Order Re: Dr. Finger Research

     [||edc11266-1eb9-4249-9e6d-650b29e90d07||] IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 

Charlotte Division 

Civil Action No. 1974 

JAMES E. SWANN, et al, Plaintiffs, 

THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF 

EDUCATION, et al, 

ORDER 
  

Defendants. 

On December 2, 19, this court appointed Dx. John A. 

Finger, Jr., of Providence, Rhode Island, to study the 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system and advise the court 

how the schools could be desegregated. The defendant school 

board, by order of December 1, l1l%9, had peen extended a 

fourth opportunity to submit a plan if they wished. Dr. 

Finger went to work; the school staff worked with him; and 

they have produced some extremely useful information and 

reports, which will be referred to in this order as the 

Board plan and the Finger plan. 

Hearings on the plans were conducted on February 2 and 

February 5, 1970. 

The Board plan, prepared by the school staff, relies 

almost entirely on geographic attendance zones, and is 

tailored to the Board's limiting specifications. It leaves 

many schools segregated. The Finger plan incorporates most 

of those parts of the Board plan which achieve desegregation 

in particular districts by re-zoning: however, the Finger 

plan goes further and produces desegregation of all the 

schools in the system. 

Taken together, the plans provide adequate supplements 

to a final desegregation order. 

The court would like again to express appreciation to 

Dr. Finger for the intelligence, resourcefulness and tact 

with which he has pursued his difficult assignment, and to 

Dr. William Self, Superintendent of the schools, and to his 

able staff, for the excellent work done by them in their 

difficult role of helping prepare one plan to comply with 

what the court believes the law requires, and simultaneously 

preparing another plan to suit the majority of the School 

Board who, at last reckoning, still did not appear to accept 

the court's order as representing the law of the land. 

 



  

i 

The court is also grateful to the Board's outside con- 
sultant, Mr. Weil, of Systems Associates, Inc., whose two 
hundred days of work and whose computer studies formed the 
building blocks, or points of departure, for much of the work 
of the others. 

Recent appellate court decisions have hammered home the 
message that sixteen years of "deliberate speed" are long 
enough to desegregate tax supported schools. On October 29, 
1969, in Alexander v. Holmes County, 369 U.S. 19, the Supreme 
Court ordered numerous Deep South school districts to be com- 
pletely desegregated by January 1, 1970; schools in Atlanta, 
Miami and parts of Chicago have been ordered totally desegregated; 
the Supreme Court in January ordered February 1, 1970, desegre- 

gation of 300,000 pupils in six Gulf Coast states; the Fourth 

Circuit Court of Appeals in Nesbit v. Statesville, Fr.24 

(December 2, 1969), ordered elimination by January 1, 1970, of 

the racial characteristics of the last black schools in Durham, 

Reidsville and Statesville, North Carolina; and in Whittenberg 

_Ve. Greenville, South Carolina, the Fourth Circuit Court of 

Appeals, in an opinion by Chief Judge Clement F. Haynsworth, 

Jr., has just last month ordered the desegregation by February 

16, 1970, of the 58,000 students in Judge Haynsworth's own home 

town. Judge Robert Martin of Greenville, pursuant to that man- 

date, on February 2, 1970, ordered all the Greenville schools 

to be populated by February 16, 1970, on a basis of 80% white 

and 20% black. 

  
  

  

  

  

In the Greenville opinion the court said:   

"These decisions leave us with no discretion to 

consider delays in pupil integration until September 

1970. Whatever the state of progress in a particular 

school district and whatever the disruption which will 

be occasioned by the immediate reassignment of teachers 

and pupils in mid-year, there remains no judicial 

discretion to postpone immediate implementation of 

v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 

430; Alexander v. Holmes County Bd. of Educ., 396 

U.S. 19 {0ct.. 29, 19569); Carter v. Yes: Peliclonsa 
Parish School Bd., U.S. {Jan. 14,1970) ." 

  

    

  

  

These decisions are binding on the United States District 

Court for the Western District of North Carolina. Unless that 

were true, the Constitution would mean whatever might be the 

temporary notion of whichever one of 340-odd federal judges 

happened to hear the case. This is a matter of law, not anarchy: 

of constitutional right, not popular sentiment. 

The order which follows is not based upon any requirement 

of "racial balance.” The School Board, after four opportunities 

and nearly ten months of time, have failed to submit a lawful 

plan (one which desegregates all the schools). This default 

 



  

3 

on their part leaves the court in the position of being forced 

to prepare or choose a lawful plan. The fairest way the court 

knows to deal with this situation was stated clearly in the 

Decenber 1, 1969 order, as follows: 

"In default of any such plan from the school 

board, the court will start with the thought, 
originally advanced in the order of April 23, 

that efforts should be made to reach a 71-29 
ratio in the various schools so that there will 

be no basis for contending that one school is 

racially different from the others, but to under- 

stand that variations from that norm may be unavoid- 

able." 

THEREFORE, and in accordance with the specific, detailed, 

numbered guidelines of this court's order of December 1, 1969, 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. That the defendants discontinue the operation of 

segregated schools. 
J 

2. That the defendants take such action as is necessary 

to desegregate all the schools--students and faculty. 

3. That desegregation of faculty be accomplished, as 

previously ordered, by assigning faculty (specialized faculty 

positions excepted) so that the ratio of black and white 

faculty members of each school shall be approximately the 

same as the ratio of black and white faculty members through- 

out the system. 

4. That teachers be assigned so that the competence 

and experience of teachers in formerly or recently black 

schools will not be inferior to those in the formerly or 

recently white schools in the system. 

5. That no school be operated with an all-black or 

predominantly black student body. 

6. That pupils of all grades be assigned in such a way 

that as nearly as practicable the various schools at various 

grade levels have about the same proportion of black and white 

students. 

7. That transportation be offered on & uniform non-racial 

basis to all children whose attendance in amy school is neces- 

sary to bring about the reduction of segregation, and who live 

farther from the school to which they are assigned than the 

Board determines to be walking distance. Estimates of the 

nunber of children who may have to be transported have run 

as high as 10,000 or more. Since the cost to the local system 

e - 

Ss 

is about $18 or $20 a year per pupil, and the cost to th 

2 e ate provides tramsportation funds is in those 

 



  

ie 

about another $18 or $20 a year per pupil, the average cost 
for SE 0 is apparently less than $40 per pupil per 
year. The local school budget is about $45,000,000 a year. 
It would appear that transporting 10,000 additional children, 
if that is necessary, and if the defendants had to pay it all, 
would add less than one per cent to the local cost of operating 
the schools. The significant point, however, is that cost is 
not a valid legal reason for continued denial of constitutional 
rights. 

8. That if geographic zones are used in making school 
assignments, the parts of a zone need not be contiguous. 

9. That the defendants maintain a continuing control 
over the race of children in each school, just as was done 
for many decades before Brown v. Board of Education, and 
maintain the racial make-up of each school (including any 
new and any re-opened schools) to prevent any school from 
becoming racially identifiable 

  

10. That "freedom of choice" or "freedom of transfer" 
may not be allowed by the Board if the effect of any given 
transfer or group of transfers is to increase the degree 
of segregation in the school from which the transfer is 
requested or in the school to which the transfer is desired. 

11. That the Board retain its statutory power and duty 
to make assignments of pupils for administrative reasons, 

with or without requests from parents. Administrative transfers 
shall not be made if the result of such transfers is to restore 

ox increase the degree of segregation in either the transferor 
or the transferee school. 

12. That if transfers are sought on grounds of "hardship," 

race will not be a valid basis upon which to demonstrate "hard- 
ship." 

13. That the Board adopt and implement a continuing 

program, computerized or otherwise, of ESsioning pupils and 

teachers during the school year as well as at the start of 

each year for the conscious purpose of maintaining each school 

and each faculty in a condition of desegregation. 

14. That the defendants report to the court weekly between 

now and May 15, 1970, reporting progress made in compliance 

with this order; and that they report thereafter on July 15, 

August 15, September 15 and November 1, 1970, and on February 

l and May 1, 1971. 

15. That the internal operation of each school, and the 

ssignment and management of school employees, of course be 

conducted on a non-racial, non-discriminatory basis. 

16. The duty imposed by the law and by this order is the 

desegregation of schools and the maintenance of that condition. 

The plans discusced in this order, whether prepared by Board 

 



  

a 3 ee 
JD 

and staff or by outside consultants, such as computer expert, 
Mr. John W. Weil, or Dr. John A. Finger, Jr., are jillustrations 

  

of means or partial means to that end.l+ The defendants are 
encouraged to use their full "know-how” and resources to attain 
the results above described, and thus to achieve the constitu- 
tional end by any means at their Zicognals The test is not 
the method or plan, but the resu 

    

17. The choice or approval or partial approval of any 
proposed desegregation plan is subject to all the requirements 
and restrictions of the preceding sixteen paragraphs, as well 
as to any later requirements or restrictions set out in this 
order. 

  

1. The following are exhibits to this order: 

A. The Board's map of proposed senior high school 

attendance zones. 

B. The Board's list of proposed senior high school 
populations. 

C. The Board's map of proposed junior high school 

attendance zones. 

D. The Board's list of proposed junior high school 
populations. 

E. Dr. Finger's map of proposed junior high school 

attendance zones. 

F. Dr. Pinger's list of pr roposed junior high school 

populations. ; 

G. The Board's map of proposed elementary school 

attendance zones. 

H. The Board's list of proposed elementary school 

populations. 

r's map of proposed elementary school 

attendance zones. 

J. Dr. Fingex's list of proposed elementary school 

populations. i 

K. Dr. Pinger's list of pairing and grouping of 

elementar d 

 



  

-56 — 

18. Subject to the above, the Board's pupil assignment 
plan for senior high school pupils is approved, with one 
exception. This exception is that black students, some 300 
in number, should be assigned from map grids 294D, 295C, 295D, 
and 318A, to attend Independence High School. 

19. Although the Board junior high school plan is inferior 
in design and results to Dr. Finger's plan, it is a purely 
"home grown" product and the court would like to approve it, 
if it can be brought into compliance with law by desegregating 
Piedmont Junior High School, and by adding transportation as 
above indicated, and by increasing the black attendance at 
several outlying schools. The Board may if it wishes consider 
(1) re-zoning:; (2) two-way transporting of pupils between 
outlying schools and Piedmont; (3) closing Piedmont and 
assigning the pupils to Albemarle Road, Carmel, McClintock 
and Quail Hollow. Unless the court has been notified in 
writing by noon of February 9, 1970, of an affirmative deci- 
sion adopting one of these choices by formal Board action, 
the junior high schools are directed to be desegregated 
according to Dr. Finger's plan, as illustrated by exhibits 
E and F. 

20. The Board's plan for elementary schools, illustrated 
by exhibits G and H, cannot be approved because (1) it retains 
nine schools 83% to 100% black, serving over half the black 
elementary pupils, and (2) it leaves approximately half the 
31,500 white elementary students attending schools that are 
86% to 100% white; and (3) it promises to provide little or 
no transportation in aid of desegregation, even though the 
plan's zones in some cases are apparently five or six miles 
long. The Board plan for elementaries openly rejects the 
duty to eliminate all the black schools. ; 

The Finger plan uses many of the same basic attendance 
lines as the Board plan; however, it does not stop short of the 
constitutional requirements, and by pairing and clustering 

groups of schools it achieves full desegregation of the ele- 

mentaxy schools. The school staff worked out the details of 

this plan and are familiar with it. Its attendance zones are 

illustrated on the map, exhibit I; its elementary school popula- 

tions are listed in exhibit J; and the pairing and grouping of 

the outlying and inner-city schools, grade by grade, are shown 

in detail on exhibit K. Subject to the qualifications previously 

stated, the Board (are)directed to follow the Finger plan with 
reference to elementary schools. 

21. THE TIME TABLE: eadlines to complete various phases 

of the program required in this order are as follows: 
    

SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS.--Seniors may remain in. their 

present schools until the end of the school year: the 

Board may make any decision they deem wise about allow- 

ing seniors to transfer before graduation to schools 

where their race will be in the minority. Eleventh 

  

  

schools not later than the 4th day of May, 1970. 

 



  

-7 

JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS (Grades 7, 8, 9).--Complete 
desegregation shall be accomplished by the 4th day of 
May, 1970. 

  

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (Grades 1 through 6) .--Complete 
desegregation shall be accomplished not later than the 
lst day of April, 1970. 

  

FACULTY.~--Complete desegregation of the various 
faculties shall be accomplished by the various times 
set out above for desegregation of the student bodies. 

22. MODIFICATIONS.--The intention of this order is to put 
on the Board the full duty to bring the schools into compliance 
with the Constitution as above outlined, but to leave maximum 
discretion in the Board to choose methods that will accomplish 
the required result. However, it is directed that leave of 
court be obtained before making any material departure from 
any specific requirement set out herein. The court will under- 
take to rule promptly on any such requests for deviation from 
prescribed methods. 

  

23. APPEAL.--The court claims no infallibility and does 
not seek to prevent appeal from all or any part of this order, 

and will allow the making of any record needed to present on 

appeal any contention the parties desire to make, and will do 

what this court can to expedite such appeal. However, in 

accordance with Whittenberg v. Greenville, supra, this order 

will not be stayed pending appeal, and immediate steps to 

begin compliance are directed. 

    

24. All evidence in the cause and all findings and con- 

clusions in previous orders which support or tend to support 

this order are relied upon in support of this order. 

25. Jurisdiction of this cause is retained for further 

orders. 

This the 5th day of February, 1970. 

  

James B. McMillan 

United States District Judge 

 



“January. 3, 1870 
- The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools 

  

DESEGREGATION PLAN for 1570-71 

Senior High Schools 

  

  

School 1970-71 1969-70 
Capacity | Board Plan 

Base +20% B W T %B fae W T %B 

| | 
East Mecklenburg 1700 2040 215 4 1825 e240 10% 360 1716 2076 17% } 
Garinger 1874 2249 492 2148 2640 18% 721 1914 2635 27% | 
Harding 1202 1442 612 720 1332 15% i] 395 692 1087 cr el 

NE Independence 1047 1256 TIE EY V212 gros eh 1264 2% 
Myers Park 1679 2015 224 1767 199] 12% 426 1883 2309 18% | 

North Mecklenburg 1158 1390 | 446 1185 163) 28% LL0 998 1438 31% 

Olympic 807 068 351] 512 863 41% 201 687 888 23% 

South Mecklenburg 1523 1828 90 2024 2114 5% L482 1846 2328 21% 
West Charlotte 1593 1912 1641 0 164] 100% 597 1045 1642 36% 

West Mecklenburg 1374 1649 141 1444 1585 S% Lok 998 1492 33% 

Total 13,957 16,749 [4,313 12,836 17,149 4,139 13,020 17,159 

  
        
 



: 2% 

,- Research Report 
January 31, 1970 

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools Exhibit D 

  

DESEGREGATION PLAN for 1570-71 

Junior High Schools 

  

  

{ 

1970-71 1969-70 | | 
School Capacity Board Plan | 

Base +203 B W T %B B W r | 
| 
i 

Albemarle Road 948 1138 63 995 1058 5% 19 753 772 2% 1 
Alexander 874 1049 328 761 1089 30% 303 658 1001 30% | 

Cochrane 1190 1428 72 1544 1616 % 571 1150 1721 33% | ; 

Coulwood 704 845 101 770 871 12% 313 551 864 36% 2 

Eastway 1093 1312 61 1356 1417 L%, 375 971 1346 28% 

Alexander Graham 9396 1194 101 1028 1129 8% 261 888 1149 23% 

Hawthorne 850 910 550 472 1022 5L% 276 704 980 28% 
Kennedy 801 961 802 9 811 95% 325 510 835 39% 

McClintock 923 1100 8L 1288 1372 6% 25 1048 1073 2% 
Northwest 1068 1282 1032 1 1033 296 675 971 30% 

Piedmont 631 157 L408 55 L563 89% 758 84 8L2 S0% 

Quail Hollow 1238 1486 129 1421 1550 9% 138 1144 1282 11% 
Randolph 972 1170 279 710 089 28% 307 683 950 31% 
Ranson 851 1021 2L6 548 794 31% 295 558 853 35% 

Sedgefield 777 930 167 809 976 17% 234 612 8L6 28% 

Smith 1093 1312 5) 1436 1487 49 330 g57. Yasy 26% 
Spaugh 826 1091 262 839 1101 24% 346 752 1098 32% 
Williams 801 967 1081 0 1081 100% 336 722 1058 32% 
Wilson 1044 1253 60 1145 1205 5% 346 795 1141 30% 

Carmel 558 670 2 555 557 0% 

J. H. Gunn (Wilgrove) 558 670 4g 470 519 A 

Total 18,796 22,546 5,877 15,187 21,064 5,905 15,280 21,185         
 



  

O
L
 
—
—
—
—
—
—
 I
.
 

Junior High Schools 

    

PLAN for Charloctte-Mecklenbura Schools 
Pi dnil ded ule ben A 

  

  

170-71 1568-70 Court Consultant 

School Capacity Plan 

Base + 20% B Ww T %B B W Tm %B 

Albemarle Road 948 1135 63 685 1058 5% 292 596 css 30% 

Alexander 874 1046 328 761 1089 30% 335 690 1028 333 

Cochrane 1190 1423 72 1544 1616 5% 370 9564 1354 “27% 

Coulwood 704 845 101 770 871 12% 245 568 §13 30% 
Eastway 1093 13132 61 1356 1417 45% 351 339 1190 30% 

Alexander Graham 996 1194 101 1028 1129 8% 359. c3¢& 1207 28% 

Hawthorne 850 910 550 472 1022 54% 290 677 67 30% 

Kennedy 801 961 302 9 311 99% 184 606 790 3% 

McClintock 923 1100 84 1288 1372 6% 386 925 1311 30% 

Northwest 1068 1282 1032 1 1033 336 736 1072 31% 

Piedmont 631 757 403 55 463 89% 243 538 78 32% 

Quail Eollow 1238 1486 129 1421 1550 9% 339 1050 1389 25% 

Randolph 972 1170 279 710 989 28% 402 832 1234 33% 

Ranson 851 1021 246 548 794 31% 264 583 847 31% 

Sedgefield 77 630 {| 167 S09 976 17%} 17% 641 81 21% 

Smith 1093 12132 Si 1436 1487 4% 350 929 1279 27% 

Spaugh 826 1021 262 339 1101 24% 324 207 313% 20% 

Williams 801 967 1081 0 1081 100% 308 72% 1035 30% 
wilson 1044 1253 60 1145 1205 5% 230 570 E00 29% 

Carmel 558 670 | 142 244 586 24% 
J. H. Gunn 558 670 49 475 524 9% 

Total 18,796 22,546{5,877 15,187 21,064 5,970.715,75% 21,225         
  

  
 



arch: Report Exhibit H, page 1l. 
] 

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools 

  

  

  

  

DESEGREGATION PLAN for 1970-71 | : 

Elementary Schools 3 

1970-71 1969-70 * 
School Capacity Board Plan 

Base +12% | 8 W T 78 B W T %3 

Albemarle Rd. 432 48k 5h sie 514 19% PE 7 473 1% | 
Allenbrook 5L0 605 61 L52 513 12% 5G Lg6 555 3 TH ge 
Ashley Park 621 636 27 57% 601 4%, 155 L421 576 27% 

Bain 702 786 33 735 76 LY 25 706 731 3% 
Barringer L486 S4h 843 16 859 98% 203 320 523 35% . 

Berryhill 836 936 98 63 737 13% 247 574 821 30% 
Beverly Woods 540 605 68 684 752 9% 8 648 656 1% 
SBillinsgville 594 665 596 0 596 100% 113 325 438 26% 
Briarwood 540 605 6 680 686 1% 2 663 665 0% 
Bruns Ave. 675 756 759 10 769 9%% 624 73 697 90% 

Chantilly 432 L8L 0 472 L472 6% 142 303 LL5 32% - 
Clear Creek 324 363 L8 229 277 17 L3 266 309 14%, 

Coll inswood 621 696 111 Luz 554 20% 224 LL8 672 33% 

Cornelius 45 514 181 235 L416 LLY, 182 265 L7 51% 
Cotswold 540 605 23 537 560 L% 128 L149 577 249, 

Davidson 324 363 104 186 290 36% 102 174 275 32% 
w Marie Davis 756 847 662 0. :. 562 100% 666 82 748 88% 

Derita 983 877 150 678 828 18% 152 585 747 20% 
Devonshire 648 726 0 903 903 0% 0 925 925 0% 
Dilworth 648 726 90 317 Lo7 22% 241 376 617 39% 1 

Double Oaks 675 756 836 0 836 100% | 825 3 828 100% 
Druid Hills 486 5; 472 3 475 95% L565 20 485 96% 
Eas tover 648 726 42 559 601 7% 157 L478 635 25% 
Elizabeth L405 454 314 125 439 72% 112 294 L406 28% 

Enderly Park 213 575: 3 371 37k 1% 119 238 357 33% 

% Not including Special [Education in self-contained £iasseq       
 



« Exhibit H, page 2. 
& 

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools 

  

DESEGREGATION PLAN for 1970-71 

Elementary Schools ° 

  

    

{ 1970-71 1969-70 ! : 
School | Capacity | Board Plan 

Base EY Se y T ea ag W T 4B 
, | 

First Ward 702 786 805 0 805 100% | 770 7 777 99% 
Hickory Grove L59 “Bl 70 533 603 129 . 74 556 630 12% 4 

Hidden Valley 648 726 0 1100 110 A 1 1077 1078 0% | } 

» Highland 297 333 69 305 374 18% 76 237 313 24% | 

Hoskins 207." 333 ok 212 225 6% 124 219 343 36% 

Huntersville i 675 756 145 531 676 21% 130 554 684 19% 

Huntingtowne Farms 594 665 7 603 610 1% 3 614 617 0% 

Idlewild 567 635 L7 581 628 7% ‘59 549 608 10% 

irwin Ave. 292. 0 292 100% %* 

Amay James 378 423 L52 3 LEs5 99% SO 169 258 35% 

Lakeview : 378 5423 346 83 43 80% 119 285 LoL 25% 

Lansdowne 756 847 75 802 877 S% 75 71S 798 10% : 

Lincoln Heights 648 726 711 0 711 100% 503 6 909 95% 

Long Creek 702 786 267 Leg | 735 36% 259 523 782 33% 

Matthews 945 1058 86 802 888 10% 81 837 91 ¢ S% 

Merry Oaks L386 GL 0 LL2 LL2 0% 0 557 557 0% * 

pl Midwood 4sg 514 G 437 LLG 2% 116 0 40} 517 23% 

Montclaire 675 756 0 718 718 ; 4 ] 781 782 0% 

Myers Park L32 LBL 22 LiL LEG 5% 150 314 LoL 32% 

Nations Ford 621 696 43 669% 712 6% 77 548 725 24% 

Newel] 594 665 74 438 51 14% 64 L36 500 13% 

Oakdale SLO 605 69 517 586 12% 202 L650 662 31% 

Oakhurst 594 665 5 616 621 1% 92 504 596 15% 
Oaklawn cok vi 6h 584 0 584 100% 597 3 600 99% 

Olde Providence 540 605 80 512 592 14% 83 Ll SL 15% 

\ *distributed to surrounding schdols 

: | | |         
 



The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools 

  

DESEGREGATION PLAN for 1970-71 

  

  

  

Elementary Schools Sk, “ 

1970-71 1969-70 | | 
School Capacity | Board Plan 

Base +13% :| ''B W T 78 |’ B W ¥ B 
| 3 

Park Road 540 gos © 17 lah. seBc Sop 7% 51% 57 612 7% 
Paw Creek 504 665 2 609 636 L% 83 602 685 } 2% 

p Paw Creek Annex 270 302 30 271 30 10% 

Pineville 486 SLY 136 356 492 28% 123 379 502 25% 
Pinewood 648 726 0 674 674 0% 0 S00 900 8 . 

Plaza Road L459 514 80 340 420 19% 181 350 531 34% 

Rama Road 648 726 ] 815 816 0% 3 74 747 0% 

Sedgefield 540 605 3 548 551 1% 223 364 587 38% 

Selwyn L386 Sly 31 617 643 5% 32 L59 491 % 

Shamrock Gardens L86 * Bll 0 515 515 0% 34 Loo 580 15% 

Sharon 459 514 72 36) 433 17% 9) 421 512 18% | ’ 
Starmount 648 726 25 712 737 3% 67 833 900 7% 
Statesville Road | 648 726 333 522 855 35% 160 553 713 23% 
Steele Creek 378 L23 5 509 514 1% 195 L475 670 25% 

Thomasboro 729 816 : 0 690 690 0% 135 777 912 15% 

w Tryon Hills . 486 Shy 309 164 473 65% 200 342 542 37% 
Tuckaseegee 540 605 58 578 636 S% 57 510 567 10% 

University Park 648 226 825 1 826 100% 735 132 867 85% 
Villa Heights 810 907 902 83 985 92% 877 170 1047 83% 
Westerly Hills Los L5L L6 539 585 8% 144 332 476 30% 

Wilmore 378 5423 222 210 432 51% 153 250 403 38% 
Windsor Park 6L8 726 ] 748 749 0% 1 782 783 0% 
Winterfield 643 726 L3 688 736 7% 52 653 705 7% 

Total 10,391 45.239 13,010 31,278 44,288 12,885 31,523 44,408           
 



“3 

yo Exhibit J, page 1. 

DESEGREGATION PLAN for Cherlotte-Mecklenbury Schools 

  

Elementary Schools 

  

  

  

  

1970-71 1969-70 . Court Consultant 
School Capacity Plan ) 

3ase +20%| B W iy “4B B W iy %3 

Foaniarle ‘Ra. 432 434 v4} 510 514 1% 162 335 500 32:4 
U1 ENITO0R 5490 605 61 452 513 12% 135 341 476 23% 
Lsialey Park 621 626 | 27 574 601 4% 175 426 601 29% 
331n 702 786 33 735 7683 4% 25 706 731 3% 
3arringer 456 544 | 843 16 85 08% 203 320 523 39% 

| ] 
. 3 : Ferryhill 836 936 93 639% 737 13% 24 574 821 30% 

32verly Woods 540 605 63 684 752 Jo 186 445 632 29% 
3illingsville 594 665 596 0 596 100% 113 325 433 26% 
Briarwnod 540 605 o 680 636 1% 256 479 735 35% 
Sruns Avenue 675 756 75% 10 76¢ S5S% 252 5490 752 32% 

Chantilly 43 434 0 472 472 0% 142 333 475 30% 
lear Creek 324 263 43 229 277 17% 3 266 306% 14% 
Collir.swood 621 696 11) 443 554 20% 224 406 630 36% 
Cornzlius 45S 514} 181 235 416 44% 132 265 447 41% 
Sotewold 540 605 | 23 537 5 4% 123 404 532 24% 

Davidson 324 363 104 136 290 36% 102 174 276 32% 

larie Davis 756 547 662 0 662 100% 1¢3 532 725 27% 
Darita 783 &877 sD 678 828 18% 167 625 7¢2 21% 4 
Savonshive 643 726 0 203 S03 2 333 624 957 35% 

w Dilworth 643 726 SO 317 407 22% 241 376 617 3S% 

Double Oaks 675 756 | 36 0 336 100% 23 496 73 32% 
Diwic Bills 436 544 1 472 3 475 9%% 158 303 461 34% 
Sestover 643 726 42 559 601 7% 157 445 602 26% 
Slizabeth 405 454 314 125 439 22% 132 304 436 30% 
Zndzrly Park 513 575i 3 371 374 1% 150 279 420 36%       
 



  

Ld 

} 
! 

DESEGREGATION PLAN for Charlotte-Mecklenbur 

Elementary S chool o> 
= 

  

  

  

    

  

1270-71 1969-70 Court Consultant 
School Capacity } Plan 

a +20%| B W 7 %B | B W i %3 

First Ward 702 736 805 0 S05 100% 265 686 551 22% 
irlokory Grove 459 514 70 533 603 12% 272 436% 71} 334% 
$idadan Valley 64.3 726 0 +1100 1100 0) 3190 £79 S89 31% 
ighaland 287 333 50 305 374 13% 76 237 313 24% 
Fosxin 297 333 13 212 225 676 139 244 333 30% 

i 

Huntersville 675 756 145 531 676 21% | 130 534 634 15% 
huntingtowne Farms 554 665 7 502 610 15% 205 414 61S 33% 
Idlawild 557 635 47 251 623 7/ 150 410 600 32% 
Irwin Avenue 282 0 292 00. = 
Znay Janes 375 423 462 3 465 95% 105 194 29% 354 

Lakeview 373 423 346 39 435 80% 13% 230 41S 33% 

Lansdowne 756 847 75 S02 877 C% 207 499% 703 2% 

Lincoln Heights 64% 726 711 0 7311 100% 241 456 697 33% 

Long Cresk 702 735 267 462 735 3E7% 239 523 702 33x 

.atthews S45 105% 36 302 233 10% a 237 S13 Ox 

naTny Qexs 456 544 0 442 4472 0% 106 2356 342 31x 

HAiCwood 455 514 * 437 446 % 115 446 562 21% 

Jontclaire 675 7556 0 733 713 0% 25 504 7C4 36% 

Myers Park 432 4T4 22 L44 466 5% 150 445 585 25% 

ations Ford 621 696 43 669 712 6% 177 582 759 2 3% 

i 

Kewell 594 665 74 438 512 14% | 4. 546 620 127 
Oakdale 540 605 S 517 586 12% 250 460 710 35% 
Oakhurst 594 665 5 616 621 19% 157 534 731 27% 

Oaklawn 594 665 584 0 584 100% 226 594 820 287 
Olde Providence 540 605 80 5i2 592 14% 145 351 496 299       * Assigned from area to 

increase desegregatic 
Oakhurst 105B 
Shamrock 
Gardens 90B 

Thomasboro 
S58 

 



*e L} Exhibit J, page 3. 
DESEGREGATION PLAN (Cont'd) 

  

Elementary &chools 

  

  

      

  

  

197071 5 J 

School Capacity 1969-70 : 
Base +20% | B W T %B B W y %B 

Park Road 540 605 | 44 548 592 7% 148 359 507 29% 
Paw Creek 594 665 27 609 63 4%) 160 395 555 295¢ 
Paw Creek Annex 270 302 30 371 301 10% 83 309 5202 26% 
Pineville 486 544 136 356 492 28% 123 379 “502 5% 

.. Pinewood 648 726 | 0 674 674 0% 283 697 980 29% 
| : 

Plaza Road 459 514 | 80 340 420 owl 181 350 531 * 34 
8 Rama Road 648 726 1 815 816 5, Meo 5. 493 766 369 

Sedgefield 540 605 3 548 551 i 223 364 587 383 : 
Selwyn 486 544 31 617 648 oi. 150 309 459 339 
Shamrock Gardens 486 544 0 515 515 % 174 511 685 25% 

Sharon 459 514 | 72 361 433 174. 123 245 368 339 
Starmount 648 726 25 732 737 39 2217 441 658 338 
Statesville Road 648 726 333 522 855 39% 160 553 13 23S 
Steele Creek 378 423 5 509 514 1%] 195 475 670 293 
Thomasboro 729 816 0 690 690 0% 230 770 1000 23% 

Tryon Hills 486 544 309 164 473 5% 107 262 369 295 
Tuckaseegee 540 605 58 578 636 9%! 119 300 419 28° 
University Park 648 726 825 1 826  100%| 26 461 721 369 - 
Villa Heights 810 907 602 83 085 2% 265 668 33 283 

I. Westerly Hills 405 454 46 539 585 8% 144 332 476 303 

Wilmore 378 423 222 210 432 3528 153 250 403 383 
Windsor Par) 648 726 1 748 749 0% - 272 561 833 33¢ 
Winterfield 648 726 48 688 736 7 261 537 798 33¢ 

Total 40,391 13,010 44,288 12,984 44,370 
45,239 | 31,278 31,386          



  

Exhibit K. 

The Charlotte-Mecklenbury Schools 

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS PAIRED 

Grade 1-4 . Grade 5-6 

Schools Schools 
B 1 T % B W TT % 

Huntingtowne Farms 

Sharon Bruns Avenue 252-540 “792 3: 
Starnmount . 

545 - 1100 1645 33 

Park Road Marie Davis 193 °'532 "725 27 
Pinewood 

431 1056 14387 29 

Briarwood Double Qaks 234 496 730 3:2 
Devonshire 

589 1103 1692 35 

Hidden valley : Druid Hills 58-303 461 34 
310 679 089 31 

Beverly Woods 

Lansdowne First Ward 265 686 951 2&8 
Olde Providence 

538.1293 1831+ 29 

Albemarle Road 

Idlewild Lincoln Heights 241 456 697 35 
Merry Oaks 

458 984 1442 32 

Allenbrook 

Paw Creek ; 
Paw Creek Annex Oaklawn 226. 594 820 2° 
Tuckaseegee 

497 1245 1742 39 

Hickory ‘Grove ~ Tryon Hills 107: 262 3569 :2¢ 
272439 711°. 38 

Montclaire : 
Rama Road : University Park 260 461 721 36 

553 997 1550 - 306 

Selwyn ; : 
Windsor Park Villa Heights 265 668 933 248 
Winterfield : / 

683 1407 2090 33 | ‘ 

Total 4,876 15,179 2,201 7.199 
10,303 [||edc11266-1eb9-4249-9e6d-650b29e90d07||]