change
teacher attitudes, did they not? A. Yes.
Q. And had programs of cultural understanding, minor
ity history? A. Yes.
Q. And they had programs directed towards helping the
teacher to cope with some of the peculiar problems of the
minority child, is that right? A. Yes.
Q. Now, these programs were continued in Berkeley,
were they not, in an integrated setting? A. Yes, they
were.
Q. And is Berkeley one of the success stories of integra
tion in the United States? A. I t’s probably the most
well known at this point.
Mr. Greiner: We have no further question, Your
Honor.
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1942a
[634] Cross-Examination by Mr. Ris:
Q. Are compensatory education programs in progress
in New York City at the present time, this school year?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. And throughout New York State? A. Yes, they are.
Q. And in—are there such programs evaluated yearly
in New York State? A. Yes.
Q. Insofar as federal government participation and
funding is concerned, are evaluations submitted to federal
agencies annually? A. Yes, they are.
Q. Bequests for funding for the following years are
based upon those studies? A. Funding in Title I, ESEA,
is virtually automatic. It depends on how many disadvan
taged students are in the school of your state.
Q. Is it contemplated in New York State that these pro
grams will continue next year? A. Yes, but it’s not con
templated about how much longer it’s going to last.
Q. But they are going to be continued next year? A.
So far.
Q. And that has been determined by those who make the
[635] policies? A. Yes, it has.
Q. How much was spent during or contemplated to be
spent during the school year 1969 and ’70 in New York
State compensatory programs? A. This year, Title I,
ESEA, was about $170 million and the state’s assistance
from local state tax money was about $52 million for urban
educational programs which are directed toward the dis
advantaged children.
Q. And how much was spent during—or will be spent
before the end of this current school year on programs
other than Title I? A. Well, we have $7million for in
tegration programs. The state provides money for de
segregation, for busing and so on.
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1943a
Q. I ’m asking about compensatory purposes. A. That’s
considered compensatory.
Q. That has been considered compensatory, also? A.
Yes.
Q. All right. A. We have some more, if you would like
to know them.
Q. Some more dollar expenditures? A. Yes.
Q. What are they? A. We have $3 million, prekinder
garten program.
[636] Q. Do yon know what has been budgeted for next
year throughout the state? A. Roughly.
Q. What is it? A. I think the Title I, ESEA, program
is $183 minion. Urban education will be exactly the same
as before; it is 52 million— Excuse me. I said seven mil
lion for integration. It’s three million. The prekindergar
ten program has been reduced from seven million requested
to three million. And that would constitute the major ef
forts for the state.
Q. Now, with respect to the studies you made of the
studies on desegregation in the various school districts,
could you give us any statistics either numerically or per
centagewise as to which of those desegregation plans were
voluntary as contrasted to mandatory? A. The desegre
gation programs?
Q. Yes, sir. A. What do you mean by voluntary versus
mandatory?
Q. Well, whether the desegregation plans were on a vol
untary basis of the students or the parents requested trans
fer, or whether—such as under the Denver VOE which you
have heard while you have been in court, or whether they
are mandatory comparable to Plan 1 or Plan 2 submitted by
the plaintiffs here. A. The decisions to desegregate the
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Gross
1944a
schools are really [6373 not typically made at the commu
nity level. They are made as a function of the arrange
ments between school boards or is directly a decision be
tween school boards or, in the case in New York State,
we have some instances where in one case where a school
superintendent led the battle in a very peculiar way and
desegregated the whole school system in White Plains, New
York.
The Court: Where was that located?
The Witness: White Plains.
The Court: We have heard about White Plains
quite a bit.
A. We have other instances where the Commissioner of
Education in New York State has ordered schools to deseg
regate and they have consequently desegregated. Some of
these being actions brought by the N.A.A.C.P.
Q. Have you correlated whether these were mandatory
or voluntary? A. No, we haven’t, because the mandatory
versus voluntary concept is just not—it isn’t—this isn’t a
mandatory or voluntary— It’s a very—an extremely corn-
lex thing.
Q. But you made no study of that? That’s my question.
A. No.
Q. To what extent, Doctor, are you segregated in New
York City? [638] A. New York City is very highly segre
gated. There have been some few programs in New York
City, school pairing, for example, where some sort of pilot
program of integration has occurred. But New York City
is—the problem there is extraordinarily complex in terms
of size; 1.2 million kids in New York City, and 55 percent
of them are Negro and Puerto Ricans and they live in areas
in the city where there just aren’t any white kids.
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs-—Cross
1945a
Q. And so I take it that you’re using remedial approaches
there? A. That’s exactly what is being tried and where
the complexity of the problem is as bad as it is in that
particular place and where there hasn’t been any legal ac
tion at this point—
The Court: In Harlem, for example, do all the
students have to go to school in Harlem who live
there?
The Witness: They have to go to school.
The Court: In Harlem?
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: Do you move any of them out?
The Witness: No. Typically, in New York City,
students aren’t really—the neighborhood school con
cept is still viable there.
The Court: Would this be true in other boroughs?
All of the boroughs of New York City?
[639] The Witness: Basically.
The Court: Well, then, when you get out, do you
have any other place where you have integrated?
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: Where?
The Witness: Rochester had some pilot integra
tion programs which have encouraged a lot of peo
ple. Syracuse has had some pilot integration pro
grams that have encouraged people. The White Plains
—the one I already mentioned. And this moves on
in different places in the state to desegregate local
cities. A good example of that is Rochester, in which
they are still, you know, this movement has been go
ing on in Rochester for a considerable period of
time. They haven’t achieved success yet but I’m sure
they will continue to work.
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1946a
The Court: Well, is there any city in the United
States or in the Northwest, the Middle West, East,
where they have a complete program of integration?
The Witness: Integration program?
The Court: From your studies have you found
any?
The Witness: No cities that I am aware of at this
particular time have an extensive integration pro
gram in which they have integrated the whole city.
But I can’t recall the details now of other places,
but I do recall that there are some movements on
at some places in the country for a [640] program
that may affect large numbers of students.
The Court: We have read about some of them
recently.
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: But, so far, it has not been accom
plished or really tried out on any broad scale any
place.
The Witness: Well, the broadest-scaled one, in
which the program has been studied reasonably well
—in fact, quite well in terms of most of the studies,
is Sullivan’s program, in Berkeley, which is—well, a
city of 100,000.
The Court: But, Boston apparently hasn’t done it,
really.
The Witness: No.
The Court: They’ve got a voluntary program up
there. That’s what I assumed from what he said.
The Witness: Yes.
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1947a
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Cross
By Mr. R is :
Q. Dr. O’Reilly, in White Plains, wasn’t the technique
there used to close one black school and transport the
children then to other schools? A. As I recall, that was
a technique.
Q. Now, with regard to school desegregation, I believe
the title of your work is Racial and Class Isolation. And
throughout your work you lay great stress upon the social
class of minorities, do you not? A. Yes.
[641] Q. So it is not merely the color that you’re pri
marily concerned with in your conclusions—it’s a matter
of social class? A. Doesn’t make any difference.
Q. It doesn’t? You don’t have social class even in the
minorities? A. In places—let’s see, from the data I have
examined in Denver on the economical levels, there is a
little bit—this is a little bit old data—•
Q. 1960 data? A. Yes, but from what I have heard from
talking to other people, you know, it’s not, you know, the
greatest kind of basis for this kind of thing. Denver is
probably very much like Oakland. In fact, it may even
be more so in terms of the correlation between race and
social class, in which case, if you desegregate the schools,
you automatically bring out the condition that Dr. Cole
man talked about.
Q. So are you acquainted with the Northeast section of
Denver? A. I think that’s what I—I guess that’s the area
I saw, over by Manual High School. I’m not sure of the
directions.
The Court: This has been called the core city area
in this trial.
The Witness: Over by Manual High School?
1948a
[642] The Court: Yes. It’s part of it.
The Witness: That’s what I saw.
Q. How long have you been in Denver? A. Since Sun
day night.
Q. Have you ever been here before? A. No.
Q. Well, in your work you do agree that you stated that
school desegregation is no panacea leading to disappear
ance of the existing education gap existing between mem
bers of the advanced majority student population and dis
advantaged minority students? A. Yes, I said that because
I basically agree with what Judge Doyle has said, and that
is that integration should be accompanied by additional
efforts.
Q. You say under certain conditions school desegrega
tion may result and work—
The Court: Where are you reading from?
Mr. Bis: I’m reading from Page 3.
The Court: We haven’t progressed that far.
I think we’ll take a short recess.
(Whereupon, the trial recessed at 10:50 a.m. and
resumed at 11:06 a.m.)
By Mr. R is:
Q. Dr. O’Reilly, I have had a request from some specta
tors here that, if you would please raise your voice a bit,
they would appreciate it. They can’t hear [643] you back
there.
The Witness: I’ll do my best.
Q. Referring to Page 39 of your work, Dr. O’Reilly, it
says, “Examination of current guidelines for school deseg
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1949a
regation indicates a failure to give adequate emphasis to
the importance of social class consideration in planning
integrated schools.” And you have said, “Guidelines have
focused on the concept of racial balance with result in
ambiguous . . . ”
Must the social class of the students both being trans
ported into a school and the social class of the students
that are already there be coordinated, then, in some man
ner? A. Yes, they should.
The Court: Are you still on Page 3 ?
Mr. Bis: Beg your pardon, Your Honor. This is
Page 39.
The Court: Are you finished with Page 3 ? Did you
ask him about this statement, “There is no panacea
. . . ” ?
Mr. Bis: I ’ll come back to that, if I may. This
again goes to the social class matter that I asked him
about before.
The Witness: Yes. I’ll explain that. As you will
remember, as I remember, anyway, from Dr. Cole
man’s testimony, he talked about social class being
a primary consideration. Now, what I have done in
my report is to translate that into £6443 arranging
a condition for the poor integration. This is one of
the initial conditions. The basic idea there is to
make sure that the school ends up as a predomi-
antly middle-class school which, from what I know
about Denver, seems to be generally possible. The
other conditions are—the other basic condition is
that the school also reflects somewhat the ethnic com
position of the community, but there can be certain
variations there. In other words, the particular pro
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1950a
portions, they should never be low. But there is a
range of variation in which you can work and the
criteria there in a plan for a well-integrated school
is to insure that there is enough representation so
that the different ethnic groups in the community
are well represented in the school and can interact
with each other. A school in which you have like
four or five blacks, you know—it is not an integrated
school under a criterion like that; or, if an area like
Denver—it would mean that you would do your best
to represent not the blacks and the whites, but the
Hispanos.
Q. So when you’re talking about social class, are you
using the same criteria, as Dr. Coleman did when he talked
about socioeconomic class? A. Yes, but I have added an
additional condition which relates social class and race. Be
cause there is not just one objective for integration, not
just entirely the objective of improving educational achieve
ments. An additional [6453 objective—and this is related
to—
The Court: What you’re saying is that the middle
class and the upper middle class in the integrated
school ought to be predominant? I mean, if they’re
going to exert any influence?
The Witness: Yes.
By Mr. R is:
Q. So social class must be considered and not merely
numbers of blacks, numbers of whites, numbers of His
panos. Bight? A. Yes, in most cases the consideration of
the racial or the ethnic factor is automatically a considera
tion of the social class factor.
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1951a
The Court: I don’t see what you are—I’m still not
certain as to what your goal is. It’s to make the
minority group more articulate and more knowledge
able as to what’s going on in society? What the val
ues are of the kinds of society we have?
The Witness: Well, that’s certainly part of it, sir.
But I think to be articulate as I can about it there
are two basic goals. One of them if ignored repre
sents, I think, a tremendous danger to this society
in which we live. And that is the isolation of groups
of students in schools.
The Court: Well, then, you’re trying to develop
a single culture, is that right?
The Witness: No, sir. I think that’s what we
have; [646]is a predominant kind of subrogating
culture which feels pretty indifferent about other
cultures. The plans that we have discussed with re
spect to integration take into account the represen
tation of each culture in the school so that the school
becomes multicultural and not homogeneous culture.
In fact, I think this is one of the conditions for the
success for integration programs, which isn’t really
all that hard to get at; is to recognize the contribu
tions of the groups that are existing in school, and
this apparently is recognized in the Board’s plan.
However, that plan does not bring together people,
and it assumes by reading a book or something, that
that will develop. But I think that’s quite doubtful.
The Court: Well, what influence, then, does the
so-called middle class or upper middle class—what
great contribution do they make, do you think, to
integrated settings?
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1952a
The Witness: I think part of the contribution is
the exposure of the minority group student to a
more different level of language, a more complex
level of language, a more abstract use of language
which is more typical of middle-class Anglos. But it
is not necessarily untypical of middle-class blacks.
It is a function of social class. Another contribu
tion, I think, that is made by the integrated program
is that when you do mix students together, particu
larly if you start when they are young at the ele
mentary school, you create an opportunity for mutual
respect between cultures and [647] this kind of
thing is really the direct reverse of the segregated
school where these segregated students must obvi
ously conclude from the fact that they are alone
that, since he is segregated, he must be regarded as
inferior. So this certainly removes that source of
feeling of inferiority, low self-esteem.
The Court: Brings about insight and perhaps un
derstanding between the groups, you’re saying?
The Witness: Yes, I think mutual respect.
The Court: Anything else?
The Witness: Yes. Irrespective of social class,
not—I’m not necessarily speaking of Denver now,
that is, the correlation between what I’m about to
say in Denver is up to some other people to judge.
Mr. Bis: I ’m sorry, Dr. O’Beilly. I can hardly
hear you.
The Witness: The question was, are there any
other things that occur as a function of the social
class composition of the school in the integrated
school. When you group lower-class students to
gether, predominantly lower-class students together,
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1953a
you tend to get generally a higher level of disorder,
a generally lower level of academic motivation, and
the approaches to instruction to typically include
even small groups are very, very susceptible to the
influence of the group, and if the predominant aspect
of the group is in [648] disorder, not caring about
the school, not caring about achievement and so on,
this has a highly interfering affect on the effective
ness of instruction. It cuts down on the efficiency
of a teacher; cuts down on information transmitted.
There are additional effects, too, that have been
stated which I have stated in my report and other
reports have, too, on the teacher. Teachers come to
regard the students as being incapable, and there are
indications that they actually regard them as infe
rior. Possibly culturally inferior. That is even an
assumption in some compensatory education pro
grams. These attitudes of teachers are highly nega
tive and from my point of view as a psychologist
can exert damaging effects on an individual’s psy
chological development. All of this is much more
likely in a school which consists primarily of poor
students from a single culture or from an instance
like this where you have two cultures or like in New
York City where we have Puerto Bican students and
Negro students who are primarily segregated from
the whites. So there are psychological effects.
Wilson’s report is one of the ones, I think, that
gives us one of the indications of the danger to social
development represented by the segregated school.
For example, after accounting for family back
ground, father absences, individual social class, he
found that it was the extent to which the school was
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1954a
segregated which appeared to [649] cause the fre
quency of juvenile delinquency among Negro ad
olescents. And that, if those students went to upper-
middle-class schools where the education environ
ment was different, that they were less likely to
become delinquents and their effect wTas twice as
great for blacks as it was for whites. And that is
understandable because there are a lot more blacks
in segregated schools than in integrated schools.
The Court: Tou heard Mr. Ward testify yester
day? He said that he has great concern for the black
student who has not fared well on the achievement
tests but who, nevertheless, has great ability, prob
ably, if he can be discovered and it is brought out.
The Witness: Yes. I remember him saying that.
The Court: This is a person who is apt to be lost
if somebody doesn’t take an interest in him and
develop him. What is he going to do in an inte
grated atmosphere?
The Witness: Sir, a person’s educational develop
ment particularly at the junior high school and high
school level is less determined by his parents than
by his peers.
The Court: At junior high school?
The Witness: Yes, among the ethnic minority, the
effect of the peer group is twice as great as it is for
whites. This has been brought out in Coleman’s
study. Also been brought out in Wilson’s study.
The Court: That’s because the parental influences
[650] are declining as you get to that age?
The Witness: Possibly. It’s also because of rela
tive deprivation in terms of the qualities of one’s
family background that these students are more re
sponsive to qualitative differences in school.
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1955a
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Cross
The Court: As to what?
The Witness: They are more responsive. You take
the disadvantaged Negro student and put him in an
atmosphere in which the environmental quality of
that atmosphere has been increased, the extent to
which he will improve is more rapid and greater
than the general effect on white students put in that
same environment. Now, this is a definite finding
of integration studies and Coleman study and the
Wilson study in Oakland, California. Now, put in
the context of what I said about the peer group, if
you segregate students in schools like this, the peer
group’s influence is primarily negative, and this is
a time of their lives when they are most susceptible
to that influence. So long as you continue racially-
isolated schools and the pattern I see in this par
ticular case is isolation from elementary through
secondary, you have virtually programmed the stu
dent into something that, through his adulthood and
possibly into juvenile delinquency certainly an in
crease in the level of social acts displayed by these
minority students. And it’s predictable. My opinion
on this is that we know enough about this so that,
if we do [651] this, that these are the likely effects,
and we therefore have to take responsibility for it.
By Mr. R is:
Q. But if we have a school with highly-motivated teach
ers, with greater empathy with these minority students,
you would say they wouldn’t progress? A. Would you re
peat the question?
Q. If you had a school in which there are highly-moti
1956a
vated teachers, with greater emphathy for these disadvan
taged students—Let’s take Manual High School. A. I can’t
generalize on the basis of Manual High School.
Q. So you think Manual is not providing anything for
them that hasn’t been provided for these children before,
from what you have heard from Principal Ward yesterday!
A. Prom my reading of the Board’s plan, I don’t think
there is any hard evidence which would indicate from my
point of view, as a person in this field, as an educational
researcher, when I read this plan on Manual High School,
when I read the language of the Board—
Q. I ’m asking about Mr. Ward’s testimony yesterday. Do
you think what he is doing is being done without any sub
stantial benefit to those children? A. I don’t think you can
judge from what a person has to say about his opinions.
Teachers typically and school administrators typically
think what they’re doing is great.
£6523 The Court: I wish you would keep your
voice up, please. The reporter is having difficulty
hearing you. Speak as if you’re making a speech,
you know, to a large group.
The Witness: Yes, sir.
Teachers and school administrators—
The Court: You want the people in the back
benches to hear every single word you say.
The Witness: Teachers and school administra
tors where their opinions of the effects of programs
have been evaluated, are typically positive, but when
we look at the programs they are typically negative.
Q. I see. So, in the case of Manual, you just look at the
program and not with the results then? A. We look at
the—-
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1957a
Q. Unless they were on standardized achievement test
scores? A. That’s not the only thing I would look at.
Q. What else would you look at in Manual? A. I would
look at, for example, students’ opinions. I would look at
how many of these students go to college as compared to
how many went to college before the program was started.
There are many, many indicators of the effectiveness of
the school that are not necessarily achievement test data.
I wouldn’t rely on a single indicator. That would be an
[653] evaluation of the program.
Q. Then all these 1,200 programs in compensatory edu
cation which you relied on, you were relying there on
standard achievement test scores, were you not? A. No,
sir. Most of these programs include several indicators of
effectiveness.
Q. What other tests? A. Sometimes they include psy
chological tests.
Q. How many of the 1,200? A. Well, that would be
extremely difficult to say at this point.
Q. Go ahead. What other tests? A. Let’s take Head
Start, for example. Head Start included a measure of
self-concept. How the individual felt about himself, and
also included a measure of the student’s attitude towards
education, towards school.
Q. These were subjective things from the three and
four-year-olds? A. Sometimes they are subjective. Some
times they are relatively objective, in which the student is
given a questionnaire.
Q. Let me ask you this. In going back to Page 3 of your
report, you say—and you can state if this is correct—
“However, knowledge of the process of integration is not
yet so complete nor is what is known of the process so
systematically [654] applied that any startling changes
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1958a
in educational development should generally become evi
dent in desegregate minority group students.” It that your
opinion today? A. It certainly is, but I would like to
qualify that opinion, if I may. That is a preliminary
statement preceding my analysis of the conditions that are
likely to make desegregation—the integration program ef
fective. For example, if it were started at the elementary
level it is much more likely to be successful than at the
secondary level. And there are other conditions that I
indicate in there and basically the proposition that I am
making there is that people have to plan and work this
thing out in accordance with what is known about the
process in order to make it effective. That statement also
communicates that we can do a much better job with in
tegration than we have done before because of •what we
do now with it and, if we continue to work on it and con
tinue to integrate the schools, that we will know more about
it and be able to do a better job yet.
Q. Pag’e 20, did you make this statement: “It is evident
from the results of all studies reviewed that the achieve
ment levels of disadvantaged minority group students still
remain substantially below that of the advantaged whites
. . . in schools.”
The question is, what that your statement? A. Yes.
May I qualify that?
£655] Q. Well, may I ask you if that is your statement?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, basically, what you’re talking about again here
is achievement levels of the minority who were transferred
to another school? Eight? A. Yes.
Q. And right down the line, all of your reports indicate
that the minority students and disadvantaged students,
when they are moved into the integrated setting, generally
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1959a
remain behind? They never do catch np, isn’t that correct?
A. Oh, I don’t think the latter part of that statement is
correct.
Q. Well, Page 27. You said, “Even though the studies
often indicate superior achievement on the part of the
integrated Negro student, it must still be noted that the
integrated Negro students generally remain behind achieve
ments . . . displayed by white majority.” A. Yes, but you
said they always remain behind, and—
Q. Well, generally?
Mr. Greiner: If the witness would be allowed to
finish his response, Your Honor—
The Court: Yes.
Go ahead, Doctor.
A. There aren’t enough studies at this particular time
on desegregation in which the process has been initated
on [656] a district level that have gone over a long enough
period of time, and that have been, you know, effectively
planned from my point of view, that would indicate whether
we can wipe out that difference. We just don’t know yet.
We do know that—
Q. With respect to the—to Page 36, did you make this
statement: “Despite the appearance of superiority of
the integration approach . . . it is evident that in the
Berkeley study that the disadvantaged Negroes, even when
they are in an integrated setting, achieved at considerably
lower levels than more advantaged whites.” A. Eeally,
the same statement. We did—I did make that statement.
Q. So, merely by integration in and of itself, you’re not
going to cure all evils? A. No, but it’s relative to com
pensatory education.
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1960a
Q. But generally, as to the ultimate fact of the evidence
—the evidence is just not sufficiently conclusive or there
haven’t been enough analyses to know what its effect is?
A. That’s not true.
Mr. Bis : That’s all.
Mr. Greiner: We have no further questions of
Dr. O’Reilly, Your Honor.
The Court: Where do you think the Spanish-
origin or [657] Spanish-speaking people fit into
this desegregation program? Have you made any
particular studies along this line?
The Witness: The only really big study available
on the effects of integration on the Mexican-Ameri
cans is the Coleman report and that report shows
the effect of integration is as large or larger—-maybe
slightly larger on their achievement levels in school
as it is for Negroes, which would indicate that
there are expectations in relationship to how well
the Negro is going to do in an integrated setting
and how well the Mexican-American is going to
do in that setting, should be roughly the same.
The Court: Well, I take it that, in view of what
you say, that you feel that there is value in having
an ideal integrated setting, in having a mixture of
Negroes and Mexicans, as well as Anglos, is that
correct?
The Witness: Yes, sir. And I feel that is really—
surely dictated by a multicultural region like Denver
or other regions where there are more than two
ethnic groups.
The Court: Have you conducted any studies as
to whether this integration affects the so-called su-
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1961a
perior group? Does it lower their standards, their
levels of achievement?
The Witness: Now, I have rather reviewed stud
ies of principals and I think, if this is what you’re
asking, principals’ attitudes, school administrators’
and teachers’ attitudes in relationship to the ques
tion of, did integration [658] lower the standards of
the school? With very few exceptions, the opinions
of these people are in the districts where desegre
gation had occurred, have been positive, and in some
instances—it’s not infrequent—that they felt the
program had enriched them and had a better pro
gram than they had before with a greater variety.
The Court: These are general approaches, I take
it? The individual problems you are not concerned
with?
The Witness: With individuals?
The Court: Individual desegregation problems.
I noted in going over the plans of the plaintiffs’
program that they will pair the best facility in town
with the worst. Would this be desirable? They will
take the newest facility in town and they will bus
them to the oldest facility in town because of geo
graphic proximity.
The Witness: It could be, but I would have no
problem about the two schools.
The Court: Well, the latter is the lowest in
achievement, probably, that you could imagine; 20th
percentile.
The Witness: Well, if the two schools end up—
if they are both predominantly middle-class, as a
function of this transfer, you would predict that
they would both work out pretty well. In no cases
do we have any—
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1962a
The Court: Is there any adjustment period?
The Witness: Well, sir, the studies that we have
[659] got don’t indicate that the general approach
to school integration has involved any extensive
planning. They have taken a relatively short period
of time. They haven’t done any tremendous amount
of work at their school to prepare for it. Most of
what they did, they did as they went along.
The Court: You mean in the South?
The Witness: No, I ’m talking about the studies
that I have reported in here in Chapters 5 and 6.
The Court: These are pilot programs, though,
that you’re talking about?
The Witness: Yes, and most of them were initi
ated—well, some were in preparation, but it’s not
extensive. They did not make extensive changes in
the school program. They didn’t send the teachers
to school for any lengthy period of time nor were
their in-service training programs particularly
lengthy. In some cases they did almost nothing
and in some cases the results almost tend to be
positive.
The Court: Would you at least recommend that
these exchanges be worked out on a carefully-
planned basis and not be the result of computer
print-outs ?
The Witness: W ell, I think the computer-print
out-type orientation that we have seen here is fine
for planning, you know, how are you going to mix
the students in the schools. But then the human
element must come in there. I think that you can
do this in a matter of a few months in terms of
[660] preparation that the rest of the effort should
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Cross
/
1963a
be devoted toward working with it as you go. Be
cause some schools just—they typically don’t have
the kinds of funds; the kinds of additions to the
program that they can make, to go all-out on this.
But they can make efforts from studies I have re
viewed that can work and, you know, it isn’t all
that extensive, what has been done. Particularly,
if you do it at the elementary level. It’s a lot less
of a problem there than, potentially—with the op
portunity once these kids have learned to interact,
it’s much easier to do when you’re younger and when
you are less rigid. Desegregation can then con
tinue as the students move up.
The Court: What about this specialty school1?
What about the value of that? That has been rec
ommended by both sides, really, by the plaintiffs
as an alternative and the defendants as a proposal,
in regard to Manual High? Have you studied this
type of thing?
The Witness: I ’m not sure I ’m familiar with the
concept involved here, specialty school.
The Court: Well, it would be geared to training-
people from the intercity in particular trades and—
or in particular occupations.
The Witness: A job-oriented program?
The Court: In part. But also it would have, as
I understand it—it would be devoted to prepro
fessional [661] training, premedic, prelaw, and pre
engineering, for example, and programs for college
preparatory training as well. In addition, special
ized courses in such things as cosmetology and build
ing construction; all this kind of thing. And per
haps plumbing. I don’t know. Plumbing isn’t a bad
job nowadays.
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1964a
The Witness: No, it pays pretty well. Well, I
think if the school expands its organization and
allows people to go into other kinds of things that
may be more suited to their particular needs, that
is basically a good idea and a good approach.
The Court: Well, they’re doing this at both
Manual and Cole. They’re making more or less
specialized schools out of them and programs they
have never done before. This is in self-defense.
The Witness: Well, this kind of thing really goes
back over a hundred years. In a situation like this,
why, where mostly black and Hispano students are
getting that kind of program and whites are getting
another kind of program—and you have a system
where grouping occurs into special programs from
the elementary on up through the secondary level,
it finally ends up in vocational training. And
amounts to, in my opinion, programming students
into basically lower occupations than the whites are
programmed into. The whites are programmed into
another environment. And, you know, I [662]
don’t know whether this is planned this way, that
is my feeling.
The Court: This is a danger, you say?
The Witness: I think it’s a very clear danger.
The Court: But the program they have prepared
would be for this school to be a citywide school so
as to eliminate its segregated character. And turn
it into a specialty school that would accommodate
people from every—
The Witness: It could work out that way.
The Court: Anybody else want to ask anything?
Mr. Greiner: Nothing further from us, Your
Honor.
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1965a
Cross-Examination by Mr. Ris (Cont’d ) :
Q. Dr. O’Reilly, you previously testified that you recog
nize the significance of community support in any operation
of the school system, did you not? A. Yes.
Q. Dr. Sullivan discussed that the other day. You heard
his testimony? A. No, I did not hear Dr. Sullivan’s testi
mony but I have read his book and that is his opinion.
Q. Weren’t you here when he testified? A. No.
Q. I ’m sorry. I thought you were.
The Witness: No, I had some homework to do.
£6633 Q. Well, he testified that it took him two years
to get things lined up in Berkeley to go into a desegrega
tion plan other than their original pilot plan. A. He is a
pioneer.
Q. Pardon? A. He’s a pioneer.
Q. Well, he was working with the community. He had
the feel of the community and he said it would take a
minimum of that time, and that community is a lot smaller
than Denver, isn’t it? A. Did he say that it would take
a minimum of that amount of time in Denver?
Q. That was the testimony as I remember.
The Court: Well, he said this : that you can’t com
pletely disregard community acceptance as a factor;
that you’ve got to educate the people who are mak
ing the sacrifice, not only them, but all making sacri
fices in a way. The people who are allegedly getting
the benefit. They all want to be educated so that
they have some motivation for this and some spirit
for it if it’s going to succeed. I gleaned this from
remarks; that you can’t just leave it up to the forces
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1966a
of nature or you might run into trouble. I thought
he conducted a community education program.
Ry Mr. Ris:
Q. With regard to an expression of your opinion that
this could be done in a couple of months or a £664] few
months, I believe your phrase was, you don’t know of any
experience of any community the size of Denver, with the
problems of Denver, that has done this, have you? A. No,
but I don’t think you can lay down and—
Q. Then you are just—
Mr. Greiner: Could the witness be allowed to
finish his response, Your Honor?
The Court: Sure. Go ahead, if you’ve got some
thing else to say.
A. Yes. First of all, Dr. Sullivan is a pioneer in the field
and he worked out many of the techniques for gaining
community support in the school. They exist now. It
takes a lot of time to work those out. Just to work out the
procedures, not to get them, going. Now, those procedures,
those plans, that experience now exists. The people can
take advantage of that. I don’t see why it has to take
two years.
Q. You think you could take the Berkeley experience
and come to Denver and do the Denver job in a couple of
months? A. I really couldn’t tell that, but I do think
that the timetable certainly has been shortened as a result
of the things that are now available.
Q, And what other community the size of Denver has
used the Berkeley plan to cut down the time? [665] A.
I don’t know of any other community.
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1967a
Mr. Eis: That’s all.
Mr. Greiner: Nothing’ further, Your Honor.
The Court: Do you have anything else that you
wish to add? We have been picking your brain here.
Maybe you’ve got something we haven’t probed.
The Witness: No, sir. I think I have talked
enough, and I’m kind of run down a little bit.
The Court: Well, we will be glad to hear you if
you think there is.
The Witness: There is one thing I might add
that would be—
The Court: Keep your voice up, though.
The Witness: In this particular book that has
been offered into evidence with the Court—
The Court: We will take that in evidence. That’s
508. I doin’t guarantee we will get through all of
it.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 508 was re
ceived in evidence.)
The Witness: There is a chapter in there which
I wrote on planning the desegregated schools. Some
of the considerations that have to be made and so
on. This might be a —of particular interest if this
is the kind of thing that happens in Denver, which
I don’t know what it is. But there are other sources,
too, that can be very helpful [6661 in planning de
segregate programs in the schools. This is one offer
ing here. There are lots of other things available.
We do have a lot of information from research,
from what people have done in integrating schools
that enhance the chances of achieving a successful
integration program in other places. They don’t
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1968a
apply necessarily directly and can’t be transferred,
you know, just like that. But certainly they can be
helpful. I think that’s all I would have to add.
The Court: Anything else?
By Mr. R is:
Q. Have you prepared such a plan for any city! A. No,
I haven’t prepared such a plan.
Mr. Bis: Thank you.
Redirect Examination by Mr. Greiner:
Q. Would you like to? A. I’d love to.
The Court: Well, good luck to you.
(Witness excused.)
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, the plaintiffs rest at
this point.
Robert O’Reilly—for Plaintiffs—Redirect
* * * *
1969a
D ecision Re Plan or Remedy by District Court
(Dated May 21, 1970)
Reprinted in Appendix to Petition
for Certiorari, pp. 99a-121a
See 313 F. Snpp. 90
1970a
Final Decree and Judgment
(Entered June 11, 1970)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
F or the District of Colorado
Civil Action No. C-1499
Wilfred Keyes, individually and on behalf of Christi
Keyes, a minor; Christine A. Colley, individually and
on behalf of Kris M. Colley and Mark A. Williams,
minors; Irma J. J ennings, individually and on behalf
of Rhonda 0. J ennings, a minor; Roberta R. Wade,
individually and on behalf of Gregory L. Wade, a minor;
Edward J. Starks, J r., individually and on behalf of
Denise Michelle Starks, a minor; J osephine Perez,
individually and on behalf of Carlos A. Perez, Sheila
R. Perez and Terry J. Perez, minors; Maxine N.
Becker, individually and on behalf of Dinah L. Becker,
a minor; Eugene R. Weiner, individually and on be
half of Sarah S. Weiner, a minor,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado; The Board of
Education, School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado ;
William C. Berge, individually and as President, Board
of Education, School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado;
Stephen J. Knight, Jr., individually and as Vice Presi
dent, Board of Education, School District No. 1, Den
ver, Colorado; J ames C. Perrill, Frank K. South-
worth, J ohn H. Amesse, J ames D. Voorhees, J r., and
Rachel B. Noel, individually and as members, Board
of Education, School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado;
1971a
R obert D. G ilb er ts , individually and as Superintendent
of Schools, School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado,
Defendants,
Mr. and Mrs. Douglas Barnett, individually and on behalf
of J ade Barnett, a minor; Mr. and Mrs. J ack P ierce,
individually and on behalf of Rebecca P ierce and Cyn
thia P ierce, minors; Mrs. J ane Walden, individually
and on behalf of J ames Craig Walden, a minor; Mr.
and Mrs. William B. Brice, individually and on behalf
of Kristie Brice, a minor; Mr. and Mrs. Carl Ander
son, individually and on behalf of Gregory Anderson,
Cindy Anderson, J eeeery Anderson, and Tammy And
erson, minors; Mr. and Mrs. Charles Simpson, indi
vidually and on behalf of Douglas Simpson, a minor;
Mr. and Mrs. Patrick McCarthy, individually and on
behalf of Cassandra McCarthy, a minor; Mr. Bichard
Klein, individually and on behalf of J anet Klein, a
minor; Mr. and Mrs. Frank Bupert, individually and
on behalf of Michael Bupert and Scott Bupert,
Intervening Defendants.
Final Decree and Judgment
This Cause, having been tried on its merits before the
Court, and the Court having made and filed its Memoran
dum Opinion and Order dated March 21, 1970, and its
Decision re Plan or Bemedy dated May 21, 1970, and hav
ing therein made its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law:
It I s Hereby Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed as follows:
A. The Preliminary Injunction of this Court entered
August 14, 1969, shall continue in full force and effect
until September 1, 1970.
1972a
B. Effective September 1, 1970, the Preliminary Injunc
tion shall be and is hereby amended as follows:
1. Resolution 1520 of the Board of Education of School
District No. 1 in the City and County of Denver and State
of Colorado, insofar as it applies to East High School,
and Resolution 1524 insofar as it applies to Cole Junior
High School, are hereby included in said Injunction;
2. The Board may permit pupils entering their senior
year of high school in September of 1970, and who reside
in the senior high school attendance areas changed by
Resolution 1520 to have the option of attending the senior
high schools of the attendance area in which they continue
to reside or the senior high school which they attended at
the close of the 1969-70 school year;
3. Pupils who reside in the attendance areas detached
from Cole Junior High School and made a part of the
attendance areas of Byers, Kunsmiller, Rishel, and Kep-
ner Junior High Schools by Resolution 1524, and who are
currently enrolled in other junior high schools under the
District’s voluntary transfer plan may continue attending
the junior high school which they attended at the close of
the 1969-70 school year;
4. All that portion of the area described in paragraph 1
of Resolution 1524 as detached from Smiley Junior High
School attendance area and made a part of the Merrill
Junior High School attendance area which lies east of
Colorado Boulevard shall be made a part of the Byers
Junior High School attendance area instead of Merrill
Junior High School attendance area;
5. The area described in Resolution 1531 as detached
from Park Hill Elementary School and made a part of
Final Decree and Judgment
1973a
the Steck Elementary School attendance area, beginning
September 1, 1970, shall be made a part of the Ellsworth
Elementary School attendance area instead of the Steck
Elementary School attendance area; and
6. All pupils residing in the attendance areas changed
by the implementation of Resolutions 1520, 1524 and 1531
hereunder shall not be eligible for the District’s voluntary
open enrollment program.
C. As so amended, said Injunction shall become perma
nent on September 1, 1970, and continue in full force and
effect until and unless otherwise modified by this Court.
I t I s Further Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that De
fendant School District shall:
A. Continue its program of voluntary open enrollment
as an interim measure between now and the fall of 1971;
except that it shall be modified in accordance with the
Defendants’ proposed plan, Exhibit “V-A”, and shall guar
antee space in predominantly Anglo schools for all Negro
and Hispano pupils in the 17 Court-designated schools
commencing January 1, 1971, with transportation provided
for by the District to all participants.
B. Commencing in September, 1970, implement the com
pensatory education programs described in its Exhibit “V-
A” which, as a minimum, shall include the following:
1. Integration of teachers and administrative stall;
2. Encouragement and incentive to place skilled and
experienced teachers and administrators in the
core city schools;
3. Use of teacher aides and paraprofessionals;
Final Decree and Judgment
1974a
4. Human relations training for all School District
employees;
5. Inservice training on both, district-wide and indi
vidual school bases;
6. Extended work years for certain teachers on a
voluntary basis;
7. Programs under Senate Bill 174;
8. Early childhood programs such as Head Start
and Follow Through;
9. Classes in Negro and Hispano culture and history;
and
10. Spanish language training.
Those programs which are already in effect should be con
tinued in the 1970-71 school year, with any modifications
which the Board deems necessary in order to carry out this
Order.
C. Desegregate grades one though six of the 14 Court-
designated elementary schools, as follows:
1. Seven of such elementary schools shall be desegre
gated by September, 1971;
2. The remaining seven of such elementary schools shall
be desegregated by September of 1972.
Desegregation shall mean that each of said schools shall
have an Anglo pupil composition in excess of 50 percent.
D. Desegregate Baker Junior High School as follows:
1. Substantial progress shall be made in desegregating
Baker Junior High School by the fall of 1971, along the
lines set forth above for elementary schools.
Final Decree and Judgment
1975a
2. Desegregation of Baker Junior High School shall be
completed by the beginning of the school year in the fall
of 1972.
E. Desegregate Cole Junior High School along the lines
set forth above for Baker Junior High School or, in the
alternative, establish Cole Junior High School as an open
school for special education and other special programs now
in effect or which the Board may wish to put into effect in
the future by the school year beginning in the fall of 1971,
at the option of the Board of Education.
In the event the Board chooses the second alternative,
the Cole Junior High School subdistrict boundaries estab
lished for the year 1969-70, shall remain in effect but pupils
living therein may transfer to other junior high schools
within the school district on a space-guaranteed basis with
out regard to the effect on the racial composition of Cole
Junior High School.
F. Establish Manual High School as an open school for
the continuance and expansion of the vocational and pre
professional training programs which have been instituted
by the principal, the faculty and staff. The Board shall
retain the present subdistrict boundaries of Manual High
School but pupils living therein may transfer to other
senior high schools within the school district on a space-
guaranteed basis without regard to the effect on the racial
composition of Manual High School.
G. Between now and the beginning of school in the fall
of 1971 and continuing through the fall of 1972, the Board
shall institute an intensive program of education -within
the community, teaching staff and administration orienting
teachers in the field of minority cultures and how effectively
Final Decree and Judgment
1976a
to deal with minority children in an integrated environ
ment and educating the community as to the educational
benefits and values to be derived from desegregation and
integration.
I t I s F urther Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that this
shall constitute a Final Judgment in the case and shall be
entered as such provided, however, the Court shall retain
jurisdiction for the purpose of supervising its implementa
tion and modifying its provisions as may be necessary from
time to time. In any event, there being no further substan
tive matter to decide there is no just cause for delay and
the entire matter can now be appealed.
Dated at Denver, Colorado this 8th day of June, 1970.
B y the Court:
/s / William E. Doyle
United States District Judge
Approved as to F orm :
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Barnes & J ensen
By .......... ...................................
1409 Larimer Square
Denver, Colorado 80202
Holland & Hart
Gr. 6. Greiner
By ..............................................
500 Equitable Building
Denver, Colorado 80202
Final Decree and Judgment
1977a
Attorney for Defendants
Wood, R is & Hames
By ..............................................
1140 Denver Clnb Building
Denver, Colorado 80202
Henry, Cockrell, Quinn & Creighton
By ..............................................
1415 Security Life Building
Denver, Colorado 80202
Final Decree and Judgment
1978a
Defendants’, etc. Notice of Appeal
(Filed June 16, 1970)
Notice is hereby given that all Defendants herein except
Janies D. Voorhees, Jr., John H. Amesse, and Rachel B.
Noel, as individuals, hereby appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit from the Final De
cree and Judgment entered in this action on June 11, 1970.
Benjamin L. Craig
Benjamin L. Craig
1415 Security Life Building
Denver, Colorado 80202
Telephone: 244-6075
Attorney for Defendants,
except James D. Voorhees,
Jr., John H. Amesse and
Rachel B. Noel, as individ
uals.
1979a
Plaintiffs’ Notice o f Appeal
( Cross-Appeal)
(Filed June 24, 1970)
Notice is hereby given that all plaintiffs herein hereby
appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit from that portion of the final judgment entered in
this action on the 11th day of June, 1970, relating to:
1. The Court’s failure to grant relief to those schools
whose combined Negro and Hispano enrollment was
in excess of 70% ;
2. The Court’s failure to find that the attendance area
boundaries of certain schools were intentionally
gerrymandered to isolate and confine Negro and
Hispano children and that such acts constitute de-
jure segregation;
3. The Court’s failure to find that the neighborhood
school system is unconstitutional where it in fact
produces segregated schools, regardless of the in
tent of the Board;
4. The Court’s failure to require that all desegregation
and integration be accomplished by September,
1971.
1980a
Plaintiffs’ Notice of Appeal
Dated this 24th day of June, 1970.
/ s / G ordon- G. G r e in e r
Gordon G. Greiner
500 Equitable Building,
Denver, Colorado 80202
292-9200
/s / Craig S. Barnes
Craig S. Barnes
1409 Larimer Square,
Denver, Colorado 80202
892-9900
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
1981a
D ecision by Court o f Appeals: lOtli Circuit on
Motion for Stay, etc.
Nos. 336-70 and 337-70
(Filed March 26, 1971)
MARCH TERM—March 26, 1971
Before Honorable John C. Pickett, Honorable Delmas C.
Hill and Honorable Oliver Seth, Circuit Judges
Wilfred Keyes, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Appellees in No. 336-70
Appellants in No. 337-70
School District N o. 1,
Denver, Colorado, et al.,
Defendants,
Appellants in No. 336-70
Appellees in No. 337-70
Heretofore, and on March 2, 1971 the Defendants,
Appellants-Appellees, School District No. 1, Denver, Colo
rado, et al., filed a motion for a stay of the final decree and
judgment of the United States District Court for the Dis
trict of Colorado entered in the captioned cases. A response
on behalf of Plaintiffs, Appellees-Appellants, Wilfred
Keyes, et ah, was requested by the Court and such response
has now been filed.
The Court, after considering the motion and response,
determines that because of events which have occurred
1982a
Decision by Court of Appeals on Stay, etc.
Nos. 336-70 and 337-70
since July 28, 1970, when this Court denied a similar mo
tion for stay, the motion should now be granted.
As urged in the motion, at the time the cases were sub
mitted upon their merits the Court indicated a desire to
reach an early decision in the cases on the merits and it
was felt by the members of the Court that, because of the
anticipated early decision, a stay was not necessary. There
after, the United States Supreme Court announced that it
would hear oral arguments on October 12, 1970 in Swann v.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, No. 281, and
several other school desegregation cases. Such arguments
were heard and this Court then determined that a decision
in the captioned cases should be withheld until this Court
had the benefit of the anticipated Supreme Court decisions
in the Swann and combined cases. Decision in these have
not been announced.
By reason of the fact that the original decree provided
three steps in the Plan for desegregation of Denver Public
Schools, step one has been carried out; the School District
is about to finalize the implementation of step two; and we
are convinced that it would be unfair to the School District
to compel it to take further steps in the implementation of
the total plan until this Court and the party litigants have
the benefit of the United States Supreme Court decisions
in the Swann and combined desegregation cases, above men
tioned, which are expected to be announced in the near
future.
Therefore, the requested stay is granted until further
order of this Court, and all further proceedings pertaining
to such portions of the plan as have not heretofore been
implemented, shall be, and the same hereby are, stayed.
1983a
Decision by Court of Appeals on- Stay, etc.
Nos. 336-70 and 337-70
This stay is prospective only in its application and it
shall not require the undoing of any steps of implementa
tion which have heretofore been taken to carry out the
orders of the United States District Court for the District
of Colorado herein.
/s / Howabd K. Phillips
Howard K. Phillips
Clerk
A true copy
Teste
Howard K. Phillips
Clerk, U. S. Court of
Appeals, Tenth Circuit
/ s / (Illegible)
Deputy Clerk
1984ia
Decision by U. S. Supreme Court on Stay, etc.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Washington, D.C.
(April 26, 1971)
No.........Wilfred Keyes v. School District Number One,
Denver, Colorado
Per Curiam
The sole basis for the Tenth Circuit’s action in granting
the stay of the District Court’s order in this case was the
view “that it would be unfair to the School District to
compel it to take further steps in the implementation of
the total plan until (the Tenth Circuit) and the party liti
gants have the benefit of the United States Supreme Court
decisions in the Swann and combined desegregation cases.
>5
The decisions in those cases having now been announced,
it is proper to vacate the stay and remit the matter to the
Court of Appeals freed of its earlier speculation as to the
bearing of our decision in the Swann cases.
We, of course, intimate no views upon the merits of the
underlying issues.
Mr. Justice White took no part in the consideration or
decision of this matter.
1985a
Opinion o f Court o f Appeals
(Dated June 11, 1971)
Reprinted in Appendix to Petition
for Certiorari, pp. 122a-158a
See 445 F.2d 990
Judgment o f Court o f Appeals
(Dated June 11, 1971)
Reprinted in Appendix to Petition
for Certiorari, pp. 159a-160a
1986a
D ecision by Court o f Appeals for “ Clarification of
Opinion”
(Filed August 30, 1971)
JULY TEEM—A ug u st 17, 1971
Before Honorable John C. Pickett, Honorable Delmas C.
Hill and Honorable Oliver Seth, Circuit Judges
Nos. 336-70 and 337-70
Wilfred Keyes, etc., et al.,
Plaintiffs-A ppellees,
v.
School District Number One,
Denver, Colorado, et al,,
Defendants, Appellants,
and
M r . and Mrs. Douglas Barnett,
etc., et al.,
Intervening Defendants.
Appellees-plaintiffs in the captioned appeal have filed
what they denominate as a “Motion For Clarification Of
Opinion.” As pointed out in that motion, both the Trial
Court and this Court have determined the Hallett and Sted-
man schools to be de jure segregated schools. Under au
thority of our opinion, immediate steps should be taken
to formulate and carry out a plan of desegregation for such
schools. We do not deem this action to be a proper func
tion of an Appellate Court.
1987a
Decision by Court of Appeals for “Clarification of Opinion
The authority of the Trial Court to hear these matters
and to determine the proper relief to he granted is clearly
set out in the last sentence of our opinion.
/s / Howard K. Phillips
Howard K. Phillips
Clerk
1988a
Order Granting Certiorari
January 17, 1972
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. Mr.
Justice White took no part in the consideration or decision
of this petition.
MEILEN PRESS INC. — N. Y. C. 21?