Columbus Board of Education v. Penick Appendix Volume II

    APPENDIX

In The

t̂tprpmp CHourt o f  %  United Elates
October Term, 1978

No. 78-610

COLUMBUS BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al.,
Petitioners,

vs.

GARY L. PENICK, et a l,
Respondents.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI 
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED OCTOBER 11, 1978 
CERTIORARI GRANTED JANUARY 8, 1979

V O LU M E I I

(Pages 407-802)



407

GORDON FOSTER, 
called as a witness on behalf of the 

Intervening Plaintiffs, being first 
duly sworn, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LUCAS

[3380] Q. State your full name and your occupation, 
please.

A. Gordon Foster. I am Professor of Education at the 
University of Miami in Coral Gables, Florida.

* $ * # #

[3382] Q. All right. Have you worked in Ohio before, 
not associated with desegregation?

A. Yes, I taught schools in the public schools and was 
an administrator in the public schools and taught and 
worked at Miami University in Oxford and taught a sum­
mer session at Ohio State in the 60’s.

[3363] Q. Where else did you teach school?
A. I taught in Loveland, Ohio, which is a — it was an 

exempted village. I am not sure what its status is now. It 
may be a city at this point — for three years, and was a 
principal there — for four years was an elementary princi­
pal, sort of combination elementary-junior high princi­
pal. Then I taught in Middletown in about 1960 for a year, 
and then I started to finish my graduate work and I was 
at Miami University in Ohio for a year working at that 
time with the Bureau of Educational Field Services under 
Dr. Ralph Purdy.

Q. What did you do with the Bureau of Educational 
Field Services?

A. We did mostly field studies, field surveys for school 
systems, most of them in Ohio — a couple I believe were 
in West Virginia or Kentucky — during that period, having 
to do with school consolidation or school curriculum 
studies or school building construction, site selection, this 
sort of thing.



408

Q. Did you do studies similar to some of the OSU 
studies you have seen as exhibits in this ease?

A. Very much so. From the year I was there at that 
time and then later when I was at the Miami University 
for three years on the faculty while I was writing my dis­
sertation, I again worked with the Bureau. Several of the 
people that worked with the Ohio State Bureau also worked 
on [3364] our studies, and Dr. Merle Heiman, who was 
State Superintendent and then retired was also on our 
staff from time to time.

Q. When you say Miami, you mean Miami of Ohio 
in that instance; is that correct?

A. That’s correct.
Q. Were you Director of a joint project for school 

districts in Ohio and other states?
A. One of the years I was at Miami following my 

residence at Ohio State, I was Director of an organization 
called Southwestern Ohio Educational Research Council. 
There were similar organizations in different areas of the 
state. This was an organization partly under federal fund­
ing and partly under school system funding of almost all 
the school systems of any size, such as Cincinnati, Middle- 
town, Hamilton, in the southwestern area and of universi­
ties in that area to join together for planning purposes and 
all the educational study that anybody wanted accom­
plished in that area of the state.

I was on a half-time assignment as Director of that. 
As such, I was assigned into a research position. I can’t 
remember the exact title with the Cincinnati City Schools.

Q. And how was this funded. Was this a federally 
funded project or was this funded by the schools?

A. It was a combination. They had some federal fund­
ing [3364A] for a period of several years, and different 
systems would contribute on a pupil-population ratio, ac­
cording to their numbers.

[3365] Q. Would you give us your educational point 
of history thereafter?



409

A. When I received my doctorate, I went to the Uni­
versity of Miami in Florida in 1966, and I’ve been there 
ever since. I started out as Assistant Professor, and I’m 
now full Professor.

In addition to being on the faculty and school ad­
ministration, in 1966, when I went there, I assumed a 
position of Associate Director of the Florida School De­
segregation Consulting Center, which at that time covered 
about the southern half of the State in terms of giving 
technical assistance to school districts in Florida in de­
segregation matters. This was funded under Title IV of 
the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Three years later, I became Director of that Center 
and still am. It’s now called — well, it’s still called the 
Florida School Desegregation Consulting Center, but cur­
rently, there’s something like 28 of those centers in the 
country. They’re called General Assistance Centers for 
Desegregation Concerns. It now covers the entire State 
of Florida.

For a period of three or four years, I was also Chair­
man of the Administration area at the University. I was 
Director of a Federal project to train school administra­
tors, largely principals, for multi-cultural schools. This was 
funded under the Educational Profession Development Act 
by the [3366] U.S. Office of Education. We processed, 
over a period of about three years while I was Director, 
about 75 students, either through doctoral programs or 
masters programs to train them for working with desegre­
gated schools.

This past year, I am also serving as Director of a new 
program which is similar to the desegregation center. It’s 
called a Bilingual Center, which is again funded by the 
U.S. Office. There are nine such centers across the country 
as a result of the Nickel versus Low Decision in San 
Francisco. We cover about fourteen states in the District 
of Columbia, that’s Region 3 and Region 4 of the U.S. 
Office of Education, to assist schools who have compliance



410

problems and questions under the Low Decision, and we 
provide them technical assistance as they deal with the 
Office of Civil Rights on compliance problems and provide 
help to them in training their faculties and this sort of 
thing to gear up for bilingual programs.

# # # & #

[3385] Q. I realize you’ve been in Columbus many 
times on other matters. I believe you were also here to 
testify in the Dayton case and spent time in the city then. 
Do you have any record or notes which would indicate to 
you how much time you spent specifically in preparation 
on this case?

A. I can give you the exact days I was here. It was 
something like 20 days so far, I believe, this spring.

Q. And I take it you spent additional time at your 
home and at your office working on this matter?

A. That is correct.
# # # # #

[3386] Q. Were you asked to come up with any 
particular result, or were you simply asked to examine the 
data and from that examination give your opinion as to 
what you were able to discover?

[3387] A. Well, I think it’s impossible to come up 
with a result before you look at any data if you’re doing 
an analysis. I was simply asked to do an analysis of the 
data that were available.

Q. What types of data do you generally try to look 
at to analyze the history and development of the school 
system?

A. Well, it depends on how many aspects of the 
segregation process you’re examining, but its primary 
things are student enrollment and the racial percentages 
of student enrollment as far back in time as you can get 
them. The whole building program is very important in 
terms of four or five aspects, construction of new buildings 
and addition to buildings, closing of buildings, use of cen­



411

tral facilities, the use of portable facilities, and the whole 
business of how a system determines capacity of school 
buildings and what their records are regarding capacity at 
the various stages of the system’s development. It’s very 
helpful sometimes to know, for example, the number of 
rooms in a building, classrooms, special rooms, this sort of 
thing. Some systems now have all this on computer print­
outs which makes it fairly handy.

If you’re getting into segregation associated with per­
sonnel, then you need to know the information for faculty 
and staff and administration appointments by race as far 
as they are available. You have to know a considerable
[3388] amount about the program, if it’s possible, that is 
to say, the curriculum, and special program such as special 
education, vocational education.

One thing I didn’t mention in construction was the 
business of current construction and future construction. 
If there’s a building program going on at the time you’re 
making your analysis, you need, of course, to know where 
the pupils are, where the schools are, where the teachers 
are. Special things such as student transfers can be very 
important.

In the City of Philadelphia, for example, which is 
about 270,000 pupils, after receiving a computer printout 
of where all the pupils were, we found out that about
50,000 of them did not reside in the assignment areas where 
they were located, but they were all out of residence, and 
in some systems, a lot of this is nocontiguous assignment, 
not so much by sections or geopraphical areas, but just by 
individual pupils.

So where you have such things as city-wide high 
schools, city-wide junior high schools for one reason or 
another, you have children attending schools from differ­
ent areas of the city for curriculum reasons, you need to 
know this sort of thing.



412

Q. All right. In determining capacity, is there an 
actual physical capacity of a building that can be deter­
mined [3389] that is unrelated to program?

A. Yes, in a sense. This depends to some extent on 
the system or the State Department of Education in a 
particular case, but ordinarily a certain number of pupils 
will fit into a certatin size classroom, especially at the 
elementary level. When you get into the secondary 
schools, the program has a lot more to determine the 
capacity then.

[3390] A. (Continuing) But even there space is a 
primary factor that you deal with.

Q. Do school systems operate sometimes with two sets 
of capacity figures, one of them a building-rated capacity 
and another one a program capacity? By that I mean, for 
example, if a school system has a pupil-teacher ratio of 35 
to 1 and decides to lower it to 10 to 1, does that affect 
capacity in one sense of the term?

A. Well, it does, but I never ran into that problem 
when we were doing consolidation studies back in the ’60s. 
I never heard of changing around all the time for program 
operations. When we would go into study a system out of 
Miami of Ohio like Lima, Ohio, for example, we just under­
stood that every school had a certain number of class­
rooms and it had a certain rating of capacity. There was 
never a set, as I remember, another set of figures given to 
you involving program capacity.

Ever since I have been involved in desegregation, 
though, all of a sudden we have program capacity. I am 
not knocking it. I think it is a valid consideration because 
you do have capacity — obviously capacity considerations 
have to deal with program.

But what you say is correct, especially more recently. 
Systems do have a sort of a program or an operational 
capacity, as it were, and quite often that can [3391] be 
different from the fixed stated capacity of the building as 
a structure.



413

Q. Does this sometimes vary from bond issue to bond 
issue?

A. It could, yes, sir, or depending on policies that the 
Board makes regarding, as you say, the number of pupils 
in a classroom, this sort of thing.

Q. If an elementary school building is depopulated 
for any of a variety of reasons, whether it be Urban Re­
newal or just declining enrollment or what have you, do 
school systems often convert classrooms into other pur­
pose rooms, for example, teacher lounges, elementary 
libraries, nurses’ station, multipurpose room, things of this 
sort?

MR. PORTER: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
A. Yes, quite frequently. This is very popular right 

now because, as you know, many systems in the country 
are undergoing population decline in school enrollment. 
One of the ways they are meeting this is to do exactly as 
you described, utilize the buildings for various ways. If 
they have got the money, they set up special classrooms 
and teaching stations, reading centers, all sorts of special 
programs. If they don’t have the money, why, they do other 
things.

But this is — it is very politically unpopular to [3392] 
close a school once it is opened, so in order to avoid that, 
sometimes with a declining population will try to provide 
quality education arrangements by strengthing their cur­
riculum program in using classrooms out of the ordinary 
sense,

MR PORTER: If the Court please, I am going to 
object to the witness’ testimony. I am going to ask that 
it be stricken and ask he confine his testimony to the City 
of Columbus.

THE COURT: Overruled.
[3393] Q. Dr. Foster, these type of changes in utiliza­

tion of classrooms, is it fair to say that they sometimes



414

require physical structural changes and other times simply 
different uses?

A. Certainly this would be true. For example, some 
schools like in the past ten year — well, earlier — have 
attempted to use open space philosophy. They will simply 
take two classrooms, and where you have a non-load-bear­
ing wall between them, knock out the wall and make one 
classroom in terms of an open space program. It gives a 
lot more flexibility. You can do all sorts of conversions like 
that, depending on your architecture.

Q. Dr. Foster, can you give us some of the common 
techniques used by the school systems in order to segre­
gate?

MB. PORTER: Object to the question.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Well, in many cases they are similar to the ones 

that I used to desegregate, only they go in the opposite 
direction. The most common ones are the use of boundary 
lines, usually associated with changing status of schools. 
For example, if a school opens, a new school opens and 
preempts the territory of two or three other schools that 
were there to start with, then you have to change bound­
aries, and these can be done in such a way to either 
desegregate or segregate, exact impact what is already 
there in terms of [3394] segregation.

The use of optional zones or what is also called dual 
overlapping zones is a frequent technique and has been 
for segregative effect.

The entire business of the way buildings are used, 
where sites are selected, how big the building is when it 
is constructed, what the boundaries, as I just said, are 
when you use the building for the first time. The way 
buildings are closed can sometimes have a very segregative 
effect because sometimes if a building is closed that is in 
an area where you have access to both white or black 
residential populations and capacity is right, you can



415

assign the children in such a way as to either further 
segregate them or desegregate them. Not always, but 
sometimes this happens.

The decision to make building additions, increase 
capacity, is sometimes used to impound or impact segre­
gation that already exists. The use of transfers. Transfer 
policy has been manipulated in such a way as to segregate 
or maintain segregation. On occasion I have seen systems 
that develop a very good desegregation plan and then 
gut the thing by having sort of open transfers, and the 
children wind up going anywhere they want to.

The way teachers are assigned, the way faculty, ad­
ministrative staff are promoted and assigned, the way non- 
certificated personnel or classified personnel are assigned
[3395] can all have a segregatory effect, particularly in 
terms of community perception of whether a school is 
desegregated or segregated.

Q. What about the use of rental space by school 
systems; is that another way in which segregation can be 
made work or maintained?

A. It can be, yes. If you have a school that is over- 
populated and you need to shift the pupils somewhere, 
sometimes you can put them in a school of an opposite — 
predominantly of an opposite race if space is available 
rather than renting.

The use of transportation from non-contiguous areas 
has often had a segregative effect. I am not sure whether 
I have covered them all or not.

[3396] Q. Let me ask you a few questions about dual 
overlapping zones. I believe you said an optional attend­
ance area is a dual overlapping zone as well as fitting the 
other description; is that correct?

A. Well, it is at least a first cousin, yes. A dual over­
lapping zone is simply — one example would be where you 
have the same zone and the white pupils are assigned to 
one high school, let’s say, or the black pupils are assigned



416

to one high school and the white pupils are assigned to 
two or three high schools out of the same attendance area.

Q. Is one type of dual overlapping zone where the 
schools have service areas which are completely congruent 
with each other; that would be one example?

A. Yes.
Q. And then there are others, as the example you 

just mentioned of a high school, for example, where you 
might have three white high schools and one black high 
school serving the attendance area of all three or portions 
of them; is that correct?

A. That’s correct.
Q. That’s another form. And does the same principle 

apply to portions of attendance areas?
A. It could, yes, sir.
Q. What about neutral zones; is that a form of over­

lapping zones, dual zones?
[3397] A. As I understand, a neutral zone compared 

let’s say to an optional zone, an optional zone is carved 
out of one zone and the children are allowed to either 
stay in that zone or go to another attendance area, where­
as, a neutral zone is sort of a no man’s land which isn’t 
caused out of either zone and children can go to either 
school.

Q. All right. Dr. Foster, in examining school districts, 
do you find each and every technique used in every school 
system where you have observed segregation?

MR. PORTER: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. No, you don’t. At least I can’t remember ever 

finding one that used all of them.
Q. And can you segregate effectively with the use 

of one or two or three of these —
MR. PORTER: Objection.
Q. — of these techniques?
THE COURT: Overruled.



A. It depends on the situation, of course, but I have 
seen that to be possible, yes, sir.

Q. Just because you do not find all of the particular 
techniques present in a particular school system, would 
that indicate to you that the school system had not prac­
ticed segregation?

MR. PORTER: Objection.
[3398] THE COURT: Overruled.
A. No, sir.
Q. Dr. Foster, have you examined the new construc­

tion in the Columbus School District?
A, Yes, I have.
Q. And what period did you look at?
A. Well, I first looked back as far as racial data was 

available on pupils which was from 1964 through current 
year 1975-76, and then I extended this back for four more 
years from 1960 to ’63, and then I took another block of 
ten years back to 1950.

I have actually looked at all of the construction data 
that are available to Plaintiffs which basically cover the 
whole history of the school system that there are records 
of, but the data I analyzed to any great extent was from 
1950 — in terms of new construction was from 1950 to 
1975-76.

Q. Let me go back just a little bit and ask you if you 
have examined a large number of Plaintiffs’ exhibits and 
various portions thereof?

A. I think you could say so, yes, sir.
Q. And have you examined some of the exhibits of 

the Original Plaintiffs as well?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Have most of these documents been School Board 

documents?
[3399] A. That’s my understanding. In many cases, 

such as enrollment and racial percentages of pupils, some 
of the faculty data, some of the building data, I first

417



418

examined what I would call spread sheets which were 
made out by whoever was working on these things. Then 
later on I would go and examine the original documents 
from which these spread sheets were made.

Q. All right. You would look at the summaries — let 
me ask you, does the spread sheet show the trend in a 
particular school?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would it be faculty, enrollment, total population 

or race?
A. Yes, sir'.
Q. And then you went back to the raw data yourself 

to check in particular instances, and did you find errors 
on occasion?

A. Yes, of course.
Q. Did you rework some of the summary sheets on 

that basis?
A. Well, to the extent that I possibly could in terms 

of time, I used what I would consider to be original data 
sources.

Q. So you actually put aside in some instances the 
summary sheets and relied on your own analysis of the 
raw [3400] data; is that correct?

MR. PORTER: Objection.
A. Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Overruled.

# # # # #

[3402] Q. Now, what did you use as a measure of 
racial identifiability in your estimate of the racial per­
centage in the Columbus School District for the period 
1950 through 1959?

A. Well, if I can jump ahead of that a step from 1964 
until 1975 when data were available on racial enrollment, 
I used plus or minus 15 percent from the mean as the 
range of schools which were non-identifiable racially. That 
is to say for the current school year, the percentage

V



419

systemwide is something like 32 or 32% percent non-white. 
Well, the range of that plus or minus 15 percent would 
be schools that were non-identifiable racially according 
to my — that’s the way I figured it.

Now, for about — for most of those years, all except 
the first year or two, that was broken down by levels so 
that I used one set of figures for the senior high, one for 
the junior high and one for the elementary.

Q. Did you use the same plus or minus 15 percent?
[3403] A. Fifteen percent, yes, sir. Then between the 

period 1957 to 1963, I used plus or minus ten percent 
deviation from the estimated mean, and from 1950 to 
about 1957, I used plus or minus five percent to determine 
racial range. The reason for this is fairly obvious. If a 
system as it approaches let’s say a fifteen percent nonwhite 
figure, if you had a range of plus or minus fifteen percent, 
it would be meaningless after you got too far down to 
continue them.

Q. All right. Did you make an estimate of the racial 
enrollment in the system for 1950?

A. Yes.
Q. What was that?
A. Well, based on the rate of annual increase from 

1964 to 1975, I figured that in 1950 a conservative figure 
for the system would be not lower than fifteen percent 
non-white.

Q. All right. Are these five, ten and fifteen percent 
figures which you applied — I am sorry — 1957, what per­
centage did you estimate using the same technique?

A. Between ’50 and ’57 I used five percent, and be­
tween ’57 and ’64, ten percent.

Q. All right. And what percentage black for the sys­
tem did you use for ’57?

A. Twenty percent.
Q. In ’64 where you had the data, it was 25 percent; 

is [3404] that correct?



420

A. The data I calculated — and I didn’t have time to 
do the total system — was 26 and 6/10 percent for the 
secondary schools at that juncture, that is, 1964, and I 
used that to estimate the fact that the system as a whole 
was about 25 percent.

Q. All right. Now, the measure of racial identifia- 
bility, is it a measure of the disproportion from the system 
average?

A. That is correct. 1 might add that in any instance, 
as I said before, where there was any question about build­
ings being close on this, why, we did not count them as 
racially identifiable.

Q. All right. Is there any literature on the subject 
as to whether or not this is a reasonable technique to use 
in terms of the percentage deviation?

A. It is not exactly literature, but there is a lot of 
operational practice. There are several states, and several 
cases where a plus or minus 15 percent from the mean 
has been used to define racial nonidentifiability, the range 
clustering around the mean. The State of Pennsylvania has 
a regulation that the Human Relations Commission used 
which is slightly different, but similar, which says that it 
should be determined by a plus or minus 30 percent of 
the minority population in a school, so that if a school is 
30 percent minority, you would have a plus or minus 
range of 30 times 30 [3405-6] or nine percent from the 
mean. The advantage of the Pennsylvania system is that 
it takes care of the very problem we have here, and that 
is as the minority population approaches zero and you 
have low percentages, it gives you a more logical base 
from which to operate.

[3407] Q. Did you use the same type of breakdown 
where you had an initial small plat in the Grand Rapids 
case?

A. I did that, yes, because very early on Grand 
Rapids had a very small population of the minority people,



421

so it became necessary to change the 50-percent deviation, 
and this was accepted, I think, by the Sixth Circuit in 
their review of the case.

Q. All right, I show you, Dr. Foster, Original Plain­
tiffs’ Exhibit 22-B, Columbus School Profiles, prepared by 
Dr. Howard O. Merriman, and direct your attention to 
pages 6 and 7, and ask you what deviation Dr. Merriman 
used?

A. Page what?
Q. I think it begins on the bottom of page 6.
A. Plus or minus 10 percent from the average.
Q. All right. Would you read that paragraph begin­

ning, “Proportion of White Pupils — Elementary Level”?
A. All right. On page 6, the paragraph is headed: 

Proportion of White Pupils — Elementary Level, and it 
reads:

The system-wide enrollment of white pupils at the 
elementary level is 73 percent, representing no change 
from the 1968-1969 school year. Table 5 indicates distri­
bution of elementary schools by concentration of white 
pupils, showing a change in overall data of one more 
school in the middle category, parentheses (average plus 
and minus 10 percent), [3408] parentheses close. How­
ever, examination on a school-by-school basis indicates 
shifts in student population not reflected in the table.

Two schools, Chicago and First, shifted from the 
lower category into the middle group. Deshler and Wein- 
land Park showed a decrease in white population with a 
shift into the lower category. Koebel shifted into the mid­
dle category from the high category, parenthesis (more 
than 83 percent), parentheses closed. The new building 
opened, Walden, has a high white concentration. The first 
four schools border the inner city.

Q. All right. And he was using plus or minus 10 per­
cent in 1970. I believe in 1970, you used plus or minus 
15 percent; is that correct?



422

A. That’s correct.
Q. If you used plus or minus 10 percent, there would 

likely be more schools fall in the disproportionate range; 
is that true?

A. Yes.
# # # * *

[3422] Q. Dr. Foster, if you will refer to your notes, 
from the period 1950 to 1975, how many new schools were 
built?

A. My figures read 103.
Q. And of that 103, how many opened racially 

identifiable?
A. Eighty-seven out of 103.
Q. And I believe three of the 87 schools have been 

closed; is that correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. And how many of those schools, of the original 

87 minus the three, have remained racially identifiable 
in 1975?

A. Seventy-one, but I think again it is only fair to 
point out in my testimony that some of those were built 
in 1975.

Q. I understand. Do you recall approximately how 
many schools the data was unclear and you solved the 
doubt in favor of naming the school as a nonracially 
identifiable school?

A. Most of them, of course, were in the 1950 to ’60 
period. Out of that group, there were at least seven or 
eight that seemed reasonably clear were probably opened 
racially identifiable, but we just didn’t want to take any 
risks.

Q. Dr. Foster, we have placed up all three overlays,
[3423] 336, 337 and 338, reflecting the openings from 1950 
to 1957 on top of PX252, the 1970 Census map. From your 
examination of the data with respect to new school con­
struction, do you have an opinion as to the affect of such



423

construction in terms of either creating or not creating 
segregation in the Columbus School System?

MR. PORTER: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
A. Well, my opinion is that such construction, either 

because it is located on certain sites, which sometimes I 
understand is inevitable — I mean, you have to — finding 
school sites is not an easy situation, but the fact that 
schools are opened as black schools, so to speak, or white 
schools has a strong tendency to maintain a segregated 
system or to work towards impaction of the segregation 
that already exists in a system.

If all these schools that open up in the center city 
do open up primarily as black schools and all the schools 
that open up in the extremes of the suburbs open up as 
either all white schools or close to it, then, of course, you 
have the obvious inference that the system is not doing 
anything to correct a segregated situation when they do 
have an opportunity when schools open to do this. There 
are various techniques you can perform which will deal 
with opening schools. You can’t always do it by site, I
[3424] understand that, but if you are really interested in 
a desegregated system, then there are times when you can 
either redraw zone lines or draw them in such a way — or 
you can perhaps pair schools or group schools as you open 
them with other existing schools to promote desegregation 
rather than to maintain or increase segregation.

Q. Dr. Foster, can you form an opinion based on the 
opening of a single site, or is it necessary for you to ob­
serve a pattern or get an overview of what is happening 
in the system?

A. Well, you have to do it within the context, ob­
viously, of the total system. Of course, you more directly 
do it within the context of a region or area of that system. 
For example, when you are opening up a school such as 
Independence or Liberty, while you open it in the con­



424

text of the total system, you also take into account more 
strongly the schools that are in that general area of the 
city.

Q. All right. I take it on any individual school you 
can end up in a considerable argument about the merits 
or demerits of a particular site selection; is that a fair 
statement?

A. Certainly.
Q. From observing the pattern of new school con­

struction in Columbus, do you have an opinion as to 
whether or not that pattern could result from accident?

[3425] MR. PORTER: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Well, no, I think it is obvious from looking at the 

map and knowing the population concentrations to some 
extent that — and I believe I have read in testimony al­
ready or in depositions and so forth, that the intent of the 
school system is to construct the schools where the chil­
dren are, so to speak. If you do that, why, it is going to 
have certain consequences, obviously.

Q. And would those consequences in this case, 
Columbus, Ohio, be racial?

MR. PORTER: Objection.
A. Certainly.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. Dr. Foster, did you examine certain data with 

respect to building additions in the Columbus School 
System?

A. Yes, I did.
Q. And what was the information available to you 

that you used for that examination?
A. I did that following my examination of new con­

struction. As a result of that analysis, I followed the same 
general pattern in examining the new additions. I used 
primarily Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 22, which is a record of all 
the new buildings and the additions and the remodeling 
since the beginning of time except of the last — I can’t



425

remember [3426] exactly how far that goes. The last two 
or three years, I guess.

We had PX23, which ran through 1969 which had to 
do just with openings, but we also had a document, Plain­
tiffs’ Exhibit 68 called a Building Program Progress Report 
for Columbus Public Schools dated January 5, 1976, which 
describes the current building program that is going on, 
and it lists all the schools that are involved in this pro­
gram, at least that were at one point — I suppose as of 
January 5, 1976 — and classifies them by school level and 
then describes the status of the building project as of that 
date, and it defines whether they are new schools, whether 
they are additions or whether they are remodeled schools.

Q. All right. Did you obtain certain other information 
from the testimony of Dr. Merriman with respect to status 
of a number of the current projects?

A. Yes. This document was basically brought up to 
date, I believe, by his testimony, and I used that informa­
tion. At the time that was made available to me, I already 
completed an additions analysis, and I revised it in light 
of that testimony.

Q. All right. In the period 1950 to 1959, did you 
utilize the same racial estimate that you had with respect 
to new school construction?

A. Yes, I did.
[3427] Q. And again when the information that you 

had as to the racial enrollment of the school was a close 
question, what step did you take in terms of calling that 
school either racially identifiable or nonracially identi­
fiable?

A. In those cases, to the best of my knowledge, I did 
not classify those schools as racially identifiable.

Q. All right. Based on an estimated enrollment of 
approximately 15 percent black in the system in 1950, you 
used a plus or minus five percent; is that correct?

A. That is correct.



426

Q. And from 1957 forward, you used plus or minus
ten percent?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. And beginning in 1964, you used plus or minus 

fifteen percent; is that correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. How many additions to schools were there in the 

period 1950 to 1959?
A. Sixty-four I counted.
Q. And how many of those additions were made to 

schools which were racially identifiable schools?
A. Thirty-six out of sixty-four.
Q. And of those 36 schools, how many of those 

schools remained racially identifiable in 1975?
A. Twenty-six of them. Two of them had closed, and 

they [3427A] had closed as racially identifiable schools in 
the same way as they opened.

[3428] O. All right. Did you examine the data from 
1960 to 1963?

A. Yes, I did.
Q. And in that period, ’60-63, how many school addi­

tions were there?
A. There were 28 according to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 22.
Q. And once again I take it you are not including 

in these numbers remodelings or new bathrooms and 
things of this sort; is this correct?

A. No. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 22 just simply lists the 
schools and the dates of additions. It does not describe 
the additions. I had no data prior to the current building 
program in which additions were described as so many 
classrooms, multipurpose room, library, this sort of thing. 
There were simply — Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 22 has all the 
schools in three columns. The first one is new buildings 
or erections. The second one is additions, and the third 
one is remodeling. I made the assumption that the addi­



427

tions column had to do with construction that was not 
remodeling.

Q. Dr. Foster, let me — perhaps this is a little out of 
order — aslc you if you rebuild a school, in this case either 
a new school or a substantial addition to a school, on the 
same site and that school is already a racially-identifiable 
school, what effect, if any, does that have with respect 
— and again assuming no substantial [3429] boundary7 
changes made, what effect, if any, does that have in terms 
of maintaining segregation?

A. Well, it simply locks in a segregated situation and 
makes it much less likely that it will ever be changed.

Q. All right. And the new constructions which you 
testified with respect to, were a number of those buildings 
built or rebuilt on an existing site or approximately the 
same site?

A. I couldn’t testify to that directly. I assume they 
were because some of the schools I visited in the last 
couple of months, that is to say, I didn’t walk in, but I 
have been around them and they were on the same sites.

[3430] Q. So you actually made a visual inspection 
of all the — most of the schools in the Columbus School 
System, did you not?

A. Well, not most of them. There are an awful lot of 
them. I can say maybe about half of them.

Q. And did you go particularly in areas where you 
were concerned about questions that arose from the exam­
ination today?

A. For the most part, yes.
Q. Of the 28 schools, additions to schools in 1960-63, 

how many of those were additions to racially-identifiable 
schools?

A. There are 21, by my count.
Q. And how many of those schools are racially iden­

tifiable in 1975?
A. 16 out of the 21.



428

Q, Turning to the period 1964-1975, I believe at that 
point you were using the plus or minus 15 percent; is 
that correct?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. And in this period, you had the HEW reports and 

other enrollment-by-race data and the summary form 
from the School System; is that correct?

A. Well, the figures I used were not directly from 
those reports, but from Plaintiffs Exhibit — I don t re­
member. [3431] 1975-76 was PX 11, and I think they 
decreased in number from that in some of the earlier 
years, like PX 1 to 11, perhaps, as I remember it.

Q. All right. In the period ’64 to ’75, how many addi­
tions to schools were there?

A. 84 by my count.
Q. And how many of those additions were to racially- 

identifiable schools?
A. 71 out of the 84.
Q. And those schools, again allowing for the fact 

that things in ’75 haven’t had time to make a change, of 
those schools, how many schools are there which remain 
racially identifiable in 1975?

A. 62 out of the 71, and one of the schools was 
closed, and the year before it was closed it was racially 
identifiable as when it was opened or when it had the 
addition.

Q. There were substantial changes made in 1975, 
weren’t there?

A. Yes, I think the exact number was 26.
Q. The totals for the period 1950-1975 in additions 

to schools comes to what, Dr. Foster?
A. 176 additions.
Q. And in how many of those additions were the 

schools racially identifiable?
[3432] A. 128 out of the 176.



429

Q. And again, with the understanding that 26 of those 
were made in 1975, how many of those remain racially 
identifiable in 1975?

A. 104.
Q. In using the information you obtained from Dr. 

Merriman’s testimony, did you — let me give you a hypo­
thetical situation.

Let’s assume that the witness indicated that they 
converted two rooms of an existing school to other uses 
but also added two new classrooms. Did you consider 
that addition to the school for the purposes of your 
analysis?

A. I ’m not sure what your hypothetical describes, 
but there was one case, I believe it was Bretnell Elemen­
tary, that had a situation — they added two rooms and 
lost two rooms, and I didn’t count that. The only schools 
I counted in correcting my information on the basis of 
Dr. Merriman’s testimony were ones that added classroom 
space.

Q. Dr. Foster, did you examine the data of the Colum­
bus School System with respect to principals?

A. Yes, I did. Well, some of it, not all of it, but 
selected years.

Q. All right. And what years did you look at?
A. 1968-69, 1972-73, and that’s just one school year 

in each case, and the year 1975-76.
[3433] Q. Turning first to 1968-69, what source 

material did you use?
A. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 448-A and Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 

449-A were — I also used the original on that, and I don’t 
have the — the source. I believe that was Form 101, HEW 
Form 101 for racial reporting, but I don’t have the PX 
number on it, if there is, in fact, one.

Q. All right. Did you find certain corrections that 
you had to make to PX 448-A and 449-A?

A. Well, of the three years I examined, one of the 
years I did make some corrections, and I went completely



430

through the HEW 101 form to do that. The other two 
years — that was 1972 to ’73.

In ’68-69, I spot-checked, cross-checked the HEW 
Form, and in ’75-76, I cross-checked the Equal Employ­
ment Opportunity Commission Form which was used for 
that year as a basic data source.

Q. All right. For the period 1968 to ’69, what did the 
data show with respect to the assignment of black prin­
cipals?

A. In 1988-69 school year as to the assignment of 
black principals, let me simply summarize my findings and 
then, if you want something more, you can ask.

Of 94 racially-identifiable white schools, and this is 
figured again on the basis of plus or minus 15 percent
[3434] from the norm at the different levels where that was 
available, high school and junior high or elementary, of 
94 racially-identifiable white schools reporting the use of 
principals, 94 of them had white principals. In other words, 
no blacks were assigned to these 94 white schools as 
principals.

In the same year, there were 24 schools not racially 
identifiable reporting principals, and all of these 24 schools 
not racially identifiable had white principals. No blacks 
were assigned as administrators to those schools.

In the same year, there were 43 racially-identifiable 
black schools reporting principals in use, and 30 of those 
had white principals, 13 had black principals.

In sum, there were 13 black principals in the system 
that year, according to my figures, and they were all 
assigned to racially-identifiable black schools.

Q. Do you have the assistant principals for that same 
year?

A. Yes, I do.
Q. How many black assistant principals were there 

at the 95 racially-identifiable white schools — I’m sorry — 
94 racially-identifiable white schools?



431

A. You’re right. There were 95 racially-identifiable 
white schools. The 94 figure was simply — one of them did 
not have a principal assignment.

[3435] At the racially-identifiable white schools, no 
black assistant principals were assigned in that year.

Q. At the integrated, desegregated or non-racially- 
identifiable schools, according to your definition, we have 
2o of those schools in 1968-69. We have 24 white principals 
and zero black; is that correct, and one that there was no 
designation?

A. That is correct, yes, sir.
Q. All right. How many assistant principals were 

there who were black at these non-racially-identifiable 
black schools?

A. There was one black assistant.
Q. And how many white?
A. 14 white assistants.
Q. Now, turning to the racially-identifiable black 

schools in 1968-69, how many of those 43 schools, how 
many of those had white assistant principals?

A. 12 of them.
Q. And how many of them had black?
A. 5 of them had black assistant principals.
Q. 1 take it at least from the data available to you 

not all of these schools had assistant principals; is that 
correct?

A. That is correct. Most of the — I guess all of the 
secondary schools had assistants, and ordinarily, maybe
[3436] half a dozen of the elementary schools. I assume 
if they were fairly large elementary schools, they may have 
had assistant principals. City systems usually have a cutoff 
point for a population. Whenever it reaches 800 or 600 or 
whatever, you’re allowed assistant principals.

Q. All right. Would you look at the same data for 
the 1972-73 school year and tell me how many racially-



432

identifiable white schools there were and how many of 
them had black principals?

A. There were a total of 86 racially-identifiable white 
schools. 77 of them reported having principals. 76 had 
white principals, and one of them had a black principal.

Q. What was the breakdown at the racially-identifi­
able black schools?

A. There were 47 racially-identifiable black schools 
— I beg your pardon. I have the wrong set of figures. I was 
reading you 1975-76. Can I go back to the white schools? 

Q. Yes, 1972-73.
A. All right. In 1972-73, there were 89 racially- 

identifiable white schools. 84 of them had white principals, 
and none of them had black principals. Five of them did 
not have a principal.

Q. Five of them did not have principals showing in 
the [3437] data?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. Let’s just stick to that point with the

racially-identifiable white schools. What about assistant 
principals in those schools?

A. Those schools reported a total of 28 white assistant 
principals and no black assistant principals. That didn’t 
mean that all of them — there were 28 schools that had 
assistant principals, but the total number of assistant 
principals in those schools was 28 whites and no blacks. 
That is to say, one school might have had two or three 
assistant principals.

Q. Okay. And at the schools which were non-racially 
identifiable, I believe there were 30 of those?

A. That’s correct.
Q. And how many black principals were there in 1972- 

73?
A. There were 2 black principals in those 30 schools.
Q. And 27 whites?
A. That’s correct.



433

Q. And there was one, I believe, that was not appli­
cable? You didn’t have any data?

A. No, there was one that did not report a principal, 
and there was also a school that we did not have data for 
in those figures.

Q. What about assistant principals at the [3438] non- 
racially-identifiable schools?

A. The 30 schools reported a total of 12 white as­
sistant principals and 5 black assistant principals.

Q. The racially-identifiable black schools had what 
proportion of black and white principals?

A. There were 47 identifiable black schools. 21 of 
them had white principals, 22 had black principals and 
4 of them reported no principal.

Q. And the assistant principals?
A. A total of 13 white and 11 blacks.
Q. All right. Now, do you have the data for 1975?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you summarized that 1975 data?
A. All right. In 1975-76, the current school year, 

there are 87 racially-identifiable white schools and 9 of 
them reported no principal. There were 76 white principals 
and 1 black principal in the schools.

The same racially-identifiable schools reported 23 
white assistant principals and 3 black assistant principals.

The schools that were racially identifiable as black 
schools, the current year, were 47. 20 of these reported 
white principals, 25 reported black principals, 2 did not 
have principals.

In terms of assistant principals for these racially- 
identifiable black schools, a total of 12 white [3438A] 
assistant principals were reported and 8 black assistant 
principals.

[3439] A. (Continued) For the current year for 
schools that were not racially identifiable, we had a total 
of 32 of them. Four reported no principal. Twenty-four



434

reported white principals, and four reported black prin­
cipals, In this group of 32 nonidentifiable schools racially, 
total assistant principals, 15 white were reported and four 
black.

Q. Can you summarize the results of your analysis 
and breakdown?

A. Well, my opinion is that it seems to me that the 
figures speak for themselves in that the apointment of 
principals is essentially done along racial lines. The first 
black principal we found serving in these three years that 
I analyzed in any capacity was in 1968-69. That is in any 
nonwhite school, either a nonidentifiable school racially 
or a black school —let me start over again.

The first black principal that was assigned to a white 
school or a nonidentifiable school was in 1968-69 when 
we had one black assistant principal assigned to South 
High School. Then in 1972-73 we had two black principals 
assigned to racially nonidentifiable schools as principals, 
and we had five blacks assigned assistant principals to 
racially nonidentifiable schools, but in 1972-73, still no 
black principals or assistant principals in identifiable white 
schools.

[3440] Now, in 1975-76, the current year, we find one 
black principal in a racially identifiable white school. If 
my memory serves me correctly, thats in the Oakmont 
School. Furthermore, there are three black assistant prin­
cipals assigned to racially identifiable white schools.

I think the pattern is fairly clear that over this period 
of time that was analyzed, black principals are by and 
large assigned to black schools, and whites are assigned 
to white schools, but also to administrate the racially non­
identifiable schools and, to a large extent, administrate 
nearly half of the black schools.

Q. Dr, Foster, do you have any objections to white 
principals being assigned to black schools?

A. No.



435

Q. Does the pattern you are speaking to deal with the 
failure to assign black principals to racially identifiable 
and white schools?

A. Well, in terms of analyzing a system for segrega­
tion or for discrimination or however you want to classify 
it, if you have a pattern where principals are assigned 
along racial lines, then to that extent you have a segre­
gated system. One of the ways you can determine whether 
schools are segregated or not is if they do assign personnel 
along racial lines.

I think clearly the evidence indicates that as far
[3441] principals are concerned, Columbus has done this 
and continues to do it. They are beginning to make very 
small inroads, and I understand you just don’t go out and 
fire white principals and put in black principals or what­
ever, but there is nothing that would indicate over the 
past several years that — if they wanted to desegregate the 
schools as far as administrators are concerned, they could 
exchange some of the white principals and black principals 
in their assignments. Schools do this quite frequently. I 
think this is a typical —- if I may further analyze it — a 
typical procedure for schools that are beginning to de­
segregate in a very small way, that is, they begin to move 
maybe one black principal in the total system into a white 
school, sort of break the color line, and then when every­
body feels safe about that, they make another advance­
ment.

Q. Dr. Foster, you mentioned in the very beginning 
of your testimony, I believe, that the assignment of 
faculty, teaching faculty, and I assume you included ad­
ministrators, to schools is one of the things you look at to 
determine whether schools are segregated?

A. Yes, sir.
[3442] Q. I believe you also used the term whether 

a school was racially identifiable rather than segregated?
A. I believe I did, yes, sir.



436

Q. Does a pattern of assignment of teaching staff to 
schools over the years in such a way as to assign black 
teachers to black schools and white teachers to white 
schools, does that tend to identify schools as schools in­
tended for blacks and whites?

A. Certainly.
Q. All right. Does that sort of identification of schools, 

is this something that carries forward, has a short or a 
long-term effect?

A. Well, I think it is like every segregative pattern, 
it doesn’t wipe away overnight.

Q. In the Columbus School System I believe you 
have been made aware that there was action taken by the 
Ohio Civil Rights Commission which resulted in the re­
assignment of teaching faculty as opposed to principals, 
which we have already discussed. In the context of the 
history of such racial assignment of teaching faculty, 
would the reassignment of teachers without the conco­
mitant reassignment of principals and pupils eliminate the 
effect of the original racial assignments?

MR. PORTER: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
[3443] A. Not in my opinion, no, sir.
Q. In your experience, Dr. Foster, you have worked 

with school systems that have gone through the process of 
desegregation in what are sometimes called first genera­
tion and second generation problems?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. That’s one of the responsibilities of the Center 

you are associated with; is that correct?
A. To work with what we called second generation 

problems following desegregation of faculties and pupils, 
yes, sir.

Q. And have you personally observed as well as 
studied in the literature any continuing effect of racial 
assignments of faculty?



437

A, Very much so, and even particularly adminis­
trators and central office personnel,

Q. Dr. Foster, did you make some examination of the 
use of rental facilities in the Columbus School System?

A. Yes, I did.
MR. LUCAS: If the Court will indulge me just a 

moment.
Q. ( By Mr. Lucas) What data did you use to examine 

these rentals?
A. I used some spread sheets which were given to 

me of data collected or put together from the response to
[3444] Plaintiffs’ third interrogatory, No. 60, I believe.

Q. Did you also refer to PX 358?
A. Well, I think that’s the Plaintiffs’ Exhibit number 

for those responses is my understanding.
Q. What school rentals did you examine and for 

what periods?
A. Primarily rentals from the years that racial enroll­

ment data were available. This would have been from 
1964 to 1975.

Q. And what schools did that involve?
A. This would include rentals for Cassidy pupils in 

1972-73, Chicago pupils in ’64-’65, Hamilton, 1970, High­
land Elementary School, 1964-65 and 1970, Kent Ele­
mentary School, 1970, Mifflin Junior-Senior, 1974-1975, 
South Mifflin Elementary from 1972 and 1973, and the 
Sullivant Elementary School for 1970.

# # # # #

[3447] Q. Dr. Foster, have you made an analysis of 
certain rentals utilized by the Columbus School System?

A. Yes, I have.
Q. Can you begin your explanation of the analysis 

with the 1975-76 information provided to you?
A. All right. My data came from PX 358 which was 

the response to Plaintiffs’ Third Interrogatory and it lists 
the rentals. I started with 1975-76, the current year and



438

worked backwards. The only rental there is of record this 
year is a Mifflin Junior High School -  Junior-Senior High 
School which was also a holdover from 1974-75. That is 
to say there was a rental from Mifflin Junior-Senior in 
’74-75 and also the current year.

[3448] Q. What do you understand the rental to be 
to use this term?

A. My understanding in these connections was that 
the rentals were used for purposes for taking care of over­
capacity in the sending school situation.

#  #  £  #  #

[3449] In 1974, when this rental began, our records 
indicate that Mifflin had a capacity of 1,000 and an enroll­
ment of 1559, and it was 57.7 percent nonwhite.

[3450] A. (Continued) Then in 1975 Mifflin Junior- 
Senior had a capacity of 1,200 by our records and an 
enrollment of 1,515. In the year 1974 and 1975 there was 
some space available in junior high schools in the system. 
The Buckeye Junior High School, which is approximately 
10 miles to the south of Mifflin in the extreme south end 
of the district, had available about 89 spaces according 
to its capacity, and it was virtually all white.

Crestview, which is much closer to Mifflin, about four 
or five miles directly to the west of Mifflin in the sort of 
north central part of the Columbus District, had a capacity 
in 1974 of 86 under-utilized, and Wedgewood which is 
down in the western portion of the district, extreme west­
ern portion of the district about I would guess 11 or 12 
miles from Mifflin, it had a population under utilization 
of 145. These three schools were ranged from 0.3 percent 
non-white in the case of Buckeye to 9.4 non-white in the 
case of Crestview. Totaling them together would have 
seating capacity not utilized of approximately 328 pupils.

In 1975 again Buckeye which is to the extreme south 
of the district had 219 seats available and was 2,4 percent 
non-white. Westmoor which is again in the western por­



439

tion of the district had a capacity of 84 which was unused, 
and it is 10.3 percent non-white. Yorktown which is in the 
extreme east part of the Columbus District is 7.8 percent 
non-white [3451] in 1975-76 and had seating available 
of 197. These three schools which were identified as white 
schools had a total capacity of 500 seats, according to our 
figures.

Q. If we can go back, in 1974 there was a capacity 
available of 320 and an excess at the Mifflin Junior High 
of 539; is that correct?

A. That’s correct, yes, sir.
Q. And in 1975 there was space available for 500 

and an excess in enrollment at Mifflin of 315?
A. That is correct.
Q. Now, Dr. Foster, is it clear from the data whether 

or not the rental space is included in the capacity figure 
for Mifflin?

A. I assumed that it was not, no, sir, and that, further­
more, the enrollment listed for Mifflin included those chil­
dren who were assigned to the rental space.

Q. Dr. Foster, you are aware, are you not, of the 
recommendation of the report of the Feasibility Study 
Commission of the financial needs of the Columbus Public 
Schools of January 1976, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 65 which indi­
cates that there should be closing of two of the three 
junior-senior high schools?

A. I have read parts of that document, yes, sir.
# # # # #

[3452] Q. Dr. Foster, were you aware that such a 
recommendation had been made?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. Go ahead. I think the question before 

you now is: Were there any other —
A. Yes, I understand.
Q. Okay.



440

A. There was a rental for the Innis-Cleveland area, 
which is — I assume was awaiting the opening of the new 
school at Innis and that this space was rented prior to 
the opening. According to PX358, these pupils were also 
housed at the Tuskeegee Housing Alumni Foundation.

[3453] Q. All right. For the period 1973-74, were 
there other rental spaces available other than the South 
Mifflin rental that you referred to?

A. Well, in 1973-74, South Mifflin Elementary had a 
rental and also Cassady Elementary. The Cassady Ele­
mentary had started the year previously in 1972-73 and 
continued for two years, and ’73-74, the South Mifflin — 
well, South Mifflin also was in ’72-73, so both of them 
rented space for those two years.

Q. What were the enrollments and spaces available 
at that period of time?

MR. PORTER: If the Court please, for the purpose 
of the record, I would object to the question, and the basis 
of my objection is that they have not laid the proper 
foundation for the question. I think that if he’s going to 
give this type of testimony that we should know from 
whence he’s getting the information so that it will simplify 
subsequent cross-examination, if any.

THE COURT: I think that’s right. Would you ask 
him where he got the information and supply us that?

[3454] Q. Is it the same as the answer that you gave 
at the beginning of the testimony as to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 
358, Dr. Foster?

A. Right, plus the enrollment data, I’ve already testi­
fied where I got my basic enrollment data through the 
years, and the capacity data was from a number — a variety 
of sources, including the Ohio — well, that’s fairly compli­
cated, but I’ve made out a capacity spread sheet for the 
entire period of the system, and that has about 12 different 
sources, I believe, which I have fully documented.



441

Q. All right. For Mr. Porter’s convenience at note­
taking, could you locate that and give us those sources 
now?

A. Yes. Do you want me simply to read the docu­
ments?

Q. Yes.
A. All right. That I derived my capacity figures from?
Q. Right.
A. PX 58, the title is “A School Building Survey of 

Columbus, Ohio.” It’s the Ohio State Report in May, 1959, 
and the pages were 68 to 75.

PX 59 is a study of the public school building needs 
of Columbus, again by the Bureau of Research at Ohio 
State for 1950. The pages here were pages 41 to 47 and 107 
and 108.

PX 60, another Ohio State study for May, 1953, pages 
51 to 58.

[3455] PX 61, which is the Ohio State 1955-56 study. 
I don’t seem to have the pages noted for that.

PX 62, the 1958-59 Ohio State study, July, 1959, 
pages 48 to 54.

PX 64, the 1963-64 Ohio State study, published in 
June 1964, pages 54 to 60.

PX 63, the 1967-68 study at Ohio State, published 
March 1, 1969, pages 66 to 74.

[3456] A. (Continued) PX 66, capacities at junior- 
senior and senior high schools in the permanent secondary 
school buildings, November 1971.

PX 65 which is reported a Feasibility Study Com­
mittee on the financial needs of the Columbus Public 
Schools, January 27, 1976, pages 49 to 53. This included 
the elementary study conducted by the Division of Admin­
istration in October 1975 and secondary estimated October 
’75 by the Division of Administration, page 58.

PX 43, the reference manual on the May 4, 1971 
School Board issue and operating levy, ten general facts 
about the Columbus Public Schools, pages 10-6 to 1015.



442

Q. And from that you compiled a spread sheet for 
the various years of the enrollment figures for the various 
schools; is that correct?

A. That’s correct.
Q. And whenever you refer to enrollment, it comes 

from that source?
A. That is correct.
MR. PORTER: Thank you very much.
MR. LUCAS: We would be happy to make that sheet 

available to counsel.
MR. PORTER: Yes, I would like to see it.
Q. (By Mr. Lucas) Where did we leave off, Dr. 

Foster? Cassady, I believe.
[3457] A. South Mifflin and Cassady. All right, South 

Mifflin Elementary which was annexed in 1971 —
Q. Excuse me. You placed the 1975-76 overlay that 

is P X -
A. PX 278.
Q. All right. Would you outline the boundaries of 

the attendance area first, please?
A. For South Mifflin?
Q. Yes.
A. It is just below where the Mifflin Junior-Senior 

High School is in the sort of north central portion of the 
district. This had a rental facility in ’72 and ’73. In ’72 
the South Mifflin Elementary was 347 over capacity and 
was 79.9 percent non-white. In 1975 it was 312 over 
capacity, and it was 83.4 percent non-white.

I made an analysis of some space that was available 
in schools which were predominantly of the opposite race. 
In 1972 Northwood, which is in the north central — I can’t 
seem to locate it. Everything north is north anyway. It is 
about three miles, I believe, from South Mifflin Element­
ary. For some reason I still can’t seem to locate it on the 
map.

Northwood was 2.2 percent non-white and had a 
capacity available of 88 seats.



443

Kenwood which is about five miles to the west of
[3458] South Mifflin over in the western part of the — 
northwestern part of the district was 2.0 percent non-white 
and had a seating capacity available of 102 seats. This was 
in 1972.

Medary which is about three miles from South Mifflin 
— all of these schools I am speaking of are in this general 
area to the north and west of the Columbus District. 
Medary is about three miles by the way the crow flies 
from South Mifflin and was 1.7 percent non-white with 58 
seats available.

Northridge, about three and a half miles from South 
Mifflin, had 61 seats available with no non-whites. That’s 
a little more towards the center of the district but in the 
north.

Oakland Park in the same region, about three miles 
from South Mifflin, 1.2 percent non-white had 54 seats 
available.

So in 1972 these five virtually all white elementary 
schools had 363 seats or spaces which would have been 
available.

[3459] Q. How many overcapacity was the South 
Mifflin Elementary at that time?

A. In 1972, 347 overcapacity. In 1973 when South 
Mifflin was 312 overcapacity, the same five schools had 
553 seats available. Northwood had 119. Kenwood had 
145. Medary had 112. Northridge had 90, and Oakland 
Park had 87.

In 1973 these five schools ranged from 0.5 percent 
non-white at Northridge to 1.7 percent non-white in 
Medary.

Q. All right. Did you perform the same analysis with 
respect to the Cassady Elementary?

A. Cassady which is not far from South Mifflin, a 
little in the north of the district and on the extreme east, 
again, Cassady was part of the Mifflin annexation in 1971 
in this general area. Space was rented for Cassady over­



444

capacity in 1972 and 1973. In 1972 Cassady was over 352 
spaces. Within a radius of five to six or seven miles there 
were eight elementary schools, almost all of them virtually 
all white — well, all of them virtually all white, none of 
them over 3.6 percent non-white, which had a combined 
capacity available of 563 spaces. This included — all these 
schools are in the north or north central, northwestern 
part of the Columbus zone. This included Beaumont which 
was 3 percent non-white and had 35 seats. Maize Elemen­
tary which was 1 percent non-white had 72 seats. Marburn, 
2.5 percent non-white had 36 seats. Homedale, 3.6 [3460] 
percent non-white had 122 seats available. Michigan, 3.6 
percent non-white, had 45 seats available. Valley Forge, 
0.9 percent non-white, had 63 seats available. Kenwood 
had 102 seats available, 2 percent non-white, and North- 
wood had 2.2 percent non-white and 88 seats available.

[3461] Q. Now, what was the excess enrollment at 
capacity in 1971?

A. In Nineteen what?
Q. 71.
A. A hundred and thirty-four overcapacity.
Q. And it jumped to 362 in ’72?
A. That is correct.
Q. All right. What happened in 1973? Did it con­

tinue to increase?
A. It continued to increase to 416 overcapacity.
Q. And capacity for both years or all three years 

has shown as what?
A. Four hundred and thirty-five seats.
Q. All right. And in ’73, the percentage of black at 

capacity was what?
A. 48.6 percent non-white.
All right. In 1973, in a group of six schools, including 

Medary, Beaumont, Maize, Valley Forge, Homedale and 
Kenwood, ranging from three miles to approximately seven 
and a half miles the way the crow flies from Cassady, there



445

were 639 seats available. All of these schools — well, these 
schools range from 1.3 percent non-white at Valley Forge 
to 3.1 percent non-white at Homeclale in 1973.

At Medary, there were 112 seats available; at Beau­
mont, 100; at Maize, 103; at Valley Forge, 87; at [3462] 
Homedale, 92; and at Ivenwood, 145.

Q. That gives you a total of 639, and what was the 
total overcapacity at —

A. 416 in 1973 at Cassadv.
Q. All right. And did this continue to increase in 

1974?
A. In 1974, there were 526 overcapacity at Cassady.
Q. And what had happened to the racial enrollment?
A. It had climbed to 55.9 percent non-white. They 

show no rentals, however, in 1974, and I assume by that 
time the addition that increased their capacity from 435 
to 630 was probably in use to take care of that increased 
enrollment.

Q. All right. Does the 1975 data show that increase 
in capacity at Cassady?

A. To 630, yes, sir.
Q. All right. And what happens to the racial enroll­

ment between ’74 and ’75?
A. It increases at Cassady from 55.9 percent non­

white to 89.3 percent non-white.
Q. In 1972-73, was there another school in the rental, 

McGuffey School?
A. Yes. It’s listed in the PX 358 as the McGuffey 

Junior Elementary.
[3463] Q. And this school was at the — what racial 

composition in 1972-73?
A. 34.7 percent non-white.
Q. And I take it you made no analysis of alternatives 

available of a desegregative nature at that point; is that 
correct?

A. Because of the racial composition, I did not.



446

Q. All right. In ’71-72, in addition to the McGuffey 
School, was there another junior high school involved?

A. Clinton Junior High School rented facilities in 
1971-72.

Well, this will give it close enough, I believe, if we 
go back.

PX 299, the junior high school for ’75-76 will show 
tire Clinton Junior High School, which is to the — nearly 
to the extreme north of the district and in the central part.

Q. What happened to the Clinton Junior High at 
that period of time in terms of rental?

A. In 1971, at Clinton, which was 1.7 percent non­
white, it had an enrollment of 1,249 and a capacity, ac­
cording to my figures, of 1,000, which leaves it 249 seats 
over capacity.

In that year, the system was admittedly a bit tight 
for space, but in Mohawk Junior-Senior High School,
[3464] which is to the south of the system, just across 
from what’s now the Interstate and about, by my estimate 
about seven and a half miles from Clinton to the north 
at Mohawk.

At Mohawk, there were 194 seats available in the 
junior-senior high school.

Q. What was the percentage of black at Mohawk?
A. The percentage black at Mohawk in 1971 was 

67.6 percent.
Q. All right. Were there a number of elementary 

schools in the period 1970-71 where there were rental 
spaces?

A. In 1970-71, there were four elementary schools 
that rented in addition to the McGuffey Junior-Elemen­
tary, which was still renting but which I did not make an 
analysis of because it was 20.6 percent non-white.

Q. All right.
A. There was Hamilton Elementary, Highland Ele­

mentary, Sullivant Elementary and Kent.



447

I again placed the elementary overlay for '75-76, 
which is Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 278, over the 1970 Census, 
PX 252. I think these schools will be found on it.

First of all, Hamilton, which is in the center of the 
district, a little to the north, in 1970, there was only 8 
over capacity, according to my figures. There was 93.5 
percent black — or non-white, rather.

[3465] The same year, Highland, which is to the west 
of the district out Broad Street a way, was 68.9 percent 
non-white and an overcapacity of 63 pupils.

In 1970, Kent Elementary, which is in the center 
part of the city and a little to the south, it’s a mile or two 
south of Broad Street, Kent was 90.1 percent non-white 
and 126 pupils overcapacity.

And in the same year, Sullivant, which is a little 
southwest of the central part of the city, of downtown, 
Sullivant Elementary was 62.2 percent non-white and had 
65 seats overcapacity.

If you add these four schools together, that gives 
you a total in 1970 of 262 of spaces that were needed.

At the same time, in 1970, I found at least six white 
elementary, racially identifiable white elementary schools 
which did have a considerable amount of capacity avail­
able. One of these was Kenwood, which is in the north­
west part of the district, which was zero percent non­
white, and it had 151 seats available.

Q. What was its enrollment, according to your 
figures?

A. Its enrollment was 255, with a capacity of 406 
according to my figures.

Q. And where did you get the enrollment data for 
all of this?

A. From 1970 — pardon me a second. In 1970, this
[3466] would have been from Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 6.



448

Northwood, which is in the central northern part of 
the system, in 1970, it was 3.3 percent non-white and 
had 44 seats available.

At Beaumont, which is in the northern-eastern part 
of the system had 32 seats available and .2 percent non­
white.

Bellows, which is down in the southwestern part of 
the Columbus District had 134 seats available, 5.5 per­
cent non-white.

At Parsons, which is in the south part of the Colum­
bus School District, it had 107 seats available and no 
non-whites in attendance or in enrollment.

Stewart, which is to the central and southwestern 
part of the system, had no non-whites, and had 38 seats 
available.

Q. Let’s go back to Parsons. What was the enroll­
ment at Parsons?

A. Parsons had an enrollment of 357, according to 
my figures, with 347 capacity.

[3467] A. (Continued) These schools ranged, if you 
could match them up in the same general geographic area 
with the schools that were over capacity and the schools 
that were under capacity, I think you could have put them 
together with a reasonable amount of travel distance be­
cause there were some of both in the south and some in 
the western part of the district and some in the north and 
north central part.

Q. All right. Were there rentals in 67 and ’68?
A. There were two rentals listed in ’67 and ’68. There 

was Ohio Elementary and Windsor Elementary.
I made an analysis of these and found that in 1967 

when Ohio rented space, it was 121 over capacity, and in 
1967 when Windsor rented space, it was 110 over capacity. 
Windsor also rented space in 1966, and it was 221 over 
capacity.



449

Q. All right. Looking at under-utilized schools, did 
you find very much in the way of excess capacity at that 
point?

A. In 1967 I did not find enough spaces available in 
opposite race schools to warrant a decision that space was 
available of that nature. There could have been perhaps 
70-75 pupils moved, but not enough for the number 
needed.

# # # # #

[3473] Q. Dr. Foster, did you examine all of the 
optional attendance areas in Columbus that were available 
in the data?

A. Some of them much more closely than others, but 
my main intent was to examine the ones that had — that 
in my opinion had racial implications, so my examination 
of some of them which obviously weren’t racial was very 
cursory.

Q. All right. Dr. Foster, in your examination of the 
optional attendance areas, did you of necessity also have 
to examine boundary changes that took place over a period 
of time?

A. In connection with those optional zones, yes, sir.
Q. And was it also necessary to interrelate the open­

ing and I suppose on occasion the closing of schools dur­
ing that same examination?

[3474] A. In some instances, yes, sir.
Q. All right. Did you also have to examine the changes 

at other grade levels other than the area where the option 
existed?

A. I think if I interpret your question correctly, there 
were some options which I judged to be racially oriented 
which were true at the elementary level, and the same 
territory was true at the junior high school level and also 
at the senior high school level.

Q. All right. Did you examine the Fair Elementary- 
Fairmoor Elementary optional attendance area?



450

#  #  #  #  #

A. I should first apologize to Mr. Lamson. In his 
absence, we curled the census maps the wrong direction 
making it a little more difficult.

The Fair Elementary-Fairmoor Elementary, using the 
1960 Census, PX 251, as the base map and the ’59-60 
elementary overlay, PX 263 on top of that, just to the east 
of the district at — and Fair is just to the east of [3475] 
the center of the city and Fairmoor is across Bexley just 
to the east of Bexley. Directly east of Fair Elementary, 
I used these two documents, PX 263, PX 251. I used the 
enrollment data, particularly PX 12, which gives the per­
centage non-white for the years, I believe, ’64, 1965 and 
1966, and various other data on enrollment and percentage, 
racial percentages through the years of the option.

Q. All right. Were you able to determine from the 
data available to you the year the option began?

A. Yes. The option began in 1959-60, and continued 
through last year, 1974-75.

Q. All right. At its inception, were you able to deter­
mine the enrollment of the school itself, or were you able 
to determine the underlying racial composition of the 
attedance area?

A. Well, we did a combination of that. One is we 
knew the racial enrollment in 1964, and we extrapolated 
that a bit from that to get some idea of what the racial 
percentage was in ’59-60, and then we had the 59 overlay 
on top of the ’60 Census, and that also contributed to our 
knowledge of the ethnic situation.

In 1960, according to the census map, the optional 
zone area, which is bounded on the north by Broad Street 
and on the east by Preston, down about two-thirds of the 
way and then Parkview for the balance, on the south by 
Fair, [3476] is for the most part -  for all the part, as a 
matter of fact, and on the west by Alum Creek.

This optional area on the 1960 Census is entirely 
white, which is 0 to 9.9 percent non-white.



451

Q. Would you look at the black data and see if you 
can get a more refined reading as to both the number of 
people living in that area and their races?

A. The race indication was that this was indeed an 
all white area. The block data for the 1960 Census gave 
us the number of people, not the number of pupils, but the 
number of total people in the zone. There were six blocks 
which had people in the optional zone.

Block 1 had 11 people in four houses. Block 2 had 
27 people in seven houses. Block 3 had 42 people in six­
teen houses. Block 14 had 53 people in nine houses. Block 
15 had 22 people in six houses, and Block 16 had 4 people 
in one house. This made a total of 159 persons in 43 houses, 
and they were all white, according to the census data.

Q. All right. What was the underlying attendance 
area of the schools to which the option was made available?

A. On the west, the pupils could go to Fair. On the 
1960 Census, Fair to the extreme west has three or four 
white blocks, 0 to 9.9 percent non-white — or black, rather. 
It’s mostly made up, otherwise, of Franklin Park, the white 
area [3477] to the northwest, and all the blocks are either 
orange, blue or green, ranging from ten percent non — ten 
percent black to 89.9 percent black. The option to the 
east, Fairmoor, as of the I960 Census, has no blocks other 
than white blocks.

Q. By white, you mean 09.9?
A. That’s correct. This would be borne out by the 

19 — by the PX 12, which gives the racial data for 1964 
as Fairmoor at 0.1 percent non-white, so I would assume 
that it would be safe to say that in ’59, when the option 
was started, Fairmoor was virtually all white.

Q. What was Fair in 1964, the school from which the 
option was carved?

A. 92 percent non-white in 1964.
[3478] Q. And in the 1960 Census, the total popu­

lation, as you’ve already described, it’s orange, blue and 
green, the major portion?



452

A. Yes. That would indicate that it was — other fac­
tors equal, that it was getting blacker by the year.

Q. Is there an unusual factor about this option relat­
ing to its non-contiguous nature?

A. Well, it is a bit unusual in that it jumps the City 
of Bexley and the option is to schools on either side east 
and west of the City of Bexley.

Q. In your opinion, Dr, Foster, does this option 
established by the Columbus School System, at least from 
the records made available to us in the 1959-60 school 
term and continuing until 1975-76, did it have a racial 
effect?

A. In my opinion, it did. The option on the face of 
it would have been set up to permit the white pupils who 
lived in the optional zone to attend Fairmoor rather than 
Fair.

Q. Dr. Foster, is this an option which was unusual 
in nature except other than the discontiguous character­
istics or is it a type of option which in your research you 
have found before?

A. Well, it’s very similar to options that are set up 
to maintain an escape alley for whites as a school area gets 
blacker and where you have a white area or white zone 
that is [3479] available to which they can be optioned.

Q. All right. Did you examine the Franklin Junior 
High School, Eastmoor Junior High School optional at­
tendance area?

A. Yes, I did.
Q. Would you put up the overlays for them?
A. All right.
Q. Have you placed up the junior high overlay for 

1959-60?
A. Yes. I’m looking at the base map, again, Plaintiffs’ 

Exhibit 251, which is the 1960 Census, the junior high 
’59-60, which is Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 283.

This optional zone was — started at Fair-Fairmoor 
in ’59-60, and as depicted on the map towards the — just



453

the east of the center of the downtown area, Franklin 
Junior High would be the westernmost school, and again 
across Bexley to Eastmoor Junior High School, directly 
east of Franklin except for the intervening City of Bexley. 
This was carved, again, out of the easternmost part of 
Franklin Junior High School.

Q. All right. Franklin Junior High School, in 1964, 
had what racial composition?

A. According to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 12, Franklin was 
86 percent non-white in 1964.

Q. And Eastmoor?
[3480] A. Eastmoor was 31 percent non-white.
Q. All right. Examining the 1960 Census map, what 

does the underlying area for the Franklin Junior High 
area show?

A. Franklin Junior High School, overlooking the '60 
Census map, the northwest portion, which would be 
about, I would judge, a third of the total area, is colored 
mostly red with a little orange, meaning from the orange 
50 to 89.9 percent, the red, 90 to 100 percent black.

[3481] A. (Continuing) Everything south of Broad 
Street which would be roughly two-thirds of the zone as 
the elementary is colored some white, some blue, some 
green, some orange, ranging from the white at 0 percent 
to 9.90 up to 89.9 percent black.

The option which is Eastmoor Junior High has a 
rather peculiar configuration going all the way to the 
extreme east of the district approximately where York- 
town would be at this point, Yorktown Junior High School, 
and to the north of Whitehall and then back into the 
northwestern part of the Eastmoor zone just to the north­
east of Center City. This is an all white area except for 
that portion which comes out from the Center City and 
is blue, orange, red and a couple blocks which are green.

Q. How long did this option continue?
A. This option continued as the elementary through 

1974-75. It had some modification.



454

Q. What were the nature of the modifications?
A. In 1961-62 the option was changed to include an 

additional junior high school to the east which is Johnson 
Park. Johnson Park is directly south of Eastmoor Junior 
and comprises the area at that time to the extreme south­
west of the — I mean the southeast of the Columbus Dis­
trict. There are on the census 1960 map in the total area of 
Johnson Park, there is one pink block or one orange block,
[3482] one red block, I believe, and one blue block.

Q. Does that comprise the other half of the areas 
surrounding the Whitehall —

A. It is to the south and southwest of Whitehall, yes, 
sir. If you looked at the ’61-62 junior high school map 
which is PX 285, it would simply show an arrow coming out 
from Franklin or from the optional zone also down to 
Johnson Park which would indicate a three-way option 
rather than two.

Q. All right. How long did that particular double 
three-way option continue?

A. Well, in 1964 the option was for Johnson Park — I 
beg your pardon. In 1961-62 it changed from Franklin 
and Eastmoor to Franklin, Eastmoor and Johnson Park. 
Then in 1962-63 the option changed from Franklin Junior 
High School to Johnson Park, and it left out Eastmoor. 
Then the following year in 1963-64 it changed back to 
the option just between Franklin and Eastmoor, and it 
continued that way until the end of the option in ’74-75.

Q. I believe you described the Franklin attendance 
zone. What about the optional area itself; is its basic 
character the same as the one for the elementary?

A. Yes, it is coterminous with the elementary zone.
Q. Did those boundaries, elementary and junior high, 

remain the same in terms of the optional area through that
[3483] period, through 1975?

A. Through the life of the option, yes, sir.



Q. Dr. Foster, are optional attendance areas that have 
racial effect always between schools, one of which is 100 
percent or almost 100 percent white?

A. No, not necessarily. They can be between — well, 
for an example, it could be between a school that’s 90 
percent black and 50 percent white.

Q. In your experience, have you found that there is 
movement by whites to schools with lower percentages of 
black enrollment in the various communities you have 
studied?

A. Very definitely, yes.
Q. Is it true even with the so-called magnet programs?
A. Yes. That was particularly true in the Detroit 

case, magnet schools.
Q. What was the effect in your opinion, Dr. Foster, 

of the junior high option and its variations with respect 
to the Franklin Junior High School?

[3484] A. Well, I attempted to develop or to deter­
mine some rationale for the year’s change with Johnson 
Park, but I couldn’t understand why that was. The total 
effect of the junior high option would indicate to me the 
same as the elementary option, and that is that it allowed 
the white pupils in the optional zone to avoid going to 
Franklin Junior High School and instead go either to 
Eastmoor or to Johnson Park.

Q. What was Johnson Park’s racial composition in 
1964 as compared to Eastmoor?

A. Johnson Park in ’64 was 0.37 percent non-white.
O. And it was added to the option in which year?
A. For 1961-62 and stayed in ’62-63 and was out 

again in ’63-64.
Q. All right. Did you examine the optional attend­

ance area between East Senior High School and Eastmoor 
Senior High?

A. Yes, I did.



456

Q. Would you put up the senior high overlay for 
the ’59-60 school year?

A. This overlay is Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 304 and describes 
— well, on this is a picture of the option at the senior high 
level which is between East and Eastmoor, East being 
the school which is just off Broad Street towards the end 
of town, and Eastmoor again across Bexley and the same
[3485] plant as the Eastmoor Junior High School.

Q. Now, East Senior High was what racial compo­
sition in 1964?

A. In 1964 according to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 12, East 
was 95 percent non-white.

Q. And Eastmoor, the school to which the option 
was given?

A. In that same year it was 11 percent non-white.
Q. The underlying census data at East shows what 

in terms of color?
A. The East Senior High, about half of it, a little 

more than half is above, to the north of Broad Street, 
and that is almost entirely red or some orange, a little 
white to the extreme north and one or two blue blocks 
and I believe one green block just north of Broad, which 
would indicate that it was heavily black in that area. To 
the south of Broad you have some white blocks, I would 
judge perhaps a third of the number, and then you have 
a little bit of everything, green, blue, orange and red, 
to complete the picture.

Q. And in 1960 in Eastmoor, the underlying color 
was what?

A. The 1960 Census, Eastmoor was — the portion to 
the east of the zone, the Eastmoor High School encircled 
completely the City of Whitehall, and all of that portion
[3486] which is in the extreme southeast of the Columbus 
District, the extreme east and the northeast, as you go 
out eastward on Broad Street and Main Street, all of that 
was white except for two single blocks, one of which is



457

red and one orange. Then to the extreme northwest of 
the Eastmoor High School zone, as in the junior high 
school, coming out of the central part of the city, you 
find some red blocks, some blue blocks, about four green 
blocks.

Q. Roughly speaking, it formed a doughnut around 
the Whitehall City; is that correct?

A. That is correct, the attendance zone for Eastmoor 
Senior High School.

Q. All right, the senior high optional attendance area 
on the base map, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 251, does that show 
as white?

A. It shows as all white, yes, sir.
Q. And that is the same area that you previously 

described in giving the blocks and the number of people 
in each block from the 1960 Census; is that correct?

A. That is correct, yes, sir.
Q. In your opinion, Dr. Foster, what was the effect 

of the East Senior High-Eastmoor Senior High optional 
attendance area?

A. In my opinion, it was a racial oriented optional 
zone in that it allowed the white pupils who lived in the 
[3486A] optional zone to attend the predominantly white 
high school, Eastmoor, and to avoid being assigned to the 
East High School which was predominantly black or non­
white.

[3487] Q. How long did this option continue, Dr. 
Foster?

A. This option went on until last year. It ended this 
year and continued through 1974-1975.

Q. Now, Dr. Foster, you have described this same 
optional attendance geographic area appearing at elemen­
tary, junior and senior high school levels. Did you have 
any data showing how many students there were taking 
advantage of the option in each particular attendance 
period?



A. No, I did not. All you can do is make inference 
from the total population of the optional attendance zone.

Q. The School Board kept the option in the boundary 
directories for each of those years; is that correct?

A. Yes, sir, I believe so.
Q. In examining that option, Dr. Foster, did you find 

any capacity reason for such an option, particularly one 
located in that part of the zone?

MR. PORTER: I would object until he lays the 
groundwork for it.

THE COURT: Overruled.
A. At the junior high level and the senior high level, 

there would be, according to my figures, no capacity prob­
lem. For example, from 1962 until 1966, Franklin had 
space probably to house these pupils. They ranged from 
five under capacity in 1963 to 101 under capacity in 1965. 
At the same time Eastmoor starting in 1963 had a con­
siderable overcapacity [3488] at the senior high school 
level through the first four years of the option, at least, 
both high schools, East and Eastmoor, had considerable 
amount of capacity, and then it varied at both junior- 
senior high school levels for the next ten years of the 
option going back and forth one way and another on 
capacity. At the elementary level in 1961 through about 
the first ten years of the option, Fair was in an over­
capacity situation. At the same time, Fairmoor was also 
in an overcapacity situation, but not to the extreme that 
Fair was. My analysis of this would be that there weren’t 
probably enough pupils at any given level of the three 
levels in that optional zone to tax the capacity unduly 
of any of the schools involved.

[3489] Q. Was there another option involving the 
Franklin Junior High School and Roosevelt Junior High 
School?

A. Yes, sir.



459

Q. And when does the data indicate that that parti­
cular option began?

A. This option, according to my data, started in 
1955-56.

Q. And where was the option carved from?
A. It was carved out of the southern end of Franklin, 

which we can show, perhaps, with the junior high overlay 
in PX 281.

[3490] Q. (By Mr. Lucas) Dr. Foster, have you 
overlay up for the 1957-58 school term?

A. Junior high school, yes. It is PX 281 over Census 
Map 1960, PX 251.

Q. All right. Is there an option between Franklin 
Junior High and Roosevelt Junior High?

A. Yes.
[3491] Q. And I believe you testified already that it 

began in 1955-56, the school term; is that correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. What’s your source of that information?
A. At the center of the map, the blue hash marks, 

Roosevelt to the South and Franklin is to the north, and 
the optional zone is a one-block area wide, about 18 or 
20 blocks long in between the two.

Q. Where did you get the information, Dr. Foster, 
that the option began in 1955?

A. Out of the ’54 and ’55 directories. The ’55 direc­
tory is the first place you find the option. It’s not in the 
1954.

Q. All right. Does it show up in any of the OSU 
Studies?

A. It probably did. I don’t have a note to that effect, 
but those options are in one-page maps, usually, in the 
OSU Studies, and I would assume that it would show up 
in there, also.

Q. And how long did this particular option continue 
after the 1955-56 school year?



460

A. This continued through 1960-61, with some modi­
fications, very small modifications.

Q. All right. Would you explain the option, please?
A. All right. It’s carved out of the southern part

[3492] of Franklin, which is to the north. The option is 
bounded on the north by Main Street and on the east by 
Alum Creek, on the south by Mound Street and on the 
west by Monroe.

The base census map for 1960 shows the option to 
be predominantly white in the blocks with one or two 
green and blue blocks with the white ones, the green being 
ten to 27.9 percent black and the blue 28 to 49.9 percent 
black.

[3493] Q. What did the respective districts look like?
A. The Franklin district to the north on the 1960 

Census north of Broad Street was almost all orange or red, 
one or two blue blocks, one green block, a couple white 
ones. To the south of Broad, which is about half of the 
geographical portion of the zone, you have a combination 
of white blocks, blue blocks, green blocks and orange 
blocks.

The school to the south, Roosevelt Junior High School, 
in the extreme northern portion of the zone, had a scatter­
ing of white blocks, orange blocks, blue blocks and green 
blocks. Then starting south of Livingston, very few except 
white blocks. There are two or three green ones and two 
or three blue ones south of Livingston, indicating a pre­
dominantly white area total population-wise as of 1960.

Q. What were the enrollments as of 1964 between 
Franklin and Roosevelt?

A. PX 12 in 1964, Franklin Junior was listed as 86 
percent non-white, and Roosevelt was listed as 40 percent 
non-white.

Q. Would it be fair to describe the areas described 
by the option as in a changing area from your examination 
of the map?



461

A. That is correct. It is along the portion of the 
Franklin area that is changing.

Q. All right, and did it begin in 1955, whereas the
[3494] Census Map that you have is for 1960; is that 
correct?

A. That is correct.
Q. Can we place underneath the 1950 Census, please?
All right, we still have the 1957-58 overlay, Plaintiffs’ 

Exhibit 261 now overlaid on Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 250, the 
1950 Census. The Roosevelt zone as of the 1950 period is 
mostly white in its underlying color; is that correct?

A. It is all white except for about 8 or 10 blocks to 
the north and to the west — well, yes, that would be right 
— which are blue, green, and three orange ones in the 
extreme northwest.

Q. And these boundaries again as of ’57-58, the 
Franklin School location is above that area in an area that 
is apparently changing as of the 1950 Census; is that 
correct?

A. That’s correct, because the color line is at Broad 
Street primarily, and south of Broad you have a mixture 
of primarily green and blue blocks with a predominant 
number of white ones in the 1950 Census.

[3495] Q. All right. I show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit 61, 
the 1955-56 Study, Public School Building Needs, Colum­
bus, Ohio, referring you to page 18, figure 3, grades 7 
through 9, and ask you if the option appears on that map?

A. The option does appear, yes, sir.
MR. PORTER; Could we have the reference again, 

please, the exhibit number?
MR. LUCAS: Sure. 61, page 18, figure 3.
MR. PORTER: Thank you.
Q, All right. The students attending Franklin were 

given an option to attend the Roosevelt School under this 
option, as you understand it?

A. Or Franklin, yes, sir.



462

Q. How many blocks long was this option?
A. I believe I testified about 18 to 20 blocks long and 

one block wide.
Q. Was this option modified in 1960?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have the 1960 overlay?
A. Yes. We place Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 284, the junior 

high 60-61 overlay over the junior high ’57-58, which is 
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 281 —

Q. Excuse me. I believe you’d better move the other 
base map. I’m sorry.

A. All right. Placing Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 284 over 281,
[3496] and both of them being over the 1960 Census, you 
can see that there are two or three blocks at the extreme 
western end of the option which do not continue in 1960- 
61. Otherwise, the option continues as before.

The western boundary of the option was shortened, 
I believe, by two blocks, which would move it over from 
Monroe to 18th Street, as I read the map.

Q. All right. Was there further modification in 1961?
A. Yes, the modification in 1961 was that the option 

was closed. The PX 285 overlay, PX 284, will illustrate 
that the option in ’61-62 was closed, and the optional zone 
was a re — well, it was rezoned, the optional area was 
rezoned back into Franklin.

Q. All right. And Franklin was the predominantly 
black school?

A. That’s correct. Franklin stood at 86 non-white, 
Roosevelt at 40 percent.

Q. All right. Dr. Foster, in general, from your experi­
ence with optional attendance zones, do they tend to be 
changed or closed after they have served a particular 
purpose?

A. Well, not always, but they tend to be, yes. Some 
of them just drag on through unnecessarily, I think.



463

Q. Does this particular change in the Franklin zone
[3497] fit any pattern which you’re familiar with?

MR. PORTER: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
A. Yes. As the area that’s under option gets blacker 

in the two schools, if they are two that are involved, both 
approach each other in racial composition, then there’s 
less reason or little reason to maintain an option if, indeed, 
it is a racial option, and I would so judge this option, 
because it’s obviously nothing to do with capacity based 
on the figures.

[3498] A. (Continued) And as there is less need —- 
if there are no whites left in here to go south to the 
Roosevelt High School, then there is no longer need for 
the option.

Q. You said there was no capacity reason. Did you 
study the capacity between Franklin and Roosevelt to see 
whether that might account for this kind of option?

A. Yes, I did.
Q. What did you find?
A. I found that for the six years of the option, there 

was undercapacity each year in Franklin ranging from 28 
seats to 152 seats available in 1958.

Q. That’s the school the option was carved from; is 
that correct?

A. Yes. In Roosevelt there was overcapacity the first 
four years ranging from 23 seats to 76 seats in 1958; and 
in 1959 and 1960 there was less or there was more capacity 
available still at Franklin than there was at Roosevelt. 
Both of them were under utilized.

Q. And if there had been a question of Franklin being 
overcrowded and a desire to assign or permit some stu­
dents an option out of Franklin into another school in an 
effort to relieve the overcrowding, would you have ex­
pected to find that Franklin was -- its enrollment figures 
and capacity figures, that it showed seriously overcrowded?



464

A. If it was an option for capacity reasons, yes, you
[3499] would expect Franklin to be overcrowded.

Q. Dr. Foster, did you examine the optional area 
between Central Senior High and North Senior High?

A. Yes, I did.
Q. I believe this started in 1960-61; is that correct?
A. Yes, sir. We have on the board the senior high 

’60-61, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 305, overlaying the 1960 Census, 
PX 251.

Q. All right. Would you describe the — first of all, 
do you know what school the option was carved from?

A. According to my records, it was carved out of the 
northwestern portion of the Central zone, the Central zone 
being a high school zone to the southwest of the city 
directly west of center city and extending on out in a 
northerly portion which surrounds Grandview Heights and 
I believe includes most of what would be the elementary 
attendance zone at Kingswood. That’s the Kingswood 
area. So the option was carved out of we could say the 
northwestern part of Central, and the option was between 
Central and North which is immediately to the north 
of the Central District.

Q. All right, and the optional attendance areas de­
scribed in PX 305, the senior high overlay for ’60-61, what 
does the racial composition show as the underlying census 
data?

[3500] A. If you look at the hash marks illustrating 
the option, it is all white except for one block almost at the 
extreme western end of the option, and that one block 
is blue.

Q. All right. Would you describe the Central and 
North Senior High attendance zones in light of their 
underlying demographic data?

A. All right. The 1960 Census underlay shows that 
North is completely white except for a small portion in the 
southeastern part and about three blocks otherwise which



465

are green in the southern part around Ohio State Uni­
versity. In the southeastern part there are about I would 
say 10 to 15 blocks, a couple of which are green, three 
of which are blue, and the rest are either orange or red.

The Central attendance zone at that time, according 
to the 1960 Census, would be predominantly white also, 
but a considerable number more of blocks scattered 
around the periphery and also some in the center of red, 
orange, green and blue. I would says about perhaps a third 
of the blocks or a little more maybe would be non-white 
blocks, would be colored blocks.

Q. What was the racial composition of Central, the 
zone, the attendance area from which the option was 
carved in 1964 according to the exhibits?

A. Central would have been 27 percent non-white, 
while North was 7 percent non-white in 1964.

[3501] Q. All right, and do you have the latter en­
rollments at those schools?

A. Yes, I do.
Q. What happened to the enrollment of those two 

schools?
A. Well, this option continued through 1974-75, last 

year, with some modification.
[3502] A. (Continuing) And in 1974-75, the year the 

option ended, Central was 33.6 percent non-white, and 
North Senior High was 15.6 percent non-white.

Q. All right. You’ve said there was some modifications 
in the option. Can you tell us what they were and when 
they took place?

A. The modification was that in 1960-61, it started, 
the option started with grade ten, and in 1961-62, it in­
cluded grades ten through twelve, and I believe that’s the 
only modification that was involved.

Q. All right. Where was the optional area put back 
after — when it was changed this school year?

A. If we overlayed the senior high ’75-76 map, we 
would see that it was back into Central.



466

Q. During the period the option existed, do you have 
an opinion as to what the effect of the option was?

MR. PORTER: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. In my opinion, the option was primarily racial, 

allowing whites to go from the Kingswood area and Cen­
tral High School into North High School, which contin­
uously was a whiter school. I have an idea there also may 
have been some overtones of the fact that Central, I 
believe, is considered sort of an inner city school while 
North would be more of a suburban school. I would expect 
there would be some [3503] of that in it, also.

Q. Was there a capacity problem with this option?
A. No capacity problem that I could determine. Roth 

Central and North, from 1960, especially for the first ten 
years of the option, were underutilized by a large number 
of students, anywhere from 180 to over 400, as high as 580 
at one point at North, underutilized, and only in the last 
three years, North has become overpopulated while Cen­
tral is about even. So for the largest part of the life of the 
option, there was no capacity problem either way.

Q. North, even when it became overpopulated, sub­
stantially so, compared to its earlier underutilization?

A. No, only somewhere between 15 seats in 1974 and 
90 in 1972, which is very insignificant for a high school.

Q. All right. Did you examine an option, Dr. Foster, 
which included East Senior High and Linden Senior High 
— which appeared in 1962-63?

A. Yes, I did. ’62-63. On the board, we have senior 
high ’62-63, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 307 overlay, PX 251, a 
1960 Census.

[3504] Q. All right. Did you determine from the map 
and from the directories that the option began in 1962-63? 
In this case, did you primarily rely on the map?

A. My notes don’t include the origin. It is included on 
the map that this was the first year.



467

Q. All right. How long did this one continue?
A, This started in ’62-63 and continued through 

75-76.
Q. Would you describe, first of all, the boundaries 

of the option?
A. All right. The option is almost in dead center of 

the map. It’s a rectangular area, nearly square. It’s bor­
dered on the north by Windsor Street, on the east by 
Woodland, on the south by a railroad, I believe the N 
and — I’m not sure, maybe a couple of railroads — any­
way, railroad tracks, and on the west by Joyce.

The option — I’m sorry.
Q. The optional attendance area, the part that’s cross- 

hatched in green, what does the underlying census data 
show for that?

A. The 1960 Census shows a combination of white 
blocks, and to the north red blocks and orange blocks, I 
would judge about a third each.

Q. All right. And what does the 1960 — I’m sorry.
First of all, before you do that, tell us what [3505] 

the underlying attendance boundaries, what the demo­
graphic data is for East and for Linden?

A. All right. For East to the south of the option — 
and the option comes out of the northern part almost like 
a chimney of the east zone. The east, north of Broad 
Street, is almost completely red with a few orange blocks 
and very few white ones.

Q. Would you describe the boundary, just with the 
pointer, so the Court can see it?

A. All right (indicating). It’s about half above Broad 
and half below Broad to the east of the center part of 
town.

Q. And the chimney extends up to, what street is 
that on the north?

A. The chimney extends up to Woodland, and I be­
lieve it encompasses what has been described in the case



468

as the American Addition, which is to the north of that 
chimney.

To the south of Broad High Street and East High 
School zone, you will find a combination of white, orange,, 
red, blue and green, pretty much an equal mix, I would 
say, to the north of the option, Linden-McKinley, which 
is in the center part of the Columbus District and a little
to the north of downtown.

[3506] A. (Continuing) North of 17th you will find 
all white blocks except for one or two green ones and one 
blue one. Then south of 17th which at this point in the 
1960 Census appears to be the racial line, you will find a 
few white blocks, a few blue and green ones, and the 
balance red and a couple of pink ones.

Q, Is the Linden-McKinley zone one that has changed 
frequently as you go through the maps, attendance bound­
aries?

A. Yes, especially in the southern part as the black 
population goes north and then northeast through the 
years.

Q. In 1964, what was the enrollment at East?
A. In 1964, PX 12 would indicate that East was 95 

percent non-white and Linden was 12 percent non-white.
Q. All right. Were there any changes in this parti­

cular option in 1975-76?
A. I don’t have any, no, sir.
Q. All right. When it was ended, when the option 

was ended, what had happened to the two zones in terms 
of the racial enrollment?

A. Well, I would like to check, but my notes indicate 
it is not ended. If I could have the ’75 overlay.

All right. PX 320, the senior high ’75-76, would indi­
cate that the option in ’75-76 is the same as in 62-63 
except for one block further extension west which I would 
assume would probably be the western portion of Joyce 
Avenue, [3507] since sometimes the directories will indi­



469

cate that one side of the street goes one way and one the 
other on the boundary line.

Q. All right. During the period that the option has 
existed, I believe in ’64 East was 95 percent non-white, 
Linden-McKinley 12 percent non-white. Did this option 
in your opinion have any racial effect?

MR. PORTER: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
You may answer.
A. In my opinion, it was definitely a racial option at 

its beginning, since you have a disparity of 95 percent in 
East non-white in 1964 and Linden-McKinley with 12 
percent in 1964 non-white. Continuing through the years 
you have a similar disparity except that about 1970 — well, 
a little before 1970. About 1966, a couple years later, 
Linden began to change in racial composition. In 1968-69 
it was 35.5 percent non-white, while East was 98.9 percent. 
This year, 1975-76, East is 99 percent non-white and Lin­
den is 89.5 percent non-white. It would seem to me that 
as of now there is obviously no racial connection with the 
option and it is not — in examining the capacity data cer­
tainly for the first nine or ten years of the option, there 
was no capacity problem involved.

Q. What were the capacity figures between East and
[3508] Linden?
A. Well, for the first — pardon?
Q. Between East and Linden?
A. Reading a few of them quickly in the first nine 

years starting with 1962, East was under 264, under 37, 
under 65. In 1965 it was over 97, over 109, over 6. Then 
in 1968 it was under 7 and in 1969 under 60. Linden High 
School maintained a constant undercapacity in those years 
ranging from 584 under capacity to about 10 under capacity 
in 1967.

[3509] Q. All right. Did you examine the options 
between West Mound and Highland?

A. Yes, I did.



470

Q, Did you examine this both in terms of the optional 
attendance area and in terms of boundary changes?

A. Well, yes. Boundary changes are always part of 
optional attendance zones because the boundaries do 
change as the options change.

Q. Put rip the 1950 base map if you would, please,
first.

A. We have on the board PX 263 which is the elemen­
tary ’59-60 overlay and PX 250 which is the 1950 Census.

Q. All right. Point out the area of the option, if you
will.

A. It is to the western portion of the district lying 
between Highland and West Mound, Highland being to 
the north and West Mound to the south. The option 
comes out of the southeastern part of the Highland Ele­
mentary attendance zone.

Q. In 1950 that area shows white; is that correct?
A. The optional area shows all white in the 1950 

Census.
Q. All right. Looking at the Highland and West 

Mound area in 1950, the West Mound shows entirely 
white, whereas part of the Highland zone has red, green 
and orange in it; [3510] is that correct?

A. Just about, but there is one block in West Mound 
which I believe is green just south of Stafford. Otherwise 
they are all white. Highland is partly red, partly orange, 
partly green and blue and white.

Q. All right. This particular concentration of black 
population, does it have some common name in terms of 
its geographic area?

A. I believe that’s called the hilltop area, if I am not 
mistaken.

Q. Now, let’s put the 1960 Census up.
All right, is the optional area still white?

A. Looking now at the ’60 Census underneath, the 
optional area is still all white. The West Mound Elemen­
tary attendance area has added three or four blocks either



471

green or blue in the northwest corner, and the Highland 
attendance area has added a considerable number of 
green, blue and red and orange blocks which leaves it 
only with its north — well, about a third of the eastern, 
a third of the Highland zone to the east is still white, ac­
cording to the 1960 Census.

Q, When did this option start?
A. According to my notes, it started in 1955-1956.
Q. And what is the source of your information with 

respect to the starting date?
[3510A] A. The ’55 directory, plus the OSU 1955 

study which is PX 61, Figure 2, page 17.
[3511] Q. All right. How long did it continue?
A. It continued through 1960-61.
Q. And this was carved originally out of Highland 

in the southeastern end; is that correct?
A. That is correct (indicating).
Q. What happened in terms of enrollment? What 

does the data show for 1964 at West Mound?
A. PX 12 indicates that in 1964 West Mound was 15 

percent non-white, Highland was 75 percent non-white.
Q. The option is approximately what, three blocks 

long?
A. I would judge so, and it’s square, virtually square, 

but I think those are probably long — they appear to be 
long blocks running north and south.

Q. What was the effect of this option, in your opin­
ion, Dr. Foster?

MR. PORTER: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. In my opinion, this was a racial option which al­

lowed the whites to leave Highland, which was largely 
and shortly a non-white zone, and go to West Mound, 
which was a white area.

Q. Okay. Was this area rezoned the following year 
to the option, in other words, ended?



472

A. In ’61-62, most of the option was zoned into 
[3512] West Mound.

Q. All right. Can we put that overlay up?
A. Looking at elementary ’61-62, which is Plaintiffs’ 

Exhibit 264 over Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 263, there is a jagged 
line at the southern end of Highland and at the northern 
end of West Mound indicating a new boundary line which 
ended the option and took in, I would say, the northern 
third of the area into — optional area into Highland and 
the southern two-thirds into West Mound.

Q. All right. So the wider area which previously had 
optioned into West Mound by this boundary change is 
assigned to West Mound?

A. About two-thirds of it, yes, sir.
Q. Is this in any way, from your analysis, a capacity 

change?
A. It could be in the sense that Highland’s was over­

capacity for those years, ’55 to ’60, ranging from 10 over­
capacity in ’59 to 105 over in 1957, whereas West Mound 
was under capacity in five of those years, ranging from 
under 4 seats in 1957 to 105 in 1960, but overcapacity in 
1968 by 137, the point being, however, in terms of racial 
connotation of this option is that if they really had a 
capacity problem, and I think it probably did, it would 
have been very simple to make the option to the west of 
the option that did exist and have a desegregative effect 
rather than [3513] allowing the whites to — if they really 
needed seats, then they could have zoned an area further 
west of the option providing numbers of pupils could be 
moved, and they would undoubtedly have been black 
pupils rather than white pupils as this case would be.

[3514] Q. Are you saying they could have created 
an option or they simply could have redrawn the attend­
ance zones?

A. The attendance problem being east, the intelli­
gent thing would have been to actually rezone, it seems



473

to me, so you know that children were going to move 
rather than give the choice.

Q. When they do rezone, where do they change the 
boundary?

A. They changed the southern part of the optional 
zone which was white and left the northern part in High­
land.

Q. And I don’t recall if I asked you what the racial 
enrollment at West Mound and Highland was in ’64?

A. I believe I testified to that. In 1964, West Mound 
was 15 percent non-white and Highland was 75 percent 
non-white.

Q, Was there another change in this particular area?
A. There was another change in Highland, another 

option in the Highland attendance zone which started in 
1955, and it was carved out of the northwest sort of pan­
handle section of Highland. I’ll have to go back to the 
’55 map here.

Q. Does this option show up in 1955, Dr. Foster?
A. We’re about to determine that.
Okay. The first overlay we have is ’57-58, which 

is PX 261, and it’s not on that overlay because by then the
[3515] option has already been removed, but the data 
indicate in PX 58, the 1939 OSU survey, which I believe 
is on Figure 14, page 111 —

Q. Would you turn to that, please?
A. — shows the Highland zone going to the north.
Q. The original Highland zone, is that shown on the 

1939 OSU survey?
A. Yes.
Q. And that’s PX 58, page 111, Figure 14?
A. Yes, captioned “Distribution of Pupils, Grades 1 

through 6, Inclusive.”
Q. All right. Now, that’s not an option at that period 

of time; is that correct?
A. It simply shows the Highland zone running east 

and west much as it does now underneath the Columbus



474

State Hospital to tlie north, and then going on up on the 
western side of the Columbus State Hospital to the north, 
all that being one zone with no options.

Q. All right. I’ll show you Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 61, Figure 
2, the grades 1 through 6 for 1955. Does that show what 
I would call the chimney to the north has been converted 
into an optional attendance area?

A. That is correct, Figure 2.
Q. Would you give us the boundaries of that option, 

please, the streets?
[3516] A. The boundaries are the Pennsylvania Rail­

road, and the District boundaries to the north; to the east 
would be the Columbus State Hospital; to the south was 
Broad Street, and on the west was Eldon, which I believe 
is about three or four blocks to the west.

Q. That option, according to the data available, you 
started in 1955?

A. That’s correct, and continued through ’56-67. In 
other words, a two-year option.

Q. It does not appear on the ’57-58 overlay up on the 
map; is that correct?

A. That’s correct.
Q. From the 1939 survey you determined that it was 

part of the Highland Zone and from the ’55 OSU Report 
you determined that the northern portion of the Highland 
Zone was created an option for a two-year period; is that 
correct?

A. That’s correct.
Q. What does the underlying census data for 1950 

show for the area that was made into an option?
A. The area which I just described as the optional 

area is all black for the 1950 census.
Q. I am sorry.
A. I beg your pardon. All white, and that’s not to say 

white people, but white blocks on the census map.
[3517] Q, Highland and West Broad at the same 

time, can you describe them in terms of the census?



475

A. On the 1950 census map, West Broad is -
Q. Perhaps you might want to refer back to the 1939 

boundaries.
A. -  completely white and Highland is about two- 

thirds white, one third red, orange, blue and green, and I 
don’t think the boundary would affect that.

Q. Except for the optional attendance area portion 
of Highland; is that correct?

A. That’s correct.
Q. What did they do when they eliminated the op­

tion in 1957, Dr. Foster?
A. They moved the option to West Broad which is 

shown on the elementary ’57-58 overlay.
Q. When you say they moved the option, you mean 

they cut off the northern portion of the Highland Attend­
ance Zone?

A. That’s correct, at Broad Street.
Q. Redrew the boundary line at Broad; is that correct?
A. For a portion of it, then it dips farther south and 

again farther south before it goes back up to Broad and 
goes west.

Q. What was the effect, first of all, of the optional 
attendance area during the period 1955 through 1958?

A. In my opinion, this was a racial option which 
allowed [3518] the whites in the optional zone to leave 
Highland’s and go to West Broad.

Q. What was the effect of the change in the boundary 
between Highland and West Broad in 1957, Dr. Foster?

A. This would have further compacted the blacks 
population into Highland and placed the white portion of 
the Highland Zone, at least this part of the Highland Zone, 
into West Broad Street which would have had a segrega­
tive effect on both counts rather than a desegregative 
effect.

Q. At one period of time actually with respect to 
Highland, we had an option in the eastern part of the zone



476

which was eliminated in part by taking part of the option 
and assigning it down to West Mound; is that correct?

A. That’s correct.
Q. Originally Highland went up to the north in a 

chimney here, then that was made an option and then it 
was cut off and assigned to West Broad; is that correct?

A. That’s correct.
MR. PORTER: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

BY MR. LUCAS:
Q. The net effect of all of those actions on Highland, 

Dr. Foster, do you have an opinion as to that?
A. I believe I just said that it — both options and the 

way the boundary lines were handled at the close of the 
options [3519] tended to impact the blacks in the High­
land and make for whiter schools in both West Mound and 
West Broad, having a segregative effect on both counts.

Q. According to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 12, what was the 
racial enrollment in 1964 in Highland?

A. Seventy-five percent non-white in ’64.
Q. West Broad?
A. Zero percent non-white.
Q. That’s the area that had the white portion of 

Highland assigned to it; is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is this an area where a simple redrawing of 

attendance boundaries, this Hilltop area, in a different 
manner from that which they were drawn, have effected 
substantially desegregation? Have you looked at that?

A. Yes, because I think this is an obvious example of 
when, if a school district really went into — a desegregator 
had any inclination to do so at any point in time from the 
options and what went on then until this current year.

MR. PORTER: If the Court please, I will object to 
it. It is not responsive to the question.



477

THE COURT: It was had any inclination to do so, 
specific with what could have been done, so we will 
allow that.
BY MR. LUCAS:

Q. Go ahead, Dr. Foster.
[3520] A. Any time until the present, and including 

next fall, for example, the — if I might have the 75-76 
option.

Q. Dr. Foster, just a moment. Go ahead.
A. We found elementary ’75-76, which is Plaintiffs 

Exhibit 278. The underlying census data is incorrect be­
cause it is 1950, but I don’t think we need that to illustrate 
what it is I am describing.

If you take the schools West Broad, Highland, West 
Mound, which are the three we have been talking about 
in terms of boundary changes and options, and you add 
Burroughs, which is contiguous, these three schools are all 
contiguous to Highland; West Broad being on the north­
west, Burroughs to the west and southwest and West 
Mound to the south and southeast of Highland’s.

Q. What are their racial enrollments today?
A. This year the racial enrollment are Highland 67.1 

percent non-white; West Broad 2.0 percent non-white; 
West Mound 13.9 percent, and Burroughs 11.2 percent.

Either by redrawing boundary lines or by some com­
bination of pairing or grouping, it would be relatively 
simple to desegregate all four of those schools and make 
them racially non-identifiable. If you add up the total 
population of those four elementary schools, which are 
right together, you have 20.6 percent non-white as of the 
current year.

MR. PORTER: If the Court please, I move to strike
[3521] the answer. It has no relevancy to this proceeding.

THE COURT: Overruled.
BY MR. LUCAS:

Q. Go ahead, Dr. Foster.



478

A. Current year shows 3,060 capacity for the four 
schools with 2,773 enrollment, which would allow capacity 
for either boundary changes or pairing or grouping.

Q. Going back to the option, Highland and West 
Broad, did you take a look to see if that was a capacity 
problem in 1954 through 1957?

A. Yes.
Q. Your data substantiating these capacities again was 

the various studies and exhibit numbers you related earlier?
A. That’s correct. The option was that of Highland 

to West Broad, and in 1955 Highland was 63 over capacity, 
but West Broad was 115 over capacity.

In 1956 Highland was 67 over, but West Broad was 
113 over, so my conclusion was that it would not have been 
for capacity reasons.

[3522] Q, Dr. Foster, did you examine what is called 
in the records of the Board the downtown option?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. What documents did you use to examine this 

particular optional area?
A. The Ohio State 55 Study, which is PX 61, page 17, 

Figure 2, also the Original Plaintiffs’ History Exhibit cov­
ered part of this option, which I believe was started in 
1925.

Q. I believe that was the Board minutes you’ve 
indicated?

A. As I remember it.
Q. Was that called a neutral zone at that time?
A. I believe so, yes.
[3523] Q. All right. Would you describe the option, 

please?
A. The option is in the center of the downtown dis­

trict. It is bordered on the north and northwest by railroad 
tracks. It is bordered on the east by Ft. Hayes which is 
to the east of the white area square on the map. It is 
bordered on the south by King and Broad, King to the 
south of Ft. Hayes and then Broad further south.



479

THE COURT: Did you say King?
THE WITNESS: That’s what my notes indicate, and 

I believe the map will indicate that. It is sort of jumbled. 
I beg your pardon. It is Spring. Then on farther south by 
Broad. Then to the west part of it on High Street and 
part of it on Front Street, Front being the farthest to the 
south of the western portion.

The option started with seven alternatives starting on 
the northwest with Hubbard. Next to it towards the west 
would be Milo. The next one reading clockwise would be 
Garfield and then Eastwood, and farther south would be 
Douglas and then Fulton, and finally Mohawk would be 
directly south of the option. So it would be a total of 
seven options.

[3524] Q. All right. Did you examine the census data 
underneath the — on the 1950 map, base map?

A. Yes. The overlay is elementary ’57-58, which is 
PX 61 over the 50 Census data. A good portion of the 
option to the west is white with two or three green or blue 
blocks, to the south there are some blue or green blocks, 
and I have one orange, then there’s an eastern portion 
just to the west of the option, just to the west of the Gar­
field zone which is also red. Part of the option on the 
overlay covers the Fort Hayes area, which is all white, and 
explains the white block from the northwest corner of the 
option — northeast corner. I’m sorry.

Q. All right. Did you take a look at the 1940, ’50, 
’60 and ’70 Census data and determine what kind of resi­
dents there were in this area?

A. Yes, I did.
Q. All right. Can you tell us what the 1940 Census 

shows by age groups?
A. The 1940 Census for this area comprised Tract 30 

and a portion of Tract 35, ages 5 to 14. Estimated Tract 
30 had a total of 644, 315 of whom were blacks. I took a 
third of Tract 35, which is an approximation. This would 
give a total of 254 and 182 of whom were blacks.



480

Q. All right. What about the 1950 Census?
A. The 1950 Census would include — the data was 

for [3525] all ages, that is, a total population. Tract 30 
indicated 3,137 blacks, 1,395 whites, and one-third, again, 
an estimation of one-third of Tract 35 would be 1,528 
blacks, 1,038 whites.

In 1960, again all ages, Tract 30 indicated 3,778 
blacks, 716 whites, and a third of Tract 35 indicated 1578 
blacks and 433 whites.

In 1970, again all ages, indicated from Tract 30 728 
blacks and 282 whites, and a third of Tract 35 was 415 
blacks and 244 whites.

These figures indicate a declining population and also 
an increasing percentage black of that population that was 
remaining.

[3526] Q. All right. What happened to this particu­
lar optional attendance area? Before you do that, give us 
the 1964 racial enrollments at the seven receiving schools.

A. Okay, the seven receiving schools in 1964, accord­
ing to the PX 12, the racial percentages were Hubbard, 
7 percent non-white; Mohawk, 11 percent non-white; 
Douglas, 54 percent non-white; Fulton, 85 percent non­
white; Milo, 90 percent non-white; Garfield, 99 percent 
non-white; and Eastwood, 100 percent non-white.

Q. All right, what happened to this option in 1958- 
59? Was there any change?

A. No, sir.
Q. And in ’59-60?
A. No change in either ’58 or ’59.
Q, All right, in 1960-61, was there a change?
A. Yes. Part of the option went into western Garfield.
Q. Let’s put the 1960 Census up.
A. All right. I have on the board elementary ’60-61 

which is PX 284A overlaying elementary ’57-58 which is 
PX 261, both of them overlaying the 1960 Census.

Q. All right, what happened to the optional attend­
ance area in 1960-61?



481

A. It is pretty difficult to see on the map, but the 
western portion of Garfield picked up I believe two or 
three blocks from the eastern part of the option, approxi­
mately [3527] four square blocks I have on my notes, 
which would be the part directly under Fort Hayes which 
was added to the Garfield zone and taken out of the option.

The other thing that happened was that Fulton was 
dropped as a receiving school which left six of the original 
seven schools.

Q, What happened demographically underneath on 
the Garfield change? Does that change of boundary con­
form in any way to the underlying racial census data for 
1960?

A. The I960 Census data would indicate that the 
portion that was moved into Garfield during ’60-61 was 
all red, I believe. I believe that’s correct.

Q. Does the new boundary of the option show that 
it is white to the west of the Garfield boundary?

A. I think except for one block perhaps at the cor­
ner of the part that was removed which is red. The rest 
of it would be largely white, yes, sir.

Q. The underlying red part has been put into Gar­
field. What was the enrollment of Garfield in ’64?

A. Racial percentage?
Q. Yes.
A. 99 percent non-white.
Q. All right, was there another change in 1961-62?
A. Yes, in ’61-62 Mohawk was dropped as a receiving 

school. That’s the school directly south of the option.
[3527A] Then in ’63 and 64 Mohawk was put back 

in which is illustrated on the maps if we put them on the 
board.

[3528] Q. All right. And that would be Plaintiffs’ 
Exhibit 264 and 266, representing ’61 and ’62, ’63, ’64 
maps?

A. That’s correct.



482

Q. In 1964-65, was there another change?
A. Two blocks on the west end of Clearbrook — we ll 

put up PX 267, which is the ’64-65 map.
’64-65 elementary overlay is PX 267. This illustrates 

approximately a two-block portion of the southern-eastern 
most part of the option was moved into the western end 
of the Clearbrook elementary zone.

It also illustrates that Mohawk was taken back out 
of the option in that area, ’64-65, out of the receiving 
schools.

Q. And there’s a dotted line in the Clearbrook zone. 
Can you tell me what that means?

A. I believe that has to do with grade structure, in­
dicating that certain grades can go — I’m not exactly sure. 
I believe that’s what it is.

Q. All right. Which area of the Clearbrook zone was 
it that the boundaries expanded into?

A. Into the western portion.
Q. All right. Was that an expansion or contraction 

of the option?
A. That was a contraction. I believe that dotted line 

across Clearbrook indicates it’s part of another zone with 
a [3529] 1 through 6 structure, and Clearbrook would 
be, I believe, a primary structure, if I remember correctly. 

Q. All right. In ’66-67 —
A. There’s one other change here, and that is the 

option extended eastward a block or two into Felton, and 
that can be seen just to the east of the Ft. Hayes area. 
The option previously was along the same line as the 
Ft. Hayes boundary line, and it moves east a block or 
two into the Felton attendance zone.

Q. All right. In ’66-67, was the option extended again?
A. I don’t — the option was extended west a block 

or two in Felton, the same as before ’64-65, having dropped



483

out the year before. It changes back and forth a little 
every year. It makes it sort of complicated.

Q. Okay. In 1967-68, were some schools dropped out?
A. ’67-68, Milo dropped out and Eastwood was 

dropped and Fulton was reinstated. And then in ’70-71, 
Milo came back into the option. Those are all various 
Plaintiffs’ Exhibits, being elementary map overlays.

Q. What happened in 1975-76?
A. The total option was ended in 1975-76 and moved 

into — what was left of it into Garfield, which is depicted 
on Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 278.

[3530] Q. All right. During this period of years when 
the downtown option existed, is it your understanding that 
the option was carved out of some particular attendance 
area or was it a neutral zone?

A. I think you referred to it earlier as a so-called 
neutral zone which we defined in our testimony previously 
as not being carved out of any zone, but simply being 
between or among different zones.

Q. All right. What is the effect of such an option 
between racially dispairing schools in an area with a 
mixed population in general?

A. Well, the surrounding receiving schools change 
considerably from time to time, but in 1964, they ranged 
from 7 percent at Hubbard non-white and 11 non-white 
at Mohawk to 100 percent non-white at Eastwood, and 
the effect racially is simply to allowing everybody in this 
option to choose where they wanted to go and, ordinarily, 
what happens then, the whites would move to Hubbard 
or to Mohawk, and as opposed to a non-racial policy of 
simply assigning these pupils if you want to promote de­
segregation to certain schools, you would assign black 
areas to Hubbard, for example, or white areas in the zone 
to some of the racially-identifiable black schools.

[3531] Q. What was the effect of the change in the 
boundary with respect to the Garfield zone?



484

A. Well, it simply compacted the black population in 
Garfield and moved the black zone west two or three 
blocks.

Q. The last year of the option, can you give me the 
racial composition of the four schools remaining? Perhaps 
we ought to put up the 1970 base map and the 74-75 
overlay.

A. Did you say the 74-75 or 75-76?
Q. Let’s try 74-75 first.
A. We have on the board PX 277 which is the ele­

mentary 74-75 with the 1970 Census underneath that 
which is Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 252, and it shows the last year 
of the so-called downtown option which is in the center.

Q. Now, the western boundary of the Garfield School 
is almost coterminous with the racial boundary, is that 
correct, or a few blocks on the other side?

A. One or two blocks to the west are colored orange 
or blue, I believe, in a white area. Otherwise, it is along 
the racial line.

Q. Has the southern boundary of the Garfield School 
changed without putting the other overlay on?

A. I believe it has gone further south to Broad Street, 
and all of Clearbrook is incorporated.

Q. All right. Looking at the Felton and Garfield at­
tendance zones, does that make an almost even dividing 
line [3532] between the underlying base data color of 
red and orange and white to the west?

A. Are you asking if there is about equal territory?
Q. No, no. I am asking does the boundary generally 

proceed along that dividing line?
A. Yes, sir, except the boundary line to the west of 

Felton is on the 74-75 overlays Fort Hayes which is white, 
and there are no pupils presumably out of that area.

Q. And this option is eliminated in 75-76. Let’s put 
that overlay up.



485

Now, on this map the Fort Hayes is now shown as 
having an attendance area; is that correct?

A. That’s correct. It is bordered completely with an 
attendance zone line, but it is not assigned any school.

Q. And the Garfield zone is expanded to the west 
for the first time and picks up these additional blocks, 
white blocks to the west, western area of the option; is 
that correct?

A. That is correct.
Q. What were the last schools to which the option 

pertained in 1974-75?
A. The option was still to Hubbard to the northwest, 

to Garfield to the east, to Douglas to the southeast and to 
Beck to the south which by that time had included part 
of [3533] the — well, it included I guess all of the Fulton 
zone.

Q. In ’64 Hubbard was what percentage non-white?
A. In ’64 Hubbard was 7 percent non-white.
Q. And in 1974-75?
A. Hubbard was 0.9 percent non-white in ’74-75.
Q. And Garfield in ’84 was what?
A. Garfield in ’64 was 99 percent black.
Q. And in ’74?
A. It was 99.2 percent black or non-white.
Q. And what was Douglas in ’74?
A. Douglas had gone from 54 percent non-white in 

’64 to 85 percent non-white in 1974.
Q. And Beck?
A. Beck was 17.2 percent non-white in ’74.
Q. All right. Did you examine the Main and Living­

ston option?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. When did this option begin?
A. 1954-55.
Q. Can you identify the option area on the overlay 

for 1957-58, PX 261?



4B6

A. All right. This is currently overlaying the ’60 Cen­
sus. The option is toward the southwest area of the district 
from downtown. The Main attendance zone is to the 
north and east of the option, and Livingston is to the west 
[3533A] and south of the option, the option having been 
carved out of the southwestern -  well, the southern part 
of Main.

[3534] Q. All right. What is the underlying demo­
graphic data with respect to the optional attendance area?

A. On the 1960 Census, it would be just white blocks.
Q. All right. Let’s go back to the 1950 Census base 

map and see what the process is.
What does the entire main zone look like for 1950?
A. The main zone for 1950 appears to be all white 

except for a green block.
Q. All right. And the option begins ’54-55. What’s 

your source of identification for that information?
A. This was in PX 58, the 1939 OSU Study, Figure 

14, page 110.
Q. All right. Did you also look at any of the other — 

the Original Plaintiffs Exhibits with respect to this partic­
ular option?

A. Yes. This was in their original exhibits. 1 believe 
it was PX 6, I believe.

Q. Can we put the 1960 map back up?
I’m sorry. Before you do that, would you tell me 

what the Livingston zone looked like in 1950?
A. In 1950, the Livingston attendance zone was largely 

white. It had in the northwest corner one or two blocks 
with either orange or red, I can’t really tell, and so — 
about four green or blue blocks scattered to the west.

Q. Okay. And that’s assuming that the the boundaries 
were [3535] the same at that time as they were shown in 
the ’57-58 overlay; is that correct?

A. Pardon?
Q. That’s assuming that the boundaries were the same 

for those attendance zones at that time?



487

A. Yes.
Q. Let’s put the 1960 Census base map up.
Now, in the 1960 Census for the first time the Handord 

Village shows up as the black residential area; is that 
correct?

[3536] A. I believe that’s the area to the east of the 
Fairwood Zone.

Q. Yes.
A. Bordering Alum Creek on the east, which is in red 

on the ’60 census.
Q. The option started in ’54-55. How long did it 

continue?
A. Through 1961-62 with some slight modification.
Q. What was the dimension of the original option 

attendance?
A. I believe about three blocks, east and west.
Q. What was the racial composition of Main in 1967?
A. Main in 1964, according to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 12 

was 77 percent non-white.
Q. Livingston?
A. Livingston was 27 percent non-white.
Q. The Hanford Village area would have been which 

one of those elementary areas, or adjacent to it?
A. Would have been part of the Fairwood.
Q. That’s to the south or west?
A. That’s directly to the east of Main and also Living­

ston.
Q. Was the area black population movement toward 

that direction?
MR. PORTER: Objection.
[3537] THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. From your examination of the 1950, ’60 and ’70 

census maps, Dr. Foster, can you tell us whether the area 
population movement in terms of minorities was in that 
direction?

A. Yes, it was east towards Alum Creek.



488

Q. What modification was made in this option?
A. In 1960-61 the option was reduced to one block, 

which at this time was in the Kent School which had 
opened in ’60-61 and the block was I believe north and 
south block known as Bedford.

Q. Can we put up Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 284A, the 1960- 
61 elementary.

Can you identify the Kent Elementary School on that 
map?

A. The Kent Elementary School is directly south of 
Main and to the northeast of Livingston. The optional 
zone is designated between Main and Livingston coming 
out of Kent, and it is simply the point at which the arrow 
goes west to Livingston and north to Main.

Q. The Kent attendance boundaries were established 
out of the schools of what previous attendance zones?

A. Mostly from Fairwood to the east and a little to 
the north, and some from Livingston to the west, and then 
from Ohio to the northwest. It is a rather small compacted 
attendance zone.

[3538] Q. Before we get further into the Kent attend­
ance area and the Kent School, what was the effect in your 
opinion of the establishment of the option between Main 
and Livingston?

A. I believe that this was a racial option which allowed 
the whites in the optional zone to exit from Main and go 
to Livingston which was a much whiter school.

Q. The Kent Elementary opened in 1960-61 taking 
part of the Fairwood, Main and a couple of blocks from 
Livingston and Ohio attendance zones. Do you have a 
1964 enrollment for Livingston?

A. ’64 Livingston was 29 percent non-white.
Q. Ohio?
A. Ohio was 80 percent non-white.
Q. Kent?
A. Seventy-five percent. It opened non-white.



489

Q. Fairwood?
A. No, I am sorry. It was 75 in 1964. Fairwood was 

69 percent non-white in ’64.
Q. What did Kent look like in the 1960 census in 

terms of the underlying colors?
A. It was a combination of white, one or two green 

and blue blocks, and the rest orange, I believe.
Q. You have already described Kent as a very small, 

relatively small attendance area. What was the effect on 
the location and opening of Kent with those attendance 
boundaries [3539] in terms of the racial composition of 
the schools in the area?

A. The effect was to further compact, in my opinion, 
the black student population in this area to allow Living­
ston to stay white longer and also Deshler to stay white, 
and the racial line was moving south from Main and also 
from Ohio, and this was a small area which set up a school 
that went black fairly rapidly.

Q. Going back to the Main-Livingston option itself, 
in the first five years of the existence of that option was 
there any capacity problem?

A. It started in 1954 and the record would indicate 
there was really not that much difference in capacity needs 
between the Main and Livingston School in the first — for 
the 1950, Main, was 48 percent over capacity and Living­
ston was —

Q. Excuse me. Forty-eight percent?
A. I beg your pardon. In 1954 Main was 48 people 

over capacity and Livingston was 57 over capacity. In 
1955 Main was under seven places and Livingston was 
under three.

In 1956 Main was 35 over capacity; Livingston was 
under by 13. In 1957 Main was 39 over capacity; Living­
ston was over by 11.

It wasn’t until 1959 that Main took a big jump and 
became something like 310 over capacity.



490

Q. Would you examine the Linmoor Junior High 
School area, [3540] including the option?

A. Yes, sir, I did. The Linmoor-Everett option opened 
in 1957-58, and on Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 281, the Junior High 
for ’57-58 currently on the 1960 census as shown in the 
center of the map with a red border and a broken red and 
blue border.

Q. Linmoor opened in ’57-58. Was there phase-in in 
the grades one year at a time in that situation?

A. Out of Linden-McKinley, which was 7 through 12, 
they phased in, as I understand it, Grades 7, the first year, 
and then Grades 8 and 9 were the following two years.

That was also taken partly out of Indianola, Linden- 
McKinley being shown on the map actually in the Linmoor 
Zone, although the senior high zone would extend com­
pletely around that.

It is in the Junior High Linmoor Zone. The part from 
Indianola that was in the option was to the northwest part 
of Linmoor and to the northeast part of Indianola, and the 
part from Everett became a part of the option — I beg your 
pardon. Can I start over?

Q. Yes.
A. In using the ’57-58 overlay it is an attempt to show 

what the Linmoor Junior High Zone was like prior to the 
option. It came out of Linden and out of Indianola and out 
of the eastern portion of Everett.

[3541] Q. All right. What’s the general description of 
the underlying census data?

A. The underlying census data from Linmoor in ’57- 
58, based on the ’60 Census, would indicate the northern 
part of the area from Linden was all white and the south­
ern part was green, blue and orange.

The part coming out of Everett was mostly red and 
orange with a few blocks of green, blue and white.

The part coming out of Indianola, which was actually 
— I testified earlier that it was to the northeast of Indianola.



491

There was also a southeastern section out of Indianola. 
This had white, red and blue in it in the southeastern sec­
tion, and the north appears to be mostly a non-residential 
area just above the Ohio State Fairgrounds, mostly non- 
residential as designated white on the ’60 Census.

[3542] Q. Dr. Foster, you put up the 1958-59 junior 
high overlay. What exhibit number is that

A. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 282.
Q. Can you summarize what happened with the es­

tablishment of the Unmoor School?
A. Yes. This is a very complicated business. 1 will 

just do that in a sentence.
In ’57-58, which I was trying to describe before re­

cess, the Unmoor Junior High opened carved out of three 
schools, Indianola, Everett and Linden-McKinley, and it 
took portions of each of those three existing zones and 
established just a seventh grade center the first year. That’s 
what happened in ’57-58. Then the optional zone was 
established in ’58-59, the following year, which is depicted 
on the current map overlaying the ’57-58 we have up now, 
the ’58-59.

[3543] Q. The choice of boundaries for Unmoor, 
what effect did that have in terms of race, if any?

A. Well, the portions that were picked out of Everett 
was the black part of Everett out of the southeastern cor­
ner of Indianola, was the large — most of the black part 
of Indianola, and the part that came out of Linden in­
cluded all of the black part that was in Linden, which was 
the southern half, so it seemed to be, as the school was 
established, sort of in the cards that it would contain the 
black pupils out of that area for the most part.

Q. What alternatives were available, Dr. Foster?
A. Well, when it opened in ’58-59, if you had de­

sired to have a desegregative effect rather than a com­
pacting effect, you could do any number of things, but 
the boundaries could have been changed in such a way 
as in one place, I believe, the Ohio State Surveys recom­



492

mend when you have three or four schools together and 
you have to change one school, for example, the western 
part of Everett, which I believe is the Kingswood area 
could have been moved up into Indianola. Some of the 
northern part of Indianola could have been moved over 
into the new school, Linmoor. The black portions to the 
east of Everett and Indianola could have stayed in those 
areas so that they were sure to have a black population, 
and it would have — some move such as this would have 
indicated that Linmoor was not to be [3544] a black school 
but was to be a desegregated school.

Q. All right. When you say the black areas stay in 
those schools so that it would stay black, you mean with 
the black representation?

A. That is correct, and there did some. I mean, part 
of Indianola stayed in but a big chunk of it also went into 
Linmoor, and part of Everett stayed in Everett but a good 
chunk to the east went into the new school.

Q. All right. Can you now discuss what happened 
with the optional attendance zone?

A. All right. In ’58-59, the optional attendance zone 
was set up, and this again is a little complicated, but it 
was formed out of the portion of Everett that — eastern 
portion of Everett that had come into Linmoor, and it was 
really the southern part of that portion, almost the south­
ern half exactly of the part of Everett that had gone into 
Linmoor, but there was also a grade split.

[3545] A. (Continued) The optional zone was for all 
three grades, 7 through 9, but the northern part that was 
left in Linmoor, the seventh and eighth grades were to go 
to Linmoor out of the portion of the zone that was not 
made optional and grade 9 to Everett. The optional zone 
was bordered on the north by Starr and Third and Gibbard 
— it had three jumps of one block at a time — on the east 
by the railroad, on tire south by the railroad, and on the 
west by the railroad.



493

Q. The underlying area, according to the 1960 Cen­
sus was mostly what color?

A. Of the optional zone, it would be either all red 
or orange except I believe — all red or orange except for 
railroads.

Q. Red and orange do indicate the presence of some 
white?

A. That is correct. Orange is 50 to 89 percent black, 
and red would be 90 to 100 percent black.

Q. What is the effect of this option with respect to 
students in the Everett School?

A. This option as it was established would allow the 
whites in the optional zone who were left to attend Ever­
ett rather than be assigned to Linmoor.

Q. Of course, blacks could choose to stay in Everett 
as well?

A. Either way, yes, sir.
[3546] Q. Was the option changed to take all of 

Everett in?
A. In 1959-60, which is PX 283 now on the board, the 

option was expanded north to add that part of Everett 
which had been taken into Linmoor, and it also added a 
little portion of the territory that had been taken into Lin­
moor from Indianola which would be to the extreme south 
of that portion. It looks to be maybe a block wide and 
two or three blocks long out of the part of Indianola that 
had gone into Linmoor. In other words, the option now 
included all of the Everett portion that went into Lin­
moor and a little bit of the extreme southeastern part of 
Indianola.

Q. What is the underlying demographic nature of the 
added area?

A. On the ’60 Census Map, the underlying map would 
indicate largely red and orange with a couple of blue and 
maybe one green blocks to the extreme west, and a part



494

coming out of Indianola would be white, red and blue, 
from the looks of the Census Map.

Q. Are those the only blue and white blocks, the ones 
you noted, in that particular part of tire attendance area?

A. Of the optional zone?
Q. Yes.
A. There are a couple of white blocks in the extreme 

part of the Everett portion, in the northern part of the 
option.

[3547] Q. All right. What happened to the Arlington 
Park area and east?

A. If you look at the junior high ’58-59 map, the 
Arlington Park area is still part of the Linden-McKinley 
zone to the east of the Linden-McKinley School.

[3548] A. (Continuing) Then in ’59-60, this area is 
sent non-contiguously to the Linmoor zone as depicted by 
the green arrow going southeast from the Arlington Park 
area.

Q. All right. Is the bottom leg of the Arlington Park 
zone cut off, or is there still a corridor?

A. There is a corridor which includes that non-con- 
tiguous assignment all the way south in the Arlington Park 
area, to the south of the Arlington Park area.

Q. All right.
A. And this would be just north of the western por­

tion of Eastmoor Junior.
Q. They had been previously attending Linden-Mc­

Kinley; is that right?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And where is Linden-McKinley on that?
A. Linden-McKinley is in the Linmoor zone, in the 

northeast section of the Linmoor zone.
Q. This is the building that’s not in its own attend­

ance area; is that correct?
A. As far as a junior high school is concerned at this 

point, yes, sir.



495

Q. In 1960-61, was there an opening of a new junior 
high school?

A. Yes.
Q. Would you put up that overlay?
[3549] A. This is PX 284, which is the junior high 

1960-61. To the north of Linmoor and Linden-McKinley 
a new junior high opened known as Medina in 1960-61. 
Medina was carved out about half from Clinton, which is 
to the north of Linden-McKinley, extreme north central 
part of the district, and about half of the southern section 
of Linden-McKinley.

Q. Is the underlying attendance zone shown at least 
by the demographic area of 1960, is that what color?

A. For the Medina School, it represents an all white
area.

Q. The area taken out of the school to the south, 
is that a white area as well?

A. Out of the northern part of Linden?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes, that’s all white in the 1960 Census.
Q. What was the effect of opening Medina, setting 

those attendance boundaries?
A. The effect was to further compact the area south 

of the Medina attendance zone, being Linmoor and Linden, 
in terms of their blackness and to maintain — or insure 
the fact that the Medina School, at least for the time being, 
would be either all white or nearly all white.

Q. What happens to Linden-McKinley?
A. Well, it changes about every year, but in ’70 — in 

’60-61, the same year that Medina opened, in addition, 
[3549A] they’re giving up the northern part of its zone to 
Medina. The Arlington Park portion that was zoned into 
Linmoor in ’59-60 was now zoned back in a contiguous 
manner to Linden-McKinley. This was in ’60-61.

[3550] Q. And the Arlington Park area shows as 
white, and it was connected by this little, narrow strip



496

down into this white area to the south; is that correct?
A. Well, that’s correct, only the boundary changed 

in ’60-61 to include everything in Linden-McKinley all
the way down to Champion.

Q. All right. Now, the map appears to come down 
into a white corridor, although there do not appear to be 
any streets on the base map in that area; is that correct?

A. Most of that is apparently non-residential, yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
A. That includes the railroad yards and some other 

things.
Q. And the school is actually — the school building is 

actually still located in the Linmoor zone, but is attend­
ance area is essentially a white attendance area with the 
exception of the orange area located south of Seventeenth?

A. Seventeenth.
MR. PORTER.: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I notice that there seems to be a change in pattern 

in the way zone lines are drawn in terms of north, south, 
east or west. What is the effect of the Medina zone [3551] 
in terms of drawing lines east and west of the coriidor?

A. Well, as you open up new schools to the north of 
the expanding black residential area and expanding black 
school population, if you start drawing lines east and 
west, as was done with Medina and was done later with 
McGuffey, that prohibits you from going down into the 
zones and picking up black pupils and, at the same time, 
as you go north, establishes east-west racial boundary lines 
along certain streets from time to time.

[3552] Q. Up to that time both the junior and senior 
highs had generally run north and south; is that correct?

A. Especially the senior highs where they took in 
large chunks of territory, North and Linden, for example.

Q. Was there any change of significance in 1961-62?



497

A. No, sir.
Q. McGuffey opened in ’62, I believe; did it not?
A. Yes, sir, ’62-63.
Q. Can we put that overlay up?
Where is McGuffey School?
A. McGuffey is immediately south of Medina, junior 

high, following the east-west boundary line with Medina 
and immediately north of Linmoor and Linden-McKinley.

Q. What happens with our movable Arlington Park 
this time?

A. In ’82-63 non-eontiguously assigned, not as much 
of it as was part of the movement, but a good portion of 
it assigned to Medina.

Q. Medina in ’64 was what in terms of racial com­
position?

A. I would have to look that up.
Q. Would you, please?
A. Medina in 1964, according to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 

12, was 100 percent white.
Q. Arlington Park area has gone from Linmoor, zoned 

into Linden-McKinley, now it is going up to Medina; is 
that [3553] correct?

A. That is correct.
Q. McGuffey was taken out of what attendance zones?
A. McGuffey was taken out of the southern portion of 

Medina and was taken out of Linden-McKinley.
Q. It is a little confusing because Linden-McKinley 

is not in the attendance area?
A. That’s correct, but the southern border of McGuf­

fey Junior coincides with the northern border of Linmoor, 
but when it opened in ’62-63 it picked up the northern 
part of — well, it picked up what was left there of Linden- 
McKinley Junior High School.

Q. What was McGuffey in 1964?
A. McGuffey was 100 percent white in 1964.
Q. What happened to Linden-McKinley?



498

A. Linden-McKinley, in 1983-64, was its last year, so 
when McGuffey was built, it, as a junior high school, was 
no longer. As a matter of fact, in ’63-64 the enrollment 
indication was that it had only 114 pupils left at the junior 
high level.

Q. What about Linmoor? What was it in ’64?
A. Linden-McKinley?
Q. No, Linmoor.
A. Linmoor in 1964 was 60 percent non-white.
Q. What was the effect of the opening and drawing 

of [3554] boundaries, boundary lines of McGuffey?
A. It enabled McGuffey to maintain a largely white 

population, at least in the beginning, and compacted fur­
ther the blacks into the Linden-McKinley Junior High 
zone.

[3555] Q. Did the McGuffey zone lines generally run 
east and west?

A. Pretty much the same as Medina.
Q. Now, what happened to the optional attendance 

area during this period? Did it come to a close?
A. The option ended in 1964-65 which would have 

meant it had one more year after this.
Q. All right. Can we put that overlay up?
A. All right. PX 288, junior high for ’64-65, indicates 

that the option was closed in that year.
Q. Was the option split by the opening of a new 

school?
A. Monroe Junior Pligh School opened to the south 

of Linden in, I believe, ’64-65. It opened 99.7 percent 
non-white.

Q. What was the effect of the boundary changes and 
the opening of Monroe in that particular location, Dr. 
Foster?

MR. PORTER: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.



499

A. Oh, it picked up about half of the optional zone 
between Everett and Unmoor. The other half was left in 
Everett. I would say that this had a couple of effects. One 
is there was a black area maintained in Everett which 
allowed it to be a desegregated or non-raciai!y identifiable 
school, I believe, at that time; and opening up Monroe in
[3556] in this area further compacted, of course, the center 
city black population, and it was inevitable that would be 
an all black school.

Q. In fact, it opened 99.7 percent?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. It picked up parts of what zone, Dr. Foster?
A. Well, it picked up half of the optional zone. 

Everett picked up the other half, and then Monroe picked 
up a good portion of the Champion zone which was moved 
further south to Broad Street to pick up the old Franklin 
zone.

Q. What was Champion in ’64 when Monroe opened?
A. At what time?
Q. ’64?
A. Weil, I think it was, yes, 100 percent non-white.
[3557] Q. Reviewing all of these changes in connec­

tion with Unmoor, Linden-McKinley, McGuffey, Milo, I 
believe it is — let me check my memory on the names. I’m 
sorry — Medina, Monroe and the changing of the boundary 
between Monroe and Champion, what is the net effect in 
that total area of the city of the variety of options, bound­
ary changes and school openings and setting of boundaries 
you’ve described?

MR. PORTER: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Well, the net effect is very racial in that it blocks 

the blacks into an impacted zone coming out of the down­
town area of Champion, Monroe.



500

I think it had a desegregative effect in regard to Ever­
ett by maintaining part of the black area to the east of 
Everett.

Linmoor, in my opinion, was opened as a school that 
was desegregated black from the beginning, because it 
opened with black portions for the most part of the schools 
it made up — from which it was made up, and as you went 
north, first Medina and then McGuffey were established as 
sort of a holding zone as the black population moved to 
the north and to the east, and I think you’ll find, if you 
look at present enrollment data, that those lines pretty 
much have been maintained at this point.

[3558] Q. Dr. Foster, did you examine an optional 
combination between Fair, Eastgage and Eastwood?

A. Yes, I believe I did.
On the board, we have elementary ’57-58, which is 

PX 261 overlaid on the 1960 Census, the 1939 Ohio State 
Survey, PX 58, page 111, Figure 14, shows a 1938 map, 
grades 1 through 6,—

Q. Turn to that, please.
A. — which indicates the Fair Elementary School, 

which on the ’57-58 map which is on the board is to the 
east of the center of the city, west of Alum Creek, for the 
most part, and south of Broad Street.

But in ’50 — or in 1938, according to the Ohio State 
Map, PX 58 shows the Fair School going north of Broad 
to Greenway, which would be on the ’57-58 map as a three- 
way optional zone with arrows pointing east, south and 
northwest.

[3559] A. (Continuing) Greenway is at the top of that 
zone and falling between Taylor and Woodland.

Q. Taylor on the west, Woodland on the east?
A. That’s correct. That is to say in 1938 the Fair zone 

went north of Broad and ended in a little funnel at the 
extreme north, the top of which was Greenway.



501

Q. All right. Was there an option between Pilgrim 
and Fair?

A. The directory in 1951 indicates that there was 
such an option between Pilgrim and Fair. At least it started 
then, no later than 1951, and the directories indicate that 
this option continued until 1954 when Eastwood, which is 
a school north of Broad and northwest of Fair, was re­
opened taking that portion of Fair Elementary School 
which was north of Broad Street as far north as Long and 
Livingston, which is about three blocks or so north of 
Broad. So the optional zone was bordered on the north by 
Greenway and bordered on the east by Woodland, bor­
dered on the south by Long and bordered on the west by 
Taylor.

Q. All right. Is there another option in addition to 
the Pilgrim-Fair option between Pilgrim and Eastwood?

A. Well, I am sorry, that’s the option I have been 
talking about as the Pilgrim-Eastwood option. The Pilgrim- 
Fair option, let me explain the differences, if I may go 
back?

[3560] Q. Yes, please.
A. Again, it is rather complicated. The Pilgrim-Fair 

option, Pilgrim is to the north of Fair which at that point 
extended on up above Broad. From 19 — in 1951, ’52 and 
’53 the directories show that this option did exist between 
Fair and Pilgrim and did have Greenway on the north part, 
again, Taylor on the west and Woodland on the east and, 
as I described, Long was on the south. Then in 1954, 
according to the directory, we had the Pilgrim-Eastwood 
option. At that point Eastwood had reopened taking the 
northern portion of the Fair zone above Broad Street.

[3561] The boundary was the same as the previous 
option with Woodland on the east and Taylor on the west 
and Greenway on the north, except that it contracted, I 
believe, about two blocks from Long up to Clifton which 
was the southern most boundary in 1954 in the Pilgrim,



502

Eastwood option, a territory of about six blocks altogether, 
I believe.

Q. Let me show you a document entitled, “Which 
September? which bears several different exhibit numbers 
in this record. This particular copy is Original Plaintiffs’ 
Exhibit 51-PI-1GB, and ask you if this is — referring you to 
Page 7 and Paragraph 5 — the general area described in 
the options you are testifying about?

I realize that doesn’t give the boundaries.
A. Yes, that would be in the general area because 

three of the four streets, I believe, are named as part of 
this area.

Q. Would you read Paragraph 5?
A. “School districts are established in such a manner 

that white families living near colored schools will not be 
in the colored school distinct. The area in the vicinity of 
Pilgrim School, embracing Richmond, Parkwood and parts 
of Greenway, Clifton, Woodland and Granville Streets is 
an excellent example of such gerrymandering.”

“A part of Greenway is only one block from Pilgrim 
School, however the children that live there are in the
[3562] Fair Avenue School District 12 and one-half blocks 
away.”

Q. 1955 was there an additional option established?
A. Just the Pilgrim, Eastwood option became a three- 

way option in 1955, which was established with the East- 
gate according to the directory. This was also depicted in 
Ohio State 1955-56 Report, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 61 on Page 
17, Figure 2.

It is also depicted on this map, 57-58 overlay as a 
three-way option between Pilgrim to the northwest, East- 
gate to the east and Eastwood to the south.

Q. Was this option reduced in 1960-61?
A. It became a one-street option on Parkwood, which 

is a north-south block, and about three blocks on the



503

west side, and that would have been between Pilgrim and 
Eastgate.

Q. The information furnished to you, does it indicate 
whether or not Eastgate was a portable unit school for 
some period of time?

A. I believe it was a four-room portable prior to its 
’54 opening.

Q. Can we put up the 1960-61 overlay?
Can you identify the one-street option?
A. This is Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 284-A and the one-street 

option is depicted on the map between Pilgrim and East- 
gate with an arrow going east into Eastgate and west into 
Pilgrim and the center of the arrow being the optional zone.

[3563] Q. In your study of the data, Dr. Foster, 
what was the effect of the series of options with respect 
to Pilgrim, Eastwood and then Eastgate?

A. During this period that it would have allowed the 
whites to get out of Pilgrim, and into Eastwood, and then 
into Eastgate during the time of the black movement.

Q. Was there a capacity problem that you could find 
from your study of the data, Dr. Foster?

A. Looking at capacities over and under for Pilgrim, 
Eastwood and Eastgate, in ’51 Pilgrim was 107 under 
capacity. In ’52 it was 64 under capacity. In ’53 it zoomed 
to 143 over capacity, and then in ’54 it was back to 74 
under capacity.

Q. Eastwood was opened in ’54. What was it?
A. Eastwood was 56 under capacity in ’54 when it 

opened and Eastgate was four under.
[3564] Q. And in 1959, were they all three over 

capacity — I’m sorry — 1955?
A. In 1955-56, all three schools were over capacity, 

not very much, between 11 and 79, and in 195/ on into 
1960, Pilgrim again was under capacity all four of those 
years.

# # # # #



504

[3566] Q. Dr. Foster, did you conduct an examina­
tion of what I would call the south area of the school 
system in regard to new school construction, the assign­
ment patterns in that area, boundary changes in connec­
tion with the openings?

A. Yes, I did.
Q. All right. I believe we placed up the 1957-58 

overlay which is Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 261. over the base map 
for the 1960 Census, PX 251. Would you discuss, please, 
the bringing in of the Heimandale to Fornof contiguous 
area as it operated during that period?

[3567] A. All right. Heimandale Elementary zone is 
in almost the extreme south of the Columbus District and 
directly west of that, across the Chesapeake Railroad, is 
the Fornof Elementary zone.

Beginning in 1957, there was an area in Heimandale 
comprising three streets shown on the elementary 57-58 
overlay in sort of an inverted seven figure within the 
Heimandale zone. That was Wilson, Bellview and Eagle 
Streets, and according to the directory, children on those 
streets were assigned to Fornof.

Q. This is the Columbus School Directory; is that 
correct?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is it your understanding, I believe, from me and 

perhaps Mr. Lamson that the Heimandale zone was 
brought into the Columbus School District with that par­
ticular discontiguous area in effect?

A. I believe it was when it was annexed in 1957.
Q. All right. The streets, Wilson, Bellview and Eagle, 

in terms of the underlying census data, what is indicated 
in terms of race?

A. Those are all white streets which would signify 
zero to 9.9 percent black population.

Q. And the balance of the Heimandale zone?



505

A. Is almost entirely blue except for a small portion
[3568] in orange, about three or four blocks in red and 
another — perhaps one more white block.

Q. All right. And the Fornof zone to which the non­
contiguous white areas are assigned?

A. The Fornof zone in ’57-58 was entirely white to 
the west and to the northeast. As it moved over, there was 
some blue and some red and I believe one orange block.

Q. All right. In 1964, what was the racial composition 
of the Heimandale School?

A. Forty percent non-white.
[3569], Q. And Fornof?
A. 0.2 percent non-white.
Q. The option in question from examination of the 

school directories continued for how many years?
A. The option was kept through 1962-63.
Q. All right. Is this reflected on the overlays as they 

progress, PX 262, 263, and so forth?
A. Each year, yes.
Q. Dr. Foster, understanding that the optional area 

existed prior to annexation, do you have an opinion as to 
the keeping of this white area option to the white Fornof 
School from the Heimandale area by the Columbus School 
System for each of die years in question?

MR. PORTER: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. My opinion is that this was a racial option which 

allowed the white people to go to Fornof rather than the 
Heimandale School and that there was no reason, unless 
there may have been a hidden political one, and that’s 
still not a valid one, for Columbus to keep that an optional 
area. But as administratively, there would be no reason.

Q. All right. Could you determine anything from the 
capacities that would indicate why those three streets 
should be isolated out of the Heimandale attendance zone 
and discontiguously assigned to Fornof?



506

[3570] A. I don’t seem to have that in my notes, but, 
as I remember it, there was no marked capacity problem.

Q. Would there have been any particular reason to 
keep the same three white streets going to the white school 
for capacity reasons?

A. Not to my recollection. I don’t have the exact 
capacity figures at that time on my notes.

Q. All right, can we look at the 1963 overlay?
A. All right.
Q. The 1963 overlay is what PX number, Dr. Foster?
A. That’s PX 266 on the 1960 Census.
Q. Does this show a discontiguous area to the Moler 

School?
A. There is an area to the east of Watkins which pre­

viously was in the Watkins zone. This area has an arrow 
pointing to northwest into the Moler zone, yes, sir. Thats 
at the extreme southwest of the Columbus District.

Q. All right. Is that the first time that particular dis­
contiguous area appears?

A. I believe that’s correct.
Q. Was there a school opened that same time in that 

area?
A. In ’63-64?
Q. Yes.
A. Koebel was built the following year. There was

[3571] an addition built to Heimandale in ’63-64.
Q. In ’64 the Koebel Elementary opened; is that cor­

rect?
A. That’s correct.
Q. I think the first year you have racial data for that 

is 1965?
A. It was zero percent non-white in 1965. Koebel was 

part of Watkins. It was carved out of the northern part 
of Watkins.



507

Q. All right. Can you put up the ’64 overlay with the 
'63 overlay? Does that show the opening of the Koebel 
School?

A. I believe it will, yes, sir.
Q. And that’s carved out of what portion of the 

Watkins zone?
A. This is the northern part of the Watkins zone 

directly beneath Refugee Road. Watkins extended down 
to here the previous year, and then the boundary was 
shifted farther down into the Garfield zone, the southern 
boundary of Watkins at the same time as Koebel opened.

Q, What is the western boundary of the Koebel 
School?

A. The Koebel School?
Q. Yes.
A. Lockbourne.
Q. All right, that’s almost a rectangular area for 

[3571A] the Koebel School; is that correct?
A. That’s correct.
[3572] Q. And that underlying census data shows as 

what?
A. In 1960 the underlying census data shows it nothing 

but white area.
Q. And it opened, the racial data shows, in ’65 zero 

percent non-white; is that correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Did the discontiguous attendance areas and the 

opening of the Koebel School relate to each other in any 
way in your opinion?

A. Yes, in my opinion they do. Well, in the first 
place, Koebel was obviously situated in such a way in the 
zone lines and the boundary lines drawn at its initial open­
ing to contain the Watkins area to the south and at least 
opened up Koebel, and again it was a white area. Then 
the area to the east which is the non-contiguous area which 
was assigned to Moler, Moler at that time in 1964 was 0.2



508

percent white. Watkins at the same time was 24 percent — 
pardon me — was 0.2 percent non-white. Watkins in 1964 
24 percent non-white. This whole combination of events 
compacted the whites, the blacks into the southern most 
area of the place we are talking about and the western 
most, that is to say, the New Watkins, and then allowed 
Koebel to open up white and allowed this area to the east, 
the non-contiguous zone, to move into Moler and maintain 
its identity with the white school.

[3573] Q. All right. What options were available 
which would not have resulted in the same sort of racial 
separation?

A. Well, admittedly there was a capacity problem 
in this whole area through the ’60s, but Heimandale was 
partially black at this time. Watkins was going black very 
quickly. Zone lines could have been drawn in different 
directions. For example, if you take Koebel and Watkins, 
if you simply drew the lines north and south instead of 
east and west, you would have had two at least temporarily 
desegregated schools. There is no way to tell how many 
of these children attended Moler, but if you look at capac­
ities in terms of alternatives, it is my opinion that these 
children could just as easily have been sent to Alum Crest 
which is immediately north and contiguous to the zone, 
could have either been assigned there on a temporary basis 
or simply incorporated into the Alum Crest School. Alum 
Crest since its beginning has been kept apart from any of 
the other things that are going on in the area. Capacity- 
wise, however, from the figures it would seem to be just 
as available to accept pupils at that time as Moler.

Q. And Alum Crest at that time was what?
A. Alum Crest in 1964 that would be, right?
Q. Yes.
[3574] A. Alum Crest was 50 percent non-white in 

1964.
Q. And Moler?



509

A. Moler, I believe, was less than 1 percent non-white,
0 .2 .

Q. And Heimandale?
A. Heimandale was 40 percent non-white.
Q. All right. Of the two schools, one to the north 

and one to the west with substantial minority enrollments 
were Heimandale and Alum Crest; is thaat correct?

A. That’s correct.
Q. The discontiguous area skips over Alum Crest to 

go to the white Moler School; is that correct?
MR. PORTER: Objection. Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. That is correct.
Q. All right. Was there another elementary opened 

in this — let me go back.
There’s a railroad involved in there somewhere; isn’t 

there, Dr. Foster?
A. Chesapeake, yes, sir.
Q. All right. Can you show me where it is on the 

map?
A. In the southern area. The railroad is right along 

the racial line as it goes along the area. It starts in the 
northwestern portion below Refugee Road and cuts almost 
straight across the area exiting in the southeastern section.

[3575] Q. All right. Were there any school attend­
ance boundaries which crossed that?

A. Well, in our first overlay that we had on this after­
noon, ’57-58, which is PX 281, on Census Map 50, the 
overlay will show that die Clarfield Elementary School 
in the portion north of Williams Road did indeed cross 
the Chessie lines. It’s in the shape of a sort of a dogleg to 
the west, and it was in quite a good-sized residential area 
in the western portion.

Heimandale crossed the line, also, but the part of it 
that did cross the line was either all railroad yards or rail­
road property. That’s right along Corr Avenue, to the 
northeast part of Corr.



510

Fornof at that point also crossed the line in its extreme 
northeast portion.

Q. All right. I’m sorry to interrupt you. Put the other 
overlays on.

All right. Was there another elementary school opened 
in this area? I refer to the Cedarwood Elementary.

A. Cedarwood was opened in 1985-66, yes.
[3576] Q. Perhaps before we get to Cedarwood we 

ought to go back and pick up, so we don’t have so many 
overlays on the map, the Stockbridge opening.

A. All right. And in the ’59-60 elementary overlay, the 
PX number is 283, it shows the opening to the extreme 
south of the area and the district of Stockbridge Ele­
mentary School. Stockbridge took that portion of Clarfield 
Elementary that was west of the railroad except for a 
little part in the complete southwest which is non-resi- 
dential, and that essentially made up its early population, 
although there was quite a triangular area to the north 
of that residential zone which I would imagine was still 
all farmland at that time.

Q. All right, and how did Stockbridge open?
A. In 1964, Stockbridge was zero percent non-white.
Q. All right. Let’s refer, if you will, to the Parsons 

School. I beleve it opened in the 1960-61 school year.
A. All right. PX 84A, which is elementary ’60-61, 

would show the opening of the Parsons Elementary School 
to the extreme southeast corner of the Columbus District, 
just below the Scioto Trail School and just to the west 
of the Stockbridge School to which we just referred.

Q. Is the underlying area there an indication for the 
1960 Census as to its racial composition?

[3577] A. Both Stockbridge and Parsons are com­
pletely white on the 1960 Census Map.

Q. Parsons in ’64 was what percentage?
A. Parsons in ’64, as was Stockbridge, is zero percent 

non-white in ’64.



511

Q. All right. Was the school, the Watkins School, 
opened at that same year or the following year?

A. A year later, ’61-62. This is PX 264 nowT overlay­
ing. In ’61-62, Watkins was opened south of Refugee 
Road, taking the extreme southern part of the Smith Road 
attendance area all south of — that was south of Refugee 
Road and picking up the northern half, more or less, of 
Clarfield Elmentary, so its southern part was made up 
pretty much of Clarfield in the northern part up to Refugee 
on Smith Road.

Q, Okay. Garfield in ’64 was what percentage?
A. You mean Watkins?
Q. Garfield, first.
A. Garfield. Clarfield, you mean?
Q. Yeah.
A. I ’m sorry. Clarfield in 1964 was 50 percent non­

white.
MR. PORTER: May I have — what school is that?
THE WITNESS: Clar -  C-l-a-r-f-i-e-l-d, Clarfield.
Q. No, I’m sorry. Garfield.
[3578] A. Garfield?
Q. Yes.
A. Garfield was 99 percent non-white in 1964.
Q. And Watkins was opened in ’61-62. What was the 

number of rooms built there?
A. Watkins had 19 rooms, according to my figures.
Q. All right. And what percentage did it open in 

the ’64 data?
A. In 1964, Watkins was 24 percent non-white.
Q. Okay. Was there an addition built at Stockbridge 

in 1961-62?
A. In 1961-62, the year that we’re discussing, Stock- 

bridge had a four-room addition.
[3579] Q. And Stockbridge at that time was what?
A. In ’64 Stockbridge was still all white.



512

Q. The addition to Heimandale was made in what 
year?

A. There was a six-room addition to Heimandale in 
1963-64, two years later.

Q. Can we put that overlay up?
A. All right. This is PX 266, elementary ’63-64.
Q. And Heimandale, would you show us the zone?
A. Heimandale is in the center of the southern area 

just to the northeast of the Chessie Railroad.
Q, Was there any change made in its attendance 

boundary at that time?
A. Well, I don’t have ’62-63 underlaying, but from 

’61-62 there was a change which would move it to the 
northwest picking up the area of Fornof that extended east 
beyond the railroad. The new line in ’63-64 had Heiman­
dale going to the railroad in the northwest, and then in 
the northeast it also picks up — no, I beg your pardon. 
That’s the only thing, I believe, in Heimandale.

Q. All right, in ’64 the percentage black at Heiman­
dale was what?

A. 40 percent non-white in ’64.
Q. Now, you have already covered the Koebel Ele­

mentary built in ’64-65?
A. That is correct.
[3580] Q. Perhaps if we took these overlays down 

and put up the overlay for ’64-65 alone, it would be 
helpful.

A. All right, this is PX 267, elementary ’64-65, over­
laying the 1960 Census.

Q. All right, would you identify Koebel?
A. Koebel is just to the north of Watkins and just 

south of Refugee Road.
Q. Was there an addition made to Parsons that same 

year?
A. Parsons had a six-room addition in ’64-65. Parsons 

is in the extreme southwest area at this time.



Q. All right, Parsons’ enrollment in ’64-65 was what?
A. In 1964 Parsons was zero percent non-white.
Q. Let’s put up the ’65-66 overlay.
A. This is PX 268, elementary ’65-66.
Q. And the Cedarwood Elementary was opened at 

this point in time; is that correct?
A. That’s correct. Cedarwood is to the extreme south 

central part of the area we are describing, the southern­
most area of the district, and it was carved out of Parsons.

Q. All right. Were there other — let me go back. What 
was the percentage black at Cedarwood when it opened?

A. In 1966, the first year we have data, racial data for 
Cedarwood, it was 100 percent white.

[3581] Q. Was an addition made in that same general 
vicinity to another school?

A. A four-room addition in 1965-66 to Scioto Trail 
which is just north of Parsons and Cedarwood.

Q. And what was its racial composition?
A. Its racial composition in 1965 was 0.6 percent non­

white.
Q. Were there alternatives available to the boundaries 

established for these schools in that southwestern portion, 
particularly with reference to the Heimandale School?

A. Well, at any time the boundaries could have been 
changed during this period to incorporate white schools 
which all lay to the southwest of the railroad with mostly 
black schools to the northeast of the railroad. There are 
various combinations of pairings —

Q. Is there access across the railroad?
A. There is access. There is an underpass going north 

and south at Parsons which would then be just above the 
main railroad yards, and there is access across the railroad 
at Williams which is at the extreme end of the Stockbridge- 
Clarfield zones.

Q. That is the area where Clarfield used to cross the 
boundary; is that correct?



514

A. That is correct, Then if you run north — I can’t 
remember the name of the street. Let’s see. Groveport runs
[3582] northwest off of Williams and again crosses part of 
the railroad and picks up Lockbourne again which does 
not cross the railroad. So there is a north passage and a 
south passage, so to speak.

Q. I believe you have examined that area physically 
yourself, Dr. Foster; is that correct?

A. Yes,I have, that’s correct.
Q. And although there are sidewalks, for example, at 

the underpass, the area is such that it might require some 
transportation for safety reasons?

A. Well, of course, I am not certain what it was like 
at this time, but as it is now, I would estimate that the 
district would have to use transportation for safety pur­
poses because there are very few sidewalks in that general 
area.

Q. There are a lot of railroad yards and industrial 
area in between; is that correct?

A. That’s correct, and a lot of farm land still on parts 
of it.

# # # # #

Q. Did you make an estimate of the distances be­
tween the Heimandale School or some of these other 
schools that [3583] opened or had additions, Dr. Foster?

A. My estimate would be that in no pairing or group­
ing or combination of schools black and white you would 
make would be more than three or four miles.

Q. Did you make your estimate based on examination 
of the map and the map legend as well as the physical 
examination you made?

A. Not this particular map, but another map that I 
carried when I traveled around.

Q. Was there another addition at the Clarfield School 
in 1966-67?

A. There was a four-room addition at Clarfield at 
that year, yes, sir.



515

Q. Could we put up that overlay?
A. This is PX 269, Elementary ’66-67.
Q. Once again would you locate Clarfield with the 

pointer?
A. All right. Clarfield is at the extreme southeastern 

portion of the area which we are discussing.
Q. In 1966-67 what was the racial enrollment of 

Clarfield?
A. 80 percent non-white in 1966.
Q. What is it today?
A. Clarfield today is 84.4 percent non-white, I be­

lieve.
Q. Was there another addition, series of additions, in 

this area in the year 1975?
[3584] A. As I understand it, based on PX 68 and 

Dr. Merriman’s testimony, in ’75 or as part of the current 
building program, Cedarwood had an addition of eleven 
rooms and —

Q. Where is that on the map?
A. Cedarwood is to the west and south of the area 

(indicating).
Q. And what percentage black was that in ’75?
A. Cedarwood was 2,2 percent non-white in ’75.
Q. Was there another school in that area with an 

addition?
A. Stockbridge, which is also in that area just above 

Cedarwood, had a two-room addition in ’75?
Q. I ’m sorry, did I ask you how many rooms there 

were at Cedarwood?
A. There are 11 rooms.
Q. Was there a corresponding development at the 

junior high level in this period in this part of the city?
A. There was a building in 1963-64 of one junior high 

school in the southwestern part of the zone, the other side 
of the railroad, and that was Buckeye Junior High School.

Q. Can we have the 1963-64 junior high overlay?
A. All right. This is junior high ’63-64, PX 287.



516

Q. Is this the year the Buckeye Junior High was 
opened?

[3585] A. That’s correct.
Q. Would you locate it on the map, please?
A. It’s to the extreme west and south of the area we’re 

talking about. There’s a diagonal line which is pretty much 
the railroad. It is the railroad, in fact, or a part of it, which 
separates the Buckeye zone from the Marion-Franklin 
zone, or, in fact, Beery Junior High School, which is part 
of the Marion-Franklin complex.

Q. All right. What was the racial composition of 
Buckeye the first year that you have data?

A. In 1964, Buckeye was 0.1 percent non-white.
Q. And what was Beery at that same time?
A. Beery at that time — well, a year later, I don’t 

have the 64 figure for it, in 1965, Beery Junior High was 
20. non-white — 20. percent.

Q. All right. Were there additions made to both of 
these schools?

A. Yes. In ’67-68, Buckeye had an addition, of what 
size, I don’t know. I think we have the square footage on 
it, but not the number of rooms.

Q. And what was Buckeye in that year?
A. 0.1 percent in ’67, the same as ’64.
Q. Was there any change in the boundary in that 

period, do you know?
A. I don’t believe so, no, sir.
[3586] Q. All right. And was there an addition made 

to Beery after 1964?
A. As part of the current building program, there’s 

an addition to Beery which has been completed, I believe, 
which includes two rooms.

[3587] Q. All right. And what is the current racial 
enrollment at Beery?

A. 70.4 percent non-white in 1975.
Q. What is the 75 percentage for Buckeye?



517

A. The .75 percentage for Buckeye Junior High School 
is 2.4 percent non-white.

Q. Are these contiguous schools?
A. Yes.
Q. In examining the process from 1957 through 1975 

that took place at both the elementary and junior high 
level in this south area, centering around the developing 
black residential area, can you summarize what you, in 
your opinion, saw taking place in terms of construction 
and the boundary changes?

MR. PORTER: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
You may answer.
A. Well, my summary would be that during this 

period the area was rapidly expanding in population and 
needed additions and new construction which were pro­
vided, and they were provided in such a way, that is, 
openings of new schools and additions to schools, to com­
pact the black area north and east of the railroad and 
into the black schools in that area. Part of this total pic­
ture, of course, at each opening, was boundary changes 
to make way for the new [3588] school. There were some 
additional boundary changes, also, which I think we testi­
fied to, at least some of them.

We also had two non-contiguous assignments which 
were racially oriented during that time to Moler and to 
Fornof out of Heimandale, to Moler out of Watkins.

So during that period, I think that the major effort in 
the way schools were built and additions made, pupils 
assigned non-contiguously and boundaries drawn was 
simply to compact the black area and maintain every­
thing southwest of the railroad as white as possible.

Q. How did the Alum Crest area fit into that, if it
did?

A. Well, simply as I testified that it would have been 
an alternative, in my opinion, for the area, the non-con­



518

tiguous area west of Watkins, which was assigned to Moler, 
and it was contiguous to that area.

Q. In terms of the opening of the Buckeye Junior 
High School, what alternatives did the Board have, in 
your opinion?

A. Well, you need certain racial data to describe 
explicitedly that sort of an alternative, but essentially, the 
alternative would have been to simply draw these zone 
lines in such a way that an equal number of minority 
pupils would have been assigned to Beery Junior High 
School and also to Buckeye as it opened, and I don’t think 
from looking [3588A] at the maps that that would have 
been too difficult to do. You would have had to have 
crossed the railroad, obviously, probably at both the north 
and south passageways.

[3589] Q. That’s something that the School System 
has done in the past; is that correct?

MR. PORTER: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Well, Marion-Franklin High School is still doing 

it. This whole zone is an attendance zone for that high 
school.

Q. Can we put up the 1970 base map with the 1975 
elementary and junior high overlay?

A. We now have the 1970 Census, PX 252, elementary 
’75-76, which is PX 27 and junior high ’75-76, which is 
PX 299.

[3590] Q. Dr. Foster, from your examination of the 
changing demographic pattern between the ’60 and ’70 
Census, would you say that the pattern of growth in the 
Heimandale area in terms of minority concentration has 
now joined with the Alum Crest area?

#  #  . #  ' ' *  #

A. My observation would be that the whole area in 
Heimandale and to the east of Heimandale south of Refu­
gee Road has grown similar to the underlying census data



519

for Alum Crest which is to the north and — the north of 
the eastern part of the area we are discussing.

Q. And everything to the south, has it remained 
white?

A. Of the railroad, you mean?
Q. Yes.
A. I believe it does, yes, sir, and south of Refugee 

Road.
Q. Directing your —
THE COURT: Did you say south of Refugee Road?
THE WITNESS: Well, south of Refugee Road in the

[3591] area which he was discussing which would be to 
the west and south of the Chesapeake Railroad and south 
of Refugee.

Q. (By Mr. Lucas) Did you examine the opening of 
the Sixth Avenue Elementary School in 1961?

A. Yes, I believe I did. This is elementary ’61-62, 
PX 264, on the 1960 Census.

Q. Sixth Avenue Elementary opened carved out of 
what district?

A. It was carved out of Weinland Park, to the extreme 
east of the Weinland Park zone. It would be in almost 
the center of the school district, a little to the north.

Q. Can we put the ’60 elementary overlay on top of 
the ’61-62 overlay?

A. Yes.
Q. It might show up a little better. Can you show us 

how the Sixth Avenue Elementary was carved out of the 
Weinland Park area?

A. I now have 284A, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit, elementary 
’60-61 over the ’61-62 overlay, Weinland Park is nearly a 
square district pretty much in the center a little to the 
north and west of the city, and then in ’61-62 just to the 
east the entire eastern edge of the district was carved out 
and made into Sixth Avenue.



520

Q. The boundary of Weinland Park is a dotted 
boundary; is that correct?

[3592] A. That’s correct. I believe it goes along 
Fourth Street north and south which is the racial line for 
the area on the ’60 Census Map.

Q. It almost splits the Weinland Park zone; is that 
correct?

A. Well, just about. I would say it was about the east­
ern third, may be a little more than that.

Q. It is almost adjacent to the site of Weinland Park?
A. Immediately east of the site, yes, sir, would be the 

zone line, Fourth Street.
Q. So it would back up to the school almost; is that 

correct?
MR. PORTER: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (By Mr. Lucas) Let’s lift the overlay now. What 

was the underlying racial composition of the new Sixth 
Avenue Elementary?

A. It appears to be all red or orange, the blocks. 
There is a white portion to the extreme east, but I believe 
that’s railroad territory.

Q. What does the 1964 enrollment by race show for 
that school?

A. The 1964 for Sixth Avenue is 91 percent non-white.
Q. And the ’64 Weinland Park?
[3593] A. Weinland Park is 30 percent non-white in 

1964.
Q. When did Weinland Park close?
A. I don’t think it is closed. Sixth Avenue closed in 

1974.
Q. So do you know how many rooms it was when 

it opened?
A. My records indicate eight classrooms and one kin­

dergarten.
Q. Is that a fairly small elementary school?



521

A. Well, it was really opened as a primary school 
which explains the dotted line between Weinland Park 
and Sixth.

Q. What was the effect of opening the Sixth Avenue 
School at the time it was opened and the location of the 
school?

A. Well, it opened up as a racially-identifiable black 
school and compacted the blacks in the eastern part of 
Weinland Park into that area. In my opinion, this could 
have been avoided by simply running the line east and 
west, depending on the number of children in different 
parts of the area, or simply making it dog-leg to the north­
ern part of Weinland and picking up white children. There 
are any number of ways this could have been done. I 
believe at that time there was also a grade combination 
with Second School which is immediately below Wein­
land, and some of those [3594] children also went to Wein- 
land, perhaps.

# # # # #

A. I believe those assignments are described in Origi­
nal Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8B which I don’t have with me.

Q. All right, the Gladstone Elementary School was 
opened in 1965. Did you examine the opening of that 
school, Dr. Foster?

A. We have Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 268, elementary ’65-66, 
over the 1960 Census.

Q. Would you locate the school, please?
A. Gladstone is in the sort of center of the district a 

little to the north of the downtown area, and it was carved 
out of the southwestern portion of Duxberry Park, Dux- 
berry being to the north and east.

[3595] Q. All right. What was the underlying census 
data with respect to that?

A. That in the 1960 Map, Duxberry Park area is all 
white, the Gladstone area to the south, just above the line, 
the zone line, has a couple of blue blocks and I believe 
two green ones and one blue one, I believe.



522

Q. All right. Would you put up the 1970 Census base 
map?

Is Gladstone still located?
A. All right. On the 1970 Census map, Gladstone at 

this point is either all red or all — it’s either red or orange,
I would say about half and half, and Duxberry is, on, about 
a fourth orange and red blocks and one green — one or 
two green blocks, and the balance, I believe, is blue, maybe 
one white block in the corner, part of a white.

Q. This open at the mid-point between the two 
census period, and you’ve looked at both census maps. 
Can you give us the racial enrollment for Gladstone the 
first year that you have data?

A. The year after it opened in ’65, in 1966, I believe 
it had 78 percent non-white.

Q. And in 1965, what was Duxberry?
A. Forty percent non-white.
Q. And after the opening of Gladstone, what hap­

pened to the Duxberry enrollment?
[3596] A. The following year it dropped to 33 per­

cent non-white in 1966.
Q. Do you have an opinion as to the opening of the 

Gladstone Elementary with respect to the effect on 
Duxberry?

A. Yes. My opinion is that this was built as a con­
tainment school as the blacks moved north and northwest 
and allowed Duxberry to remain whiter for awhile and 
assured Gladstone’s opening as virtually a black school. 
This could have been changed by some combination of 
boundary lines or pairing with schools that were white to 
the north, perhaps Linden and/or McGuffey.

Q. What was Linden in 1965?
A. It had no blacks in 1965, nor did McGuffey.
Q. All right. Did you look at the boundary changes 

in connection with the Hudson Elementary opening?
A. ’66.



523

Q. ’66 overlay.
A. We now have the PX 269 elementary, ’66-7 over­

laying PX 268, elementary ’65-66, and both of those over­
laying the 1970 Census.

Q. Can we put the 1960 Census map up? I’m sorry. 
We should have done that earlier.

All right. Would you describe the boundaries of the 
Hudson Elementary and the area it was taken from?

A. All right. Hudson is in the center part of the [3597] 
district to the north a ways from downtown. It was carved 
out of the northern part of Hamilton. Its boundary to the 
north would be Hudson Street, to the east is Dresden, to 
the south is Duxberry and to the west would be the Penn 
Central Railway.

Q. All right. The school just above it is McGuffey.
A. McGuffey and Como.
Q. And below it is Hamilton directly to the south; 

is that correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And let’s put the 1970 Census back up.
All right. In the 1970 Census, would you describe the 

Hudson attendance area in terms of the basic census data?
A. All right. The Hudson attendance area to the east 

and the block just above the southern boundary is all red 
or orange except for one block in the extreme northwest 
which is blue. The northwestern part of Hudson Elemen­
tary is green and blue blocks intermixed with two or three 
blocks that would appear west of that and east of the rail­
road which are white.

Q. All right. Is the Hudson zone a narrow zone?
A. It appears to be about three blocks wide, yes, sir.
Q. And it runs east and west?
A. I would judge about somewhere at ten to sixteen 

or [3598] eighteen blocks.
Q. All right. In the ’60 Census, I believe it showed 

all white; is that correct?



524

A. The Hudson zone?
Q. Underneath the base map?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the 1970, it shows mostly orange and red; is 

that correct?
MR. PORTER: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Mostly — about two-thirds orange and red with 

one-third blue and green.
Q. All right. Does that indicate to you anything with 

respect to the rate of racial change at that period o f time 
in that area?

AIR. PORTER: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. That it was changing black very rapidly, yes, sir.
Q. Hudson opened what percentage black according 

to the earliest data you have?
A. My 1987 data indicate that Hudson was 41.9 per­

cent.
Q. And what was Hamilton, the school just below it?
A. In 1966, Hamilton was 61 percent non-white, the 

year Hudson opened. In 1967, it was 95 percent non-white
Q. What was it in 1968?
[3599] A. 90.3 percent non-white.
Q. What happened to Hudson in terms of its racial 

enrollment?
A. What year did you wish?
Q. Take us from the 1967 data to today, if you will, 

if you have it.
A. I have it on the spread sheet.
In 1967, it was 41.9 percent non-white; in 68 it was 

54.3; in ’69, it was 62.4 percent non-white; in 1970, it was 
69.2; in ’71, it was 74.8; in ’72, it was 77.9; in ’73, it was 
80.1; in ’74, it was 82.7 and currently it’s 82.9 percent non­
white.



525

[3600] Q. In your opinion, Dr. Foster, what was the 
purpose of the location and opening of the Hudson School 
with the boundary lines drawn as they were?

MR. PORTER: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. In my opinion this was a racial containment open­

ing which compacted the black pupil population south 
into Hamilton. Drawing the line east and west along Hud­
son Street also in my opinion had the effect of setting a 
racial line at that northern position which is still to some 
extent effective on the 1970 Census Map, as you can tell, 
because most of the area north of Hudson Street is still a 
whiter area, and the black area is very heavy immediately 
south of Hudson.

Q. Were these alternatives available in 1966 with 
respect to both Hudson and Hamilton?

A. Well, again it is my opinion that if you would have 
run the lines north and south rather than east and west, 
you could have put black pupils with white pupils in a 
much better desegregative fashion than was done.

Q. What were some of the available schools, and have 
you looked at their racial enrollments?

A. Immediately to the northwest of Hudson is Como 
Elementary, and immediately to the north is McGuffey 
Elementary. Then to the northeast is Linden. In 1966, the
[3601] year Hudson was opened, Como had no blacks. 
McGuffey had I think one black student, and Linden had 
0.1 percent non-white, perhaps one or two black students. 
So all three of these schools were virtually all white 
schools.

Ry drawing the line north and south, Hudson could 
have undoubtedly been opened a desegregated school and 
would have served to desegregate the three white schools, 
and probably Hamilton could have been included in that 
combination.

Q. Can you say without having a spot map exactly



526

where the lines should have been drawn?
A. No way, no, sir.
Q. But with a spot map, the lines could have been 

drawn in that direction?
MR. PORTER: Objection.
A. I believe they could have, yes, sir.

#  #  # #  *

[3622] Q. Dr. Foster, from your examination of the 
data that’s been made available to you, examination of the 
demographic changes in ’50, ’60 and ’70 census, school 
construction, school boundaries and particularly the grow­
ing areas of black concentration in particular parts of the 
city, do you have an opinion as to whether or not the 
actions of the Columbus School Board contributed in sub­
stantial part to any containment of black children in par­
ticular sets of schools?

# # # # #

A. Yes, I do.
# # # * #

[3625] Q. I will try to do it again: We got that far 
afield.

Dr. Foster, from your examination of the records, in 
particular the exhibits in the cause, the examination of 
depositions, the maps and overlays, the demographic data 
which you have studied, the racial enrollments furnished 
by the school district, school construction, assignment of 
principals to schools, the changing of boundaries, setting 
of boundaries, optional attendance areas, all of the matters 
in that respect that you have examined, many of which 
you have testified to here today, and I believe the second 
part of the question was considering the concentrations of 
minority population in the Columbus School District, of 
the actions and policies of the Columbus Board of Educa­
tion contributed in any substantial way to the maintenance 
of racial separation in black and white in the Columbus 
School System over the years?



527

MR. PORTER: May I have my objection?
THE COURT: Yes.
A. My answer is: In my opinion they have, and I 

would add to the actions, the inactions or the lack of 
action.

[3626] Q. Can you describe in some general way 
how this worked with respect to the various concentra­
tions of black population in the city as they expanded?

A. I think I have done this off and on in my testimony 
in treating various aspects that I made analysis of, but 
in the western part of the Columbus District, within the 
Highland’s area, in my opinion the blacks in that area have 
been compacted and the white areas maintained because 
of actions or lack of action by the Board.

In the south portion of the Columbus District about 
which I testified earlier this afternoon, my opinion is that 
the actions and inactions or lack of action by the Board 
definitely has kept the blacks, the black community, helped 
to keep the black community, particularly the schools is 
what I am referring to, northeast of the Chesapeake Rail­
way and the whites in isolation to the southwest of that 
dividing line.

As the black residential areas moved south from the 
center of Columbus, and north and northeast, in my opin­
ion actions and inactions of the Board have contributed in 
various ways to allowing whites, while that transition was 
taking place, to remove themselves to whiter schools and 
has generally had the effect of compacting the black pupils 
and schools as the movement went along toward the center 
of the city in both instances.

#  #  *  #  #

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PORTER
# # # # #

[3657] Q. [By Mr. Porter] All right. You stated that 
in the process of building a school that the problem of site



528

selection was not an easy one to solve. Am I stating your 
testimony generally accurately, or would you correct me, 
please?

[3658] A. I seem to remember I said something to 
that effect, yes, sir.

Q. And you went on and said: But the fact that the 
school opens racially identifiable, there is a strong tend­
ency to maintain that racial identifiability and that there 
is an obvious inference that the school system is not doing 
anything if it were really interested in desegregating the 
system. I think that was generally your statement. Does 
that sound accurate?

A. Well, I guess recently so.
Q. What is the problem that a school system faces 

or faced in the ’50s and the ’60s with respect to site selec­
tion? What do you mean? What did you mean?

A. Well, site selection for a city school district like 
Columbus is an ongoing process where they’re heavily 
into the real estate business, and most systems of this 
nature, and I assume Columbus does, also, has at least 
one person, sometimes a staff of people, depending on the 
times of their existence, whether they have a population 
press or not, simply out buying schools and looking for 
sites and so forth and paying attention to real estate de­
velopments that may already be underway or are pro­
jected. School administrators are in constant touch with 
the people who are building school developments and 
inner city developments and all of this. They work very 
closely, as a matter [3659] of fact, and they generally plan 
this — if they open up a new subdivision to have a school 
tucked away in it somewhere.

Q. Do you find this to be an unsatisfactory or a rep­
rehensible practice on the part of a metropolitan school 
system to conduct its business affairs in that way, or do 
you feel that it is an appropriate practice for them?

A. Well, I think there are some things about the 
practice that many systems have in terms of site selection



529

that I would not agree with currently, but generally, the 
process itself, absent the racial considerations, is — I would 
classify as a good or normal business procedure for buying 
school sites.

Q. Now, if one selects a site in a growing area or 
selected a site in the '50s in the City of Columbus in a 
growing area out from the center of town, that school 
would open up, would it not, under your system, as being 
racially identifiable?

[3660] A. Unless the school administration or the 
board decided to open it otherwise by changing the bound­
aries or the assignment of pupils within certain boundaries 
that they may have set up.

Q. Well, let’s, if we might, please — maybe we could 
get Mr. Lamson to put up the 1960 Census Map, and let’s 
put on top of it, if we might, the 1960-61 elementary 
system.

Dr. Foster, directing your attention to Plaintiffs Ex­
hibit 251, the 1960 Census, and the 284A overlay, direct­
ing your attention to Maize Elementary School which is 
up at the top which opened, I believe, according to my 
records, in 1960; is that right?

A. I believe so, yes.
Q. Now, what is the underlying color where Maize 

is located?
A. I assume it would be white. It is white, yes.
Q. What are the colors around it?
A. Of the elementary schools around it?
Q. Yes, please.
A. I believe all of them are all white.
Q. Now, would you please explain to me or, more 

appropriately, for the record, how that school can open 
and be other, under your system, anything other than 
racially isolated?

A. Simply by pairing it with another school that is 
[3661] of a different racial makeup, ranging it, pairing it



530

or grouping it with another school that is of a different 
racial makeup and assigning children in such a way that 
it is thereby desegregated.

Q. Now, Dr. Foster, looking at that 1980 Census Map 
and that elementary system for 1960-61, where would you 
have to go to do that?

A. You would have to go south, to the area around 
Eleventh, Windsor, Weinland Park, Milo, Leonard Eie- 
mentaries.

Q. Can that be accomplished or could that be accom­
plished without transportation?

A. No, sir.
# * # # #

[3873] Q. Thank you. Doctor, would you point out, 
please the Mifflin Junior High School?

A. It’s to the northeastern part of the school district 
(indicating). The school’s here (indicating)

Q. And it was your suggestion or testimony that 89 — 
there were 89 seats available at Buckeye. Would you iden­
tify Buckeye, please?

A. Buckeye’s to the southwest of the Columbus dis­
trict.

Q. It is the furthest — it’s the most southerly of the 
junior high schools?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Can you give us an approximation in straight dis­

tance as to what that is, please?
A. I estimated in my data it was about ten miles from 

Mifflin, south of Mifflin.
Q. And assuming the availability of the 89 seats, it 

would be necessary to take some part of the 530 students, 
take 89 of them out and send them from Mifflin to Buckeye; 
is that right? That’s what you do?

A. Well, I think if you were making that kind of a 
decision, you’d probably want to take two busloads, which 
depending on your capacity would be 100 or 125 children,



531

which would leave Buckeye slightly over capacity, but 
not nearly so much as Mifflin.

Q. All right. And another of the schools was [3674] 
Crestview with 86 seats. Would you identify it, please?

A. Crestview is to the north of the district about half­
way, and a little to the west (indicating).

Q. And approximately how far, please?
A. I estimated four to five miles from Mifflin.
Q. That’s a straight distance; is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you happen to know how you would get there 

by a road?
A. I didn’t make that analysis, no, sir.
Q. All right. Wedgewood had 145 seats, according to 

our figures. Would you identify it, please?
A. Wedgewood would be in the extreme western por­

tion to the south of the school district (indicating).
Q. And it is approximately how far, please?
[3675] A. I estimated about 12 miles.
Q. All right, thank you. Would you take your seat, 

please.
Now, if this system were to be followed, it would 

mean that you would break up the junior high school into 
units or numbers that would fit into Buckeye, Crestview 
and Wedgewood, and some other arrangement would have 
to be made; is that right?

A. Well, if you used, for example, all three of those 
facilities and made them slightly over capacity, you would 
wind up with a fairly over-capacity distribution in those 
three and in Mifflin Junior High. They would all be a little 
over capacity, which a junior high school can stand much 
easier than an elementary school.

Q. Well, I think, if my figures are approximately cor­
rect, there were 539 over capacity at Mifflin; is that right?

A. That’s right.
Q. And there were 300-some spaces available?
A. That’s correct.



532

Q. And it would be true, would it not, that you would 
be breaking up part of the seventh grade or part of the 
eighth grade or part of the ninth grade? You would not 
be able to handle the entire class, would you?

A. That is correct.
[3676] Q. Now, directing your attention, if I might, 

Dr. Foster, to optional zones, I have first some general 
questions that I would like to ask you, and then I have 
some specific ones. The first is that I take it from your 
testimony, and I guess it would be my understanding that 
you do not know, nor so far as you know or I know are 
figures available that show to what extent individuals in 
an optional zone have in fact used it; is that right?

A. Yes.
Q. And I think that you have also testified possibly 

here, but certainly it is your opinion that optional zones 
are used for all sorts of purposes; is that not true?

A. That is correct.
Q. One of which obviously you have testified is to 

permit whites to leave some type of a situation; am I right 
about that?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. You testified concerning certain options, but you 

did not testify concerning all of the options that have 
existed within the Columbus School System during the 
period that you examined; isn’t that true?

A. That is correct.
Q. And in fact, options showed in the — additional 

options showed in that Ohio State report that you used I 
think for 1955 or ’56, in addition to those to which you
[3677] testified; is that right?

A. I am not exactly sure of the latter, but I would 
think that’s possible, yes, sir.

Q. Do you remember, by the way, when you exam­
ined that Ohio State report that shows one or two of the 
options about which you testified, that it also shows the 
area annexed to the City of Columbus? Do you recall that?



533

A. I am aware of the areas that have been annexed 
as far as the schools go, I don’t recall specifically seeing 
that in the Ohio State report.

Q, Is your testimony here in this proceeding based 
upon certain specific instances — strike that.

The instances about which you have testified, the 
specifics, were they selected in this case by you, or were 
they selected by someone other than you?

’ [3678] A. By me.
Q. They were selected by you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And so they are the distillation or the residue 

or whatever of your examination of these various boundary 
changes and optional zones and discontiguous zones that 
existed in the Columbus Public School System from time 
to time during the period of your examination; is that 
right?

A. Almost right. The optional zones I would agree 
with.

The boundary changes — I testified in my remarks 
about non-eontiguous assignments and about school open­
ings and about optional zones for many boundary changes, 
dozens of them, but I did not specifically testify — or I did 
not make a complete analysis of all the boundary changes 
in the system from year to year is what I’m trying to tell 
you.

Insofar as boundary changes related to school open­
ings, to areas like the south area which I testified to in 
some detail, to the west area, that portion of it around 
Highland which 1 testified to, to the various optional zones 
or school openings what I testified to, those boundary 
changes I did make an analysis of. I did not set out 
specifically, because I wasn’t asked to, to make a complete 
analysis of every boundary change that took place during 
the time data were available.

* & # #



534

[3684] Q. And so if you open up — strike that.
Directing your attention to the Fair-Fairmoor optional

zone which is contiguous or coterminous with East, East- 
moor and Franklin?

A. Franklin, Eastmoor and one year Johnson or two 
years Johnson Park.

Q. Okay. Directing your attention to that optional 
zone, do you know the number of students or school 
children within that optional zone that were affected by it?

A. You mean who opted to move one direction or 
another?

Q. Yes.
A. Well, I think you just stated that we both agreed 

that neither of us knew this for any school option.
Q. You testified concerning the number of houses 

within those census — I suppose that was census informa­
tion?

A. Yes, sir, census block information.
Q. And the number of people within those houses; 

am I right?
[3685] A. That’s correct.
Q. Were you furnished or advised by the Plaintiffs 

of the information contained in Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 140 
which enumerated the number of elementary and high 
school students within the area and how many were in 
public schools?

A. No, I don’t believe I have this information.
Q. First I would ask you what the year is? I believe 

it is 1972; is that right?
A. Minutes of the State Board of Education, July 10, 

1972.
Q. Directing your attention to the second page under 

“Pupils in the Area” would you read it, please?
A. Twenty-five in elementary, 13 in high school with 

only one or two in public schools.



535

[3689] Q, Well, I want to know about your testimony 
with respect to the Franklin-Roosevelt High.

A. Well, this is not the only thing that went into 
making up my testimony regarding the optional zones. 
There were also factors as to how the schools were situated 
racially in 1964 which I also testified to. The Census Map 
is simply one indication of the way that the General popu­
lation data are running, and I combined this estimation 
with the figures that the School Board gave the Plaintiffs 
for 1964.

Q. But that assumption, and correct me, that assumes 
that there are people within the defined area, does it not?

A. Well, I think the School Board would be a little 
ridiculous to set up an optional zone between two schools 
if there were no people in the area. I think that’s a safe 
assumption on my part.

Q. Well, Doctor, isn’t it also true that if it’s colored 
orange, red, green or blue that that means there are people 
there? Isn’t that true?

[3690] A. According to the map that Mr. Lamson has 
made, I would say that was true, yes, sir.

Q. And it was my understanging that those colors 
represented non-whites, is that right, in some varying 
percentage?

A. That’s correct.
Q. And it was my understanding that it was your 

testimony that this was permitting whites to leave; isn’t 
that right?

A. That’ s correct.
* * * * *

[3691] Q. All right. Directing your attention to the 
downtown option.

A. All right.
[3692] Q. This option permitted those students with­

in this downtown area, defined area, to go to any one of a



536

number of five schools. It varied from five or six to seven; 
is that right?

A. Yes.
Q. Those schools throughout the existence of the 

option contained schools which were racially identifiable 
black and racially identifiable as white, did they not?

A. Yes, I believe so, although for the years before 
’64 this would again have to be an estimate on my part.

Q. I understand. Now, I am not clear about the 
direction of your testimony on this, Dr. Foster. I am 
correct, am I not, that a black student could elect to go 
to Garfield or Hubbard or any of the other schools that 
were within the group that particular year; isn’t that 
right? Isn’t that your understanding?

A. I believe so, yes, sir.
Q. And the same would be true of a white student, 

would it not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And as a matter of fact, isn’t it — it is not unusual 

to find a zone of this type in a downtown area; isn’t that 
correct?

A. I have seen many cities, and I don’t remember a 
single one where there was an optional zone like this in a
[3693] downtown area.

Q. All right. Now, you testified that the function or 
the purpose of this was to permit what? What is the 
segregative effect of this?

A. Well, simply that if you are white and you do not 
wish to go to a racially identifiable black school, you 
could have opted to go to either Mohawk or Hubbard, 
and I think that was the primary affect of it. In other 
words, it left the option up to the pupils or their parents, 
and there were both racially identifiable schools black and 
white involved in the option.

Q. Well — excuse me, are you through?
A. Yes.



537

Q. Isn’t it also true that to the extent that a black 
went to a racially identifiable white school, that you have 
improved, that it has an integrative effect, does it not?

[3694] A. That is correct.
# # # # #

[3700] Q. Directing your attention to Weinland Park 
and I guess it was what, Sixth that had the primary K 
through 3?

A. Yes.
Q. And when did that, did Sixth open? Do your notes 

show that?
A. Pardon me, sir. Sixth Avenue Elementary opened 

in 1961.
Q. And it, if I recall correctly, was a primary center 

consisting of K through 3; is that right?
A. I believe that’s correct, yes, sir.
Q. And I think your testimony went to the question 

of it having or to the point that it had — Sixth had split off 
the east part of Weinland; is that correct?

A. Yes, sir.
[3701] Q. Which I believe you testified had the 

effect of making Sixth what, white or black? I don’t 
recall?

A. Black.
Q. And removed those blacks, then, K through 3, 

from that area from Weinland Park; is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And would I be correct that the western part of 

the Weinland Park that was left was more white than the 
eastern part; is that right?

A. That’s correct, yes, sir.
Q. Now, what happened to 4 through 6? Did they 

stay at Weinland Park?
A. In the total area, yes, sir, I believe so.
Q. So that if the Columbus Public School System had 

as its object the intent to segregate, it was only going to



538

segregate K through 3 and not 4 through 6; is that right?
A. Yes, sir.

£ # # # #

[3705] Q. How do you explain the fact that the
racial characteristics in 1975 of the southern part of 
Columbus, that the area to the east of the railroad tracks 
is predominantly black or has a high non-minority per­
centage [3706] and the area to the west does not?

A. Well, I didn’t make any such analysis in my study 
of the school system.

Q. Well, you testified yesterday that the school sys­
tem caused the area to the east to go black —

A. The schools —
Q. — and kept the area to the west white. That’s what 

you said.
A. I was speaking of the school population, I believe, 

in my testimony, not tire general housing situation.
Q, The school system does not control the housing 

pattern, does it?
A. It has a considerable effect on it, in my opinion.
Q. But it does not control it, does it?
A. No, not completely, of course not.
Q. How do you explain the fact that the black popu­

lation of the City of Columbus went northeast rather than 
northwest?

A. Well, like I say, I have not made an analysis of 
that, but I could guess that there are certain reasons which 
are typical of any city expansion or development which 
have to do with that in terms of the real estate market 
and the schools and the whole — all the forces that operate 
to determine those things acting in unison and with 
reciprocal effect.

[3707] Q. But, Doctor, you are purporting to testify 
that the Columbus Public School System intentionally has 
segregated the races, and you purported to do this based 
on what they did in 1957 and ’58. Now, did you make an



539

analysis in order to permit yourself to make that type of 
a statement or not?

A. In terms of their decisions insofar as schools were 
concerned, yes, I did.

Q. And where is that information?
A. Well, I ’ve already testified to it. If you’re talking 

about the southern part in terms of school openings, 
boundary changes connected with school openings, assign­
ment of pupils in a non-contiguous fashion, to some extent 
school additions, the whole business of -—I did testify 
also to such things as the appointment of black principals 
so that the community perceives certain schools as black 
and certain schools as white. All of this is accumulative 
effect and process in terms of community perception of 
schools, and their perception of the intent of the School 
Board.

# # # # #

[3713] Q. (By Mr. Porter) You would agree, would 
you not, that the shifting housing patterns or the changing 
housing patterns play a part in the or cause the racial com­
position of the particular schools, absent some type of a 
pairing or transporting situation?

A. That they are a contributing factor, yes, sir.
Q. If there is a need for a school building in an area 

which is 90 percent white or 90 percent black, is it your 
opinion that the School System should not build that 
building?

A. Well, I think a school system needs to take that 
need in context with the total system so that any decision 
in that regard would have to be made for each individual 
school as it arose. There are times when I think by making 
choices of sites which may be made available, a school 
does not have to open up in an area that is 90 percent 
white or 90 percent black. That is to say there may be 
alternative sites which can handle that population just as 
easily generally which would be placed more nearly 
toward the buffer area or buffer zone where white or



540

black residential areas would come together. If it is that 
kind of situation, then I think sometimes you can make 
choices that way.

If it is in a completely isolated racial housing [3714] 
pattern, that is to say if it is in the extreme suburbs where 
everything is white, then I think a school has to make the 
decision that if you open it there in this day and age, you 
need to have some boundary assignments which will sug­
gest that you are paying attention to the necessity to open 
that school up as a racially non-identifiable school, and 
there are ways to do that.

Q. We will get to that latter part in just a moment.
If the building is built on the edge in a period of 

years, at least historically, there is an expanding popula­
tion. Historically at the present time you would expect 
that school to become black, would you not?

A. You mean if it were built on any edge in. the City 
of Columbus?

Q. On the edge of a black-white housing situation?
A. Not necessarily. Some of the black residential 

areas over the Census Maps ’50-60-70 have remained rel­
atively stable. Some of them haven’t. So I think it would 
depend on the situation.

If you are talking about downtown expanding black 
residential areas, that would be one thing. If you are talk­
ing about west Columbus, that might be another thing 
and so forth.

Q. So that to the extent that it may have been all 
right for the Columbus Public School System in the ’50s 
to [3714A] have built on the edge of a racially changing 
area in one situation but not in another; is that right?

[3715] A. Well, I think you have to make a judgment 
as to the nature of the black residential movement and 
the white residential movement when you’re considering 
race, yes, sir.

<* G # #



541

[3727] Q. I have got it in my notes. I will be glad to 
show it to you.

Now, Doctor, to the extent that the Columbus Public 
School System relied on advice which it received in [3728] 
the ’50s and the ’60s from the Ohio State University in 
pursuing its building program, are you — do you mean to 
suggest or imply that the Ohio State University intended 
to segregate the Columbus Public School System?

A. Well, I don’t think — I haven’t read all of the Ohio 
State University’s surveys, but the parts that I did read, I 
saw very little, if any, reference to race. I don’t think Ohio 
State was concerned with racial implications.

Most university bureaus, research bureaus that do 
this type of survey work do so at the request of the school 
system, and their main thrust in these surveys was not to 
deal with the racial component at all, but simply to deal 
with the usual population and construction needs absent 
race. I don’t think in most of those surveys, if not all of 
them that I read, race had any consideration.

Q. And that would also be true, would it not, of the 
studies with which you worked when you were at Miami 
of Ohio that were done by this group at Ohio State and 
your group at Miami? The same thing would it not?

A. Well, in several of them there were no minority 
students involved at all. I can’t really answer that ques­
tion because I don’t remember.

Q. Did you do a study — did you participate in a 
study when you were at Miami, any studies at Cincinnati, 
the Cincinnati School System?

[3729] A. I don’t believe so. We did some studies of 
schools in Hamilton County. I can’t remember just which 
ones, but I was involved in two or three studies of sub­
urban schools, but not Cincinnati Public Schools that I 
remember.

Q. And it would be true, would it not, that the studies 
with which you are familiar, both the ones that were done



542

by Ohio State for the Columbus Public School System and 
the others that were done while you were at Miami or to 
which you had some exposure, that those systems, the 
total systems, were built in substantially the same way that 
the Columbus Public School System was built or devel­
oped over the period from 1950 to 1965; is that right?

A. Well, I can’t say for certainty, but I would imagine 
so, yes.

*  *  #  #  #

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LUCAS
# # # # #

[3753] Q. [By Mr. Lucas] Thank you. Dr. Foster, 
you were asked about the Fair-Fairmoor option. Do you 
recall that?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you were shown Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 140 which 

you indicated you had not seen previously. I ask you to 
direct your attention to the State Board minutes of [3754] 
July 10, 1972, page 44, which is PX 140, an excerpt there­
from, and ask you if it indicates in there that this particular 
transfer raises the question of percentage of racial mix 
under the heading “Miscellaneous,” I believe, Dr. Foster?

A. There is a listing of considerations. Number 7, 
Roman numeral VII is Miscellaneous Considerations, and 
Item No. 3 under that states: Raises the question of per­
centage of racial mix.

Q. It also indicates in No. 1 that no school buildings 
are in that area?

A. That is correct.
O. Now, Item Roman numeral III indicates that there 

are pupils living in the area; is that correct?
A. I believe I read that into the testimony, yes.
Q. 25 to the elementary, 13 to the high school?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Only one or two in public schools?
A. Yes, sir.



543

Q. This was near the end of the option in terms of 
its extinguishment by the School System?

A. 1972? Yes, sir.
Q. In your experience, Dr. Foster — let me go back 

and establish a few facts. This option existed from tire 
directories of the School Systems at the elementary level, 
[3755] did it not?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. And it was set up by the School System at the 

junior high level; is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was it at the junior high or senior high that they 

had two options for some period of time?
A. Junior high level.
Q. What options were those?
A. This was in 1961-82 when the option included 

both Eastmoor and Johnson Park as well as Franklin. Then 
in 1964 it included only Johnson Park and Franklin and 
then — no, I beg your pardon. In 1962-63, the following 
year, it included just Franklin and Johnson Park, and then 
in the third year, ’63-64, it changed back to Franklin and 
Eastmoor.

# # # # #
[3756] Q. [By Mr. Lucas] Dr. Foster, it was sug­

gested that this option had little effect with only two 
children in public schools. Aside from the fact that we 
were not furnished data by the School System as to how 
many used this option in earlier years or thereafter, for 
that matter, does the establishment and maintenance of 
this kind of option indicate anything to you from your 
experience with respect to the intentions of the school 
authorities?

MR. PORTER: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
A. Well, I have been through that area, and I think 

that the general affluence of the area would indicate that



544

this is a typical sort of situation where you are more than 
likely to get some rather potent pressure that we spoke 
about earlier in my testimony on options on the school 
board, and the fact of this option would indicate to me 
that the school board might well have had considerable 
pressure to maintain this sort of option even though it may 
have involved in a certain period very few students.

a # a # #
NOVICE FAWCETT 

called as a witness on behalf of the
Defendants, being first 

duly sworn, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PORTER
[4278] Q. [By Mr. Porter] Would you state your 

name please?
A. My name is Novice Fawcett.
Q. And where do you reside, Dr, Fawcett?
A. I reside at 3518 Rue De Fleurs, zone 21, in this 

community.
Q. And what is your business address, please?
A. I’m the President Emeritus of Ohio State Univer­

sity and serve as an Educational Consultant.
# *  *  a a

[4280] Then I returned to the City of Columbus as 
Superintendent of Schools in 1949 where I served seven 
years until 1956.

# # # # #

[4284] Q. What was the status, if I might use that 
word, of the City of Columbus when you came here as 
Superintendent of the Columbus Public School System in 
August of 1949?

A. Upon reflection, I presume I would describe it 
something like this: It was and is a capital city that had 
experienced rather substantial growth between around



545

1940 and 1949, a dimension of growth which, as I look 
back upon it, probably was not understood too well by 
anyone. The [4285] City had, during the war, experienced 
an influx of some new industry, beginning — I believe 
probably the largest one being Curtis Wright, the Lock- 
bourne Air Force Base and others, and following — either 
toward the end of the war or following the war — I have 
forgotten which, was the decision on the part of General 
Motors Corporation to bring the Ternsteda Division of 
General Motors here. So there had been a substantial 
increase in the population and obviously a very substantial 
increase in the birth rate from 1940 to 1949.

There was considerable amount of residential con­
struction, particularly in some of the outer sections of the 
City, and in general the City was poised to do something, 
but, as I viewed it at the time, I am not quite sure that 
it knew exactly what it was poised to do.

Q. Do you happen to recall — and if you don’t, it is 
perfectly all right — what the population increase had been 
between 1940 and 1949?

A. Well, in 1940 the population, as I recall, was a 
little over 300,000, around 305 or 6 thousand. By the time 
I came here, 1949, it was 370-some thousand.

As I recall, I was told that there was an increase of 
about 2 percent in population in the city during that 
period.

Q. I am going to direct your attention, Doctor, to 
some [4286] figures and maps that have been put in evi­
dence here.

MR. PORTER: For the Court’s benefit, I will be 
using these exhibits, and these are originals. They are a 
little easier to read, possibly, than the ones the Court has. 
The 1950, for the purposes of the record, Your Honor, the 
1950 Ohio State University Study I believe is identified 
as Plaintiffs Exhibit 59. The 1960 Ohio State University 
Study — I am sorry, the 1953 Ohio State University Study



546

is marked as Exhibit 60, and the ”55 or ’56, one, is marked 
as 61.

Q. (by Mr. Porter) Now, Dr. Fawcett, I believe you 
have copies of these reports, do you not, with you?

A. Yes, I do.
Q. Would you refer to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 59 which is 

the 1950 study, and directing your attention, Dr. Fawcett, 
to figure 4 which appears immediately following page 8, 
I would ask you to identify, if you would, please, the areas 
of growth of residential building construction as shown 
upon that map for the period 1938 to 1941.

A. Yes. The greatest areas of growth, according to 
this map, are identified as the area immediately east, a 
little southeast in Bexley and a little southwest of that 
community. Another area could be identified as being 
north of 17th Avenue in between Cleveland Avenue and 
the railroad track. One of the sharpest increases had been 
in the north- [4287] northwest which is the area principally 
east and west of North High Street and north of 17th 
Avenue extended. There was some growth in a small area 
of the school district that projected between Upper 
Arlington and Grandview, and the beginning of a very 
substantial growth in the far western part of the city 
principally, but not exclusively, south of Broad Street and 
beyond Hague Avenue.

Q. Now, Dr. Fawcett, I would now direct your atten­
tion, please, to figure five of that same exhibit which 
appears on the next page and is the distribution of resi­
dential construction for the period 1942 through 1945, the 
Second World War, and would you describe generally 
where those heavy concentrations of new residential units 
are, sir?

A. According to this map, there was somewhat less 
construction in that period because of a shortage of mate­
rials, but there was still some additional in the area east 
of Bexley and in the area north-northeast in the general 
direction of Gahanna. There was continuing increase in



547

the construction in the area north of 17th Avenue between 
the railroad track on the west and Cleveland Avenue on 
the east and the northern boundary limits of the City, 
some continuing construction in the north-northwest sec­
tion, further development of the small area that projected 
between Upper Arlington and Bexley and continuing 
development of new residential areas in the far western 
part of the City [4288] south of Broad Street.

Q. Now, Dr. Fawcett, if I may, please, I will direct 
your attention to Figure 6 which is the next map and is 
the distribution of building construction for the period 
1946 starting right after the Second World War to 1949, 
the time when you became Superintendent, and would you 
please describe the heavy areas of new residential build­
ings? [4289]

A. The most concentrated areas of residential in­
struction here are in roughly the same areas as described 
before, but since the war was over and material was 
available, this is a period in which the growth really 
began to take place rapidly.

The areas east of Bexley literally filled. That’s the 
area between Bexley and Whitehall. The area north of 
17th Avenue and between the railroad track on the west 
and Cleveland Avenue on the east literally filled. The 
north-northwest area extending from, well, east and west 
of High Street all the way over to the Olentangy River had 
a sharp increase in residential construction.

Again, this area between Bexley and Upper Arlington 
on that map experienced considerable residential construc­
tion.

Q. Excuse me, doctor. You mean between Grandview 
and Upper Arlington?

A. I am sorry, between Grandview Heights and Up­
per Arlington, and the area on the west and far west, 
principally again south of Broad Street, began to expand 
rapidly.



548

Q. Thank you, doctor.
Now, doctor, if you would put that aside for just a 

moment, I would like for you, please, to describe the 
status now of the Columbus Public School System when 
you arrived in 1949, and I would like to deal with it two 
ways. I would like to deal with its structure, its organiza­
tional [4290] structure, and I would also like to deal 
with it from its physical standpoint as you saw it at that 
time, and if we might, let’s take the physical part of it first.

A. As I recall, there were 42 or 43 elementary schools 
in the city at that time, I believe of that 11 junior high 
schools and six senior high schools, the six senior high 
schools being rather good buildings. All, I believe, were 
constructed in the decade of the 20s following the 1st 
World War.

The junior high school facilities were not of quite 
the same quality as the senior high school ones, but 
quite good compared to most of the elementary school 
buildings. The vast majority of the elementary school 
buildings were in a very bad state of repair, and some 
so far, I thought, deteriorated that it would be an unwise 
use of resources even to restore them.

In terms of the operation of those buildings, I remem­
ber, for example, heating plants all over the system were 
obsolete. They were fired by men shoveling coal furnaces. 
Some of the elementary buildings I felt were -  the safety 
features were at least questionable, and I felt that an 
attack had to be made on that problem immediately.

As far as the organization is concerned, the other 
part of your question, I think I would say for the most 
part the system had been organized on what was called a 
vertical [4291] K-6 3-3 system of organization, kinder­
garten, first six years of elementary, the junior high school 
system and the senior high school system. As a matter of 
fact, the first junior high school in the United States was



549

the Indianola Junior High School, started, I believe, about 
1909.

The staff was a very limited staff. There were many 
good people, but teacher-pupil ratios were very high. The 
central administrative staff was what I suppose most chief 
executives of educational institutions today would describe 
as being a very thin staff. It was organized under three 
assistant superintendents reporting to the superintendent, 
one for business, one for elementary education and one 
for secondary education.

There were some special services, but the personnel 
was very limited.

Q. What had been done with respect to the physical 
facilities during the period prior to 19 — the 30s and 40s 
prior to your being appointed superintendent? [4292]

A. It would be a little easier for me to place that 
matter in perspective if I might observe that during the 
high periods of unemployment in the ’30s, not very many 
school systems had the resources to do anything about 
building construction. As a matter of fact, I think there 
was an issue tried in this city, if I remember correctly, 
around 1938 that failed. In the ’40s, with the war, it was 
impossible to get materials for the construction of 
buildings.

There had been some planning carried on to the 
credit of this city, a modest amount of planning, at least, 
prior to the end of the war, a kind of post-war planning 
effort, limited but quite good in other respects.

A bond issue, as I recall, kind of an umbrella-type 
issue had been submitted around 1945, and in that issue 
which had passed, the schools were to get I think it was 
$6.5 million. Apparently action following the passage of 
the issue was postponed for two reasons. One, it took 
some time to develop working drawings and specifications 
for buildings, but, secondly, prices were going up very 
rapidly, and there was competition for a limited amount



of materials. Evidently no action toward the construction 
of buildings was undertaken until probably in the very 
latter part of 1948.

Q. What was the situation with respect to enrollment
[4293] and projected enrollment as seen by you and your 
people when you came in 1949 and early 1950?

A. Well, as I recall, one of the factors, of course, 
that has a direct impact upon future school enrollments 
is the birth rate. I do remember that the number of births 
reported in Columbus in 1940 was somewhere between 
4,500 and 5,000, perhaps 47 or 48-hundred children, and 
when I came in 1949, I believe that the number of births 
in the district was about 9,000.

In addition to the increase in the birth rate, there 
was a certain migration of people seeking employment 
in this area. The combination of all of these factors led 
to the conclusion that planning for the future had not 
been adequate, that we would need to pursue vigorously 
more up-to-date data and should plan for the best scientific 
and objective study we could get in order to have such 
data available for making sound decisions.

It also meant to me that we would in due course 
have to go to the voters of this community and persuade 
them that what we were trying to do was a legitimate 
form of procedure to which we would have to have 
stronger support if we were to discharge the responsibili­
ties we felt that we had.

Q. Let me interrupt you right there, if I might, and 
while it is a little out of order, I would like to ask you
[4294] what did in fact happen to student enrollment 
within the Columbus Public School System from the time 
of your arrival in August of 1949 and the time you left 
in the summer of 1956?

A. I think, if I recall correctly, we at that time inter­
preted that problem to the people of the community in 
terms of having absorbed at least two cities the size of

550



551

Newark and Lancaster into the Columbus School Dis­
trict. School population, I believe or school enrollment 
in that period increased 24 or 25 thousand students, 20- 
some thousand students, as I recall.

Q. I believe that the figure, and it shows in the 
Superintendent’s Reports which we will get to later, but 
see if this coincides with your recollection, that the en­
rollment in 1950 was approximately 46,000 and by 1957 
the enrollment had climbed to 71,000?

A. That sounds correct. Of course, figures related to 
that kind of problem I believe are all recorded either 
in the Annual Reports or in the studies done by the 
Bureau of Educational Research.

Q. Now, you have stated that you recognized a need 
when you arrived for a building program or the necessity 
to build buildings. What did you do about this?

A. After reviewing that problem in considerable 
depth with members of the staff of the schools and gen­
erally with [4295] members of the Board of Education, 
I was ready to propose that we seek the assistance of the 
Bureau of Educational Research of the Ohio State Uni­
versity to do an up-to-date study. They had conducted 
a study here in 1939, I believe. I had been over that study 
and felt that recommendations were inadequate because 
the growth of the city had then exceeded the expectations 
of the people who carried the study forward.

At that time the Bureau of Educational Research 
which originated, I believe, on the campus of the Uni­
versity in the ’20s under the very distinguished Dr. 
Charters and later taken over by Dr. Holy, was probably 
one of the best recognized research bureaus for this kind 
of study in the country. Since they had already done one 
study ten years or more before, it seemed appropriate 
to me to try to determine whether or not they would be 
available for doing another study, and it had a good deal 
of other work to do at the time. The one condition would



552

be that I would provide some staff assistants to help them 
gather the data on which the Bureau itself would make the 
recommendations.

The Board of Education approved proceeding in this 
respect and at this time I brought Mr. Francis Rudy as a 
teacher on special assignment to be my representative in 
the collection of the data to be used by the Bureau in 
making its report and recommendations. [4296]

Q. Now, Dr. Fawcett, would you please get before 
you again Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 59 which is, I believe, the 
study done by the Bureau of Educational Research, Col­
lege of Education, Ohio State University, in 1950 entitled 
“A Restudy of the Public School Building Needs of 
Columbus, Ohio.” Do you have that again?

A. Yes, I do.
Q. And I would ask you to turn to page 3 little i 

and direct your attention, please, to the first paragraph — 
wait a minute — the first paragraph on that page after 
the word “preface,” which it describes I believe about the 
1939 study, and I would ask you to read that.

A. Once before during 1938 and 1939 the Ohio State 
University Bureau of Educational Research made an ex­
tended study of the school building needs in Columbus, 
Ohio. At that time detailed recommendations were made 
for additions to or replacement of certain elementary and 
junior high school buildings, for a program of moderniza­
tion of older buildings and such things as heating plants, 
toilets, fireproofing, artificial lighting and new floors, and 
for the replacement of over-aged or outmoded educational 
equipment. The cost of the proposed program was esti­
mated and plans for financing were developed.

Q. Go ahead, if you would, please, and read also the 
next paragraph. [4297]

A. Some of these recommendations have been fol­
lowed and the project completed. Others are in process. 
However, more than ten years have elapsed since the last



553

survey. During that time World War II with an accom­
panying scarcity of materials resulted in the slowing down 
of the building and replacement program. Also the war 
and other occurrences during the intervening years have 
been responsible for a number of important changes in 
population, birth rate and educational needs, all of which 
affect school building requirements. [4298]

Q. Now, after you received this report, did it confirm 
or did it not confirm your opinion that new school facili­
ties were needed?

A. Being new to the system, I had to depend on con­
sultation with my colleagues and such data as I had avail­
able. I was persuaded that the system was confronted with 
very substantial growth, but the study itself seemed to 
indicate even more dramatic growth than I had expected.

Q. Directing your attention, please, to Exhibit 59 and 
the page roman numeral VII, I guess it is, v two little iis, 
the beginning of the Table of Contents, do you have that 
in front of you?

A. Yes, I do.
Q. The first chapter one deals with community. Would 

you please explain why you or the people who performed 
this study were interested in the community and generally 
what it dealt with?

A. No study focused on the projection of school needs 
would be worth very much unless the people in the system 
understood the problems related to community growth.

Consequently, we did attempt to analyze community 
growth in this study and the prospects for future resi­
dential growth.

Additionally, we took a look as nearly as we could 
within the constraints of time at industrial development 
and [4299] other factors which we felt would have an 
effect ultimately upon the size of the school system.

Q. And would you explain, please, Chapter 2 which 
is entitled “Changes since 1939 in the Organization and



554

Population of the Columbus Public Schools and Possibili­
ties for the Future.” What was the interest here?

A. We wanted to have a historical basis for whatever 
data was collected and whatever recommendations would 
be made. We analyzed the form of organization or the 
structure of organization of the system. We took a look, 
according to the information that appeared here, at the 
trend of non-public school enrollments and what impact 
this would have on the future growth of the school system, 
and tiled to develop in terms of the best knowledge avail­
able at the time some trends that would give us guidelines 
on which to make decisions to recommend to the Board 
of Education for projects for the future, projects which 
would have to be submitted to the people for support.

Q. Would you describe, please, what Chapter 3 deals 
with?

A. Well, that chapter is — it appears here as a restudy 
of the school plant, its makeup and pupil capacities, and 
I have addressed myself to some aspects of the content of 
this chapter. It does give a recitation of the building 
changes or improvements or additions that had been made 
since 1939, [4300] some information related to recommen­
dations that appeared in the 1939 study. It addressed itself 
to portable classrooms and to the capacity of the build­
ings and made an analysis of the future capacity of both 
junior and senior high schools.

Q. And Chapter 4 deals with the financial program, 
and would you explain, please, for the purposes of this 
record, what this chapter deals with and its significance?

A. Yes. Every school superintendent uses as one index 
or at that time used as one index the amount of money 
invested in the education of each child in the school sys­
tem, the elementary level and junior high school level, in 
this case, and senior high school level. He also understands 
the taxable wealth back of each student or needs to under­
stand that or at that time needed to understand that in



555

order to be able to arrive at any kind of an intelligent con­
clusion about the kinds of recommendations he could make 
to people who had to pay the bill through an increase in 
taxes, principally real estate taxes. So tax bases were anal­
yzed, compared to the tax rates in other communities of 
comparable size. Capacities were examined and future en­
rollments fitted into those. Costs per pupil at that time 
were analyzed, and I might indicate that costs per pupil 
for the education of children at that time in the Columbus 
Public Schools were relatively low compared to other com­
munities of comparable nature.

Q. Thank you. And, finally, the report — No, the re­
port [4300A] also then deals specifically with recommen­
dations, and I think they fall generally into two classifica­
tions, and would you describe them, please, what they are, 
what that chapter deals with? [4301]

A. The Chapter, as I recall, is committed to making 
or drawing some conclusions on the basis of data that had 
been collected, and then to recommendations, both gen­
eral and specific, related to the entire school system, the 
form of organizations, needs for the future and so on.

Q. Did the study make general recommendations or 
a recommendation with such things as the retention of the 
K633 program?

A. Yes, it did. As a matter of fact, each study, to my 
recollection, recommended the continuation of what was 
then the K633 system as a general recommendation. It 
was called the vertical form of organization.

Q. And did the study also make recommendations 
with respect to the adjustment of attendance boundaries 
to compensate for enrollmentships?

A. Yes. As I recall, the technique used at that time 
was a very large map of the City on which pins were placed 
representing a certain number of students and the exact 
location. We used one color of pins for elementary schools 
and one for high schools and another color of pin for 
senior high schools.



556

When these were completed, our philosophy was to 
try to get schools to where the people were. We used as 
a basis for districts, generally speaking, some agreed upon 
distance. I’ve forgotten the exact distance now for [4302] 
elementary children, something like two-thirds or five- 
eighths of a mile where we felt they could walk with rea­
sonable safety. We took a compass and drew a circle 
around these areas, each of these areas.

We did the same for junior high schools with a larger 
radius and another for senior high schools with a still 
larger radius.

Then we tried to set districts as nearly in conformity 
with where the people were as we could, leaving some 
flexibility in the boundary because of growth. If we had 
too many in one school, they could still walk to another and 
avoid the cost from very limited sources of transportation.

Q. This is getting ahead a little bit, but I think it’s 
an appropriate time, in view of your testimony, at this 
point to ask you why the Ohio State University recom­
mended and the system adopted the type of community 
school or neighborhood school that it did?

A. I’m not sure that I can recall it specifically. It 
seems to me that, historically, for at least some period of 
time, we had had this form of organization. Historically, 
we had had the philosophy of the community school. His­
torically, we had not engaged heavily in the transporting 
of pupils for any reason. Historically, people wanted to 
feel a part of the school in the community where they 
lived, and [4303] we worked upon the philosophy, and 
the Bureau recommended a — the Bureau of Educational 
Research recommended a continuation of that form of 
organization. We continued to use it because it would 
avoid, we thought, a waste of resources. Since we were 
headed in that direction, we could house pupils perhaps 
as economically if not more economically than in any 
other way.



557

Q. All right. Now, the report made specific recom­
mendations concerning the construction of additional 
buildings and classrooms, and I believe it identifies, if I 
might, at page 76 of Exhibit 59, the specific recommenda­
tions with respect to the senior high school; am I right, 
or senior high schools?

A. Yes.
Q. And generally, would you summarize those recom­

mendations with respect to the senior and the junior which 
appears starting with page 77 and then subsequently the 
elementary beginning on page 81? I’m just talking gen­
erally now.

A. Yes. The recommendation urged the system to 
continue its present senior high school structure and indi­
cated that the boundary lines for the schools be flexible so 
that the best use might be made for available classrooms.

Essentially, the same recommendation applies to 
[4304] the junior high school portion of the organizational 
structure that appears as Recommendation 12, and in 
general, I think this recommendation applied also to the 
elementary form of organization.

Q. With respect — if I might interrupt, please, with 
respect to the senior high school, did the report recom­
mend the construction of additional senior high school 
facilities?

A. Not entire facilities, because at this point, the 
school population at the senior high school level was lim­
ited and would be for sometime in the future. The focus, 
as appears in all of our annual reports and in the study, 
is on, at this point, the rapid growth of enrollment at the 
elementary school level.

Q. Thank you. And those are taken up — well, for the 
purpose of consistency, please, starting at page 77, then, 
appears the specific recommendations at the junior high 
school level, and I believe that continues through 80; am 
I right about that?

A. Yes, that’s true.



558

Q. And again, it primarily was dealing with the re­
modelings and additions as distinguished from new junior 
high schools, although I believe it did recommend some 
site acquisitions?

A. That’s true. [4305]
Q. All right. Now, turning to the elementary school 

recommendations, would you tell us, please, generally, 
what the report did?

A. The report made specific recommendations based 
upon urging the school system to provide as rapidly as it 
could adequate school faculties where the people lived. 
Consequently, every elementary school building and dis­
trict and all those projected for the future were identified. 
Each one carried a specific recommendation, either for 
remodeling of that school or putting an addition to that 
school or acquiring a site and ultimately building a new 
school building where people lived.

Q. All right. Now, I would like to leave, temporarily, 
the 1950 Study, Dr. Fawcett, and ask you if it was neces­
sary to, while you were Superintendent, to have an addi­
tional study made?

A. Yes, it was.
THE COURT: This may well be an appropriate time 

for us to break for lunch. 1:30.
Thereupon, a recess was taken until 1:30 o’clock P.M., 

of the same day, to-wit, Tuesday, June 1, 1976.
# # # # #

[4307] NOVICE FAWCETT

resuming the stand for further direct examination, having 
been heretofore duly sworn, testified as follows;

DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)

[By Mr. Porter]
Q. Dr. Fawcett, I believe we were at the point at 

the noon recess where you had completed some general 
questions concerning the 1950 Ohio State University Study,



559

and I directed your attention or was about to direct your 
attention to the one done in May, dated May of 1953, by 
the Bureau of Educational Research of the College of 
Education, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, entitled 
“A Further Study of the Public School Building Needs of 
Columbus, Ohio,” and bears the identification Plaintiffs’ 
Exhibit No. 60, and I would ask you, sir, first, why was it 
necessary within just a short three-year period to again 
have Ohio State prepare a study? [4308]

A. The first factor I can recall is that the growth in 
the student population or enrollment was even beyond our 
expectations. We realized the logic of the fact that as 
children entered the elementary school they would ulti­
mately reach the junior high school and later the senior 
high school level. We knew in terms of the history of the 
community that we could only gain financial support from 
the people if we went with a reasonable request and then 
demonstrated, as a result of having those resources avail­
able, an action program that would continue to encourage 
confidence of the people in the School System.

Q. Was this study again done under the direction of 
Professor Herrick?

A. As I recall, Professor Herrick, assisted by an as­
sociate of his, the 1953 study, and also my representative 
again was Mr. Francis Rudy.

Q. Do you happen to recall the name of Dr. Herrick 
or Professor Herrick’s associate?

A. I think his name was Conrad.
Q. Marion Conrad, would that be correct?
A. Yes.
Q. I direct your attention, please, to Figure 1, which 

appears after page 3 of the 1953 study, which is Plaintiffs’ 
Exhibit No. 60, and it’s entitled “Distribution of Residen­
tial Building Construction, 1950-1952,” and would [4309] 
you describe the major areas of residential growth, please?



560

A. Other than spotted growth, the same areas that 
were identified earlier continued to grow very rapidly, 
namely, the area east and southeast of Bexley.

There was continuing residential development in the 
area north of Seventeenth Avenue between the railroad 
and Cleveland Avenue.

There was still considerable growth residentially in 
the north-northwest section going east and west of High 
Street over to the Olentangy River and to the north bound­
ary of the corporation line. [4310]

A. ( Continued) Some scattered growth continuing in 
the area that projected between Grandview Heights and 
Upper Arlington and a considerable amount of additional 
residential growth in the far west area, principally south 
of Broad Street.

Q. Now, directing your attention, please, to page 6 
of that same exhibit, which is entitled Table 3, “Major 
Residential Building Projects Scheduled for 1953 and Early 
1954 in the Columbus School District,” would I be correct 
in summarizing that most of these projects are located in 
the northeast, north and east areas of the city?

A. Most of them would be, yes, sir.
Q. At the bottom of page 7 of Exhibit 60 is a state­

ment or a paragraph begining after the words the 1953 
school building survey, which refers to the earlier studies, 
and would you please read that paragraph and page 8, 
with the exception of the last sentence on page 8?

A. Within the last 15 years, two studies of the school 
buildings needs of the Columbus Public Schools have been 
made. One of the studies was completed in 1939 and the 
other in 1950. Because of the continued rapid population 
growth in the City School District and because of the 
continued high birth rate, it has been found necessary to 
make another such analysis.

Persons interested in detailed general objectives [4311] 
of studies of school building needs may consult either the 
report of 1939 or that of 1950.



561

Briefly the purpose is to prepare for the Board of 
Education and the Superintendent of Schools a carefully- 
worked out plan of school locations, construction and finan­
cing. The factors usually considered in a study of this 
nature include:

1. The characteristics of the community and the rate 
direction of its physical and population development.

2. The educational philosophy of the Board of Edu­
cation and instructional staffs and the educational program 
necessary to implement this philosophy.

3. The plan of school organization which the Board 
of Education proposes to follow.

4. The number of children of school age and the 
proportions of these attending public schools and non­
public schools.

5. Estimates of enrollments which may be expected 
for the next 10 to 15 years.

6. The adequacy and utilization of the existing school 
plant.

7. The financial ability of the community to pay for 
new school building construction and its apparent willing­
ness to do so.

In the present case, since the last previous study 
[4312] was completed in 1950, only three years ago, some 
of these factors have been touched upon only briefly. 
Furthermore, since some action already has been taken on 
most of the major recommendations made in that study, 
the survey staff has been able to give special attention to 
needs arising from the rapid growth of the city and from 
the continued high birth rate. Consequently, the partic­
ular emphasis has been placed upon the need for additional 
elementary school classrooms in areas of recent develop­
ment and upon the need for enlarging secondary school 
capacity in the entire school district.

Q. All right, thank you. These are the same factors 
that were considered, some of the same factors that were



562

considered in the 1950 study that you have just enumer­
ated; is that correct?

A. Yes, they are.
Q. Does the 1953 study then go on to make specific 

recommendations?
A. Yes.
Q. And most of those recommendations dealt with 

elementary buildings; am I correct?
A. Yes, I believe principally with elementary schools, 

with projecting site needs in yet undeveloped but poten­
tially developing areas and additional recommendations 
of a somewhat more general nature perhaps at the junior 
and high school level. I have forgotten precisely what 
they were. [4313]

Q. What was your attitude or your position and that 
of your administration while you were Superintendent of 
the Columbus Public School System with respect to site 
acquisition? What policy, if any, did you follow?

A. Basically, the answer to that question, I believe, 
needs to be divided into two parts.

Historically, sites where existing schools were located 
were small, and so we examined carefully the need for 
site expansion where existing schools were.

But, principally, we began to look more carefully at 
projected growth of the City which seemed to be getting 
a little bit clearer, but not less rapid, and we projected 
probable site needs in areas not yet developed, and indeed, 
engaged, as I recall, in the acquisition of sites for future 
schools.

Q. Why did you do this?
A. One of the reasons was that, in contrast with 1949 

where we had, really, very little to start with, we wanted 
to be prepared for the growth, and the second reason was 
that we thought it was economically feasible to acquire 
land before developments had taken place, at least in 
magnitude, as an economy move.



56B

Q. Thank you. Was another study done while you 
were Superintendent of the Columbus Public School 
System?

A. Yes, it was. [4314]
Q. And that would have been the January Report 

dated January, 1956?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that again was done by the Bureau of Educa­

tional Research, College of Education, Ohio State Univer­
sity, dated January, 1956, and is entitled, “The 1955-56 
Study of the Public School Building Needs of Columbus, 
Ohio,” and has been marked as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 61 in 
this case, Dr. Fawcett, and I would ask you again, why 
was a Study needed in this short period of time after the 
’53 Study?

A. As I indicated in earlier testimony, at the time I 
came here, the City appeard to be on the threshhold of a 
magnitude of growth that people really didn’t understand. 
As a matter ot fact, I think, if anything, we had not plan­
ned for as much growth as actually took place. No one 
knew at the time exactly whether the birth rate would 
continue at the same level. Neither did — was it known 
that the industrial development would continue at the 
same pace, and thus result in an in-migration of people, 
combined with the increased birth rate would give us 
increasing number of people who had to be housed in 
schools.

Q. This was again done under the direction — or was 
done under the direction this time by Dr. Conrad of the 
Ohio State University?

A. Dr. Conrad. [4315]
Q. Am I correct about that?
A. Yes, you are.
Q. Directing your attention, please, to page 9 of Ex­

hibit 61, at the bottom, where it begins, “Prospects for 
future residential growth,” would you please read that 
into the record. [4316]



564

A. Area of growth is, of course, a major factor in the 
future residential growth of Columbus. As sewers and 
water facilities are extended, home construction no doubt 
will spurt forward in most of these sections. In the far 
east area, approximately 3,700 units, and in northeast, 
approximately 2,400 units are planned for construction. 
West of the Olentangy River and north of Ackerman Road 
approximately 1200 dwelling units are on the drawing 
boards. In the far west, 550 units are planned. The Colum­
bus Metropolitan Housing Authority intends to build a 
524-unit project consisting of one, two, three, four or five 
bedroom apartments near the intersection of St. Clair 
Avenue and Bonham Avenue.

Q. That’s sufficient for my purposes, Doctor. Thank
you.

Looking at Table 5, which appears on the next page, 
entitled, “Major Residential Building Projects Scheduled 
for 1955, 1956, 1957 and early 1958,” would you identify 
the areas of the city—the general areas of the city on which 
these projections were made?

A. The first several of those planned projects were 
east of Bexley. The next several were — three were in 
northwest Columbus, around Kenny Road. There were 
three in west Columbus, and I believe probably all the 
rest of them or almost all the rest of them in northeast 
Columbus. [4317]

Q. Now, Dr. Fawcett, please turn, if you would, 
please, to page 13, the paragraph appearing there where 
there is an enumeration of factors considered in building 
a building study, and I would ask you for the purpose of 
brevity if these are essentially the same factors as those 
which you have read from the 1950 and 1953 studies?

A. Yes, they are.
Q. Did the 1955-1956 study almost make specific 

and general recommendations to the Columbus Public 
School System?

A. Yes.



565

Q. And this was the same basic methodology that was 
used in the other studies?

A. Precisely.
Q. Now, Dr. Fawcett, do you remember, please, how 

many new school buildings were built during your tenure 
as Superintendent of the Columbus Public School System 
from 1949 through and until you left in 1956?

A. I have some recollection that it was about 28 com­
pletely new buildings, exclusively of all of the additions 
and modernization work that was done.

Q. And, again, as a matter of brevity as much as any­
thing, I believe that the record already shows or reflects 
in this case that there were some 15 additions made to 
those new schools and 27 additions were made to other 
buildings during your tenure, and I would ask you if that 
[4318] sounds approximately correct?

A. As nearly as I can recall, it sounds approximately 
correct.

Q. And I believe that you have described the — or 
would you, possibly, describe again, although it may be 
repetitive, describe again the nature of the remodeling 
program that was carried out during this period of time?

A. May I inquire if you are asking about the remodel­
ing principally of the elementary schools, the old elemen­
tary schools?

Q. Yes, sir, I am.
A. Most of those buildings in the central part of the 

city had been constructed in the late 19th and early 20th 
Century. [4319]

A. (Continuing) Many of them were in such a state 
of condition that we felt that they could not be salvaged, 
but most of them could be. We saw no way to solve the 
problem of trying to meet the needs of such a rapidly 
growing enrollment other than to attempt a remodeling 
program of those buildings concurrent with the pursuit of 
the construction of new buildings in newly developed 
areas, newly developing areas.



566

If I remember correctly, we remodeled making essen­
tially fireproof as nearly as we could about 43, 42 or 43 
of those old elementary schools, provided libraries and 
kinds of supporting services in the process of remodeling. 
In some cases where possible, we enlarged the sites. I re­
call rather careful consultation with the architect, the 
school architect, who was also a structural engineer. I had 
worried whether or not an expenditure of money for the 
remodeling of those buildings was a wise expenditure. I 
was assured by the technical people that the plan of re­
modeling under consideration would have a life expec­
tancy of at least 25 years. I think probably some of those 
are still in use, so far as I know, and it has been 25 or 
more years since.

We thought with the life expectancy of 25 years, the 
speed with which we could remodel those and get the 
children back into a good educational environment while 
at [4320] the same time constructing new buildings in 
newly developing areas, constituted sound judgment as a 
decision for providing the educational facilities where the 
people were.

Q. Now, Dr. Fawcett, you described generally at my 
request these building studies and their general recom­
mendations. I would like to go back now to 1950 and your 
receipt of the building study from Ohio State University 
and ask you, sir, what did you then do?

A. After I and my colleagues had analyzed that re­
port and had been persuaded of the logical nature and 
validity of the recommendations after they had been re­
viewed in the schools and after they had been read and 
reviewed and approved by the Board of Education, I was 
advised by the School Board then to go before a body 
which I believe was called the Columbus Metropolitan 
Committee, a Committee that was in place when I came 
here — I am not sure about the origin of it — a committee 
made up of leading business, industrial and labor leaders 
and review the report and its recommendations. I was fur­



567

ther requested to convey to them the estimates of costs 
which I believe amounted to $11,500,000, in those days a 
kind of frightening amount of money, with members of 
the Metropolitan Committee.

The Metropolitan Committee after listening and con­
structively questioning me about the nature of this pro­
posal decided not only upon the support of that issue if 
[4321] it were submitted as a bond issue to the people, 
but decided upon supporting it, provided there could be 
three proposals submitted to the people, namely, the school 
issue, the resources required for building what is now an 
almost obsolete airport terminal and the resources by bond 
issue for supporting the first leg of a freeway system ever 
to occur in this City.

Q. After you appeared before the Metropolitan Coun­
cil, what did you then do?

A. We then took the necessary steps to submit a bond 
issue to the people of the City, of the school district, [4322]

Q. And did you before that was submitted to a vote, 
did you go before the PTA’s and groups of that type?

A. Yes. Despite the fact we had an extremely limited 
staff, I remember personally going to nearly every Parent- 
Teacher Association in the city and to other civic groups 
to interpret what the study done by the Bureau of Edu­
cational Research had recommended. I remember further 
identifying every time I went to a school district exactly 
what we planned to do, and I remember also that after 
doing all that and submitting the bond issue, that while 
it was at a special election, the vote that was cast was 
considerably higher than had been estimated by members 
of the Metropolitan Committee.

Q. What happened to the other two non-school issues?
A. I had a feeling — I couldn’t prove this, but I had 

the feeling that at the time we were going to submit the 
issue, the Metropolitan Committee felt the school issue 
probably would pass, and I believe that their first thoughts 
probably were that it would give the need for an airport



568

terminal and a freeway system some visibility. If these 
issues did not pass, they would be resubmitted at a later 
time and through that process of education people would 
ultimately accept them.

Internally in the School System, working with our 
own people, our own school people and parent-teacher 
groups, [4323] we had concluded that all issues could be 
passed, a kind of optimistic view, I think, in terms of a 
good many people who weren’t as closely related to the 
project as we were, and they did all pass.

Q. Do you happen to recall the approximate vote on 
the school bond issue?

A. I remember the vote on the school bond issue 
fairly well. It was an excitingly supportive vote, and I 
think it was around 77 percent approval which, even in a 
special election, was rather a remarkable supporting vote 
at that time. The other two issues, of course, passed, but 
not by that same majority.

Q. Dr. Fawcett, did you go back or did the Columbus 
Public School System go back to the voters again in 1953 
with a bond issue?

A. Yes, they did. After the ’53 study, based upon the 
recommendations of the study. I don’t remember the exact 
date. I think it was a general election.

Q. And what was the approximate size of that issue, 
if you remember?

A. The bond issue for the schools?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. I think it was about $14 million.
Q. And you you follow the same procedure of going 

to the community with the — [4324]
A. Yes, we did.
Q. And if you recall, what was the size of that vote?
A. I have forgotten precisely, but I think that the 

vote at the general election was about 70 percent on that 
issue. I know we considered it to be sufficient to call it 
a mandate for us to proceed with an action program.



569

Q. Now, during the years that you were Superintend­
ent of the Columbus Public School System, there were 
three renewal levies. I believe the first was in 1949 and the 
next one in November of ’53 and November of '54. Would 
you please describe those just briefly?

A. The 1949 decision was one that either had been 
made or was essentially made before I came to the city, 
and I remember very little about the detail of it. 1 know 
that we worked to support it and that it passed. I think 
it was probably a combination of a renewal and a couple 
of extra bills for operation of the schools.

The 19 — the next levy was a renewal levy I believe 
of 7 mills which was submitted at the general election 
coincident with submitting a $14 million bond issue. 
The amount of revenue needed for the operation of the 
schools was too conservatively estimated, frankly, but 
to have submitted a renewal and an additional operat­
ing levy at the same time it was necessary to submit a 
bond issue proposal we felt psychologically would en­
danger one or both of the [4325] issues. Consequently, 
we sought the approval of the renewal with the bond issue 
and got that renewal and then submitted, if I remember 
correctly, a one-mill additional operating levy the follow­
ing autumn.

Q. And do you happen to recall what that November 
1954 additional mill levy, what the vote was on it?

A. It was very substantial. I think in excess of 70 
percent, but I do not remember precisely on that.

Q. Did you draw any conclusions from the voter 
support of the bond issues and levies concerning the atti­
tude of the voters within the School System?

A. Yes, indeed, we did.
Q. What were those?
A. Partly from experience you arrive at a judgment 

like this and partly from a study of the record, but in any 
general election it is very difficult on a tax issue to get a 
mandate that approaches 70 percent of a favorable vote.



570

We considered those votes as a vote of very great sup­
port on the part of a vast majority of the people in the 
entire community because we had gone to every com­
munity and had interpreted as carefully as we could, any­
how, what the project would be and what the educational 
program would be that would be carried forward within 
that project. So I considered the vote to be a strong vote 
of approval on the part of all of the people from all of 
the school districts. [4326] There may have been some 
minor exceptions, but I don’t recall any.

# # # # #

[4356] Q. And if you would direct your attention, 
please, to recommendation — just a moment, please — to 
Recommendation No. 2, which starts on page 77 of Plain­
tiffs’ Exhibit No. 59, I would direct your attention to that 
recommendation which continues over onto page 78 and 
ask you to read the 1950 Recommendation.

A. The 1950 Recommendation is —
Q. Starting at the top where it says “1950 Recom­

mendations” at the top.
A. As has been previously noted, Champion was or­

iginally constructed as an elementary school. Therefore, 
it is recommended that the Champion building ultimately 
be used to [4357] house an elementary school to replace 
the Mt. Vernon building.

It is further recommended that when this is done a 
new junior high school be built in the same area of suffi­
cient capacity to house all junior high school pupils in 
this section of the city, including the seventh grade, now 
attending the Pilgrim Elementary School.

[4375] Q. [By Mr. Porter] During the period from 
1950 until you left as the Superintendent of the Columbus 
Public School System, in the Summer of 1956, there were 
additions made to school buildings which I believe are, 
among other places, identified in your report for the period



571

1955 to 1956 which we’ve had marked as Exhibit C69; 
am I correct about that? [4376]

A. Are you referring to the 1955-56 Annual Report?
Q. Yes. I believe it is after page 22 or what would 

be 22. It appears under the heading “Buildings Expanded, 
Additions and Major Remodeling Projects in Old Build­
ings, Additions to Buildings and Major Remodelings in 
Old Buildings,” on the next page.

A. Yes.
Q. Now, in addition there were recommendations 

made by the Bureau of Educational Research, the College 
of Education at Ohio State University in the 1950, ’53 
and ’55 studies, were there not, Dr. Fawcett?

A. Yes, there were.
Q. And to your recollection were most of those 

recommendations carried out?
A. Most of them were.

#  #  # #  #

[4379] Q. [By Mr. Porter] All right. Now, Dr. Faw­
cett, were these additions and remodelings and new build­
ings built in accordance or pursuant to the recommenda­
tions by the Bureau of Educational Research at Ohio State 
University?

A. The only variations from them were variations 
suggested in the Bureau’s report where growth was 
checked prior to the award of contracts to determine the 
precise number of rooms that would be constructed.

Q. And, generally speaking, would these projects or 
at least the new ones and the additions be in there that 
you previously identified in the building studies as indi­
cating an increased residential density?

A. I believe that we kept the public informed in the 
records each year through the annual report or through 
some other means, but they’re all recorded accurately, 
to my knowledge, in those exhibits.



572

Q. And in order that the record be clear, why were 
[4380] these buildings built?

A. I guess the American tradition seems to demand 
that in the light of conditions in our culture, if you have 
children, you try to educate them, consequently, analyses 
were made of projected enrollments and steps were taken 
to provide buildings where the people lived. [4381]

Q. Dr. Fawcett, there has been testimony by you 
and others in this case concerning the baby boom after 
World War II and subsequent, and I believe that you have 
read into this record certain statistics concerning births. 
I would like to ask you, however, beyond that whether 
or not there was to your knowledge anything different 
about this expansion that took place within the Columbus 
School System during four years as Superintendent as 
distinguished from other school systems within this 
country?

A. To my knowledge, this city was identified as the 
fastest-growing, or one of the fastest-growing inland cities 
in the country. When you analyze the constant increase in 
enrollment, I think it is fairly easy to conclude that the 
burden placed upon a very limited number of central 
administrative staff people, as well as principals and teach­
ers, was an enormous one.

I guess on reflection I would say that the problem of 
providing adequate educational facilities in this city during 
that period by virtue of the fact that almost nothing had 
been done for more than 20 years was probably as great 
or greater in this city than any comparable city in the 
country.

Q. Now, you made reference in talking to me pri­
vately about Los Angeles. Would you describe just gen­
erally — I think you — [4382]

A. When this question was first brought to light and 
I attempted to reflect over my memory of conditions that 
prevailed in school systems, I did recall that at one period 
the City of Los Angeles, which, of course, is a much larger



573

city than this, was probably confronted with problems of 
greater magnitude, but if you consider only cities com­
parable in size and character to the City of Columbus, I 
doubt if any of them had problems more acute than 
we had.

Q. Did you and your people during the period that 
you were Superintendent and in charge of this program 
have occasion, at least one occasion, to appear in some 
type of a national format to discuss your efforts in this 
community?

A. Yes, I remember one occasion specifically. After 
we had demonstrated our ability to provide educational 
facilities as a result of the April 1951 bond issue and had 
provided school buildings at a somewhat more rapid pace 
than apparently had been provided in a good many other 
places at a regional meeting of the American Association 
of School Administrators held I believe in St. Louis, I was 
designated by the American Association of School Admin­
istrators to set up and preside over a panel that would 
bring to light techniques used by this system and other 
systems in the country with the express purpose of trying 
to be helpful to other cities only beginning to face the 
magnitude of the problem that had confronted us here. 

# # # # #

[4389] Q. [By Mr. Porter] Now, Dr. Fawcett, when 
you became Superintendent of the Columbus Public 
School System in 1949, was the teaching staff at the Co­
lumbus Public School System integrated?

A. The staff?
Q. The professional staff?
A. May I inquire if you mean teachers and adminis­

trators?
Q. Yes, that’s exactly what I mean.
A. No. it was not.
Q. And what did you do about it? Excuse me just a 

moment.



574

(Discussion had off the record.)
THE COURT: I am sorry, Mr. Porter. You may pro­

ceed.
Mr. Porter: Would you read back, please, the last 

question and answer and then question?
(Preceding testimony read.)
Q. Now, will you go ahead, please?
A. When I became Superintendent of Schools in 

1949, as I recall, there were integrated student bodies, 
but there were segregated staffs. I am not sure what the 
basis of that segregation was. I have a feeling without 
being able to prove it that that was a policy toward which 
the system [4390] had just drifted and probably had some 
of its genesis in the period of the 1930s during the de­
pression when jobs were hard to get.

I remember I made inquiry about this immediately 
upon coming into the system, and the answer or the 
response I got was, “If you look at the total number of 
teachers employed by the Columbus Public Schools and 
calculate the percentage of them that are black, you will 
find out that there are more black teachers and principals 
employed in the Columbus Schools than in comparable 
systems.”

I also remember that one of the first steps taken by me 
was to visit each of the schools in the system. I began 
that before the opening of school and, in addition to 
preparations for the opening of the school year, I was 
able to visit perhaps two-thirds of them. Then I picked 
up on this immediately after the opening of school and 
was accompanied always by the Assistant Superintendent 
for Business who had charge of transportation and this 
sort of thing.

One of the sites I visited was what was then called 
the American Addition School. That school consisted of 
two portable I think World War I buildings which after 
my examination I felt were totally unsafe, no internal 
sanitary facilities. The school contained between 90 and



575

100 children and had four teachers. All were black. [4391]
A very short distance from there was the Leonard 

Avenue School which had four empty, to all intents and 
purposes, fireproof rooms. I remember of instantly direct­
ing the Assistant Superintendent to pick up this school 
by school transportation I think the following Monday, 
if I remember correctly, and take them to the Leonard 
Avenue School, which action was followed through by 
him, and that became I believe the first integrated staff 
of teachers in the system.

I worked at this problem as I could in what time was 
available, and I think the records will show that when I 
left there were about 38 integrated staffs. [4392]

Q. Were there blacks chosen for the cadet program 
which you instituted?

A. Yes.
Q. Do you know whether or not there were black 

principals in 1959 or, excuse me, 1949?
A. Yes, there were.
Q. And did this number change in any way between 

1949 and the time that you left in 1956?
A. I can’t recall the specific statistics on that subject, 

but my inclination is that the numbers did increase.
Q. Did you yourself or did you have somebody else 

recruit black teachers to any degree? Did you do any 
recruiting?

A. The recruiting of teachers when I first came to 
the School System was done by the Assistant Superintend­
ents of Schools. The Assistant Superintendent in charge 
of elementary schools recruited the people for the ele­
mentary staff, and the Assistant Superintendent for sec­
ondary schools recruited the people for the secondary 
staff.

Q. Directing your attention, please, to another sub­
ject, in the 1955-56 building study at page 16 there appears 
on — I have got to check that. That doesn’t sound right. 
It isn’t. It is after page 16. It is the page after 16.



576

A. Yes. [4393]
Q. There appear on that Figure 2, along with other 

information, certain optional attendance areas. Would you 
please explain for this record your understanding of the 
use of optional zones while you were Superintendent, 
please?

A. As I indicated in earlier testimony, when we 
created school districts, we left some flexibility at the 
fringe of the district so that in the event, with this rapid 
growth and overcrowding at one school, there would be 
children located sufficiently close to another to walk to 
it, so we left some of those. Often as schools were being 
built, there were temporary steps taken in that respect.

I don’t remember very much about these so-called 
optional areas mentioned on this or indicated on this map 
except I see that they are generally located around the 
fringe of a district.

Q. Do you know whether or not they had any racial 
significance at least in their selection whenever they may 
have been selected?

A. The optional area?
Q. Yes, please.
A. To my knowledge, there was none.
Q. Now, you have previously testified concerning the 

limited amount of transportation that was used during the 
years that you were Superintendent, and I might I guess 
ask you a few more questions concerning it. What effect 
did [4394] it — and I recognize this may be repetitive, but 
in what respect did the selection of the schools and their 
locations and then size have to do upon the need or the 
lack of need of transportation?

A. Well, the policy was based upon the recommenda­
tions made by the Bureau and concurred in by us that the 
schools would be taken to the people. I think this is a 
matter of record both in annual reports and in the studies. 
The goal was to locate schools where people could walk in



a reasonably safe manner to the elementary, to the junior 
high and to the senior high schools. This wasn’t always 
possible because we had areas like what was then I guess 
identified as Clinton Township where there weren’t schools 
and where we had to pick up children and take them to 
other parts of the city where we had space available, but 
it was on a space-available basis when we took them.

Q. Do you happen to recall or do you know of an 
estimate of the number of pupils transported in say ’55-50 
-  ’54-55? [4395]

A. Oh, I can only guess at that, I would say 1,500 to
2 , 000 .

# # * # #

[4410] Q, [By Mr. Porter] As far as you can recall, 
did the Board or did the Administration instruct the 
Bureau to evaluate in any form the impact of school con­
struction, either the past construction or such as might 
be planned, on the racial segregation of students in the 
Columbus School System?

A. I have no recollection of race ever having been a 
matter of discussion in preparing for or the conducting of 
the study.

# # # # #

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. ATKINS
# # # # #

[4414] Q. [By Mr. Atkins] All right. Isn’t it also the 
case that the Superintendent now and then had the author­
ity and the responsibility to determine school attendance 
boundaries?

A. Subject to the approval of the Board.
Q. It’s your recollection that every school attendance 

boundary that was determined during your tenure as 
Superintendant was subject —was present for affirmative 
action by the Board; is that your recollection?

A. Yes, it is.



578

FRANCIS RUDY
called as a witness on behalf of the 

Defendants, being first 
duly sworn, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PORTER
[5011] Q. [By Mr. Porter] Would you state your 

name and address, please?
A. My name is Francis T. Rudy. I live at 1000 East 

Cooke Road, Columbus, Ohio.
Q. By whom are you presently employed, Mr. Rudy?
A. I am retired.
[5012] Q. You retired when?
A. September 1, 1973.
Q. And what was your position and your employer 

at that time?
A. I was employed by the Columbus Public Schools 

as Assistant Superintendent in charge of business affairs. 
# # # # #

[5014] Q. [By Mr. Porter] Now, you, I believe, were 
a chemistry teacher in 1949 when Dr. Fawcett became 
superintendent of the system; is that correct?

A. I was.
Q. And you were placed on special assignment by

him?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Would you describe what your duties were at that 

time in this special assignment?
A. I was assigned to do a school building study. This 

involved generally two categories of data. One category 
was concerned with the schools themselves, such things 
as enrollment, enrollment trends, curriculum, curriculum 
trends and changes that might affect the need for [5015] 
classroom space, the buildings themselves, that is, their 
organization vertically, in this case, kindergarten through 
sixth, junior high and senior high, locations of the build­
ings, the number of buildings of each type, the locations



579

of pupils. Of course, a very important aspect was the 
financial situation of the Columbus schools which might 
indicate whether or not the School System could finance 
any construction that might be needed as indicated 
through recommendations that might result from the 
study.

The other general category was concerned with the 
Columbus community. This would be such things as popu­
lation, population trends, birth rate, birth rate trends, the 
amount of industry, the type of industry, prospects for 
future industrial growth, the number of residences, the 
locations of the residences, annexations, anything that 
might directly or indirectly affect the need for classroom 
space.

I might say that coming right out of a classroom as 
I did, I was a neophyte in this area, so I was assigned to 
work under the direction of Dr. John Herrick who at that 
time was the head of the School Surveying Division of the 
Bureau of Educational Research at Ohio State. So my job 
primarily was to gather data, the type of data that I have 
indicated, put it into tables under his direction. For that 
data, I, of course, went to the various departments of the 
School System for school data and went to sources in the 
[5015A] city such as the Chamber of Commerce for popu­
lation, population trends, their estimates of population 
at that time. [5016]

Of course, we didn’t have the 1950 Census yet, so the 
latest information that was accurate was from 1940, but 
the Chamber of Commerce did maintain estimates year 
to year, and, of course, the City Planning Commission was 
an important source because any development, especially 
residential development, had to he known by the Plan­
ning Commission. Developers had to go to the City Plan­
ning Commission with their plans before they could 
actually do anything, and I might say that in — as time 
went on, of course, this enabled us to anticipate to the



580

best of our ability the residential growth in areas that had 
not yet been developed.

And then, of course, there was the City Building 
Department which provided information concerning per­
mits ----- gave us the information as to the locations of 
residences through the filing of permits.

Q. The study, the 1950 study which has previously 
been identified in this record as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 59, was 
it presented to Dr. Fawcett, the Superintendent of the 
Columbus Public School System, then to the Board of 
Education?

A. Yes, it was.
Q. And did the Board of Education or Dr. Fawcett 

take formal action with respect to that report, and if so, 
what was it, please? [5017]

A. Yes. The Board of Education accepted the report 
and its recommendations and decided to place a bond issue 
proposal on the ballot for November of 1951. That pro­
posal was approved by the people and the amount was 
$11,500,000, and as soon as bonds could be sold thereafter, 
construction proceeded as rapidly as possible.

Q. What happened to the enrollment within the Co­
lumbus Public School System during the period subsequent 
to that report, the near period? I have reference to 1952 
through 1955.

A. Enrollment increased on an average, as I recall, 
of about 3500 pupils per year.

Q. There was a study done by Ohio State University 
in 1953 which Dr. Fawcett has testified to in this case and 
which has been admitted as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 60, and 
1 would ask you if you had any — if you worked on that 
with the Ohio State University Bureau of Educational 
Research, and if so, in what capacity? [5018]

A. Yes. I worked, again, with the Bureau as the liaison 
person for the Columbus Public Schools. This was with Dr. 
Herrick again as director of the study, and we used the 
same techniques and procedures as before.



581

I believe that Dr. Marion Conrad also assisted some­
what in that study.

Q. As a result of the 1953 study, or after its prepara­
tion, did the School Board again place a bond issue on the 
ballot in order to implement the recommendations of the 
’53 study?

A. Yes, again, as a result of the study, it was obvious 
that the city was growing even more rapidly than before, 
if anything, and, of course, the school system also, as a 
result of annexations, which was another facet of informa­
tion that we collected in these studies.

As a result of the recommendations of that study, this 
time a bond issue of I believe $14,000,000 was placed on 
the ballot in November of 1953, and again it was approved 
by a sizable percentage.

Again, as a result, as soon as bonds were sold, or 
thereafter construction proceeded.

Q. Did you have occasion to again be assigned by 
Dr. Fawcett to work with the Ohio State University, Bu­
reau of Educational Research, in connection with the 
1955-56 study of the Columbus Public School needs which 
has been admitted [5019] into evidence in this case as 
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 61?

A. Yes, I was. This time, as I recall, the director of 
the study was Dr. Conrad who was also from the Bureau 
of Education and Research, and we were assisted this time 
by Warren Beers who helped to work on some of the 
tables because, of course, the growth was such that we — 
and we were working on the construction, that is it became 
a part of my duty to help coordinate that, at least to keep 
it on schedule, so this study did proceed.

Q. Did the Board accept or approve the Ohio State 
University 1955-56 study?

A. Yes. The Superintendent again presented the study 
to the Board of Education which accepted it and placed 
an issue on the ballot in November of 1956. This time it 
was in the amount of, I believe, $12,900,000.



582

Q. It passed?
A. It passed again, as I recall, by a good size majority.
Q. Are you familiar with the implementation of that 

building program?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Did you find yourself again working with Dr. 

Conrad and Mr. Beers on the building study that is entitled 
the 1958-59 Study of the Columbus School Building Needs 
of Columbus, Ohio, and Consultant Service by the Bureau 
of [5020] Educational Research, the College of Education, 
Ohio State University, July 1959?

A. Yes, I did, and again it was Dr. Conrad and Mr. 
Beers. I might say that for this study, I think it was for 
the first time that we used a new technique for determin­
ing the capacity of secondary school buildings. This had 
to be determined, of course, as best we could. It was a 
simple thing, relatively, for elementary schools to take the 
number of classrooms and if you had a pupil-teacher ratio 
of, let’s say 32 pupils per teacher, or per classroom, simply 
multiply, if he had ten rooms, multiply two times ten, and 
have a capacity of 310.

Whereas in the secondary school it wasn’t so simple, 
and in fact you could have a capacity in a secondary 
school which could be extremely large for academic work, 
whereas you might be quite limited in industrial educa­
tion work if you had a classroom, let’s say of history, used 
mainly for history, you might have a capacity in that room 
for one period of 30 pupils and, of course, if you had an 
eight-period day, departmental as it was, you multiply 
that by eight provided you utilized the room all eight 
periods.

And such a classroom, I might add, might have a 
square foot space of 800, whereas a — say an industrial 
education shop might have 24 pupil stations because of 
the machinery. Usually, such classes met for at least two 
periods, sometimes all morning or all afternoon. But, as­
suming that the class met for two periods, in an eight-



588

period day, you could get at the maximum for classes of 
24 each, so your capacity for that room might and probably 
would take at least three times as much space, square 
footage, as the academic classroom. So your capacity in 
that area, unless you had several shops, you see, would 
be quite limited.

Of course, you would have to know, also, what the 
need was, what the demand was, what your curriculum 
was, and, as times changed and industrial education be­
came more important, naturally, you would have greater 
limitations, capacity-wise, in some of the secondary schools. 
[5022]

Since the high birth rates which occurred immedi­
ately after World War II had gone through the elementary 
school, had proceeded into the junior high school, it was 
obvious that more attention had to be paid to the second­
ary schools. This isn’t to say that we weren’t aware that 
this was coming. It was simply to say we had been con­
structing — when I say we, I’m talking about the school 
system and everybody working together. We had been 
constructing about as rapidly as we could, bursting our 
blood vessels practically, but the time had arrived when 
we had to face the reality of the secondary school needs 
and, of course, their higher costs.

MR. PORTER: All right. Now, if I may, please, Your 
Honor, if the Court please, I have here a set of studies 
with as many originals as we have for the Court’s benefit. 
They have not been marked with exhibit numbers. I think 
there are others that have been. They are a little more 
legible, though, for the Court, and there are copies in 
evidence. I will leave those there for the Court’s benefit.

Q. Directing your attention, Mr. Rudy, to the 1959 
study which is marked Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 62 — and I hope 
that’s the one I gave you?

A. That’s right.
Q. First, what had happened to the area, the [5023] 

geographical area of the Columbus Public School System



584

between 1954 and 1959? You can answer generally or you 
may refer to that if you wish. First, let me have a general 
answer, and I will direct you to some pages in the exhibit.

A. As I recall from having checked over some of the 
studies, the City of Columbus had grown from about 41 
square miles to 85 or 86 square miles during that time, 
and most of the area had been transferred to the City 
School District. They called it an annexation when it is a 
change from the suburban area to the City, but it is a 
transfer when the change is made from an adjacent school 
district to another school district. So the area —most of 
the area had been transferred to the Columbus City School 
District.

As a matter of fact, in the earlier years of our work, 
the transfer was automatic. When there was an annexation 
to the City, that area was automatically to the City School 
District. This was something that adjacent suburban areas 
didn’t like, so they were successful in getting a change in 
the law. The change was not automatic thereafter, but up 
to that time practically all of it, I think, had been trans­
ferred. [5024]

Q. Do you happen to remember the percentage 
growth and the increase of the size of the Columbus School 
District from 1954 to 1959? Do you happen to recall that 
figure? If you don’t, I direct your attention, please, to page 
5 of Exhibit 62.

A. I don’t recall that.
Q. Okay. If you —
A. I know that —
Q. If you would, please, turn — okay. Have you got 

page 5?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. In the middle of the page, it says “Geographical 

growth, paragraph one,” and —
A. Yes. The percentage was approximately 55 percent.
Q. All right. And I believe you gave us previously 

the growth in square miles of the city itself.



585

Directing your attention, please, to page 8 of Exhibit 
62, would you tell us what Table 2 shows, please?

A, Table 2 shows annexations to Columbus from Jan­
uary, 1954, to January, 1959.

Q. And those annexations with their acreages appear 
on pages 8 and 9 of Exhibit 62; am I correct about that?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, you have made reference to the fact that 

not all areas transferred to the City of Columbus became 
part of [5025] the Columbus City School System. Directing 
your attention, please, to Table 3 on page 10, does that 
show areas transferred to the City of Columbus but not to 
the Columbus School District?

A. Yes, it does.
Q. On Table 3, City Annexation No. 135 says: “Adja­

cent to Port Columbus,” and underneath it it says “Won­
derland,” and it has at the right “Pending.” How do you 
happen to know whether or not this ever became part of 
the Columbus Public School System?

A. I believe it did not.
Q. Was that a part of a problem that revolved around 

some territory near Western Electric?
A. Yes, as a matter of fact, it did involve the area 

which was utilized later for the Western Electric plant.
Q. Was that a matter of — this was an area which 

was, up until that time, and remained with the Jefferson 
Local School System?

A. Yes, it remained with the Jefferson Local School 
District, a system which is headquartered in Gahanna.

Q. Now, Mr. Rudy, what changes took place in the 
enrollment from 1955 down to the time of your study, the 
1959 study, and I would direct your attention to page 17 
and 18 of Exhibit 62.

A. Well, we knew that enrollments had been increas­
ing [5026] and, as noted here, enrollments had been in­
creasing even more rapidly than had been anticipated in 
1959 — rather, 1955-56.



586

Q. Read paragraph, if you would, please, read para­
graph—the paragraph starting on page 17, No. 2.

A. Total day school enrollments have increased from 
61,650 in 1955-56 to 75,884 in 1958-59. [5027]

This was as of October, 1958.
Q. Would you read the next one and the one on the 

other page, please?
A. The school population is increasing most rapidly 

in the outlying areas of the City. However, increases are 
common in the central areas of the City.

Q. Paragraph 4.
A. Residential growth in territory annexed to the City 

since 1955 and ’56 is so rapid that it is seriously straining 
school facilities in existence in these areas and draining 
bond funds available for new school housing in such areas.

Q. All right. Thank you.
Directing your attention to page 30, Table 10, I will 

simply ask you if Table 10 is a projection of actual and 
estimated enrollments in the Columbus Public School Sys­
tem 1943-44 through 1972-73?

A. That’s true, for grades one through twelve.
Q. Turning to page 48, there is a listing on that page 

of schools that have been built and sites added and so 
forth at Paragraphs 1 through 9 dealing with the elemen­
tary schools, and then at the bottom of that page, Para­
graph 1, would you read that, please?

A. Tables 26 and 29 show that the total capacity in 
grades one through six in the permanent Columbus [5028] 
elementary school buildings of 32 pupils per classroom is 
43,136, with additional capacity of 2,368 in buildings 
under construction or planned, and with the addition —

Q. I believe it goes to page 51.
A. — of the Courtright School, the total capacity will 

become 45,504. Some classrooms usable only in emergen­
cies, kindergartens and the rooms for special classes have 
not been included.



587

Q. Would you read the next paragraph, please.
A. Since the projected elementary school enroll­

ments, grades one to six is expected to exceed 50,000 in the 
next five years, it is obvious that additional elementary 
school capacity must be provided.

Q. What had happened — what was happening at 
the secondary level? You have made some reference to it. 
I wonder if you please would give us the information that 
appears in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of that page at the bottom?

A. There are 22 secondary school buildings —
Q. No, excuse me. You don’t need to read that, 

please. The Court has that. Read starting at Paragraph 1 
under Secondary School Capacities.

A. The first item there?
Q. That’s all right, start with it.
A. Tables 27 and 28 show that the total capacity of 

all secondary schools, including schools in the planning 
[5029] or construction stage, will be 28,555. With pro­
jected enrollments for grades seven to twelve exceeding
40,000 in less than ten years, it is clear that more facilities 
must be provided for secondary school pupils. Enrollment 
for grades seven to twelve will exceed 28,555 in 1980-61. 
Enrollments in the northeast, northwest and far east areas 
will exceed the available facilities during the 1959-60 
school year.

Q. Now, the 1959 Study made certain recommenda­
tions, and the general recommendations start on — well, it 
is entitled “Basic Agreements and Recommendations,” and 
it starts on page 56. Would you explain, please, generally 
what are the basic agreements?

A. Basic agreements are understandings or assump­
tions that have to be arrived at before you really know 
what recommendations should be made. Unless you have 
agreements — and I am really not looking at this now — 
but unless you have an agreement, for example, as to the 
pupil-teacher ratio that you want at an elementary school,



588

for example, this can make a great difference in capacities 
and needs for additional classrooms. [5030]

Just a matter of arithmetic of taking 43,000 elemen­
tary school children and dividing by, let’s say, 34, and 
then taking that same number and dividing by 32 will 
give you an increase of many classrooms, about 80, as a 
matter of fact, as I recall.

And, of course, the same is true in the secondary 
schools. You have to have agreements as to what the cur­
riculum is to be. You have to have agreements as to 
walking distances to the various schools so that you can 
determine whether or not you have sufficient classrooms 
within the normal walking distance for pupils of various 
ages, age groups.

Q. Are there also included in these specific agree­
ments — was there also an agreement with respect to the 
size of the school? I direct your attention to paragraph 4 
on page 56.

A. Yes, the — there was an agreement that, generally, 
the elementary school capacity should not exceed 600 
pupils, not counting kindergarten pupils, 1,200 for junior 
high schools and 1,500 for senior high schools, which, 
incidentally, is considerably less for the senior high schools 
than had been in the past, actually, in operation.

Q. These basic agreements are set forth in Exhibit 
62, and they begin on page 56 and are of the type that 
you prescribed; am I correct about that, Mr. Rudy? [5031]

A. Yes, sir.
Q, All right. Then following that are specific recom­

mendations concerning the elementary schools and those 
recommendations, I believe, start on page 58 with Recom­
mendation No. 10 and go through Recommendation No. 
59 on the bottom of page 64. Would you check that, 
please?

A. That is correct.



589

Q. All right. And these are specific recommendations 
concerning new schools and additions and remodelings 
and acquisition of sites; am I right about that?

A. Right.
Q. And then, there are, similarly, there are recom­

mendations with respect to the secondary schools, and 
that begins with Recommendation No. 60 commencing on 
page 65 and goes through Recommendation 77 on page 
69. [5032]

A. That is correct.
Q. Do you happen to know how many of these 

recommendations were carried out, or what percentage of 
them were carried out?

A. I would say at least 90 percent.
Q. How were the buildings financed, if you remem­

ber, this particular group? Specifically to refresh your 
recollection, there was — was there a bond issue in No­
vember of 1959?

A. Yes, there was a bond issue in 1959 in the amount 
of $29,950,000, as I recall, which was the largest bond 
issue I believe ever approved for school construction in 
the State of Ohio at that time.

Q. In 1964 another study came out. It was entitled 
the 1963-1964 Study of the Columbus School Building 
Needs of Columbus, Ohio, Consultant Service by the 
Bureau of Education and Research, the College of Edu­
cation, The Ohio State University, and has been admitted 
into evidence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 64.

I will ask you, Mr. Rudy, if you are familiar with 
that study, sir?

A. Yes, I am.
Q. What was your connection with it, if any?
A. Of course, at that time I was Assistant Super­

intendent, [5033] Business Affairs; however, since I had 
worked with Dr. Conrad before and with Mr. Beers, I 
know it was Mr. Beers that is the liaison person for the



590

Board of Education, but it was natural that he would 
consult me rather frequently on matters which I was 
familiar with.

Also, we were constructing, as part of my duty, pur­
chasing, I had to be aware of construction going on be­
cause we had to have equipment and supplies ready for 
schools as they opened.

Q. Was the 1963-1964 study presented by the then- 
Superintendent, Dr. Eibling, to the Board of Education 
for its approval?

A. Yes, it was.
Q. Was it adopted and placed on the — a bond issue 

placed on the ballot?
A. Yes, it was adopted and again a bond issue was 

placed on the ballot. This time for, I believe, $34,650,000.
Q. Did that bond issue pass?
A. It did.
Q. Did the school system implement the recom­

mendations of the 1963-1964 study?
A. Yes, construction proceeded on through for the 

next five years or so.
Q. If the last building was built from that issue in 

1969, would that be about right? [5034]
A. I would say yes, yes, that would sound about 

right.
Q. Directing your attention to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 62 

— I am sorry — 64, 1964 building study, would you turn 
to Page 5 and read Paragraphs 1 through 3, please?

A. The population of Columbus increased by 69,814 
between 1940 and 1950. From 1950 to 1960 the popula­
tion grew from 375,901 to 471,316, an increase of 95,415.

The Columbus Area Chamber of Commerce esti­
mates that population in 1964 is 531,994, indicating that 
the rate of growth for Columbus is higher in the 1960s 
than it was in the 1950s.



591

Only three of Ohio’s other large cities gained in 
population between 1950 and 1960. Dayton grew by only 
18,000, Akron by only 16,000, and Toledo by only 14,000.

Ohio’s four other large cities, actually lost popula­
tion between 1950 and 1960. Cleveland lost 39,000 during 
the period, Canton 3,000, Youngstown nearly 2,000 and 
Cincinnati more than 1,000.

Conservative projections of future births used in 
Table 2 are based upon an estimated population for the 
city proper of 580,000 for 1970.

Q. Thank you. Now would you turn to Page 7 of 
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 64 and read the first paragraph?

A. Fx-om January 1954 to January 1964 the area of 
Columbus increased from 41.735 square miles to 94.33 
square [5035] miles, an increase of more than 52 square 
miles.

Although some of the areas annexed to the city were 
within the boundaries of the Columbus City School Dis­
trict already, annexations of areas from adjacent school 
districts has increased the size of the school district by 
approximately 60 percent during this period.

Q. Thank you. Turn to the next page, the first page 
after 7, and I believe that figure is entitled 1 and is cap­
tioned Areas Annexed to Columbus, Ohio from January 
1955 to January 1964.

A. That’s correct.
Q. Am I correct about that?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Then Table 4 shows the annexations to Columbus 

that are depicted in Figure 1, identifies them by date and 
ordinance number and acreage, and Table 5 shows the 
areas annexed to Columbus but not transferred to the 
Columbus School District; am I correct so far?

A. That is correct. [5036]
Q. What is shown, please, upon Table 7, page 14?
A. 1 in sorry. I missed a part of the question.



592

Q. All right. What does Table 7 on page 14 show, 
please?

A. Table 7 shows the major residential building 
projects scheduled and/or being planned for 1964 and 
1965, 1966 and 1967.

Q. All right. Now, directing your attention, please, 
to page 54 of Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 64. Would you read the 
Paragraph No. 1 at the bottom of that page under “Ele­
mentary School Capacities”? [5037]

A. Tables 29 and 32 indicate that the total capacity 
in grades one to six in the permanent Columbus elementary 
school buildings at 31 pupils per classroom is 52,793. 
With additional capacity of 1,922 in the buildings and 
additions planned or under construction, total capacities 
for grades one to six will become 54,715.

Q. Now, would you turn to page 58 which is the next 
text page and read Paragraph No. 2 at the top of that page 
which I think is a continuation?

A. Since the projected elementary school enrollment 
is expected to exceed 61,000 by 1969, it is obvious that 
additional elementary capacity must be provided.

Q. Now, would you read Paragraphs 1 and 2 at the 
bottom of that page under secondary school capacities?

A. Tables 30 and 31 indicate that the total capacity 
of all secondary schools, including schools in the con­
struction stage, will be 38,970. With projected enrollments 
from seven to twelve exceeding 44,000 in 1969, additional 
facilities must be provided for secondary school pupils.

Q. Thank you. Turn now, if you would, please, to 
page 62, and I would simply ask you if on page 62 begins 
the basic agreements against which this program really 
is developed that you described, the type of thing that 
you described earlier? [5038]

A. That is true.
Q. And it again then is followed by general recom­

mendations and specific recommendations with respect to 
the elementary schools, am I correct?



593

A. That is true.
Q. And the elementary school recommendations be­

gin with Recommendation No. 9 on page 64 and goes 
through Recommendation 68 on page 70?

A. That is correct.
Q. And the secondary school recommendations begin 

with Recommendation No. 69 on page 70 and goes through 
Recommendation 90 on page 74?

A. That is correct.
Q. And is it your understanding, Mr. Rudy, that these 

recommendations were in fact for the most part carried 
out?

A. Yes.
# # # & #

[5077] Q. [By Mr. Porter] Where is or was the Sixth 
Avenue School?

A. The Sixth Avenue School was located at Sixth 
Avenue and Sixth Streets, east of Fourth Street, south of 
11th Avenue and north of Fifth Avenue [5078]

Q. Would you go to Paragraph 11 and read Recom­
mendation 11 and paragraph that follows?

A. It is recommended that a primary center ele­
mentary school, Grades K3 — that’s Kindergarten through 
3 — having seven classrooms and one kindergarten room 
be constructed on the Board-owned Sixth Avenue site, and 
that the site be expanded. The elementary school pupil 
density of the area bounded by High Street on the west, 
Chittenden Avenue on the north, the New York Central 
Railroad on the east and Fifth Avenue on the south, has 
increased rapidly in the last two years.

Although eight classrooms were added to the Wein- 
land Park Elementary School in 1957, more classrooms 
must be provided.

# # & # #
[5107] Q. [By Mr. Porter] Directing your attention to 

Gladstone Elementary School, please, where is it located?



594

A. Gladstone Elementary School is located just east 
of Cleveland Avenue, about half way between Hudson 
Street and 17th Avenue.

Q. I will direct your attention to Page 65 of the 1963 
study, and I would ask you to read Recommendation 20, 
please?

A. It is recommended that a new elementary school 
having ten classrooms and one kindergarten room be con­
structed on a site located near Gladstone Avenue and 24th 
Avenue, which site is scheduled for purchase in 1964.

Q. Is that location, approximate location of the Glad­
stone Elementary School?

A. It is.
Q. I would ask you to read the comment that appears 

after the next recommendation starting Recommendations 
20 and 21, please?

A. Recommendations 20 and 21 are designed to pro­
vide classroom space needed in the area abounded by 
Hudson Street on the north, the Pennsylvania Railroad on 
the east, the North Freeway on the west, and 17th Avenue 
on the south.

These recommendations not only will provide space 
for growth, but also will provide facilities for approxi­
mately ten classrooms of children that will be transported
during the 1964-65 school year.

# # # # #
[5136] Q. [By Mr. Porter] Now, directing your at­

tention, Mr. Rudy, to the period 1957 through 1964 about 
which you testified this morning with respect to new build­
ings, I would ask you, sir, if my notes and records are 
correct and if it is consistent with your recollection that 
during that period of time, ’57 through ’64, you have 
identified and there were open some 49 new school build­
ings within the Columbus Public School System?

A. According to my recollection, that is correct.
Q. And that would be, during the period that you 

have covered in your testimony today, a total of 70 new



595

buildings opened between 1957 and 1969; am I correct 
about that?

A. Yes, that certainly seems correct.
Q. And do you happen to recall the number of new 

buildings that were open from the time that you became 
detached from your teaching duties as a chemistry teacher 
in 1949 by Dr. Fawcett through 1969, the number of new 
school buildings that were opened by the Columbus Public 
School System?

A. I believe that — I don’t recall exactly, but it was 
very close to 100.

Q. Thank you. Now, directing your attention to the 
matter of additions to the Columbus Public School System, 
we have covered, I believe, the ones shown through the 
period 1965 through ’69, some 52, and there is on the map, 
purports [5137] to be, the additions that were placed in 
the period ’57 through ’64, and I would ask you if it is 
consistent with your recollection that they total approxi­
mately and are shown on that map, approximately 55?

A. Again, that sounds reasonably correct.
Q. And that would be, according to my arithmetic, 

during the years about which you have testified with 
respect to new buildings, that would be additions from 
1957 through 1959, additions of approximately 107, 107 
different buildings?

A. I believe so.
Q. And I believe that — I would ask you if it is con­

sistent with your recollection that for the total period 1950 
through 1969 that the additions to buildings in the time 
that you became on assignment to Dr. Fawcett down 
through 1969, the total was approximately 158?

A. Again, that sounds about right.
# # # # #

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. LUCAS

[5138] Q. [By Mr. Lucas] Mr. Rudy, how long did 
these reports generally take to prepare?



596

A. How long did they generally take to prepare?
Q, Yes, sir.
A. I believe that the 1951 report took about eight 

months. The others took less time, because we were more 
familiar with the procedures and techniques.

Q. And to some extent, the others were updates of 
previous reports? You’d take the base data from before 
and see what changes had taken place since that time?

A. Yes, sir. We did, as you say, take the base data 
and update it, primarily. [5139]

Q. Were these reports prepared in general in connec­
tion with proposed bond issues or millage elections?

A. They were prepared — I wouldn’t say that they 
were prepared in connection necessarily with bond issues. 
That is, they preceded bond issues, because the recom­
mendations did require bond issues. They were made 
objectively, and the recommendations were a result of the 
gathering of the data, and the bond issues were a result 
of the recommendations.

Q. All right. The School System already knew it 
needed some new schools. You had increasing enrollments. 
You had school changes you needed to make. Is that 
correct?

A. Yes, sir. I believe it was apparent to almost every­
one who thought about it at all.

Q. And you went to the Ohio State Bureau of Field 
Services like Dayton has done, like school systems all over 
Ohio and even outside of Ohio go to centers like that, and 
you told them were we looking at our needs in terms of 
new buildings. We have got increasing population at var­
ious levels, and we want you to do a study with us as to 
what we should do in terms of those schools; is that cor­
rect? If I have left something out, you put it in.

A. For the first study, especially, we asked them 
really to do the study. I was a complete neophyte, for 
example. [5140]

Q. You were what?



597

A. I was a complete neophyte in —
Q. You went from chemistry to demographics, I 

understand.
A. Yes, sir. So we worked very much under the direc­

tion of the Bureau of Educatkmal Research, in that case 
Dr. Herrick, and it was also true in the subsequent studies. 
They gave us the direction. Naturally as time went on we 
would have been rather obtuse if we hadn’t learned some­
thing about the techniques and procedures and been able 
to carry on these studies much more rapidly because we 
knew about what they wanted.

Q. And you asked the questions. What should we do 
in this area? How should we solve our problem in the 
southwestern part of the city, things like that? This was 
the kind of questions that you asked them? [5141]

A. Well, the data were gathered and presented. The 
assumptions were arrived at. The basic agreements were 
agreed to, and the — therefore, the natural questions were, 
“What shall we do about these situations?”

Q. So there was some basic assumptions that the 
Board gave you to work with; is that correct, the Board 
and the Administration?

A. I would say that the basic assumptions were really, 
again, a result of the guidance of the Bureau of Educa­
tional Research people, because, at that time, we really 
didn’t even know what kinds of assumptions — whether 
there ought to be assumptions. We didn’t have any exper­
ience in this, and so they said, “Well, you have to make 
certain decisions,” that is, “the Board and the Superin­
tendent have to make certain assumptions on class size, 
walking distances and those kinds of things.”

Q. What your policy would be in terms of walking 
distance, in terms of transportation, no transportation, 
those decisions were made by the Board, were they not? 

A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. And you gave them these assumptions. 

I take it they often work with graduate students as well



598

in gathering up the base data, they come in in teams and 
survey schools, this sort of thing?

A. I don’t believe that graduate students were used 
[5142] in these studies very much. They were used in the 
first two or three studies in the making up of the — of the 
spot maps from the data that we had, so they were used in 
that fashion, but otherwise, they really didn’t have much 
to do with these studies.

Q. They did the base data work; would that be a fair 
statement, making your base data, making spot maps, this 
sort of thing, —

A. Yes.
Q. Making up data and charts but not the decisional 

process; is that fair?
A. Yes, for example, the first study, we actually 

spotted the pupils on maps, at least the first two studies, 
as I recall, in that fashion. They took the maps which were 
spotted in pencil and from that they made the final maps 
which were presentable in a study.

Q. Okay. I take it when you were assigned to this 
project you were not at that point already totally familiar 
with all the schools in the system?

A. I certainly was not.
Q. And that’s something you had to make yourself 

familiar with in order to assist the team?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes, sir. [5143]
Q. In that process you became aware of which schools 

had black enrollments and which schools had white enroll­
ments; did you not?

A. Dr. Herrick and I went around for the first study 
from school to school.

Q. So you saw which schools were all white and 
which ones were mostly black; isn’t that correct?

A. I suppose we — if by seeing you mean becoming 
fully and consciously aware, I would say not.



599

Q. Did you walk through the schools and look at the 
classrooms when they were empty or when they were full?

A. We walked through the buildings and we knew 
that there were pupils present and, of course, if most were 
white, we were probably aware of that; most were black, 
we were aware of that, but really we didn’t give it any 
thought.

Q. Did the board give the Ohio State team any direc­
tions as to what it should do to minimize the existing con­
centration of white children in white schools and black 
children in black schools during any of these studies?

A. No, sir.
Q. Did the hoard ask the Ohio State people to make 

any recommendations about steps that could be taken in 
the course of making decisions about school locations and 
so forth, which would minimize or reduce existing seg­
regation in the Columbus schools? [5144]

A. No, sir.
Q. Let me go back. Did the board ask the team to 

take any steps to avoid increasing the degree of segrega­
tion in the Columbus schools?

A. No, sir. [5144]

# & # # #

[5148] Q. [By Mr. Lucas] Have you got a copy of 
PX 59? I wonder if you could locate for me quickly the 
reference that you made to the annexations and how much 
annexations there had been in this particular report?

A. The reference to annexations?
Q. Yes, I think it is at page 6. Do you want to take 

a look? Let’s make sure we are looking at the same docu­
ment. Do you have Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 59 rather than the 
’59 study?

A. I have the 1950 study which is marked PX 59.
Q. Okay. Look at page 6.



600

A. Yes, I see what you mean, the growth of the [5149] 
Columbus School District.

Q. Yes, that’s what I am referring to.
A, Yes, sir,
Q. That indicates that very little territory had been 

added since the first study in 1939; is that correct?
A. Yes, sir, at that time that was true.
Q. Let’s look at the 1960 study —I am sorry, the 

1953 study, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 60. Do you find another 
reference to the annexation?

A. Yes, sir, on page 3.
Q. Page what?
A. Page 3.
Q. What does that indicate?
A. It is indicated that at that time the only annexa­

tion — it says of the city, but really to the city and to the 
City School District since 1949 was the airport area, so 
that annexation up to that time had little impact.

Q. Only two families; is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right, would you look at Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 61, 

1966 study? Do you find a reference to the growth of the 
district there?

[5150] Look at the bottom of page 2, if you will, sir.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. It indicates a total of 8,112.4 acres had been an­

nexed to the City on January 1, ’54, through October 17, 
’55; is that correct?

A. That is correct.
Q. And then it goes on —perhaps you should read 

from there, the sentence beginning, “Although some of the 
areas annexed.”

A. Although some of the areas annexed were within 
the boundaries of the Columbus School District, annexa­
tion of the areas from adjacent school districts account for 
approximately 5,310 acres. Little, if any, of this territory 
newly acquired by the City, even that which —



601

Q. Skip to page 5.
A, —previously had been a part of the Columbus 

School District, not then within the City Limits, had been 
— has been densely populated at the time of annexation 
primarily because, for about two years, City sewer and 
water taps have not been permitted outside the limits of 
the Columbus municipality. However, as soon as annexa­
tion proceedings have been completed, the areas affected 
have been supplied with sewer and water facilities, resi­
dential growth has been rampant in almost every case. 
Business and industrial construction are also encouraged 
by the [5151] availability of City services.

Q. In these areas outside the Columbus School Dis­
trict, the Columbus Board did have a policy of acquiring 
sites, school sites, did it not?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. And so, in addition to sewer and water facilities, 

the Columbus Board acquired sites for new schools in the 
developing areas in advance of annexations or additions to 
the district by transfer; is that correct?

A. That is true.
Q. Mr. Rudy, did you — and I take it probably Mr. 

Beers worked closely with developers in connection with 
the location of the school sites, acquiring sites within sub­
divisions, things of this sort?

A. Yes, we tried to, and were usually successful.
Q. All right. I suppose you’re familiar, perhaps you’re 

not familiar with the signs, but new developments that 
say, “New church to be located here, new shopping center, 
school to be built on this site” as part of the development 
of the subdivision? You’ve seen those in your work with 
developers?

A. I really can’t say that I have, sir.
Q. You haven’t seen advertisements indicating that 

the developers new school was going to be built in a cer­
tain place; that the School Board had selected the site in 
[5152] advance?



602

A. I — I don’t believe we had a lot of that. We — I’m 
sure that it happened, because I know that people had 
talked to us. I’m sure that in selling a lot, well say, for a — 
or a house, that salesmen would use that approach.

[5153] But I really can’t say that I saw a lot of that 
in advertising.

Q. You didn’t see it in signs?
A. In signs or in advertising in newspapers and that 

sort of thing.
Q. The Board didn't keep its site selections confiden­

tial, did it?
A. No. sir.
Q. In fact, they were publicized in various reports 

of the Board, were they not?
A. They were, and, in fact, when the Board of 

Education purchased a site, it was public information and 
in every case, I am sure, reported in the newspaper.

Q. I show you C-7B which also bears Original Plain­
tiffs’ Exhibit 23. I think they are just printed differently. 
They both have the same title “To Have a School.” Since 
you are familiar with C-76, let’s use that one.

Would you turn to the information about Project ’71? 
That was the Monroe Junior High School; is that correct?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. I show you what has been marked for identifica­

tion Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 5 ll-5 (e ) which is a newspaper 
article with a by-line Betty Daft, D-a-f-t. It is a report 
dealing with the opening of Monroe Junior High School. 
Would you [5154] begin reading from the full paragraph 
that begins “At the same time”?

A. At the same time, however —
Q. I am sony, that would not give the full picture. 

Read beginning the paragraph before that, please.
A. Civil Rights representatives present at the meet­

ing acknowledged the advancements made in the report 
and welcomed the announcement from Dr. Watson



603

Walker, School Board President, that a citizens advisory 
council would be formed to sit in on future planning 
sessions. At the same time, however, they soundly de­
nounced the administration’s continuing policy of building 
more schools in predominantly Negro areas as “going 
farther into racial imbalance, creating more and more 
problems to correct.”

Monroe Junior High due to open in September was 
singled out as an example of moving Negro youth studying 
at the integrated Linmoor to a school predominantly Negro.

Q. The next paragraph.
A. The purchase of land by the School Board Tuesday 

for a possible future elementary at Gladstone and East 
25th Street was also questioned as placing a third Negro 
School in the immediate area.

[5155] (). Are you familiar with the Gladstone open­
ing as well as the Monroe Junior High?

A. Yes, I am.
Q. Is that the approximate location where the school 

opened?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And they did name it Gladstone; is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you aware that Gladstone opened in 1965? 

Does that sound like the correct date for physical opening 
of the school?

A. It sounds about right.
Q. And the record, I believe, reflects that in 1966, 

the first time racial data was reported on the school, it 
was 78 percent black, and in ’67, 91.2 percent black. Were 
you aware, sir, that Monroe Junior High opened 100 per­
cent black?

A. I wasn’t consciously aware of it. I had no particular 
reason to note it.

Q. You knew it was in a black area, didn’t you?
A. Yes, sir.



604

Q. I am sorry, when did you retire from the system?
A. September 1, 1973.
Q. You were still with the system then at the time the 

Cunningham Report, another Ohio State University study, 
was [5156] submitted to the Board for its consideration, 
were you not?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. I will refer to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 194 and ask you 

to look at page 3 and see what Ohio State had to say in 
the second full paragraph on the page.

A. Do you want me to read that?
Q. Yes, sir, please.
A. Due to a number of circumstances, there are 

racially segregated schools in the Columbus — I am sorry 
— in Columbus. See Figures 2 and 3. But there is interest 
in finding ways to handle that problem. Conflict between 
the schools and segments of the community exists. It 
cannot be ignored. There is not enough money, but the 
survey of householders and employers indicated a willing­
ness to spend more for good schools. There are new serv­
ices as well as increases in existing services required, but 
these would seem to be achievable.

Q. Let us refer now to Figures 2 and 3 in the report. 
Figure 2 is a map done in color by Ohio State University 
showing percentages of Negroes in the public elementary 
schools, Columbus, Ohio, 1967-68, is it not?

A. Yes, sir.
[5157] Q. And if we can for the record — I know you 

can see it, but we have to say it for the record. Let’s go 
over the color code. The areas such as Bexley and White­
hall are in the color blue as not being part of the 
Columbus District; is that correct?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. And then the circles with less than 1 percent 

Negro students, in the language used in the report, are



605

red circles or semi-circles. I don t know what you call 
them. They look like footballs to me.

A. Ovals or something.
Q. Anyway, they are completely white on this parti­

cular map; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And would you give us the various colors for the

various other percentages?
A. The percentage 1 percent to 4.9 percent is in 

yellow. The percentage 5 to 24.9 percent is a red oval 
with two red dots. The percentage 25 to 49.9 is an oval, 
a red oval with a red X.

Percentage 50 to 74.9 is a black oval with a figure 8, 
I believe that is.

Q. That looks like it to me.
A. Figure 8 inside. A percentage 75 to 94.9 is a black 

— were talking about outlines now.
[5158] Q. Yes.
A. — black oval with red interior and a white dot 

inside that. Percentage over 95 percent is a black oval 
colored entirely red inside.

Q. All right. And those that are colored red are all 
concentrated in one particular area of the city, are they 
not?

A. They are concentrated in the central section of the
city.

Q. And the white circles are pretty much in the 
periphery of the city, are they not?

A. Yes, they are.
Q. That’s elementary school, and I believe the 

slightly different coding but essentially the same process, 
the junior and senior high schools are reflected in the map. 
I don’t think we need to read through the code. And that s 
figure 3; is that correct?

A. Yes, sir.



606

Q. Thank you.
I refer you now to Page 20 of the Cunningham Report 

under the heading “Managed School Integration” and ask 
you to read that paragraph.

A. The mark —
Q. Yes, down to the mark.
A. The concentration of minority groups in certain

[5159] sectors of Columbus requires that policies of 
managed school integration be adopted. The Commission 
endorses the recent Board of Education decisions on 
boundaries for the new Southmoor Junior High School. 
This new school will achieve a reasonable racial balance 
in its enrollment and at the same time assure the distribu­
tions of black and white youngsters in neighboring schools. 
It is necessary that this principle and process of boundary 
revision be extended immediately to other segregated 
schools.

Q. Do you know whether or not that process was 
extended to the other segregated schools?

A. I don’t recall. As -  as I recall, as new schools were 
opened, and there was a possibility of doing this for pupils 
living within a reasonable distance of the school, I think 
that an attempt was made, but, of course —

Q. Would that be true -  I’m sorry.
A. But, of course, this would not apply to the schools 

in the central part of the city which had already been 
established.

# # # # #

[5162] Q. I refer you now to the summary at page 
105. Would you read the section beginning “Managed 
school integration”?

A. Managed school integration can go forward much 
more intelligently with the knowledge that new segrega­
tions are not cropping up in developing areas of the City. 
Managed integration linked with carefully chosen com­
pensatory education programming has the prospect of 
offering Columbus the most outstanding large city educa­



607

tional system in the nation. Pursuing policies of segrega­
tion promised little or no hope. They will lead only to 
further deterioration of the community's confidence in its 
schools, large school disenhancement on the part of dis­
advantaged families, black and white, growth and student 
unrest and eventually economic decline within the metro­
politan area.

Q. And this was a study done for the school system 
in 1968 by the Ohio State University; is that correct?

[5163] A. Yes, sir.
*  # # *  *

ROBERT W. CARTER 
called as a witness on behalf of the 

Defendants, having been heretofore duly sworn, 
testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PORTER
[5292] Q. [By Mr. Porter] Would you state your 

name, please?
A. My name is Robert W. Carter.
Q. And where do you live, Mr. Carter?
A. I live in Worthington, Ohio.
Q. And you previously appeared in this case. and

have given testimony before today?
# * # * #

[5294] Q. In your duties in your department, were 
you familiar with the rental of facilities by the Columbus 
Public School System in 1964 and subsequently?

A. Part of my responsibility was to secure, to locate 
feasible rental facilities where we had overcrowded con­
ditions in nearby schools to be used to house the students.

#  #  *  #  #

[5303] Q. The next one is the Highland Elementary 
School, 70-71 school year. Tell us about that, please.

A. Capacity at Highland that year was 667 with an 
enrollment of 701. We sent a pre-K, two pre-K classes to 
Oakley Baptist Church next door.

Q. Directing your attention to McGuffey, would you 
tell us about that, please?



608

A. McGuffey, with a capacity of 696 youngsters and 
enrollment of 904, we housed kindergarten youngsters at 
the Cooke Recreation Center and the Linden Recreation 
Center.

Q. Do you recall approximately how many rooms had 
to be housed for McGuffey at that point in time?

A. I believe we sent two classrooms to Linden Recre­
ation Center and either two or three classrooms to Cooke.

Q. Thank you. And continuing with McGuffey, was 
it necessaiy in the next school year, 71-72 — strike that. I
[5304] am sorry. Strike that.

Turning your attention now, please, to the Sullivant 
Elementary School, what was the situation at that school?

A. It had a capacity of 406 students at Sullivant that 
year and enrollment of 471. It was necessary to locate the 
pre-K, pre-kindergarten children at the Columbus Method­
ist House Association.

Q. Why is it necessary when the fingers would indi­
cate that there is — I am sorry.

Why do you deal with pre-K classes so frequently in 
this situation in the late ’60s and early ’70s? What’s the 
reason for it from an administration standpoint?

[5305] A. Pre-K was sponsored and financed through 
the Title program, the ESEA funds out of the Elementary 
and Secondary Act of 1965, and they were instituted in 
the years ’66, ’67, on through, and they -  it was necessary 
to house them in the areas of — the impacted area, the 
area that we were serving, the Title area.

Q. Now, if you would get before you, please, Plain­
tiffs’ Exhibit 356A, Dr. Foster has testified in this proceed­
ing, Mr. Carter, that there was space available at Kent -  
excuse me — that there was space available from which 
the students at Kent, Hamilton, Highland and Sullivant, 
those students who went to these churches, that they 
could have been taken to various schools around the city, 
and those schools are identified in the record. I would 
like to ask you some questions concerning several of them.



609

The first one is Kenwood Elementary School which he 
said could receive students, and I would ask you whether 
or not, according to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 356A, Kenwood, 
whether it was receiving two classes from the Winterset 
Elementary School at that point in time?

A. This was the 1970 school year?
Q. This was the 1970 school year,
A. Yes, sir, they were receiving two classes of stu­

dents from Winterset.
Q. And directing your attention to the Parsons [5306] 

Elementary School which he testified had space available, 
I would ask you again, referring to Exhibit 356A, whether 
or not it was receiving classes, three classes, from Cedar- 
wood at that point in time?

A. That’s correct, it was.
Q. And I would direct your attention to the Stewart 

Elementary School which he said had space available and 
ask you whether or not, according to 356A, Stewart was 
receiving two classes from the Deshler Elementary School?

A. That’s correct, it was.
# * # # #

[5308] Q. Directing your attention, please, to the 
Cassady Elementary School for the period — for the ’72-73 
and the ’73-74 school years.

A. We annexed Mifflin Township in 1971. That year 
we were able to house Cassady Elementary School in its 
own facility, but we were growing rapidly, and we were 
also transporting out of South Mifflin. Thus, we needed a 
space in the community to house the overflow from these 
two schools, and this facility that we later named Cross­
roads for purposes of identification, we had 14 classroom 
spaces that were designed and modified by the builder 
for our specifications. It was air conditioned and carpeted, 
and we housed the overflow from Cassady there. We also 
housed the overflow from South Mifflin until additions 
could correct their overcrowdedness.



610

Q. And this was done for a period of —
A. A couple years, It is still in use.
Q. Now, Dr. Foster testified concerning the excess, 

the enrollment over capacity at Cassady in 1972. Accord­
ing to the record, he identified certain schools which had 
space available, one of which was Marburn, and I would 
ask you to [5308-A] look at Plaintiffs' Exhibit 356A and 
see whether or not Marburn was receiving three classes 
from Winterset at that point in time?

[5309] A. That’s correct.
Q. He also testified that Homedale had space avail­

able for 122, and I would ask you to look at 356-A and see 
if Homedale was receiving at that point in time six classes 
from Alpine?

A. That’s correct.
Q. He identified Valley Forge Elementary School as 

having available 63 spaces, and I would ask you to look 
and see whether or not Valley Forge was receiving at that 
point in time three classes from Devonshire?

A. That is correct.
Q. He testified that there were 102 spaces available 

at Kenwood Elementary School, and I would ask you to 
look at Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 356-A and see if Kenwood was 
receiving five classes from Winterset at that point in time?

A. That is correct.
Q. He testified that Northwood had 66 spaces avail­

able, and I would ask you whether or not Northwood was 
receiving students from South Mifflin?

A. No, it was not.
Q. The next one on the list is South Mifflin, and you 

may have covered it, but would you please restate it for 
the period 72-73 and 73-74 school year?

A. South Mifflin during this period of time had a 
capacity of 493 youngsters and we had enrollment of 826.

[5310] When we annexed Mifflin Township, South 
Mifflin was housed in a variety of places, Eastland, I 
believe, was one place. We continued that for a period



611

of time, and then we housed them for a short period of 
time in Arlington Park, and the remainder was housed at 
Crossroads.

Q, Dr. Foster recommended or said that there were 
certain schools available with space, and the record will 
indicate whether or not he used the same schools twice, 
but he also identified Kenwood, and I believe you have 
testified that Kenwood was receiving five classes from 
Winterset?

A. That’s correct.
Q. I believe that he identified — strike that.
Your testimony with respect to Cassady and South 

Mifflin you have covered the school year 72-73 and 73-74; 
am I correct about that?

A. That’s right.
Q. You have covered both school years?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In the 73-74 school year, Dr Foster found that 

there was space available at Kenwood again, and I would 
ask you to refer to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 356-A, and would 
you tell me whether or not Kenwood was receiving now 
six classes from Winterset?

A. Yes, 73-74, that’s correct, six classes from Winter-
set.

[5311] Q. He also testified again concerning Home- 
dale, and would you look and see whether or not it was 
receiving five classes from Alpine?

A. That’s correct.
Q. According to Exhibit 358 the Columbus Public 

System leased additional space at the Crossroads for the 
purpose of relieving the Mifflin Junior-Senior High and 
possibly Innis-Cleveland for the /4-75 and 75-76 school 
year?

A. Yes.
Q. What was the situation, please?
A. This was the same space, the 14 classrooms that 

we had available at Crossroads. It was used to continue



612

housing the children from Cassady Elementary School 
through the 1974-75 school year and then during this past 
school year, 75-76, we moved the seventh graders over to 
Crossroads while the Mifflin Junior-Senior High School 
was going through a renovation program and remodeling.

Q. What is the proximity? What is the relationship of 
the Crossroads facility to these various schools, please?

A. The Crossroads is about 100 yards from Mifflin 
Junior-Senior High School. It is approximately a quarter
to a half a mile from Cassady Elementary School.

* * * * *
[5322] Q. [By Mr. Porter] Thank you. Now, I would 

like to turn to the subject of transportation to relieve over­
crowding or what I guess has been referred to in this 
record as intact busing, and I would ask you to tell us 
first what is its purpose and — let’s start with that.

A. Intact busing was used in the Columbus Public 
Schools to relieve overcrowding wherein we would take 
and we would use it basically in the elementary grades 
where we would take a class of elementary youngsters 
with that teacher and transport them to a nearby school 
where we had space because of overcrowding at the 
sending school.

Q. Would you describe for us the mechanics of this, 
please?

A. Let me explain the rationale behind the transpor­
tation of these youngsters to nearby schools. It would 
always be done on a temporary basis with some objective 
in mind where we knew we were going to have a relief 
through an addition or through a new facility someplace 
down the pike. [5323] So it was always on a temporary 
basis.

On the basis of that, we would move a teacher and 
that class to the sending school, and we would retain the 
organizational affiliation of that teacher and those young­
sters to the sending school, to the home school. Because 
of this it was not necessary, then, to change or to alter



618

student permanent records, to adjust the student port­
folios, or to change the teacher status. All of this would 
remain intact with the home school organization.

The school where they were located would have 
available space, would house this teachei and her class 
for instructional purposes. These youngsters would be 
contained or would be kept together as a class through 
the instructional activities, but, on all other activities, 
the school would attempt to blend them into the organi­
zation. The teacher would be assigned extra duty assign­
ments by the principal of that receiving school. The 
youngsters would generally take recess with the receiving 
school youngsters. [5324]

If there were a school-wide movie or some other 
extra-curricular kind of activity that transpired during the 
school day, those youngsters would participate in such 
activities as when the music teacher came to that school, 
they would be assigned to that schedule, and speech 
therapist, and all those services that reach out to the 
school housing, that group of intact bused youngsters 
would participate in that school organization.

But, for record purposes, they kept their identity 
with the home school.

Q. Let me ask you, pick up some specifics on this, 
Mr. Carter, if I may, please. If I would understand cor­
rectly, then, this was a temporary situation. I suppose that 
that meant until the school was built or an addition was 
put on, or something of that nature?

A. Correct.
Q. Did you attempt to avoid transporting the same 

children for consecutive years?
A. Unless it was a situation where we just could not 

avoid it, in almost every circumstance that I can recall 
of transporting youngsters because of overcrowding, we 
would avoid the transportation of a youngster a second year.

We would move to another grade level or to another 
grouping rather than repeat the youngster on a transporta­



614

tion basis, so that he could then return to his home school
[5325] and continue in some sort of a normal fashion with 
his home school situation.

Q. If schools in the area were not available because 
they were, let’s assume, overcrowded, then would you 
sometimes turn to rental space as an alternative?

A. Rental was used as an alternative if we did not 
have available space in schools nearby.

Q. So that what you first looked for was what, please?
A. We looked for available classroom spaces in near­

by schools, first of all. If we could not find available 
classroom spaces within a reasonable distance of the home 
school, then we would turn to rental spaces as an alterna­
tive.

Q. I notice that it was not infrequent that kinder­
garten children were transported. Why were kindergarten 
children some times transported, Mr. Carter?

A. Kindergarten children, there were a number of 
reasons why I preferred to transport kindergarten chil­
dren. They were not restricted to a minimum hour day, 
by State standards.

Q. What do you mean by that? I don’t understand
that.

A. Elementary youngsters we have to have in school 
five and a half hours, and kindergarten youngsters, because 
at that point in time it was not mandated, a mandated 
program by the State, we could restrict the number of 
hours they had in session, so that was one reason.

Another was that it was half-day sessions; that we
[5326] could get them out and get them back to their 
homes in a half-day period of time, and thus we weren’t 
confronted with a lunch problem because those youngsters 
that we took out of their home school district, we were 
confronted with a lunch situation, lunching situation, and 
with kindergarten youngsters, that wasn’t a factor.

Another factor that we would consider — I am trying 
to recall now; the operations of the standards, the lunch



615

room, the fact that they were flexible; that was voluntary.
Q. What do you mean by the latter, please, that it 

is voluntary?
A. Parents did not have — if they were adamantly 

opposed to their children leaving the home school area, 
they would not have to send their child to kindergarten. 
They could choose some other alternative.

Q. So that I understand the lunch program aspect, 
please, and I am sorry to repeat it, but the point is that 
at the kindergarten level, the child is not served lunch; 
is that correct?

A. Kindergarten is a half-day program and we would 
return them to their home school. The morning session 
kindergarten would come at 9:00 o’clock and return home 
at 12:00 and be back to their own residences in time for 
lunch, but grade children, Grades 1 through 6, it is neces­
sary to keep them the entire day, thus we have a lunch 
problem. [5327]

Q. Am I correct in some impression that I have from 
somewhere that you also may have at the kindergarten 
level teacher availability for a half day possibly, or some­
thing of that sort; is that right?

A. That’s correct. Kindergarten teachers in Colum­
bus are employed for one session or for two sessions. Two 
sessions is a full-day teacher, and we might have a situa­
tion where a teacher had an assignment of a half day 
kindergarten in one school and she was available for in­
struction purposes the remaining half of her schedule and 
would not have enough youngsters in that particular 
school to fill another section, so we would combine these 
kind of situations to conserve financially and to make use 
of her space, because kindergarten spaces are generally a 
little larger spaces than regular classroom classes, they 
have different kinds of furniture and equipment, and so 
we would combine the use of that kindergarten space 
plus making use of that available teacher and preventing



616

us from employing additional staff to handle this extra 
kindergarten.

Q. The children that were being taken intact, as I 
understand it, were being taken on a some — what seemed 
to be a temporary basis. Would I be correct, or would you 
tell me what the situation was with respect to boundary 
changes or attendance area changes under these circum­
stances? Were there any, or did the — [5328]

A. No. When a school became overcrowded, if we 
had an opportunity to change boundary, or if there was 
no other alternative but to look for another solution, a 
more permanent solution to relieve the overcrowdedness 
of that building, then we would be forced to look at 
boundary changes, but if we knew, and we generally 
did in advance, because of the bond issue, that we were 
operating under, from ’64 through ’68 and now ’72 through 
to the present time, we know whether a school is to receive 
an addition or whether there will be a new school located 
in that general area, and so we have fixed in our mind 
some rationale, some solution to the problem, so those 
situations where we transported were temporary, we knew 
on down the pike that we would have some resolution to 
that particular problem, and we would not have to change 
boundaries; that by temporarily transporting them, we 
could house them in the very near future; maybe two 
months, six months, a year later.

Q. Did you move first graders?
A. We did not move first graders.
Q. Why not?
A. Basically because we felt that first graders needed 

to have instruction in their home school. They were be­
ginning school for the first time on a full-day basis. They 
needed all of the advantages we could supply them and 
muster, and we tried not to disrupt their educational 
program. [5329]

Q. In dealing with kindergarten children, what were 
the requirements, if any, so far as the location of the



617

space? What I have reference to is, is there a restriction 
on where the space can be located in the building so far 
as kindergarten children?

A. Yes. State fire codes prevent you from placing 
kindergarten, first and second grade youngsters above 
the first floor of the school building.

Q. In the event that there were full-day students, 
other than kindergarten being taken, was it necessary 
or not necessary to have lunch facilities at the receiving 
school?

A. We had to try to resolve the lunch problem. In 
certain situations I would —and keep in mind early in 
my service at the Board we operated under a policy that 
children should go home, if at all possible, during the 
noon hour, and thus the elementary organization was such 
noon hour would be an hour and a half in length and 
youngsters — or an hour and a quarter in length —and 
youngsters would have that opportunity to go home for 
lunch, so we had very few elementary schools with lunch 
room facilities.

In the beginning I attempted to look for those facili­
ties that could accommodate with a hot lunch program in 
that receiving school. This isn’t always possible, but that 
was one consideration for taking the youngsters, but we 
did have a lunch problem on children remaining all day. 
[5330]

It was an imposition to ask parents who were sending 
their children to school and then have them furnish a 
lunch and pack a lunch for their child when we took that 
child onto the next school, and so it was a severe problem. 
We tried to deal with it as best as possible, and as the 
elementary lunch program moved along, we tried to make 
certain that that elementary school received a lunch pro­
gram so that we could accommodate those transported 
youngsters.

Q. With respect to the availability of supplies in a 
receiving school, was there a policy with respect to at­



618

tempting to house all of the classes that had to be trans­
ported from a sending school, if at all possible, in the 
same receiving school? [5331]

A. There are good reasons for this. You try to keep 
youngsters of that particular school together for commu­
nity relations purposes, as well as organizational purposes, 
and if — we tried to keep a group of youngsters, class­
room of youngsters, together. This wasn’t always possible, 
but we at least attempted to put two classrooms together. 
This would be one busload or approximately 60 young­
sters. So just to accommodate transportation we would 
generally work in pairs, at least two classrooms. In many 
situations that I can recall, we would look for maximum 
amounts of space so we could house the entire transported 
classrooms in one school to another school.

Q. Now, you have covered some of this before, and 
I don’t want you to repeat it, but I want to deal with 
the subject, generally the subject of why a class is kept 
together. You mentioned the organization and record keep­
ing as simplifying that and the fact that it is temporary 
in nature bearing on that point. I would ask you what 
happens in these situations so far as the schedule of the 
group is concerned, its school schedule; does it jibe with 
the receiving school’s schedule or not, or what is that 
situation, please? [5332]

A. We would attempt as much as possible to have 
the classroom of youngsters that we were transporting 
into a receiving school match the time schedule of the 
receiving school, but this was not always possible. Because 
of bus schedule conflicts and these kinds of difficulties 
that we would be confronted with, it would be necessary, 
from time to time, to alter that schedule, to shorten the 
lunch period and to reduce or alter recess. To accommo­
date the time minimum that we had to meet with that 
transported class and the bus schedule.

Q. Were the classes at the receiving school organized 
prior to, or what was its relationship with respect to the



619

principal receiving possible notification that he would 
have another class?

A. The organizational processes followed in Colum­
bus and one that I adhere to — we began to form classes 
and to identify and project the enrollments for the coming 
school year as early as February of each year, so we were 
working about six months in advance of the actual begin­
ning of the — of school in September, and it was necessary 
for us at that time to form classes to determine if we 
could house them all in this school, and, of course, I did 
not mention earlier and I should, that before transporta­
tion from a school, we used every available space in the 
home school, We would use the multipurpose room. We 
would use classroom spaces that were not [5333] accepta­
ble, generally speaking, as classroom spaces, but during 
this temporary arrangement, we would attempt to accom­
modate the overcrowded school in that situation. We 
would often times move out of the school special class 
youngsters. These would be EMR students or LBD stu­
dents and relocate these youngsters in another situation, 
do all manner of things to house those youngsters in that 
particular school before we would take overt actions to 
transport them to another area.

Q. Now, again, you have identified some of these 
following matters, and I’ll try and avoid duplication, but 
the principal of the receiving school had the on-site re­
sponsibility for the incoming child or children; am I right 
about that?

A. The incoming principal — the principal of the re­
ceiving school worked with the day-to-day problems that 
would occur within that school. The problems greater in 
nature or one that would require dealing with the parents 
would involve the principal of the home school.

Q. Now, with respect to the participation in the 
school-wide activities at the receiving school, what was 
the situation?



620

A. The principal of the school would attempt to 
organize those extracurricular activities to make these 
youngsters feel as welcome as possible in that school 
through their [5334] involvement in the school-wide activi­
ties, extracurricular activities of the school,

Q. And what about the scheduling of recesses and 
assemblies and lunches and field trips, that sort of thing?

A. As much as possible, as much as the organization 
of the classes would permit, these youngsters would be 
included in the recess time of the normal school recess or 
in the lunchtime period, and, basically, it was because 
that teacher who went to the receiving school was now 
included in the extraduty roster of the receiving school, 
and she took her turn at lunch room supervision or at 
playground supervision along with the staff of the receiv­
ing school, and thus, her youngsters would be treated and 
involved with — in the routine manner with other stu­
dents. [5335]

Q. She would be expected — the principal of the i-e- 
ceiving school would expect her to take her position with 
respect to these duties along with the other teachers in the 
building; is that correct?

A. That's correct.
Q. So far as the parents were concerned, were they — 

did they participate in the PTA at either school or both 
schools or neither, or what was the situation?

A. Parents in these situations were invited to both 
schools. We attempted to retain the identity of the parent 
with the home school; and the teacher that would have 
been sent away to another school because of overcrowd­
ing would on open house occasions or other occasions 
come back to the home school and participate in those 
activities so that she could have contact with parents and 
make herself available to them.

But in the main, parents of children in a situation that 
were being transported out of their home school would 
generally be welcomed and attend PTAs of both schools.



621

Q. In the situation where there is a kindergarten 
class — and I guess it would be true of any kindergarten 
class, not just one that is received from another school — 
do the kindergarten classes have recess periods that are the 
same as the children in the first grade and older, or do they 
differ, or what is the situation?

A. Kindergarten youngsters are generally — they 
[5336] generally have their recess period and their lunch 
period at different times from the older children. Because 
they are smaller, they are kept separate. They generally 
have a separate play area, so they are restricted from par­
ticipating with the older children in recess activities.

Q. And with respect — and I suspect you have cov­
ered this, and I apologize, but the lunch policy so far as 
the time is concerned for the children that were brought 
from the other school, what was the situation?

A. Since these children had to eat at school and, as 
I said earlier, when I first began, the lunch policy, lunch 
period, would involve about an hour and a quarter period 
of time, and that was too long of a period for these young­
sters to have lunch and wait for the regular schedule to 
catch up with them. They would generally eat on a shorter 
lunch period, and thus they could leave the school and 
return to their home school in time to take advantage of 
the school boy patrols to help them cross the streets on 
their way home from school. [5337]

Q. And finally, generally, was race a factor in the 
selection of the schools?

A. No.
# * # # #

[5380] Q. [By Mr. Porter] Now, I want to take up 
with you, Mr. Carter, the subject which has been categor­
ized as non-contiguous or [5381] discontiguous zones that 
have existed in the Columbus Public School System during 
the time that you have been involved with the Division 
of Administration. My first question would be: What is



622

the purpose of a non-contiguous zone? Why have it? How 
did it come about?

A. We have non-contiguous zones in elementary and 
in junior high school in Columbus. Basically, these are 
areas that are locked in geographically by a railroad track, 
three-way river, whatever, and we find it necessary to 
transport them. They don’t — they don’t generally fit the 
area. There’s no easy school to take them to. [5382]

We take them to the school that has space. We have 
used them a time or two to relieve overcrowding in schools 
by transferring the attendance area but, generally speak­
ing, once established, we have provided some continuity 
with this non-contiguous area with that receiving school.

Q. The grade structure or the assignment of those 
students within the school building, how does that take 
place, please?

A. They are treated just as the normal attendance 
area of the receiving school. Children are integrated into 
the entire school on each grade level, no differentiation 
on assignment within a facility.

Q. Are changes made or are changes always made or 
sometimes made with respect to these discontiguous zones 
if space becomes available at a closer school?

A. If space becomes available and it is more logical 
to uproot them from the receiving school and reassign 
them, we have done that. I can think of one discontiguous 
area that this would apply to.

Q. What happens to the child insofar as the school 
activities are concerned? What effect does this have, if any?

A. As I testified, all the youngsters, to my knowledge, 
in discontiguous areas are transported. This does limit 
them somewhat in extracurricular activities after school, 
especially in the junior high school where we have sports 
[5383] activities going on after the close of the school. In 
elementary it is not quite as severe. But during the school 
day, they are just as any other youngster in the building.



623

Q. There are how many discontiguous zones generally 
in the Columbus System?

A. I believe I can — I consider there to be five, to 
my knowledge.

Q. Were those zones or have those zones been used 
during the years, at least the years in which you have been 
connected with the division of administration, has race 
been a factor with respect to those zones?

A. No, sir.
# # # # #

[5388] Q. Thank you. Directing your attention now, 
please, to the Medina Junior High School which has a non­
contiguous area attached to it, would you tell us about it, 
please?

A. The non-contiguous area that is assigned to Medina 
Junior High School is basically the Arlington Park 
Elementary School attendance area. The history on this 
goes back, I suppose, to its annexation. It had to come in 
in ’57, ’58, ’59, along in there, prior to 1960. This area was 
assigned to Linden-McKinley, which at that time was a 
junior-senior high school.

Q. Excuse me. Let me interrupt and just clarify that 
a moment, if I might.

This area had been a part of the Mifflin Township 
School District prior to 1957 and then was transferred to 
the Columbus School District at that time.

A. That’s correct.
Q. All right. I am sorry to interrupt.
A. When it came in, it was assigned to Linden- 

McKinley [5389] which at that time was a junior-senior 
high school. For a period of time, it continud to Linden.

About 1960, because Linden was so overcrowded, so 
impacted with junior and senior high school youngsters, I 
believe for one year it was taken to Linmoor which was a 
new junior high school established in the area in 1957 or 
’58 to relieve Linden-McKinley, but it was only there for



624

one year. Then it went back to Linden-McKinley, and it 
continued there to 1962.

[5390] At that point in time, an attempt was made to 
remove all of the junior high school youngsters from 
Linden-McKinley and to make it a completely independent 
senior high school, and thus McGuffey Elementary-Junior, 
which was at that time an elementary, was converted to 
its elementary-junior status. The remaining students from 
Linden-McKinley were transferred to McGuffey, and this 
one last island — these youngsters were beyond the limits 
for walking and, of course, there were safety factors as 
well, so they were transported. It was decided to transport 
them to Medina Junior High School which lies to the north 
of Linden-McKinley, and at that point in time had space 
to accommodate them.

But in 1962, then, Linden-McKinley became a senior 
high school with Medina, McGuffey and Linmoor and 
Clinton Junior serving as the junior high school feeder 
schools.

It is continued until this day in the Medina district.
Q. The Medina assignment or the taking of the chil­

dren of the junior high, 7 through 9, to Medina has con­
tinued from 1962 down to the present time; is that correct?

A. That’s correct.
Q. Directing your attention to the Moler Elementary 

School, please, which has a discontiguous area which 
began in 1963, would you describe where it is, please, and 
what that’s supposed to do? [5391]

A. The discontiguous area at Moler is located in the 
southern portion of the school district. It was part of the 
original Marion Township transfer to the district in 1957, 
and at that point in time was a part of the Smith Road 
School. The Smith Road School was a school established 
in the Marion Township and was existing when we an­
nexed it, and at that point in time was very crowded.

We built Moler, and it came on line about 1963, and 
these youngsters, again, were locked because of geographic



625

barriers, the railroad track on the west and the school 
district boundary lines on the south and east, and I believe 
there’s a railroad track on the north, so that they were 
always — it was necessary to transport them, and we simply 
transported them to the new Moler Elementary School 
which had space, and those youngsters have continued 
through to the present time.

# # # * #

[5394] Q. [By Mr. Porter] I now wish to take up 
boundary changes, and I would like you to first explain 
why we have boundaries and then we will go through the 
mechanics of setting it up and the projections that are 
made with respect to them, and then we will go from 
there, please.

First, why do you have boundaries? What are their 
purpose? What’s the purpose of them?

A. A boundary serves as a definable area to be ser­
viced by a school facility. It — this boundary is determined 
based upon its density and the service — the kind of school 
facility that will service the area.

Generally speaking, in Columbus, elementary bound­
aries are closely designed boundaries to provide walking 
distances where at all possible for elementary youngsters, 
and this is not a hard and fast rule, but generally speaking, 
we keep walkable distance for elementary youngsters 
within a mile. Now, there are a few cases where this 
exceeds it, but generally speaking, elementary attendance 
areas service children within that walking distance, and 
that walking distance is within a mile radius.

Junior high school boundaries are a little more exten­
sive, cover a greater area, and yet we attempt — attempt, 
where at all possible, to keep a walkable distance within 
two miles, which is the State minimum for a walkable 
distance to school. [5395]

Q. Excuse me just a moment. Let me correct some­
thing.



626

A. Yes.
Q. Minimum distance while walking —
A. I’m sorry. Maximum distance for walking, yes, and 

minimum distance for transportation.
Q. After which you become eligible for transporta­

tion?
A. That’s correct, yes. Thank you.
Q. All right. Go ahead.
A. Senior high schools are larger in respect to attend­

ance and serve a greater area. We’ll generally be receiv­
ing from two to four junior high school feeder schools 
and very little consideration is given to walking in these 
areas. They serve general geographic areas.

Q. What effect does an organization have upon the 
establishment of boundaries, if any?

A. The organization will have an effect on the bound­
aries. If it’s a primary center, if it’s a K-3 center, you’ll 
find the attendance area smaller. We generally try to have 
an attendance area in the elementary to take in approxi­
mately twelve classrooms, ten to twelve classrooms of 
youngsters as a minimum. This is in the neighborhood of 
300 to 360 youngsters, and there’s a simple mathematical 
reason for this, and that is that we like to offer at least 
two classrooms per grade level in each elementary school. 
It makes some organizational sense. It helps in the [5396] 
management of the assignment of pupils in grade levels. 
You have a choice of teachers, as an example, to assign 
students, and it provides a more economical base for 
assignment.

Q. The density of the student population, children 
population in an area has a bearing, I assume, upon the size 
of the attendance area, or putting it another way, that 
the size of the attendance area would be related to density 
and the capacity of the building?

A. That’s correct. The — I used the example of 300, 
360 as a minimum realizing presently there are several 
schools below the 300 minimum, but this is an attempt to



627

accommodate an organizational-management level, a min­
imum level.

As a maximum level in elementary, you feel you ought 
to keep it at 25 classrooms or less, and on an elementary 
school larger than this, and this takes you from 700 to 
750 students per school — any larger than this causes 
problems because of distance and just the impact of a 
large number of youngsters at one site.

At junior high school, our spread, we have attempted 
to work in the range of 900 to 1000 students. This is a 
range that is most economical in terms of organizational 
level.

And in senior high school, we find we can accom­
modate a reasonable comprehensive program, offering a 
full range of [5397] subjects and selections for youngsters 
with a thousand to — with 1200 to 1500 youngsters. Now, 
realizing that some of our schools go above and some are 
below this, but this has been the range that we try to 
adhere to, and this has its effect on the organizational — 
or the district that we’re pulling from, and, of course, the 
density of that district will have an impact on that attend­
ance area, the largeness or smallness of the area. [5398]

Q. What are the safety factors, if any, involved in 
the establishment of a boundary?

A. We consider safety factors very carefully with 
youngsters, try to avoid having them crossing railroad 
tracks, and in the main, to avoid crossing freeways or 
heavily traveled thoroughfares. Where we do have them 
cross thoroughfares, we attempt to provide as much safety 
as possible by adequate cross lights and crosswalks at 
those sites, but river, railroads, freeways and thorough­
fares are considered very seriously in drawing elementary 
boundaries.

Junior high boundaries, we are a little freer on this 
one, because the youngsters are a little older and a little 
more able to handle themselves.



628

Q. Is the racial composition a factor to you in setting 
boundaries?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is that, please?
A. Where possible, we have attempted to consider 

race in the development of boundaries, and this has been 
since approximately 1967 when the Board of Education 
first set a policy recommending that race be considered 
in the development of boundaries.

Q. There has been testimony in this case with respect, 
I believe there has, if not in it, around it, concerning the 
neighborhood school. Would you tell us what that is, if 
[5399] anything, and what part it plays in this?

A. The school will serve a community. These com­
munities are definable, generally speaking, by an attend­
ance area. School communities are — in elementary are 
small in nature, and for the intent of teachers and princi­
pals to work closely with parents in the educational de­
velopment of their youngsters.

Elementary schools — the school community is a 
closely-knit kind of thing. It may not follow the — a socio­
logical definition of neighborhood, but it is a definable 
area that the elementary school will service.

In junior high school, the concept of community is 
expanded somewhat, and in senior high school, even 
moreso.

Q. Would I be correct, Mr. Carter, in assuming that, 
given a density, that density will directly affect the number 
of schools which will be located in a given geographical 
area insofar — in relationship to their size?

What I am trying to say is that if you have a high 
density area and if a satisfactory size of school, for ex­
ample, would be the number of sections or classes that you 
are talking about — and let’s use as an example 700 stu­
dents — then that is going to dictate the number of schools 
that are going to be located within that geographical area. 
Am I correct about this?



629

A. That’s correct? [5400]
Q. And, of course, the relationship would hold true 

really throughout a school system, I assume?
A. Yes.
Q. Those factors?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, in your year's as a director and executive 

director and so forth of the division of administration, 
what did you have to do with the establishment of bound­
aries, and what were the mechanics of doing that, please?

A. My function at the central administration with 
respect to boundaries was to work closely with the school 
principals. I relied on them heavily. This is on existing 
boundaries and existing attendance areas. I relied on 
principals heavily to make input to me as to their enroll­
ments and enrollment projections, capacities of the build­
ing, and where we were having organizational problems, 
and then would work with each principal to attempt to 
fit that organization as best as we possibly could.

Principals, I would expect them to, and they did, 
identify for me when we were to anticipate some over­
crowding, and we began working at solutions to the over­
crowding.

As I indicated earlier, if it was necessary to relocate 
a special education unit that happened to be located or 
placed in that facility, we would attempt to find some 
other suitable space for it, and one measure — or we would 
use some [5401] inadequate space that we hadn’t used 
before, or maybe we would convert a library. Oftentimes 
we would put a divider in the multipurpose room and use 
it to use or to house one or two classrooms of youngsters. 
I hesitated in doing this because this deprived the school 
of a physical education facility and a multipurpose facility 
for large group construction, but we would do all manner 
of things to attempt to accommodate that organization.

If we saw some solution down the road in the near 
distant future in terms of an addition to the school or a



630

new school facility being placed in the general area to 
help us relieve the overcrowdedness, we would continue 
with temporary kinds of arrangements. This included in­
ternal reorganization to accommodate, and I might add 
that we could include increasing class sizes to accommo­
date that growth, or we could include reducing the num­
ber of students in a particular class to have it fit in an 
inferior room in terms of size. All these things would fit 
into the organization.

At one point where we saw that we had to do some­
thing, if it was a solution, then we would, and we moved 
outside the school, then we would rent or transport. But 
if we saw that that wasn't an answer for us and if we had 
space in a neighboring school district — and this may be 
one or two districts over — then it became my responsi­
bility to attempt a reorganization of the school attendance 
areas to [5402] accommodate this overcrowdedness 
through boundary changes.

At that point in time, the administrative cadets who 
were assigned to the school system — these were teachers 
chosen for their potential as administrators and were in 
training to become administrators and who were assigned 
to me for specific field work responsibilities — would then 
assist me in taking a census of that school attendance 
area. By a census, I mean we would take cards to the 
school and have the teachers or students complete the 
cards, and on this card would be such basic information 
as grade level and address. We would take these cards 
and bring them back to a central point where we had 
work space, and we would simply place the cards by 
street and then numerically by street, numerically group 
them and stack them by street. It was a very painful 
process, I might add, of placing a dot on a map or some 
representative number on a map representing the num­
ber of students living on a block-by-block basis on either 
side of that particular street we were concerned with until 
we got a visual impression of the impactedness of that



631

particular area. Then we began searching for solutions in 
terms of changes, and we would look at all the things 
that you referred to earlier such as density. We added 
mobility because some of these districts were moving in 
and out, and mobility was a precaution we had to take 
a hard look at, because if we [5403] overextended a fa­
cility and we had more children move in, then we antici­
pated we would again have overcrowding. So mobility 
was a factor.

We would look at geographic barriers, and we would 
look at safety, and we would look at race, and we would 
take these considerations into account. Then we would 
make a choice. If we needed to vacate one classroom of 
students, we would attempt to move 30-plus youngsters 
or so from the overcrowded school to this neighboring 
school, and so it went.

Q. What did you do with respect to the setting up 
of boundaries of a new school? How was this done?

A. The new school, the site of the new school would 
be placed on a map, and basically the same process, except 
that now I would be working with one, two or more 
elementary and junior-senior high school attendance areas, 
and I would simply have these entire school attendance 
areas plotted on the map with students living on them. 
I would code them by grade level so that I could have 
a visual impression of grade level of movement throughout, 
as well. That was another thing I would have to consider. 
With this growing population in Columbus, you had to be 
very cautious of the number of students coming up through 
ranks so that if you changed an area, you didn't overimpact 
it because of the number of youngsters in the lower grades. 
[5404]

I would take these two or three or four school attend­
ance areas and place the new site on the map and then — 
and knowing beforehand the available space of the new 
school, the capacity of the school, I work in concentric 
circles from that school working in the geographic bound­



632

aries or barriers and safety and race, all these factors, until 
I reached a point that would service all of these concerns 
to the best of our ability to do it, and we would draw that 
new boundary, rough it out. [5405]

My responsibility was to the deputy superintendent 
of the schools, and I would report to him on my recom­
mendation and give him a chance to review it. From there 
he would take it to the superintendent. It would be re­
viewed again, and then finally this would be in the form 
of a recommendation to the Board of Education, at which 
time the area was either accepted or rejected. If it was 
accepted, we would then begin the process of notifying 
parents the new school assignment for their students, 
changing the organization within the system. This means 
pupil personnel changes, and it means changing, modify­
ing, the school district directory so that others could deter­
mine by street and house number where the new attend­
ance area was.

Q. It is basic, I suppose, to what you have said, or 
maybe you even said it, that when you establish a new 
area you are going to affect or may affect the — well, you 
will affect the boundaries of at least the contiguous attend­
ance areas. Am I correct about this?

A. That’s correct.
Q. And it could well have some kind of an effect 

beyond that?
A. Yes. Oftentimes you will see a rippling effect, a 

domino effect, and you would have to move several school 
districts to accommodate all the youngsters impacted in 
this area, so at times it was a very complicated procedure 
and [5406] involved a number of changes.

# # * # #

[5410] Q. — let me stop you just a moment. I want 
the Court to be able to see. I’m sorry. That’s right. That’s 
right. We’ll have to deal with the elementary first, please,



633

[5411] Start with the Hudson Elementary School, 
please. Where is it located?

A. Hudson Elementary is located right here (indicat­
ing ). It is on the southern side of — south of Hudson 
Avenue, Hudson Road, and was a part of the Hamilton — 
originally part of the Hamilton Elementary School attend­
ance area. Hudson Elementary School was put on line as 
a K-through 3 or 4 organization, basically a primary cen­
ter, and we simply took the northern portion of Hamilton 
Elementary School and placed those youngsters K through 
4 into the Hudson School.

Hamilton was extremely overcrowded and, as you re­
call, the year before we had added Gladstone to the eastern 
end of the Hamilton attendance area also to relieve it.

Q. Now, did this change to the Hamilton area reduce 
its enrollment?

A. In Hamilton in 1965 we had an enrollment of 1,282 
pupils, and in 1966 we had decreased that enrollment to 
1,061, so we did decrease it.

Q. Of course, Hudson did not open until the ’66 school 
year; am I right about that?

A. That’s correct.
Q. And Hudson opened with an enrollment of what, 

please?
A. We opened Hudson with an enrollment of 359 

students.
Q. And of those 359, were there classes sent initially

[5412] to Arlington Park but in that attendance area?
A. Yes. Originally we transported four classrooms to 

Arlington Park.
ft ft ft ft #

[5440] Q. [By Mr. Porter] Mr. Carter, I would now 
like to direct your attention, please, to the subject of op­
tional zones, and I would like to inquire as to the purpose 
or function of an option zone, at least while you were in 
charge of the section of the division of administration that 
dealt with such matters. [5441]



634

A. An option zone is a portion of an attendance area 
between two school districts that is opened up and made 
optional for students living within that defined area to 
attend either school.

When I came on board in 1964 there were a number 
of option zones that existed for a variety of reasons. During 
my tenure, I believe I implemented four zones. They were 
basically, two of them, to attempt to relieve overcrowded 
conditions in the two contiguous school districts. One was 
a safety — for a safety factor, and the fourth one was a 
distance factor. I, during my tenure, eliminated several.

We used an option, also, as an interim movement to 
change from one school district to — or one school attend­
ance area to another, especially when we would create a 
new school. We would — always felt the ninth graders, 
as an example, or the twelfth graders, should finish at the 
original school with their friends, and then we would 
perhaps in a — a good example would be a senior high 
school. The eleventh graders, we would give them the 
option of continuing at the original school or going to a 
new school. [5442]

This basically was for the reason that these youngsters 
would be involved in athletics or band or orchestra some 
activities at school, and we felt it was wrong to disrupt 
that activity, so we would usually leave options open to 
eleventh, and then the tenth graders would be mandatory. 
The same kind of application would be made for junior 
high school. Ninth graders finish at their old school. 
Eighth graders might have the option. They may not, 
depending if we needed to get them all out, and seventh 
graders would be mandatory.

Then we would simply eliminate that option a year 
later and/or two years later, and they all eventually would 
be in the new school, in the receiving school.

Q. Did you mention, and you may have and I missed 
it, but did you mention or was an optional zone used to 
relieve overcrowding and, if it was, would you explain



635

that, please?
A. Yes. I used an option zone in two situations to 

relieve overcrowding. You gamble on an option zone to 
determine if it will relieve overcrowding, because you are 
relying on the voluntariness of the students living in the
area to choose the option.

Both cases where I used this method were in senior 
high schools. One was between West and Central, and the 
other was between Eastmoor and Walnut Ridge. Both 
options were eliminated. [5443]

The Central-West option was eliminated when we 
built Briggs, and I refashioned the attendance area for 
Briggs. The Eastmoor-Walnut Ridge option was eliminated 
when we created the attendance area for Independence.

At Eastmoor-Walnut Ridge it worked fairly well. 
West-Central was unsuccessful.

Q. You could accomplish the same adjustment in a 
different way, couldn t you, and that would be by redraw­
ing the lines?

A. That’s correct. I could make it mandatory and re­
fashion the lines, the boundary lines, and force the move­
ment from the district into the school I wanted them to 
attend.

Q. And is this voluntariness that sometimes is the 
basis you are saying for the use of the optional zone, as 
well as the other reasons which you have described?

A. Yes, right.
Q. Why —well, let me ask it this way: You have 

eliminated or there have been eliminated from the Colum­
bus System several optional zones, which I will identify 
briefly in a moment, since you took over this particular 
department or division within the administrative section, 
some of which you started and some of which you did not, 
and my question is why were they eliminated?

A. As I had indicated a moment ago, the opportunity 
presented itself for two of these options involving West- 
Central [5444] and Eastmoor-Walnut Ridge when I



636

worked with the attendance areas for Briggs and Inde­
pendence High Schools, and it just happened that those 
options fell within the main portion of the attendance area 
for the new schools. Thus, I could eliminate them. They 
had served their purpose.

In addition to this, I saw an opportunity to eliminate 
other zones, especially with Central at the same time, and 
it was basically because the Board and Superintendent 
felt that overall they didn’t have a very good record in 
other cities, and perhaps if they served no further purpose 
for us, that we should strike them from our district. [5445]

Q. How does, mechanically, the zone work? Is it 
listed in the school directory or on the maps, and so forth, 
or how is it done?

A. Yes, the school directory is prepared with the 
streets in the optional zone reflecting that option and some 
house numbers and street — street names will indicate the 
choice of the district.

We did require, though, that once a youngster chose 
the optional school, once he opted for that particular 
school, then he must finish that school, spending the three 
years or whatever length of time that was necessary for 
him to complete that level. This avoided Fifth opting back
and forth between districts.

# # # # #

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. LUCAS
# & # # &

[5461] Q. [By Mr. Lucas] Thank you.
Now, let’s talk about these options that were in exist­

ence before you came to the central office.
I take it you’re in the same position pretty much as 

to those options, in that, of your own knowledge, you don’t 
know whether race played any part, was not part at all, or 
was the total reason for any of those before you were in 
charge; is that correct?

A. It’s very difficult for me to grasp the reasons.



637

[5466] Q. I wonder if you could point to the large 
map, the Alum Creek School?

A. Alum Creek School is located here just to the north 
of the railroad tracks and west of Alum Creek Drive in the 
Alum Creek Apartment complex.

Q. All right. And where is this discontiguous area 
that you talked about in your direct testimony?

A. The discontiguous area is immediately south of it 
severed by the railroad tracks here and here and they live 
in this general area.

[5467] Q. What school do they go to now?
A. They now go, as they have since 1963, to Moler 

Elementary School.
Q. And at what time did they go to Barrett?
A. To Barrett?
Q. Yes. Didn’t they go to Barrett at one time?
A. No, not to my knowledge.
Q. Is there another discontiguous area that went to 

Barrett?
A. Not to my knowledge. Barrett is a junior high 

school in our system.
Q. Was there another discontiguous area to the east 

of the Alum Creek that you discussed in your direct testi­
mony?

A. I was talking about Barnett.
Q. I am sorry, I meant Barnett.
A. Yes.
Q. Excuse me.
A. Okay. There is an area here around Petzinger 

Road, Washington Square Apartments, that is discontig­
uous, and we have taken it to Barnett.

Q. What route would you follow on a bus to get to 
Barnett or by car?

A. You would probably go — you have to come out 
this way to College Avenue, and you come up through and 
over [5468] Livingston and up.



638

Q. Would you go up to Colgate, Livingston, to 
Barrett?

A. You would follow this general direction up, yes.
Q. And how would you go if you were going to Alum 

Crest from there?
A. From this area you would need to come down the 

College Avenue extension of Route 33 to Refugee, and you 
would go I suppose westward on Refugee and up Refugee.

[5469] Q. All right. Would it surprise you to know 
that you can go from Washington Square Apartments to 
Barrett in nine minutes, 3.6 miles, and go to Alum Crest, 
and it is 2.4 miles, and you can do that in seven minutes?

A. No, that doesn't surprise me.
Q. How long did Alum Crest have 12 empty class­

rooms which you rented out to another group?
A. Alum Crest had spaces that the Council of Re­

tarded Children used for — I suppose since 1970.
Q. You rented that space out to them, didn’t you?
A. That’s correct.

# # # # #

[5470] Q. Are you familiar with the East Linden 
School?

A. Briefly.
Q. All right, and it shows transportation from South 

Mifflin to East Linden I believe on the third page of the 
exhibit, doesn’t it?

A. Yes, it shows it in 1973, that’s correct.
Q. And South Mifflin was 83.4 percent black when 

students were transferred intact to East Linden at 10.7 
percent black?

A. That’s correct.
Q. And were you aware that they were placed in a 

basement room at East Linden and that they had to take 
their [5471] recesses at separate times and had to eat at 
separate times from the East Linden children?

A. I wasn’t aware of that.



639

Q. And that took place — what year was that trans­
portation?

A. 1973.
Q. The Suliivant transportation, do you see that also 

on page 3 of the exhibit?
A. Yes.
Q. How far away is Bellows?
A. It is very close in terms of distance. It is very 

close.
Q. All right, you had apparently from ’69 through ’73 

an overcapacity situation at Suliivant; is that correct?
A. That’s correct, yes.
Q. Was that a situation where one school — well, let s 

see, Suliivant was 61.4 in 69 and in 73, 70.2. Bellows 
ranged from 4.1 to 9.5 percent black?

A. That’s correct.
Q. Is that a situation where you could have paired the 

schools and desegregated them on a permanent basis 
rather than having the intact busing and keeping them in 
segregated units within the Bellows School?

A. I am sure there are other options that one could 
have considered. The problem with redistricting is that 
West Mound [5472] Street that separates the two is a very 
busy intersection and that, of course, as you may or may 
not know, has now become a portion of the west freeway 
which separates the two which made it rather difficult 
for redistricting purposes.

Q. You are already transporting the students, aren’t
you?

A. That’s correct.
Q. That wouldn’t have been a problem to pair them 

and transport the students across whatever barriers that 
existed while you transported kindergarten kids; is that 
right?

A. Our transportation was a temporary attempt at 
relieving the problem.



640

Q. It went on for five years; is that right?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Would it be a fair statement from examining 

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 356A to say that the system does not 
hesitate to transport children in the lowest elementary 
grades on a regular basis?

A. We generally transport primary age level, second 
and third grade youngsters, yes.

[5473] Q. As a matter of fact, you select that partic­
ular option as a matter of preference rather than going to 
the higher grades whenever you can; is that correct?

A. That’s correct.
Q. As a matter of policy, you prefer to transport 

younger children?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And that includes, I think, in a couple of instances 

even pre-kindergarten children; is that right?
A. There were rare instances where pre-kindergarten 

children were transported. They were generally located 
within that attendance area, and that’s because of regula­
tions within the Title programs to locate those services 
within the Title I eligible schools.

Q. So you were involved in 1987 in the intact trans­
portation between Lexington and Leonard and Brentnell, 
were you not?

A. Yes, that’s right.
Q. Lexington was a hundred percent black?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Leonard was a hundred percent black?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Brentnell was 87.2 percent black, right?
A. That’s correct.
Q. You mean you couldn’t have found another option 

in [5474] the system that would not have — that would 
have avoided taking blacks to black schools?



641

A, I’m sure that we could have found a space that 
would have been more accommodating in terms of racial 
balance. This was —

Q. That was after — I’m sorry.
A. — a temporary period of time while Lexington was 

being completed, and Leonard Avenue was in a declining 
situation. We had available space there, and if I recall — 
the number of classes, by the way, is an error. I’m quite 
sure we took the entire school out rather than two class­
rooms as this exhibit shows.

Q. How many classrooms would that be?
A. My recollection would say that it would have to 

be 10 to 12 classrooms, the majority of which went to 
Leonard Avenue, and I believe only a classroom or two at 
Brentnell.

Q. Thank you.
But after the finished construction at Lexington, you 

took them from the hundred percent black Leonard and 
put them back in a hundred percent black Lexington, 
right?

A. That’s correct.
Q. Look at the — on the same page, if you will, sir, 

the Fair transportation. The Fair School between 1967 and 
1970 ranked from 91.5 percent black to 95.6 percent black, 
[5475] and Pilgrim in 1967 was 99.5, and you sent children 
from Fair to Pilgrim, and you sent them from Fair to 
Eastwood in 1968, ’69 and ’70, and the Eastwood was 66 
— I’m sorry — 97.6, 98.7 and 97.6 percent black during that 
period?

A. That’s correct. These were the two closest schools 
to Fair with space.

# # & * #

[5479] Q. You indicated that since 1967 the racial
composition of the schools has been a factor that you 
considered along with other factors; is that correct?



642

A. The policy of the Board of Education approved 
the summer of 1987, or roughly thereabouts, indicated 
that we would consider ethnic distribution where feasible.

Q. You mentioned in your direct testimony that you 
looked at various neighborhoods and various areas in 
discussing the neighborhood school concept as you utilized 
the term; is that correct?

A. I define it essentially as a school community, yes.
Q. All right. You said that it wasn’t quite a sociolo­

gical community in that sense, but you did define it as a 
school community; is that correct?

A. That’s correct. That’s correct.
Q. A school community is an interest group, an 

interest community, is it not?
A. That would be a way of defining it, yes.
Q. Is that a definition that you would accept as one 

you’d use?
A. I would live with that — I can live with that, yes.
Q. All right. And the interest community is the group, 

usually the group of people who have children enrolled 
in that particular school?

A. That’s right.
[5480] Q. That’s your interest group, that’s your 

pressure group, that’s your PTA, whatever it may be?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Now, if the School Board determines the interest 

community by where it draws the attendance boundaries 
for schools, does not the School Board determine the 
neighborhood?

A. The school community is defined by the bound­
aries.

Q. And the boundaries are drawn by the School 
Board; is that correct?

A. By the Board, accepted by the Board.
# # # # #



643

[5481] Q. You mentioned that at each boundary 
change you had sort of a ripple effect, I would call it, or 
domino, or whatever term you find convenient. Do you 
recall that in your testimony?

A. Yes.
[5482] Q. And I believe you stated that you had 

more opportunities to make boundary decisions in 196/ 
than at any other time before or since; is that —

A. 1966, that’s correct.
Q. ’66. Effective for the ’67 school year or —
A. .For the ’66-67 school year.
Q. Isn’t it true that each time you have opportunities 

to make boundary changes which have ripple or domino 
effects, each time you have opportunities to assign stu­
dents in relieving overcrowding that each of those is an 
opportunity which can be exercised to reduce racial 
separation in the schools?

A. It depends upon the composition of the commun­
ities that you’re working with. If the total community is 
black or a majority black, then that reduces considerably 
the opportunity to consider race in the distribution of 
youngsters in the receiving schools. If it is a well-inte­
grated community, then that opportunity presents itself 
more clearly.

Q. Isn’t it a question of how much effort you want to 
put into it, whether or not you — you’ve already got the 
children on a bus, say, to relieve overcrowding? You can 
send them north on College Avenue or you can send them 
south and make a couple of turns, maybe go only the 
same distance and so some desegregating of the school, 
can’t you?

[5483] A. Our charge was to provide the best pos­
sible education program for boys and girls to keep the 
children as close to home school base as possible, to retain 
the community of the school as nearly as possible.



644

Q. Well, that’s a community that’s already been 
determined by the School Board when it drew the bound­
ary, though; isn’t it?

A. That’s the school community.
Q. And it’s the School Board that makes the decision 

to exercise certain limitations or choices on you as an 
administrator as to whether you can go beyond their 
original decision as to what the community would be when 
they drew the boundaries; isn’t that correct?

A. They make the policies.
Q. And you have to follow them?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And if their policy is designed in such a way that 

the foreseeable effect of them is that you’re going to end 
up with black children going to a black school to relieve 
overcrowding, that’s the decision of the School Board and 
not something you decide personally; am I correct?

A. The transportation of children to relieve over­
crowding was a decision that the Division of Administra­
tion made, not the Board.

Q. But you had to make it, and make the decisions 
within [5484] the ambient of the Board’s policy?

A. I never received direction from the Board of Edu­
cation through policy where to send children.

Q. Then you could have sent them to a school further 
removed and in another direction and provided for deseg­
regation that way if the administration had decided that 
was something that ought to be done; is that correct?

A. Our charge in our administrative procedure was 
to send children to the nearest available school with space.

Q. I’m not trying to get into an argument with you. 
That policy was dictated by the Board, wasn’t it, the 
nearest school?

A. Not necessarily, no.
Q. Oh, that was the decision of administration?
A. That was a decision of administration.



645

# * » * # 

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. ROSS

[5486] Q. [By Mr. Ross] Did you at any time prior 
to 1963 record the race of students — this is during the 
period of time that you were teaching — on a white sheet?

A. As a teacher I can never remember being asked 
to account for the number of non-white students in my 
classrooms, no.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LUCAS

[5495] Q. [By Mr. Lucas] Are you saying that Title 
I money will follow the child into the classroom at a re­
ceiving school because he shows up on the books and 
records of the sending school?

A. As long as we keep him on the books and records 
of the sending school, he is a part of that home school 
area as far as calculations for eligibility for that school 
are concerned and for, thus, the services.

Q. By the services, you mean the services would be 
transported to him or her at the receiving school; is that 
what you are saying? The money is going to follow the 
child?

A. Services will be rendered to those children who 
are eligible for it, that’s correct.

Q. They will take it over and they will get served 
and specially treated inside the receiving school; is that 
what you are saying?

A. I am saying they are serviced inside that school.
Q. Are you telling me that if a school system desegre­

gates, reassigns its priority area of children so that they 
are evenly dispersed throughout the system, that it is 
going to lose its Title I money?

A. I understand that — and I can’t speak with author­
ity on the matter — that there is some discussion on this 
issue, that there perhaps is a ruling in schools of a [5496]



646

desegregated nature, but it would be something very 
seriously to look at.

Q. You are aware that there are literally hundreds, if 
not thousands, of school systems in the south receiving 
Title one money that are under desegregation plans, aren’t 
you?

A. With dispensation from the HEW.
Q. There are different rules when you desegregate 

than when you segregate; isn’t that right?
A. Yes, I understand.

* * * * *

JOSEPH DAVIS
called as a witness on behalf of the

Original Plaintiffs, being first duly sworn, 
testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ROSS
[4053] Q. [By Mr. Ross] Will you state your name 

for the Court, please?
A. Joseph L. Davis.
Q. And what is your occupation and position at this 

time?
A. I am Assistant Superintendent in charge of Special 

Services for the Columbus Board of Education.
* * * * *

JOSEPH DAVIS
called as a witness on behalf of the

Defendants, having been heretofore duly sworn, 
testified as follows:

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. LUCAS
* * * * *

[5282] Q. [By Mr. Lucas] Now, I want to show you 
a Board motion from the minutes of the Board of Educa­
tion dated December 5, 1972, and this deals with the sub­
ject I believe you touched on in your direct testimony, the



647

recommendation for an advisory committee on school sites. 
Do you recall that?

A. Did you say 1972?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. Okay. This is entitled, “Proposal for the selection 

of an advisory committee on school sites.”
Q. That’s Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 44; is that correct?
A. Yes, and it is dated December 5, 1972. Okay.
Q. Read, if you will, the third paragraph, the duties 

of the advisory committee on school sites as proposed.
A. Okay. May I read the read-in so it will make com­

plete sense?
[5283] Q. Sure.
A. The duties of the advisory committee on school 

sites shall be the following: There is one, two, and number 
three says: Solicit assurances from lenders, developers, 
realtors, realtists, builders and employers that equal hous­
ing and employment opportunities be made a reality 
through affirmative action. These assurances and their ful­
fillment would be a factor in the determination of school 
sites.

Q. Would you turn to the second page and tell me 
what the vote was on that?

[5284] The vote was ayes three, noes four.
Q. Would you identify the person who made the 

motion?
A. The motion was made by Mrs. Castleman, sec­

onded by Dr. Walker.
Q. The ayes were?
A. Mrs. Castleman, Dr. Hamlar, Dr. Walker.
Q. The noes?
A. Mr. Langdon, Mrs. Prentice, Mrs. Redden and 

President Moyer.
Q. It indicates the motion failed, and the minutes —
A. That’s correct.
Q. — and the minutes are shown as approved Decem­

ber 19, 1972?



648

A. That’s correct.
Q. Is that split along racial lines, sir?
A. That is split along racial lines.

# # # # #

JOHN ELLIS

called as a witness on behalf of the Defendants, 
being heretofore duly sworn, 

testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PORTER
# # # # #

[5709] Q. [By Mr. Porter] Dr. Ellis, there has been 
substantial testimony in this case concerning the Colum­
bus Plan by other witnesses than yourself, and you have 
also testified concerning it and you have given your opin­
ion concerning whether or not it is working, and you have 
identified and put into this record figures from the various 
school records and exhibits in this [5710] case which sup­
port that position.

I would ask you, sir, at this time whether or not in 
your opinion the Columbus Plan can be improved, and 
do you intend to improve it?

A. Yes, it certainly can, and, yes, I certainly do. We 
are only in the third year of the plan and it is obvious 
that a lot more has to be done.

Q. What are some of the things that have to be done?
A. For example, I personally think we need more 

alternative schools. We need schools such as Montessori 
School. I think we have to expand schools as a foreign 
language school to try to teach bilingual education in an 
arena where pupils can learn French, Spanish, Russian, 
Chinese, a variety of language and learn to speak them 
fluently.

I think that would be highly attractive to some people. 
Certainly not all like that kind.



649

We need more informal schools, more traditional 
schools, more IGE schools, so one basic thing that has to 
happen is many more alternatives must come on stream, 
and obviously some are coming on stream.

Q. What are some of the other things that you feel 
should be done and that you would intend to do?

A. We need to give more attention to encouraging 
the white pupils to transfer to majority black schools. It 
is obvious from the data we have presented that there is 
a [5711] strong flow of black pupils to predominantly 
white schools, and that has been alluded to in previous 
testimony and criticized in previous testimony.

We have to develop far more ways of encouraging 
white pupils to move into majority black schools. We are 
doing some things, not previously stated. There are 33 
white pupils who, on a half-time basis, attend Linden- 
McKinley High School, so it is something that is now hap­
pening, but in my judgment not happening sufficiently.

This Fall we are opening the Douglas Developmental 
Learning Center which is a school constructed to insure 
that we had an additional capacity to accommodate pupils 
from outside the area, and we are involved in a vigorous 
recruitment effort, and I won’t say it’s a Woody Hayes 
effort, but Woody only recruits 25 or 30 people a year, and 
we have recruited far more than that.

We are recruiting white pupils to go to that particu­
lar school.

Community meetings, film strips, personal contacts, 
teachers will be on the telephones, making home visits all 
Summer. We have got a vigorous effort going there, but I 
personally think that this is one of the shortcomings ad­
mittedly of the Columbus Plan that has to be improved.

I think we need a better support system for the stu­
dents who attend the schools. They need more support 
[5712] in adjusting to the new school, more counseling, 
perhaps some additional instruction.



650

We have to stress more a welcoming attitude on the 
part of the receiving school, and for the most part we 
have tried to do some of this already.

I think also that we need to continue the use of field 
trips and exchange trips to develop positive images about 
one another and about the various schools in the city.

In my opinion the bringing together of various schools, 
and having children see one another in a positive fashion, 
visiting the different schools, can and should produce an 
attitude that the schools are all good and that might be a 
good place to go.

I recognize that testimony was introduced this morn­
ing, and I wasn’t present, about one incident or something 
or other that happened, but I have received numerous 
calls and statements and letters from people, including one 
from a child that said, “I wish their school that we visited 
this afternoon was located across the street because those 
kids are so nice.”

We have had a lot of positive effects, and I personally 
think that this helps break down the racial isolation, the 
attitudes, the concerns that people might have that we are 
all alike, we are all human, and that all schools in this 
city are good. [5713]

I think also we need to have a lot more publicity, and 
we have had considerable so far, and better recruitment. 
Maybe we will have to employ Woody as a consultant, but 
I think we are doing pretty well, but I am not satisfied.

Q. In your opinion will the Columbus Plan insure 
that every school is perfectly racially balanced within the 
next five years?

A. Probably not.
Q. Why not?
A. Whenever you give people choices, some varia­

tions exist. The Columbus Plan though can insure that the 
doors of all schools are open to everyone, and that no child 
is denied the right to an education that is meaningful and 
appropriate for that particular child.



651

The Columbus Plan should reduce racial isolation, 
improve racial balance, and contribute to integration, par­
ticularly if we can gain support from all sections of the 
community.

Q. Dr. Ellis, as a superintendent of an urban school 
system, how do you see this whole process of integration 
proceeding in the large cities of this country?

A. That’s a rather massive question, but basically I 
think that we can’t lie on schools alone the burden of inte­
grating society. The schools can help. They can help sub­
stantially, but they also need help. [5714]

In my judgment, working in an urban setting, apprais­
ing the conditions that change, that are present in every 
large city, with which I am familiar, we need a stronger 
enforcement of open housing laws.

I think we need a loan guarantee program that en­
courages home purchases in racially different areas. [5715] 

A. (Continued) I don’t think there’s enough happen­
ing in this area at all. I think we need a wider dispersal of 
public housing so that the Federal Government isn’t guilty 
of contributing to racial isolation. I think the churches in 
this community and every other community need to prac­
tice what they preach and be an example of integration 
rather than continuing to demonstrate on Sunday morning 
one of the most segregated hours in America.

I think we need to strengthen the family structure 
through adequate jobs, housing, recreational and educa­
tional activities. For example, we know that if we want 
quality education, the children have to come to school 
able to learn, and we now know that pregnant mothers 
who have an inadequate diet probably give birth to chil­
dren that will already have an educational handicap. We 
are beginning to understand that protein and protein de­
velopment in the brain creates serious disabilities in chil­
dren. It is apparent that some of these consequences are 
reversible, thank goodness, if there is a diet that is suffi­
ciently adequate with children.



652

We need to have homes where children have good 
motivation. A bottom line on all this is you can’t have 
quality schools without help and cooperation from the 
home.

I think also we need a stronger commitment to inte­
gration on the part of the national and state leaders and 
legislators rather than having them focus primarily on 
[5716] pro or anti busing sentiments.

I also think we need develop approaches in America 
and here in Columbus on such matters as the Columbus 
Plan or an improved version of it or an expanded version 
of it, a plan that relies more on quality schools, choices 
and incentives rather than on a judicial decree which re­
lies too frequently on fixed ratios and that pejorative label, 
forced busing.

And finally I would think we need to make city 
schools so strong that we won’t have flight to the suburbs 
for a variety of reasons. City schools should be of such 
high quality that people will be pounding at the doors to 
have their children enrolled. This will take money, com­
mitment, and energy, but I am just naive enough and hope­
fully optimistic enough to think that it can get done.

# *  # # #

HOWARD O. MERRIMAN

called as a witness on behalf of the Defendants, 
having been heretofore duly sworn, 

testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PORTER
# # # # #

[5499] Q. [By Mr. Porter] All right. I would like you 
to describe for us, please, briefly, what the situation was 
so far as facilities were concerned when Dr. Ellis became 
Superintendent of this System in the summer of 1971?

A. At that time, there were 171 operating buildings. 
164 of these were elementary and secondary schools



653

throughout the School District and serving pupils from 
the geographically defined attendance areas.

The other 7 facilities were — included the special 
education schools such as Neil Avenue School for the 
physically handicapped, A. G. Bell for deaf pupils, Fair­
fax for the emotionally disturbed, Third Street for EMR 
girls, [5500] plus the adult education centers, adult day 
school, adult evening school and the adult education cen­
ter on Starling Street that served the entire district of 7.

Q. Now, we have had considerable testimony during 
this trial, much of which was elicited by me, concerning 
the schools’ construction program from 1950 down through 
1969, but I wonder if, for the purposes of the record, you 
could tell us the number of buildings that were in exist­
ence in 1971 and the years of their original construction 
by groupings, please?

A. The original sections of the building — because in 
many cases there were additions, but I ’ll use the original 
sections of the building as a way of categorizing age.

Ranging from the oldest building, which was con­
structed in 1864, that’s the Third Street School, to 1889, 
there were 10 buildings; from the year 1890 to 1919, 33 
buildings; from 1920 to 1949, 24 buildings; and then from 
1950 to 1971, 104 buildings.

Q. And this is a total of the 171 that you previously 
described?

A. That is correct.
Q. All right. What was the date, in order to get this 

into perspective in this part of the record, please, what was 
the date of the last approval prior to Dr. Ellis’s becoming 
Superintendent, approval by the voters of a bond [5501] 
issue for the Columbus Public School System?

A. November, 1964.
Q. And the amount of that, please?
A. $34,650,000.



654

Q. Had there been efforts made since November of 
1964 and prior to the summer of 1971, made to have the 
voters approve additional bond issues and, if so, would 
you describe that?

A. In September of 1969, a special election was held. 
The voters defeated a proposed $63.8 million bond issue.

Q. What was the vote on that?
A. 29.3 percent for.
Q. And everybody else against?
A. Everyone else against.
Q. And was there a subsequent issue, or rather, a 

subsequent attempt made prior to August of 1971?
A. Yes, there was.
Q. And what was that, please?
A. In May, 1971, a primary election, an issue was on 

the ballot for a bond issue, $75,950,000. That was de­
feated. The percentage voting for was 34.3 percent.

Q. Now, would you describe just very briefly for us 
the growth of the City and the School District during the 
period from 1960 to 1970?

A. The Columbus City population during that time 
[5502] period, the ten years from 1960 to 1970, increased 
by 68,361, which was about a 14% percent increase. The 
base population in 1960 was 471,316.

Q. What was the pupil population of the Columbus 
Public Schools System in 1960 and its growth to 1970?

A. The 1960 population was 83,631 in 1960. It in­
creased by 25,698 to a total of 109,329 in 1970. [5503]

Q. Would you tell us, please, what had been the 
situation or the increase in dwelling units within the City 
from January of 1968 to December of 1971?

A. There were 30,000 new dwelling units reported by 
the City Development Office being built during that 
period of time, 12,000 of which were built in 1971.

Q. Were there any new school buildings started dur­
ing that period?



655

A. No, sir.
Q. What was the situation with respect to the in­

crease in the area of the City of Columbus from 1950 to 
1.972?

A. In 1950 Columbus had an area of 40 square miles 
which increased to 147.8 square miles in 1972.

Q. And what was the situation with respect to the 
Columbus School District?

A. Very similar, but not exactly the same, since there 
are some instances where the school district and the City 
of Columbus are not coterminous.

Q. What had happened with respect to the number of 
school buildings in the district between '50 to ’71?

A. There were 70 schools in 1950, and in 1971, there 
were 171 schools.

Q. I believe it is my recollection and I think the rec­
ord reflects that in 1971 the State Board of Education 
approved the transfer of 14 land areas to the Columbus 
Public [5504] School System. Would you tell us briefly 
what those areas were and the approximate acreage and 
the approximate number of students that were estimated 
living in the areas in 1971 and then, finally, what it was 
when it got all resolved in Court?

A. In 1971 there was an area involving Washington 
Local and Upper Arlington District that had four parcels 
in it which totalled approximately 182 acres, and the tax 
valuation estimate was 2.6 million with no record of stu­
dents in the area in 1971.

In the Madison Local-Reynoldsburg School District 
area, there was one parcel, 802 acres, three-tenths of a 
million tax valuation and one family at that time.

In the southwestern district there were two parcels, 
approximately 1200 acres, one and a half million tax valua­
tion, no record of students in the area.

Westerville, six parcels, approximately 1,600 acres, 
estimated tax valuation — approximately 3.6 million, no 
record of the number of students in the area in 1971.



656

Grandview Heights, one parcel, approximately 910 
acres, estimated tax valuation — 18.3 million and no record 
of students in the area in 1971.

Mifflin Local School District, approximately 6,000 
acres. It was transferred intact, estimated tax valuation,
29.1 million, approximately 3,600 students involved in that 
[5505] transfer.

Q. What is the approximate pupil population of those 
areas at this time?

A. The Washington Local area is approximately 205 
students. Estimate of the Madison Local-Reynoldsburg 
area referred to is estimated between two and three- 
hundred. The southwestern area, 120. The Westerville 
area, 2,770. Grandview Heights, 2. Mifflin Local, 3,582.

Q. Now, would you describe for us the situation in 
1971 -

MR. LUCAS: Would it be possible for us to get some 
indication what the source of that information is, those 
estimates?

MR. PORTER: You mean the latter ones?
MR. LUCAS: Yes.
MR. PORTER: Do you want that now or do you 

want it on cross-examination?
MR. LUCAS: Anytime.
Q. (By Mr. Porter) With respect to the physical — 

the school facilities in the summer of 1971, what was the 
situation so far as then- ability to handle the matters which 
they should have been handling, if that makes any sense? 
Were they overcrowded?

A. Yes, increasingly so.
Q. What was being done about it?
A. There were three major techniques being used. 

One [5506] was intact transportation at the elementary 
level, double or extended sessions at the secondary level 
and really larger class sizes at all levels. That was one way. 
Then there were other techniques used to a lesser extent,



657

including placing some classes in multipurpose rooms 
within buildings, some rental of facilities and, of course, 
the use of that one portable at Alpine.

Q. And would you describe the situation in the ele­
mentary schools, specifically in the elementary schools?

A. Yes. Intact transportation was a continuing meth­
od to relieve overcrowding. The information from 1965-66, 
there were 58 classes, and the peak or the 1970-71 period, 
there were about 50 classes transported, increasing to a 
peak in 1973-74 of 77. At the present time that’s down to 
8 classes.

There were classes housed in the multipurpose rooms 
of 11 school buildings in the 1970-71 school year and 7 
buildings in ’71-72 and 9 schools in the ’72-73 year. This 
was an option that could be used in instances to house 
students within the buildings to which they were assigned.

Q. What was the situation with respect to rented 
facilities?

A. In the 1970-71 school year, there were overflow of 
classes from 5 elementary schools in rental facilities; from 
3 schools in ’72-73; and from 2 schools in ’73-74.

Q. What was the situation at the beginning of the
[5507] ’71-72 school year with respect to the size — with 
respect to class size, and what had it been during the 
preceding six years? I am sorry, that isn’t what I mean.

What was it — what was the situation with respect 
to class size in ’71-72, and what had it been a year or two 
prior to that, and what had happened to it subsequently?
[5508]

A. Well, in 1971-72, more than half, 50.6 percent, of 
all the elementary classes in the system exceeded 31 pupils. 
Prior to that time, the percentage in 1970, for example, 
was 39 percent that exceeded class size of 31.

In 19— in the years following 1971, the percentage 
above 31, 1972 went to 31.2 percent; 1973 to 21.7 percent; 
1974 to 22.6 percent; and 1975 to 17.5 percent.



658

Q. Directing your attention now, please, to the sec­
ondary schools, what was the situation with respect to the 
secondary schools insofar as double or extended sessions 
were concerned?

A. 21 out of the 39 secondary schools in operation 
were on double or extended day sessions to handle the 
overflow enrollment. The major peak in terms of over­
crowding was in 1972-73 when 9 schools were on double 
sessions and 17 others were on extended day schedules.

Q. Give us, please, the number of secondary pupils 
affected by double and extended day schedules?

A. In 1970 there were — of those 21 schools affected 
by double or extended day sessions, 24,650 pupils were 
affected. That represented 55.5 percent of all pupils.

Q. Would you continue?
A. In 1971, 29,232 were affected, and that was 62.6 

percent.
In 1972, 31,925 pupils were affected, 68.7 percent.
In 1973, 30,586 pupils, 66.8 percent. [5509]
In 1974, 25,936 pupils or 59.6 percent; and
In 1975, 25,892 pupils, 60.6 percent.
Q. What was the situation at the secondary level with 

respect to class size for the school year 1971-72, and what 
is it for the school year starting in 1975?

A. In 1971-72, 14.4 percent of all secondary classes 
exceeded 33 pupils.

In the ’75-76 year that had been reduced to 11.9 
percent.

Q. All right. Now, you have given us briefly some of 
the problems, physical capacity problems, that faced the 
System in the summer of 1971. I would ask you now to 
describe what the System did with respect to this problem, 
and I have specifically in mind, Dr. Merriman, the con­
vening of Project Unite and what its origin and intent was 
and its structure, please.

A. Project Unite was proposed to the Board at a Com­
mittee of the whole meeting in November of 1971 by Dr.



659

Ellis approximately four months after he was appointed as 
Superintendent of Schools. At the Committee of the whole 
it was favorably received, and on December 7, 1971, the 
Board unanimously adopted a resolution authorizing its 
implementation. [5510]

The project was intended as a community-wide effort 
to identify and solve many pressing school problems. The 
structure was — consisted of 7 search and solve teams, 
search and solve being to search for the problems and 
solutions to those problems and propose recommendations.

The teams were composed of interested citizens and 
assisted by school personnel. A citizen chairperson was 
appointed for each of the 7 search and solve teams. Those 
teams were educational programs, building needs, staff 
resources, finance, long-range organization, urban prob­
lems and communications.

Besides the 7 teams was a community coordinator, 
coordinating the relationship of each of the study teams.

Q. Now, was that later Mr. Hellerman?
A. That is correct.
Q. And I think you identified him as an executive 

from Nationwide on loan for this Project Unite?
A. That is correct.
Q. And without identifying the individuals, there 

were, then, seven people from the community who chaired 
these seven search and solve teams; am I correct about 
that?

A. Yes. These were lay people who were asked to 
head up the committees or teams in each one of these 
areas.

The recruiting effort for personnel to staff the teams 
was on an entirely voluntary basis. We accepted — [5511] 
phone calls, letters, radio stations, TV stations and news 
media and print media were very helpful in helping us 
recruit persons, and anyone that volunteered to help was 
part of the action. We didn’t turn down anyone.



660

Q. What then happened subsequent to the Board 
approving the project, happened between, let’s call it, 
Phase 1 from January through March of 1972?

A. In this first phase, there were over 2,000 citizen 
participants, volunteers, representing community, business 
sectors, PTAs, professional staff and other educationally- 
related organizations as well as students exploring these 
seven areas of concern, listening to new ideas, discussing 
them and deciding what should be considered, and by the 
time the work of the citizen volunteers had been com­
pleted in mid-March, all of the different groups and so 
forth had held about 298 meetings, and at that time we 
had made an estimate that approximately — well, slightly 
more than 31,000 manhours had been devoted to the 
project by the volunteers.

Q. The teams produced or their reports produced, if 
I remember correctly, recommendations with respect to 
each area, did it not?

A. Yes, each of the areas produced recommendations 
related to their particular area.

Q. And what was the total or the aggregate in recom­
mendations?

A. Slightly more than 600. [5512]
Q. What happened, then, after the recommendations 

were submitted by the search and solve team?
A. These were printed intact in a tabloid newspaper 

type publication and delivered by PTA and Model City 
representatives to Columbus households. Over 200,000 
were printed and delivered. Funds for doing that were 
made available by Battelle, Borden Foundation and the 
Columbus Foundation to print this 12-page summary of 
recommendations.

Q. What happened then?
A. Then, during the period April 26 to May 11th, 

there were nine public forums where the representatives 
of each of the search and solve teams formed a panel,



661

presented their major findings and listened to questions 
and concerns by the citizens attending the meeting. There 
were approximately 750 citizens that attended, and besides 
this, there had been a community reply card, a giant post­
card included in the tabloid which people could react to 
the report to indicate their particular interest or concerns 
or reactions to the report and send it back in, as well as 
taking telephone calls and written letters on the subjects 
from anyone that was interested. This was all feedback 
from — we presented the recommendations to the com­
munity: Now, what’s the feedback from the community?

Q. And what happened then?
A. On May 30th of 1972, the steering committee of 

[5513] Project Unite presented its official report to the 
Board of Education.

Q. Now, for the purposes of here I am not going to 
review the numbers of recommendations and of what they 
consisted. I think they probably are in exhibits, and they’re 
quite voluminous. I would, however, ask you to describe 
what happened subsequent to the submission by the steer­
ing committee of the final distillation of these recommenda­
tions and submission to the Board? What took place?

A. Well, one of the things rather significant is the 
Board responded to recommendations made by the com­
mittees. One of the committees in particular was the 
Building Needs search and solve team, and in — the Board 
did respond to the recommendation by the search and 
solve team to place a bond issue on the ballot in November 
of 1972 to meet the building needs that had been identified.

Q. Was there a planning process paper reviewed with 
the Board which described each building recommendation 
with respect to each building and each facility as to what 
would take place with the funds from the bond issue?

A. Yes, that document would be what has been en­
capsulated in Promises Made.

Q. And I believe that that is an exhibit in this case, 
and I will get the number for it in due course. [5514]



662

Of what did the Promises Made document consist, 
please?

A. It contained the June 27, 1972, building proposal 
that had been presented by the Board of — presented to 
the Board of Education and acted upon, a planning process 
paper reviewed with the Board at the Committee of the 
whole meeting in September, 1972, the priorities — state­
ment on priorities for implementing the building program, 
a summary of features of the building program which re­
late to the process of racial integration and a summary of 
vocational career center implementation plan.

Q. This program was subsequently made known to 
the community and to the news media; am I correct about 
that?

A. The document?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes, it was. It was widely distributed. [5515]
And there was, in November of 1972, a bond issue 

that was voted upon by the public?
A. On the November 7th election, the voters approved 

the $89.5 million bond issue, and the percent supporting 
the issue were 55.7 percent.

Q. Let me hand you, Dr. Merriman, a copy of Plain­
tiffs’ Exhibit 49, entitled “The Bond Issue-1972 Promises 
Made, Columbus Public School System,” and I’d ask you if 
that is the document to which you have just made 
reference?

A. It is.
Q. I’ll give you back, Dr. Merriman, this exhibit, and 

direct your attention to the first page inside the cover 
page, and I would ask you to read that letter which appears 
there.

A. This is on Columbus Public Schools Administrative 
Offices’ letterhead stationery.

It is vital that the Columbus Board of Education and 
school administration keep the promises they have made 
while promoting the school bond issue. Public faith in



663

all public institutions appears to be low. One way to help 
rebuild good faith is to follow the principle that a promise 
made should be kept.

One source of confusion to the public is that com­
ments by various officials may vary. Furthermore, a fact
[5516] passed from person to person can become distorted.

It is important to have a single source document that
clearly establishes what has been promised. This mini­
mizes the chance that something promised will be omitted 
or that people will claim that a promise wasn’t fulfilled 
when it was never made.

The following document describes a complete build­
ing program and planning practices authorized by the 
Board of Education and the Superintendent of Schools. 
This document covers all promises made. Any item not 
appearing in this document was not promised by anyone 
authorized to do so. The document consists of:

1. The June 27, 1972 building proposal presented to 
the Board of Education;

2. The planning process paper reviewed with the 
Board at the committee of the whole meeting on Septem­
ber 26, 1972;

3. The priorities for implementation of the building 
program;

4. A summary of features of the building program 
which relate to the process of racial integration;

5. A summary of the vocational career center’s im­
plementation plan.

It is possible and, in fact, probable that slight modifi­
cations will occur. No planning is so perfect that it
[5517] will meet all possible circumstances, but the basic 
intention is to fulfill every promise that is possible within 
the law and financial resources available to the Board.

Sincerely yours, John Ellis, Superintendent of Schools.
Q. There are five major needs identified as critical 

needs within this document, and I believe that they appear 
on page 3. Would you please read that material?



664

A. Page 3 —
Q. Starting on page 3 of Exhibit 49, No. 1.
A. No. 1. Classroom space to solve overcrowding. 

Due to overcrowding, nine secondary schools must operate 
on split sessions during the 1972-73 school year, and 17 
others on extended schedules. It will be necessary to 
transport 62 classes of elementary children from the schools 
they would normally attend to those with available space. 
Columbus is continuing a period of unprecedented growth 
with 30,000 housing units constructed from 1968 to 1972, 
while the School System’s facilities have remained virtually 
unchanged during the same period. [5518]

Item 2. Housing for necessary career-vocational pro­
gram. The present lack of facilities is severely hampering 
efforts to offer students important career-vocational pro­
grams to equip them for successful employment. Employ­
ment trends and student surveys make clear the needs 
and desire for such programs, but the schools can make 
little progress without new construction.

3. Installation of modern school libraries. New State 
standards now in effect call for a modern library in each 
elementary school equal in size to the space of two class­
rooms. Only 38 of the School System’s 129 elementary 
schools have libraries at the present time, and even these 
fall far short of meeting the new State standards. At least 
250 additional classroom spaces are needed to install 
modern libraries in the remaining elementaries and to 
bring the present facilities in line with the standards.

It is also necessary to upgrade libraries in secondary 
schools so that they will meet State standards and serve as 
valuable components in the learning process. A modern 
library that contains adequate facilities for independent 
study and can be equipped with newly-developed audio­
visual learning materials is a must for every school. 
Libraries can play a key role in strengthening the reading 
program at all levels, filling a serious gap in the present 
[5519] educational program.



665

4. More and better facilities for handicapped pupils. 
Because of the shortage of space, nearly 500 children iden­
tified as educably mentally retarded cannot be placed next 
year in State approved special education classes, which 
require a smaller class size. Facilities are also badly needed 
for neurologically handicapped, physically handicapped, 
blind, deaf and emotionally disturbed.

5. Replacement of aged facilities. Several schools in 
Columbus remain in use far beyond their planned life 
span of 50 years. Twenty-four buildings were originally 
constructed prior to 1900 and have been in use from 73 
to 103 years. Wherever feasible, these older buildings must 
be modernized or replaced if we are to offer an up-to-date 
program under safe conditions to all pupils. [5520]

Q. Now, Dr. Merriman, the Exhibit 49 then continues 
and sets forth six major provisions of the building program, 
and would you please identify those, and I think they also 
appear on Page 4?

A. Six major provisions:
1. Construction of six new secondary and ten new 

elementary schools, a new school for the physically handi­
capped and four career-vocational centers.

2. Total replacement of one secondary and two ele­
mentary schools that are aged and inefficient.

3. Partial replacement of the sections of one second­
ary and four elementary schools that are aged and in­
efficient.

4. Additions to 21 secondary and 37 elementary 
schools, as well as the school for the deaf.

5. Expansion and improvement of the existing sites 
of 11 secondary and 22 elementary schools.

6. Site acquisitions limited to those needed for new 
construction and rapidly developing areas, including five 
secondary and four elementary school sites, and locations 
for three career-vocational centers. Early involvement of 
community people, realtors, planners and developers is 
necessary in locating these sites.



666

Q. How did the program propose to satisfy the needs, 
please, and I believe this material appears also on page 4,
[5521] starting at the bottom?

A. Yes. No. 1 would be a response to overcrowding. 
This building program would allow for the elimination of 
split sessions by coupling new construction with increased 
efficiency, using the buildings for longer than the regular 
school day. It would also make unnecessary the trans­
portation of pupils due to overcrowding, and would permit 
a substantial reduction in the hundreds of classes whose 
size alone impairs the learning process and limits the 
individual attention that can be given students.

2. Career-vocational education. The program would 
enable the school system to extend to some 8,000 students 
increased opportunities for career-vocational education, 
offering a wide range of programs to prepare them for jobs 
in a variety of fields. Where employments justify, career- 
vocational programs that do not require facilities for ex­
tensive specialized equipment will be offered at the local 
high school, while programs requiring large areas for 
highly specialized equipment will be made available to 
several high schools at the four career-vocational centers. 
This combination will provide the most economical and 
efficient approach to improved career-vocational oppor­
tunities for students.

3. Libraries. The building program will provide for 
modern library facilities in every elementary school in 
[5521A] the school district, and upgrade libraries in all 
secondary schools so that they will meet State standards 
and serve as valuable components in the learning process.
[5522]

Libraries will contain adequate facilities for independ­
ent study, can be equipped with newly developed audio­
visual learning materials.

4. Handicapped pupils: Included in the building 
program are provisions for increased space and improved 
facilities for special education classes. A new school for



667

the physically handicapped will be constructed to replace 
the crowded and inadequate facilities at Neil Avenue. The 
program calls for converting Clearbrook Elementary into 
a school for the emotionally handicapped, providing a 
newer, more flexible and better located facility for the 
children who are now housed in the congested and aging 
Fairfax School.

5. Aged buildings: The program would make possible 
replacing some schools which have been used far longer 
than intended or should be expected. The total and partial 
replacements provided for in the building program would 
insure that students are housed in safe facilities that en­
hance rather than inhibit the atmosphere for learning.

Q. All right. Now, would you identify for us some 
of the specific — what some of the specific needs include 
or are to be found as being corrected by the program?

A. This would be the general needs which would 
generalize across the System, basically, space for [5523] 
overcrowding; space for program expansion at the junior 
and senior high level; space for vocational career education 
in the high schools and career centers; space for special 
education programs in the elementary schools; space for 
hot lunch programs in the elementary schools; space for 
multipurpose rooms in elementary schools which had an 
undersized multipurpose-type facility; space for special 
programs such as the Title I and State DP-PPF programs; 
and spaces for small group instructions such as reading 
and tutoring.

Q. And how were these spaces to be met, please?
A. They could be met by new construction in the 

case of a new facility, by adding to an existing school the 
space that was needed or converting within existing space 
where it is available for those spaces needed or, in another 
instance, converting existing classroom space such as to a 
library learning center and building a new replacement 
space to replace that which had been converted.



Q. Did the program contemplate the modernization 
of facilities?

A. Yes.
Q. If so, would you describe that, please?
A. Modernization was a major factor in the building 

program, even though new spaces weren’t being added at 
many locations. That would include such changes as 
improvements [5524] in heating and ventilating systems, 
window replacements, plumbing system improvements, 
electrical system improvements and improvements in fixed 
and loose furniture and equipment.

Some of these were related to energy-saving moves. 
Some were related to replacing worn out or outmoded 
systems and equipment like the ventilating system in a 
facility. Some were related to upgrading a facility to meet 
building code requirements, the health and safety require­
ments that were necessary.

Q. Was there an effort — was there to be an effort 
made to coordinate these various modernization and con­
struction projects, and would you describe that, please? 
[5525]

A. Yes. Efforts were made to coordinate and relate 
modernization and construction of new space where it 
occurred or conversion of space. Each project, whether it 
was a new building or an existing building, had a plan­
ning committee, and the planning committee consisted of 
a convenor chairman who was the school administrator of 
an existing building or, in the instance of a new building, 
an administrator appointed by the superintendent.

It also included members of the faculty, parents, class­
ified staff, community and business leaders and, in the 
case of secondary schools, students.

The purpose of the planning committee was — or 
their mission was to develop educational specifications for 
the project.

Q. Would you give us, please, what the charge was 
to the planning committees?

668



669

A. Yes. There was a memo which was addressed to 
the members of the advisory committee on educational 
program and facilities for the planning project, whichever 
project this was. This was directly from the superintend­
ent’s office, and it spoke to the responsibilities of the 
advisory committee, and it read as follows:

As a member of an advisory committee on educational 
program and facilities, you have an unusual opportunity 
to influence the quality of education in your community 
for many [5526] years to come.

The purpose of this memo is to provide specific in­
formation on what is expected of your committee and to 
establish a common set of expectations for all such com­
mittees. Within this framework, your committee will have 
an ample opportunity to employ originality in identifying 
and describing the unique requirements of your construc­
tion project.

Authority to create your committee was granted by 
the Columbus Board of Education when the Board adopted 
a comprehensive document about the proposed construc­
tion program that included the following policy statement:

Planning the new facilities is critical. When new build­
ings are constructed, we will involve the faculty, citizens 
and administrators with the architect to consider what 
education should be. We cannot now say that the proposed 
rooms will be square or round. The sizes, shapes and re­
lationships will be forged in the difficult intellectual plan­
ning process.

The architects will be requested to develop a building 
design to accomplish the educational specifications of the 
planning committee. With such an approach, the curric­
ulum will be improved and the facilities will be education­
ally and structurally and economically sound.

The memo goes on: [5527]
In accordance with this Board of Education policy, 

the school administration has established the following 
expectations for your advisory committee:



670

Your committee will prepare the educational speci­
fications for the educational program it would like to see 
accommodated within the facilities. Educational specifica­
tions are a word picture of the programs that will be 
offered, the activities that will occur, the number and 
kinds of people who will use the building and how the 
students and staff will be organized. Sometimes educational 
specifications are called user requirements; what you need 
in order to offer the desired program. [5528]

The Planning Committee does not have to draw any­
thing. In fact, architects prefer that you not draw. Simply 
describe what you intend to do and how you intend to do 
it. The architects will then draw the space they believe 
will meet your program. You inspect the drawings, walk 
around mentally within the proposed facilities, try out 
mentally the various things you intend to do in the build­
ing, and propose modifications to the architects.

The second step is the educational program your 
committee describes in writing should be stated in the 
most specific terms possible, should meet the requirements 
of State law on file with the convenor chairman, should 
meet standards of the State Board of Education also on 
file with the convenor chairman, should meet commit­
ments of the Columbus Board of Education and the school 
administration delineated in the Promises Made Docu­
ment on file with the convenor chairman and should in­
clude a statement of priorities specifying items that could 
be deleted from your proposal for items that could be 
added to it if funds are available.

When completed by your committee, the educational 
specifications should be submitted to the office of the 
Superintendent on or before the deadline specified in 
Item 2 of Attachment A.

When the educational specifications have been ap­
proved by the office of the Superintendent, the project 
[5529] architect will be authorized to complete prelim­
inary plans.



671

Your committee will be expected to maintain com­
munications with the project architect throughout the 
planning process, to make itself available to the architect 
while preliminary drawings are being prepared for the 
purpose of interpreting the educational specifications, and 
to work with the architect in modifying your proposal 
to stay within the budget specified in Item 3 of Attach­
ment A.

Your committee will assess the completed prelim­
inary drawings, prepare a statement expressing your assess­
ment of these drawings, and submit this statement to the 
Executive Director of Development. These services will 
complete the assignments of your committee.

Members of your committee will be expected to main­
tain two-way communications with their respective con­
stituencies, teachers, classified employees, parents and 
secondary students, throughout the planning process. This 
is interpreted to mean that committee members will make 
progress reports on the committee’s activities at regular 
intervals and will actively seek the advice and counsel of 
their respective constituencies.

Throughout the planning process committee members 
will be expected to be aware of the following criteria 
which [5530] project architects will be required to observe 
in developing the building design: Flexibility, adaptability, 
expansibility, simplicity and compactness.

You have an exciting challenging task. Please think 
imaginatively and draw upon the consultant services avail­
able to you.

Q. Now, was there a committee appointed with re­
spect to each one of these projects?

A. Yes.
Q. And was the committee and its membership fur­

nished with the memorandum that you have just read?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you describe, please, what happened with 

respect to these committees and how they operate? [5531]



672

A. Okay. Each committee was provided with a proj­
ect description which included the information and basic 
direction for the project. Basic direction for the project 
was a means of describing how the commitments in Prom­
ises Made could be met and the known needs related to 
that facility which have been collected from various sources 
since the last construction program at that school.

An architect was appointed by the Board of Educa­
tion to work specifically with each planning committee. 
The architect was expected to meet with the planning 
committee; and as the planning committee discussed and 
wrote about their project, the architect was expected to 
express their written and spoken statements in concrete 
graphic form.

The result of this process was a set of preliminary 
drawings which were then to be approved by the planning 
committee as meeting their priorities and reflecting their 
program intent as nearly as possible within the existing 
constraints. A letter was required testifying to that effect 
from each planning committee.

These preliminary drawings were then reviewed by 
the Board of Education and presented to the Board for 
their approval prior to the architect proceeding into the 
working drawing stages of the project. After the architect 
proceeded through working drawings, if significant changes 
were required due to budget problems, program needs 
or previously [5532] unidentified construction problems, 
these changes were carefully identified to the Board of 
Education and related to the chairman of the planning 
committee.

Every effort was being made to keep all parties in­
formed to the extent possible. Whenever official board 
action was taken related to any of the projects, copies of 
the Board resolution were automatically sent to the chair­
man of the committee with the intent that this could then 
be reported back to the planning committee. Monthly



673

written reports were prepared to reflect the status of each 
project in the building program. These reports were dis­
tributed to Board members and any interested parties.

The cover letter, of course, in Promises Made indi­
cated the possibility that some changes might be neces­
sary in the program in that not all planning is perfect. In 
some instances, changes were relatively minor, were made 
within the budget, and did not conflict with the commit­
ments in Promises Made. Such changes were usually made 
at the request of the planning committee. Changes of a 
major nature were done only involving committees, com­
munity, the administration and the Board of Education.

Q. What are examples of some of the major changes, 
please, that occurred?

A. An example of one major change occurred in the 
area which had been the Mifflin Local School District. 
Originally [5533] the project called for the remodeling and 
addition to the existing Mifflin Junior-Senior High School 
that became part of our district upon annexation of the 
Mifflin District and additionally called for the construction 
of a new junior-senior high school to be located in the 
area of Mock Road and Sunbury Road.

A number of questions were raised by committee 
members and community members that led to a re-exam- 
ination of these proposals, developing several alternatives 
to these proposals, testing the alternative with the plan­
ning committee and with the community in making a rec­
ommendation to the Board of Education that the existing 
Mifflin Junior-Senior High School be converted to a junior 
high through adding to it and remodeling and that a new 
high school be constructed.

Q. This would be a — this was to be a new senior 
high school that would serve presumably the area, the 
same area that the Mifflin Junior High School would then 
serve, or approximately?

A. That is correct. Rather than have two junior-senior 
high schools in that geographic area, as the original pro­



674

posal would require, this would mean one senior high 
school serving the entire geographic area and one junior 
high school serving the entire area.

Q. Was there also as an example of major changes a 
[5534] change in the problems dealing — some problems 
with the Marion-Franklin High School?

A. Yes, there was.
Q. What was that?
A. In this instance, it was found that the amount of 

work that was necessary to provide the program space re­
quired and to do the modernization work necessary was 
much more extensive than the original project, scope and 
budget. This involved community and faculty and plan­
ning committee and, of course, administration and, finally, 
the Board of Education.

Q. Now, directing your attention, Dr. Merriman, to 
the area of new schools, would you describe briefly for us 
several categories of new schools, the first of which are 
the career centers?

A. Vocational career centers are specialized school 
facilities designed to offer students important vocational 
career programs to equip them for successful employment. 
These centers would provide career education using appro­
priate space and the more costly equipment installations 
for which enrollments would be too low if they were 
located at each high school building.

In-school youths would remain enrolled at their resi­
dent high school, their normal high school, and would be 
transported to the vocational career center on a half-clay 
basis. Of course, an ancillary use of these centers would 
be [5535] in late afternoon and evening to use them for 
adult programs.

There are four centers that are contained in Promises 
Made and are on their way to completion. There are some 
basic programs that are offered in some relative form at 
all four centers and unique progams available at each of



675

the centers. Each one has a flavor or unique characteristic. 
Then students attend the centers on the basis of the pro­
grams they select and the proximity to the centers where 
the appropriate programs are available and the racial com­
position of the enrollees in order that we maintain racial 
balance at the career centers. [5536]

The State plan that was developed to meet State 
requirements for vocational career education establishes 
the basic rationale for how many spaces need be offered. 
That is by 1978, the five-year plan called for providing 
space for 40 percent of the junior and senior high classes 
of the Columbus Vocational District, including our System, 
Westerville, Worthington, Arlington and Grandview, or 
the equivalent of 8,000 spaces — spaces for 8,000 students 
enrolled in vocational education.

Q. Now, directing your attention to the new second­
ary schools that were and are contemplated or were con­
templated in the Promises Made, Doctor, would you de­
scribe them, please?

A. Yes. Promises Made called for the construction 
of three new junior-senior high schools, and that three 
included the Mock-Sunbury School that I just discussed 
previously in relation to Mifflin, two high schools and a 
junior high school in the construction of the new Franklin 
Junior High School to replace the existing Franklin and an 
addition to Fulton School to become a junior high develop­
mental learning center.

One junior-senior high school, Independence, is com­
pleted and opened in January, 1976. Beechcroft Junior- 
Senior High School will be ready for opening September, 
1976. Briggs High School is completed and opened on 
April 26, 1976. [5537] Centennial High School will be 
completed and open September, 1976. McCutcheon area 
High School which replaced the proposed Mock-Sunbury 
Junior-Senior High School, as explained previously, will be 
completed and open in September of 1977.



676

THE COURT: Mr. Porter, perhaps we better stop 
for the day.

Thereupon, the further trial of this cause was ad­
journed until 9:00 o’clock, A.M., June 10, 1976.

THURSDAY MORNING SESSION, 
June 10, 1976.

[5539] THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. O’NEILL: Good morning, Your Honor.
MR. PORTER: If the Court please, I can’t help but 

comment that the presence of Mr. Lyter here I consider 
to be a rare and distinct pleasure.

THE COURT: Day of enlightenment; pure justice 
today.

MR. PORTER: We will see if we can’t do something 
wrong with the exhibits.

HOWARD O. MERRIMAN

called as a witness on behalf of the Defendants, having 
been heretofore duly sworn, testified further as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION (CONTINUED)
BY MR. PORTER:

Q. Now, Dr. Merriman, when we stopped yesterday, 
you had described for me a number of new secondary 
schools that were being constructed, and I believe that we 
had gotten down to the new Franklin Junior High School, 
and would you continue your description, please? [5540]



677

A. Yes. The new Franklin Junior High School, which 
is replacing the older building and will be the Franklin 
Junior High Developmental Learning Center, will be com­
pleted and opened in September of 1977. Promises Made 
called for the Fulton Developmental Learning Center to 
be redeveloped on the site of the present enclosed Fulton 
Elementary School. That is in a holding status due to the 
increasing enrollment at the junior high level and the 
resulting need to reassess the need for construction of that 
project.

The junior high school proposed for the Westerville 
transfer area, which was pending completion of litigation 
over that transfer, is now under review to determine if 
capacity exists within the area to house junior high stu­
dents. This required a census of the community and a 
review of potential development to occur in the area.

Q. Would you describe for us, please, the new ele­
mentary schools that were included within the proposal, 
the Promises Made proposal?

A. Yes. There were ten new elementary schools listed 
in Promises Made, one to he constructed near Dresden 
Avenue and Arlington Avenue, that was to he a develop­
mental learning center, a second near Beechcroft Road and 
State Route 161, a third near Schrock Road and Skywae 
Drive, a fourth near Morse Road and Cleveland Avenue, 
a fifth near Bethel Road and Godown Road, a sixth near 
Cleveland Avenue and Innis [5540A] Road, a seventh near 
McCutcheon Road and Stelzer Road, an eighth near Brice 
Road and 1-70, a ninth near Brownfield Road and Refugee 
Road and tenth near Noe-Bixby Road and Refugee Road. 
[5541]

Q. Would you give us, please, the status with respect 
to the various elementary schools which you have just 
described?

A. Yes, I will.
Q. And identify them, if you would, by name.



678

A. All right. By number, again, and I will give the 
name of those that have been named, and the numbers 
would coincide with the ones previously given as listed in 
Promises Made.

The first one is called Linden Park IGE School. That 
was completed and occupied in September of 1975.

Item No. 2 near Beechcroft Road and State Route 161 
is in the Westerville transfer area, and that was part of 
the area completed — to be completed for transfer in July 
of 1976. The building has not been begun.

No. 3 near Schrock Road and Skywae Drive is also 
in the Westerville area and similar status to Item No. 2.

No. 4 near Morse Road and Cleveland Avenue, same 
status as Item No. 2, Westerville transfer area.

No. 5 has been named Gables Elementary. That’s to 
be completed and occupied in September of 1976.

No. 6, Innis Elementary is completed and was occu­
pied in September of 1975.

No. 7 near McCutcheon Road and Stelzer Road is in 
a hold for development and the need for capacity in that 
area. [5542]

No. 8 near Brice Road and 1-70 is in hold pending 
development and capacity needs in the area.

No. 9, Brownfield Road and Refugee Road, is in hold 
pending development and capacity needs in the area.

No. 10, Liberty Elementary, has been completed and 
was occupied on April 26, 1976.

Q. All right. Now, in Promises Made it also provided 
or identified the construction of one or more elementary 
schools to replace facilities. Would you describe that, 
please?

A. Yes. Promises Made also included the construction 
of a new elementary school on an expanded Fifth Avenue 
site to replace the old Fifth Avenue, Ninth Avenue and 
Michigan Elementary Schools, which are in that same area, 
with a new facility. That project is under construction. 
It is to be completed and occupied in September of 1976.



679

A new elementary school designated as a develop­
mental learning center to replace the existing Douglas 
Elementary School was proposed. That facility is under 
construction. It is called the Douglas Learning Center, and 
it is to be completed and occupied by September of 1978.

Q. There are also, if I recall correctly, a new school, 
some new special schools or new facilities for some of the 
special crippled children and so forth. Would you describe 
that? [5543]

A. A new school for crippled children to replace the 
inadequate Neil Avenue facility was constructed on the 
site of and connected to the Colerain Elementary School. 
That facility was completed and occupied in December of 
1975.

The school for the emotionally disturbed formerly 
housed at Fairfax School was constructed as an addition to 
the former Clearbrook Elementary School, and that was 
completed and occupied by April 15, 1976. [5544]

Q. Would you identify for us, please, what I think 
you have now described as 24 new schools — strike that. 
Just a moment.

Would you identify for us, please, the seven com­
pleted schools and the 12 that are presently under con­
struction with their planned opening dates?

A. The completed schools are the Southeast Career 
Center, which opened in September of 1975;

Linden Park ICE Elementary School, which opened 
September of 1975;

Innis Elementary School, which opened in September 
of 1975;

Colerain School for the physically handicapped, 
which opened in December of 1975;

Independence Junior-Senior High School, which 
opened in January of 1976;

Briggs Senior High School opened in April of 1976 
and Liberty Elementary, which opened April of 1976.



680

Q. Now, I may have misspoke. Did I say — I meant to 
say that the ten schools that are under construction. I’ni 
not sure that that is what I said, but that’s what I meant.

Would you identify the ten that are under construc­
tion and their planned opening date?

A. Yes. Those are Beechcroft Junior-Senior High, the 
planned opening is September of 1976; [5545]

Centennial Senior High, planned opening September 
of 1976;

The Fort Hayes Career Center, planned opening is 
September, 1976;

Gables Elementary School, planned opening Septem­
ber, 1976;

The new Fifth Avenue Elementary, planning opening 
September of 1976;

The new Douglas School, planned opening Septem­
ber, 1976;

McCutcheon Senior High School, the planned open­
ing September, 1977;

Franklin Junior High School Developmental Learn­
ing Center, planned opening September, 1977;

The Northeast Career Center, the planned opening 
September, 1977 and the Northwest Career Center, plan­
ned opening September of 1978.

Q. Thank you.
Would you describe for us, please, the additions to 

the existing buildings?
A. Yes. Additions to existing buildings were in each 

instance related to the general needs discussed previously 
as we reviewed the Promises Made and what it responded 
to. Examples given would include an addition to relieve 
overcrowding, an addition to replace an old, smaller multi­
purpose [5546] room with a new standard-sized multipur­
pose room space, in addition, to provide for a library 
learning center or a teacher work preparation center or a 
space for a hot lunch facility and space for storage.



681

Now, in some instances, planning committees found 
it necessary to convert existing classroom space to meet 
program needs and construct additional space to replace 
the classrooms which were converted if they were at­
tempting to find a new way to house students. In such 
cases, there would be no increase in capacity to house 
programs. It would be a trade-off of library space for 
classroom space.

Additions at the secondary level were for the relief 
of overcrowding, expanding program offerings such as in 
the vocational area or a second art room or a second home 
economics room or for library expansion to meet new 
State standards. Specific information for each school pro­
ject is identified in the Promises Made, and the actual 
space added was described in the background statements 
for each project as it was approved by the Board of Educa­
tion in the working drawing’s stage.

Q. Has it been possible in some instances to convert 
space in existing buildings to meet the needs that were 
found and identified in the Promises Made document?

A. Yes, it has.
Q. In how many instances has that taken place, 

please, [5547] with respect to the library learning center 
at the elementary schools?

A. For example, to this point in time, at 62 elemen­
tary schools it’s been possible to convert classrooms into 
library learning centers.

Q. Now, there have been other improvements made, 
I believe, based on school-by-school needs to — this is with 
respect to existing facilities. Would you describe what they 
are, please, generally?

A. Yes. This would be improvements to the heating 
and ventilating plans, plumbing systems, the electrical 
systems, fixed equipment installations, replacement of 
windows, site expansion and site improvement. [5548]

Q. The planning committees that you described and 
about which you explained through the reading of that



682

long memo at my request were involved in the establish­
ment of priorities with respect to the needs of these build­
ings in this area of improvements?

A. Yes. Generally there had been needs identified by 
staff at the school and at the central office in the operating 
and maintenance department that would relate to elec­
trical systems or heating plants and plumbing needs and 
that kind of improvement. Input from the planning com­
mittee, including the classified personnel and so forth, 
made it doubly certain that we didn’t overlook the kind of 
hidden problems that might exist at a school, and they 
were able to then express their priorities in those needs so 
that we wouldn’t overlook such a problem.

For the most part, many of these improvements were 
related to health, safety and comfort of building occupants 
and to the proper operation of the facilities.

Q. It might be appropriate at this point to remind the 
record, I guess, that subsequent to your acting as liason to 
Project Unite and the passage of the bond issue, what 
was your job then as of — my recollection is January of 
1973; am I right about that?

A. January of ’73 I was given the responsibility for 
the development office which was to implement the build­
ing [5549] program in Promises Made.

Q. And you occupied that position until when?
A. Until January of 1976.
Q. And that’s when you became Assistant Superin­

tendent of Instruction?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, also in Promises Made there appears the 

material dealing — recommendations dealing with site ex­
pansion. Would you describe that, please?

A. Well, site expansion improvement in some cases 
were required due to using existing space or expanding the 
building or adding to the building, in other words, if you 
built a new multipurpose room that used up some area on



683

the existing land and that area needed to be replaced to 
maintain a balance of outside area. In other cases an effort 
was being made to continue the Columbus Board of Edu­
cation’s program of upgrading school sites at existing build­
ings.

Q. The rationale for the — would you describe, please, 
the rationale for the construction of some of the educa­
tional programs that were to go into these buildings?

A. Well, a substantial part of the educational build­
ing projects has been to house program; for example, the 
facilities for Vocational Career Education both in the high 
schools and, of course, in the new Career Centers. [5550] 
The library learning centers in elementary schools were 
substantial additions to the educational program facilities 
that did not exist before. The teacher work preparation 
areas, areas where teachers offer the resources to prepare 
materials and to do planning work. Space for small group 
construction; this would include reading instruction and 
other small group-type activities that would not take place 
in a regular classroom setting. Space for special education 
programs required by increases in special education units. 
Spaces for tutoring of children, either by the tutoring pro­
gram or volunteer tutoring that’s been organized in many 
of the schools. Spaces for special programs such as the 
Title I and State DP programs that had not been housed in 
adequately arranged spaces previously or were additional 
programs that had been added at the building.

A substantial part of the program is support-service 
oriented, such as this provision for the teacher work prep­
aration areas, for the hot lunch kitchens that were going 
into each of the elementary schools and the storage spaces 
for office support areas. Then the other portion of the con­
struction program was to relieve overcrowding in existing 
buildings occurring in the growth areas of the city or the 
growth that results from the development of housing that 
would result from previous, present and future possible 
annexations to the Columbus School District.



684

#  #  #  #  #

[5568] Q. [By Mr. Porter] Now, I wish to — another 
cleanup question, if I might, please, before I turn to the 
Division of Instruction, and that is that while you were 
involved with Project Unite and the Building Program, 
was there a set of site selection criteria which were used 
by your office or by the School System in its process of 
helping to select a school site?

A. Yes, there was.
Q. Do you have that in front of you, or, here, I’ll give 

you mine.
A. Yes, I have it. [5569]
Q. All right. Would you give us the criteria, please?
A. The following factors are given consideration 

when selecting school sites:
1. Location of existing buildings in the Columbus 

City School District and adjoining school districts.
2. Land use pattern, including the actual and pro­

posed development of the community.
3. Availability of satisfactory land, including size, 

shape, contour and related characteristics.
4. Availability of basic services such as gas, water, 

street, storm sewer and sanitary sewer.
5. Traffic patterns, natural boundaries and related 

factors and the future development of appropriate attend­
ance areas.

6. Desirable size of schools, including the type of 
outdoor facilities desirable for the school and community.

7. Short-range, intermediate-range and long-range 
site and construction plans for the district.

8. Economic factors, including initial cost and devel­
opment costs.

9. Degree to which the site enhances the probability 
of providing an integrated school population.

Q. Now, that which you have read from was a writ­
ten set of criteria that was used by your department; is 
that [5569A] correct or not?



685

A. Yes. This was used by the development office in 
conjunction with the planning committees that were in­
volved in cases where a site had to be selected for a school.

Q. Did, as a matter of my information, Dr. Merriman 
— I know — I believe — it is my recollection that the Plan­
ning Committee, the Community Committee, worked on 
the site selection with respect to the vocational centers 
other than Fort Hayes; am I correct about this?

A. That’s correct.Q. What about the committees that you have de­
scribed yesterday and which you read about; did they 
function also with respect to other sites?

A. In instances where a site had not been owned by 
the Board of Education and was not designated as a spe­
cific location for a new school, the site selection or the 
Planning Committee was involved in site selection.

& & # # #

JOAN FOLK
called as a witness on behalf of the 

Intervening Plaintiffs, being first 
duly sworn, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LUCAS
[6013] Q. [By Mr. Lucas] Would you state your full 

name and your occupation, please?
A. Joan Folk. I am a counselor, elementary counselor 

in the Columbus Public Schools.
[6014] Q. How long have you taught in the Colum­

bus Public Schools?
A. About 20. years,
Q. All right. When did you first come to the Colum­

bus System?
A. In 1953.
Q. Would that have been the ’52-53 school year or 

’53-54?
A. ’53-54.



686

Q. All right. And where were you teaching or 
counseling at that time?

A. I was a teacher at Southwood Elementary School.
Q. Do you recall the grade you were teaching at that 

time?
A. Yes, third grade.
Q. At that time, as a teacher, were you required to 

fill out regular reports on the enrollment in the school?
A. Yes. In the spring, we had a State form, an enroll­

ment form that we completed.
Q. Would you describe that form, please?
A. Well, it was two sheets. We had one sheet for 

boys and one sheet for girls, — it was very exacting — 
and we placed the names in alphabetical order and the 
addresses and the race.

Q. AH right. Was this a preprinted form from the 
State?

[6015] A. Yes.
Q. All right. What was the color of the form? I think 

there s been a reference earlier in the record to that.
A. I think it was yellow.
Q. What did you do with the form after you filled it 

out as a teacher?
A. I gave it to the principal.
Q. All right. Is there any particular reason why you 

remember this form from 1953 where it showed the race 
of the student?

A. Yes. As I said, it was an exacting form, and I 
made an error. You were not permitted to place nicknames 
on the form, and it was difficult for my principal to get 
another form, but he did get one.

Q. You had to do it over?
A. I did it over.
Q. All right. Now, you left the Columbus Public 

Schools and taught in other school systems for a number 
of years; is that correct?



687

A. Yes.
Q. And approximately when did you return to the 

Columbus Public Schools?
A. In the fall of 1960.
Q. 1960?
A. Yes.
[6016] Q. Let me go back, I'm sorry, to 1953.
Did you have to prepare any other form in which you 

had to indicate race to the Columbus Board of Education 
or the State Board?

[6017] A. Yes. I recall we had a white 4-by-6 or 5-by- 
7 card that at the end of the year was called a promotion 
card, and, again, along with other identification informa­
tion, we completed the race for each child.

Q. And that was turned in to the principal of the 
building at that time by the teacher; is that correct?

A. Yes.
Q. Now, you say you came back in the fall of 1960. 

When you came back in the fall of 1960, were either or 
both of these forms still required to be filled out by 
teachers?

A. I don't recall the state form, but I do remember 
the promotion card.

Q. And were you required to indicate race in 1960?
A. Yes. It was the same form.
Q. Same procedure, you turned it in to the principal 

of the building; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q, Do you recall how long after 1960 that procedure 

was followed?
A. No, I don’t.
Q. Do you recall that at some time thereafter you no 

longer filled out the promotion cards with the race on 
them; is that correct?

A. Yes.



688

MARTIN W. ESSEX
called as a witness on behalf of the Defendants, 

being first duly sworn, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. O’NEILL
# a a # #

[6073] Q. [By Mr. O’Neill] Were there any properties 
around that the State Board [6074] could have had access 
to and could have transferred to the Columbus Schools?

A Yes, there were some municipally annexed prop­
erties which had not been transferred for school purposes. 
Ultimately it was decided to transfer territory from seven 
suburban districts to the Columbus School District. [6075]

Q. On what basis could those transfers be made?
A. Because there had been municipal annexation, and 

this is within the authority of the State Board.
Q. You mean that the city of Columbus had annexed 

portions of these outlying areas for city purposes, but 
those portions had not been transferred to the Columbus 
City School District?

A. That is correct.
Q. The State Board would have the right to approve 

the transfer of those districts to the Columbus City School 
District?

A. It has a right to order such a transfer, or we thought 
we had the right.

Q. Okay, and did the State Board then order the trans­
fer of those outlying areas to the Columbus City School 
District?

A. Yes, and started the due process of hearings which 
led into litigation, and the litigation was ultimately con­
summated in December of this year. It went on for years.

Q. You mean the outlying school districts resented 
the loss of these territories and attempted to prevent the 
State Board from carrying out its order?

A. Yes. For example, not far from here just across 
the river is the Golden Finger of sizeable tax value but



689

very few children which is associated with the Grandview 
[6076] Heights District, This has been protected with great 
tenacity down through the years and, hence, the Grand­
view Heights District considered this an action which 
would be very unacceptable to them. It was necessary for 
them to go back to their electorate and vote an additional 
levy to carry on their school functions.

Q. Do I understand, sir, from what you have said 
that the resistance offered by the outlying school districts 
ended only last December, December of ’75?

A. Yes, this winter.
Q, With an Ohio Supreme Court decision that upheld 

the power of the State Board to order these transfers un­
der the statute giving the State Board that power?

A. Yes, that’s precisely what took place. However, 
it is a complicated matter. Perhaps the Court wouldn’t 
be interested in all the complications through Franklin 
Comity and the Board’s limited power. The Board could 
not assign Mifflin to Columbus. It had to go through the 
Franklin County Board.

Q. What am I interested in establishing, sir, is what 
has been the racial impact of the match-making efforts by 
the State Board of Education in this connection?

A. In the seven districts were very few black young­
sters and, hence, the land transferred. For example, the 
Westerville section to the north of Columbus now [6077] 
with approximately 2,600 youngsters is primarily white, 
and this gave Columbus, the Columbus School District, 
additional areas in which largely white persons would be 
residing. The same was true in the other seven districts 
in which the transfers took place.

Q. Did it also give to Columbus the Mifflin area 
which was then increasingly black?

A. Yes. It was moving toward a third black, as I 
recall.

Q. Would it be fair to say that the overall effect of 
this effort by the State Board in connection with the



690

Mifflin - Columbus consolidation has been integrative 
rather than segregative?

A. Yes, and in the quality of education, there has 
been a great boon. The Columbus Board has proceeded 
to take the existing high school, spend more than a million 
dollars in remodeling it for a junior high school, proceeded 
to construct a new senior high school, construct ele­
mentary schools, provide proper housing and good man­
agement. Hence, we have not heard from Mifflin since 
that time.

# # # # #

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. STEIN

[6184] Q. [By Mr. Stein] It didn’t join at any one 
portion. Another was Mifflin, and, as to Mifflin, you made 
a statement that the overall effect of the transfer of the 
Mifflin District to Columbus was integrative, and you said 
that seven other districts gave property and transferred 
territory to Columbus which had already been munici­
pally annexed. What were those seven districts?

A. Southwestern City, Grandview Heights, Washing­
ton Local, Westerville City, Reynoldsburg Local at that 
time, now a city, Madison Local and Upper Arlington, as 
I recall them, and I am fairly well aware of antagonizing 
all of those superintendents, so I recall them rather vividly.

Q. And I believe you mentioned that Westerville — 
strike that question.

Which of these seven districts had students trans­
ferred with it to Columbus?

A. All of them.
Q. All of them?
A. I think. There could have been some exception to 

that. Westerville would have had the largest number of
[6185] the seven because —

Q. How many would have been there?



691

A. The last figures that I saw, and it’s been in the 
newspapers repeatedly over the past year or so, and 2600 
was the last figure I believe that I saw.

Q. And do you know how many approximately from 
Upper Arlington?

A. lam  not sure that there was much of a transfer of 
students from Upper Arlington. It involved a transfer in 
two directions to clear up boundary lines and to relate to 
certain property wealth. A part of the transfer took place 
from Washington Local, the Dublin District, as you might 
term it, to Upper Arlington and to Columbus, and then 
some transfer from Upper Arlington to Columbus or South­
western. It was a very complex transfer arrangement in­
volving, as I recall, several parcels of land, not just seven 
parcels of land, but numerous parcels of land.

Q. The major industrial parcel is the Golden Finger? 
Most of the others were residential?

A. Yes. The very high valuation area is the Golden 
Finger, as you know, along Route 33 and across —

Q. Do you recall how many students came from Rey­
noldsburg to Columbus?

A. Not very many in the Reynoldsburg instance. Rey­
noldsburg didn’t contest the transfer. They accepted it.
[6186]

Q. When you say not very many, do you mean a 
couple hundred?

A. I really don’t have — it’s been so many years ago 
that I don’t have a figure.

Q. Would you have an estimate for the entire seven 
districts, Westerville, Upper Arlington, Southwestern, 
Washington Local, Madison Local, Reynoldsburg, Grand­
view Heights all together?

A. No, I have never tabulated the total number of 
students. We were more concerned with the wealth factor, 
whether or not this was going to compensate or be ade­
quate to effectuate the inducement of the Franklin County 
Board of Education to make the transfer and Columbus



692

to accept.
Q. But we know it is over 2600 because those came 

in from Westerville?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. Do you know how many students were in the 

Mifflin District?
A. As I recall, when we initiated the action, it was 

3200, and then it moved upward because there was rapid 
movement inward. It may have been 3600 before it was 
consummated, perhaps even more. I think we lost count 
because Mifflin was transferred and they began to receive 
the services of Columbus very early. The litigation con­
tinued. The court required us to retry it again with new 
[6186A] data, and then it went back to the Supreme Court 
again, and it was just consummated in December of this 
winter.

Q. Do you have any approximation in your mind of 
the racial composition of Mifflin today? [6187]

A. Mifflin was not — did not have a large number 
of black youngsters. The movement was in that direction 
in the low cost or the low rental housing, but the per­
centage was not high.

Q. It was probably around 50 percent, would you 
think?

A. No, no, it wouldn’t be nearly that. Probably more 
nearly half that.

Q. If I refer you to your testimony once again in the 
Dayton deposition in November of 1972, when asked 
about the percentage of — what was the percentage of the 
district, you were asked whether you thought it was 
approximately 90 percent or more, and your answer was: 
No, it would have been much lower than that. I suspect 
no more than half. Perhaps maybe not half.

A. Essentially that’s the same statement I am making
now.



693

Q, You said that to me. I suggested 50 percent. Then 
it was suggested 90 percent.

A. I said much lower. I certainly in that statement —
Q. So if you have 25 percent of the district at the 

time that Mifflin near Columbus was black and you have 
testified that these other seven districts were predomi­
nantly — and I am assuming 90 to 100 percent white —

A. Higher than that, actually.
Q. Higher than that? [6188]
A. Well, they are more than 90 percent, I am sure.
Q. Where is the integrative effect?
A. The integrative effect is to provide the Columbus 

District with room for expansion and the opportunity for 
expansion and the retention of white homeowners, of white 
persons in the school district, and we are of the opinion 
that the Mifflin District will not become a black district. 
The Sunbury Road area is an attractive home picturesque 
territory, and we would see it as a desirable place to live, 
and it would not be low income. If it were to induce 
black persons to move there, no doubt it would be middle 
class upward mobility rather than this early impact on a 
relatively small district that couldn’t manage, couldn’t 
handle, couldn’t take care of the responsibilities of educat­
ing the children, and our first concern again had to be — 
because we had no other legal premise, our first concern 
had to be the quality of education of the youngsters.

As I said to you, when I addressed their convocation 
and visited their schools, I returned to the judgment that 
they would not be able to manage the impact that was 
upon them.

Q. So the integrative effect of this transfer was to 
allow seven districts in the surrounding area to add addi­
tional white pupils to Columbus?

A. And space, as well as this number, this ratio, was 
[6189] not going to be detrimental to the Columbus School 
balance.



694

Q. Okay. Testimony in this case has indicated that as 
of last year, the Mifflin area or what came in with the 
transfer from Mifflin is approximately 50 percent black 
at this time. Are you aware that those pupils attending 
school in the Mifflin District prior to the transfer continue 
to attend schools in the same geographical district that 
was Mifflin after the transfer?

A. That would be my assumption, but I could not 
attest to that.

# # # # #

MARILYN M. REDDEN 
called as a witness on behalf of the Defendants, 

being first duly sworn, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PORTER
* # # # #

[5660] Q. [By Mr. Porter] I wish to ask you a few 
questions concerning it, Mrs. Redden. They are very 
simple. I would ask you if you first support the Columbus 
Plan, and I would then ask you after you answer that 
question, to tell us what you see for the Columbus Plan?

A. I certainly support the Columbus Plan.
Q. What do you see the Columbus Plan accomplish­

ing? I am speaking now — I am asking you in your capacity 
as a member of the Board, not for the Board. You cannot 
testify for the Board?

A. That’s correct.
Q. I am asking you for your own opinion.
A. All right. My opinion in the beginning of the 

Columbus Plan is not too much different than my opinion 
today of the Columbus Plan, if there is any difference. 
I see the Columbus Plan as one accepted by the com­
munity, primarily because it is a voluntary plan, one that 
gives parents choices as to what kinds of programs their 
children may have, and I believe that people want choices. 
They get it through the Columbus Plan.



695

It is also a plan that truly integrates children as it 
provides programs that, yes, attract children, and then 
students have much in common as they come to these pro­
grams or types of learning and are very naturally inte­
grated by their common goals and common interests.

Q. Do you personally support the proposition that 
the racial balance within the Columbus Public School 
System is a desirable result and should be one sought after; 
that it should be improved?

A. Yes, I believe that it should be improved.
Q. Do you visualize that the Columbus Plan will 

accomplish this?
A. Absolutely.

# # # # *

LEON MITCHELL 
called as a witness on behalf of the 

Intervening Plaintiffs, in rebuttal, being first 
duly sworn, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LUCAS
[6236] Q. [By Mr. Lucas] State your full name and 

your occupation, please?
A. Leon A. Mitchell. I am Elementary Principal at 

Gladstone Elementary School here in Columbus.
Q. Mr. Mitchell, you received a subpoena to appear 

here today?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. How long have you been employed in the Colum­

bus Public Schools?
A. Nineteen years.
Q. Did you serve for a period of time as the principal 

at the Alum Crest School?
A. Two years.
Q. And could you tell us when that was, sir?
A. 1966-67 school year. Wait a minute. From Sep­

tember, 1966 to June, 1968.



696

Q. Was there a housing development associated with 
the Alum Crest School?

A. I believe it was called the Alum Crest Apartments 
at that time.

Q. How many empty classrooms were there in the 
Alum Crest [6237] School when you were principal?

A. There were approximately 11 that were rented out 
to Franklin County Children’s Trainable Program, I be­
lieve it was called.

Q. And that was not under your administration in any 
way, shape or form, was it?

* A. No.
Q. Were there students, primarily white students, be­

ing transported past the Alum Crest School from an area 
south of the school?

A. Yes, there were.
Q. And what area was that?
A. The Lawndale-Koebel Road area just south of the 

school.
Q. Where were they being transported to?
A. Moler Road School.
Q. Was Moler a whiter school at that time than Alum 

Crest?
A. Predominantly white.
Q. And Alum Crest was what, about, at that time?
A. About 80 percent black.
Q. Did this go on for both of the years when you 

were at Alum Crest?
A. Yes, it did.
[6238] Q. All right. Do you know Mr. Carter from 

School Administration?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Did you have a discussion with Mr. Carter about 

the children being bused past the Alum Crest School to 
the Moler School?

A. Yes, I did.



697

Q. And did you advise Mr. Carter as to whether or 
not, even with the 11 classrooms rented out, whether or 
not there was capacity in the Alum Crest School at that 
time for the students being bused past the school?

A. Yes, I did. We had 11 teachers and 210 students, 
and it is my recollection about 70 youngsters were bused 
past the Alum Crest every day.

Q. And as principal, did you advise Mr. Carter that 
you had room for those children, those white children 
being bused past?

A. I don’t know whether I advised him because he 
was well aware of our numbers. In fact, that was his re­
sponsibility, but I did ask him why this was being done 
because I could stand from the playground and throw a 
rock into the bus, and he said, We have always done it 
that way,” and he ended the conversation.

Q. All right. Did you take any further action at that
time?

[6239] A. No.
MR. LUCAS: I have no further questions of this 

witness. # # # * #

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LOVELAND
Q. [By Mr. Loveland] Mr. Mitchell, you testified you 

were principal at Alum Crest in ’66 school year and 67 
school year; is that correct?

A. Right.
Q. And I believe you testified that 11 classrooms 

were rented out to the Franklin County — what s the name 
of it?

A. I can’t give you the exact title. It is Franklin 
County trainable program for trainably retarded children.

Q. And how many teachers did you have at your 
school in 1966?

A. I had eleven.



698

Q. How many teachers in 1967?
A. Eleven.
Q. And each of those teachers, I assume, had his or 

her own classroom?
A. Right.
Q. And how many classrooms were rented out to 

the Franklin County Welfare Department?
[6240] A. None, none.
Q. How many classrooms were rented out to the 

Franklin County Child Welfare Board?
A. I don’t know who ran that program. You said 

Welfare Department; none. To the Franklin County train- 
able program, they leased space in the building. They had 
their own section with their own office. My responsibility 
was to coordinate the effort with I think her name was 
Barbara Applegard.

Q. You said they had their own space in the building. 
Was that the — what part of the building was that?

A. The school faces Winslow and the park faces 
Winslow and taking up two rooms coming up toward the 
front of the building, and some of it ran alongside Alum 
Creek Drive.

Q. Would it be the northeast corner part of the 
building?

A. No, it would be the south and southeast corner.
Q. What size rooms were rented out?
A. Regular classroom size.
Q. Isn’t it a fact —
A. A couple of the rooms were partitioned to make 

them smaller for special classes, but — and then we also 
shared the gym with them. They had a special time that 
we worked out that they used the gym.

[6241] Q. Isn’t it a fact that Alum Crest was built 
originally with 12 classrooms and had an addition of four 
classrooms?

A. I don’t know when it was built, sir. It was built 
when I got there.



699

Q. When you were there, where were your 11 teach­
ers assigned?

A. Which section of the building?
Q. Yes.
A. One teacher was assigned — that building sets kind 

of cater-cornered, so it is pretty hard. The only way I 
could explain it is that the building runs this way and 
back that way (indicating). It runs kind of odd-shaped. 
Our teachers were assigned in one section, and they were 
divided in another section.

[6242] Q. And the section that was rented out, isn’t 
it a fact that those were four partitioned rooms which made 
eight rooms?

A. They also had a couple rooms down the other wing 
from us. We had a third grade class that abutted there 
next class, first class.

Q. Mr. Mitchell, isn’t it a fact that the students that 
you described that were transported to Moler in 1966 
were transported, also transported to Moler in 1963?

A. I have no knowledge. I was in a classroom in 1963. 
I know they are still being transferred there today.

Q. Isn’t it a fact that in 1963 when they were trans­
ported to Moler that that was a new school, Moler?

A. I can’t answer that. I was in the classroom at Wind­
sor Elementary School.

Q. So you have no knowledge of the enrollments or 
capacities at Alum Crest or Moler or Smith Road Schools 
in 1963?

A. No.
Q. You have no knowledge, I assume, of the enroll­

ments or capacities at Moler or Smith Road in any other 
years; is that right?

A. You mean prior to —
Q. Anytime since 1963?
A. I don’t understand your line of questioning. No —
[6243] Q. You don’t know how many students were 

at Moler School in 1966 then?



700

A. No, I don’t know how many was there.
Q. Now, you say that the students were transported 

from what area? What was the name of the streets?
A. Well, it is south of Refugee. I do know a couple 

streets down there, Longdale and Koebel, so I call it the 
Longdale-Koebel Road area.

Q. I wonder if you could step up to this map here for 
a second and point out that area on the map?

A. If I could find it. Livingston.
Q. Is it the orange block in green down here?
A. Yes. Here is the creek, this area here.
Q- Would you read off the names of those streets for 

the record, please?
A. Bellview, Longdale, Liston, Koebel.
Q. And the color of that area where those streets are 

is what on that map?
A. Orange.
Q. And for the record, this is Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 252. 

Resume your seat.
Mr. Mitchell, isn’t it a fact that the Moler School in 

1975-75 was 56 percent black?
A. 19 — I don’t know. I would have to check the 

record. I don’t know about Moler School. I would assume 
it is.

[6244] Q. Do you know the racial composition at 
the present time of the Alum Crest School? Does 80 per­
cent seem about right? 80 percent black?

A. I have been away from Alum Crest for eight years, 
I have no knowledge about that.

Q. Mr. Mitchell, isn’t it a fact that the students on 
the streets that you pointed to on the map prior to going 
to Moler were assigned to Smith Road Elementary School 
in. 1962?

A. Once again, I have to remind you, I can’t answer 
that question because I was a classroom teacher. Classroom 
teachers aren’t privy to that type of knowledge.



701

MR. LOVELAND: No further questions. Thank you.
THE COURT: Anything further?
MR. LUCAS: Just one question.

« # « # *

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LUCAS
Q. [By Mr. Lucas] As principal of the school, you 

would have sent the actual enrollment as you knew it to 
be whenever the enrollment counts were taken in the 
records to the main office; is that correct?

A. Pupil Personnel, yes.
Q. What was your testimony again with respect to the 

number of pupils in the school, the Alum Crest School, as 
you [6245] operated it?

A. I would say around 210, as I recall.
Q. And regardless of how many classrooms were 

leased out to some other entity other than the Columbus 
Board of Education, did I understand your testimony 
that these students could have been accommodated in the 
classrooms you were operating?

[6246] A. I felt they could.
Q. Did you see the bus go by?
A. Daily.
Q. And were the occupants in the bus black or white?
A. Predominantly white.

# & # # *
HARRIET LANGSTON 

called as witness in behalf of the 
Intervening Plaintiffs, in rebuttal, being first 

duly sworn, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LUCAS

[6271] Q. [By Mr. Lucas] State your full name and
your occupation, please.

A. Harriet Langston, and I am a school teacher.
Q. And you are employed by the Columbus Public 

Schools?
A. Yes, I am.



702

you?
A. Yes.
[6272] Q. How long have you been a teacher in the 

Columbus Public Schools?
A. Three years.
Q. And I believe your mother is a teacher, also, and 

has been for many years?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you assigned to teach at the East Linden 

School?
A. Yes, my second year of teaching, I was a teacher 

at South Mifflin, but due to overcrowding, we were 
assigned to be bused to East Linden.

Q. All right. You were originally assigned to South 
Mifflin, right?

A. Right.
Q. Was that a predominantly black school at that 

time?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. And what year was that?
A. The school year of 1973-74.
Q. All right. And did the teachers or the pupils all 

go over to East Linden in the same bus?
A. Yes, the teachers and the students went intact 

from South Mifflin to East Linden.
Q. And was East Linden a predominantly white 

school?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. All right. Was there more than one class sent from

[6273] Mifflin to East Linden?
A. Yes, there were two classes.
Q. All right. And I assume, therefore, there were 

other teachers with them?
A. Right.
Q. What kind of classroom was your class put in?

Q. Are you here pursuant to a subpoena served upon



703

A. My classroom was a very old — an older part of 
the building, the intermediate part. The room that I was 
in had been previously a detention room. The lighting was 
very poor in the room. The floors were warped and just 
waved (indicating), and we were right beneath the cafe­
teria where a fan blew constantly where we could barely 
hear. I had to speak loud; the children had to speak loud. 
It was really kind of a bad room, I thought.

[6274] Q. All right. Were the children permitted to 
take recess with the white children at East Linden?

A. No, they were not.
Q. I take it most of the children in your class were 

black; is that correct?
A. Yes, they were.
Q. And were your children permitted to eat lunch 

with white children?
A. No, they weren't.
Q. Now, when did you have to take your class to 

lunch?
A. We had to take our class for lunch at 11:20 before 

any of the rest of the school ate. We had to be out of the 
cafeteria by 20 minutes of 12:00 so that the children could 
go outside and be out of the cafeteria by the time the 
East Linden children started to eat.

Q. All right. Were you served the same food the East 
Linden children were?

A. On three occasions we were not served the same 
food that the other children were served. They have a 
menu board, and we could see it as we came in, you know, 
getting off the bus. The children would look at the menu 
to see what they were going to have for lunch.

When they went to get in line for lunch, on three 
different occasions it was something different. They asked 
why, you know, they were getting something different than
[6275] what the menu said. The cook would say, “Well, 
we don’t have enough of, you know, what the menu says,



704

so therefore we are giving you this.” But I always thought 
that when they ran out, it would be at the end and not at 
the beginning.

Q. Did you protest or complain in any way about the 
separate lunch times, separate menus and separate recess 
periods for the children from Mifflin?

A. Yes, I did. On the day before school was to start, 
we had an all-day meeting at East Linden with the prin­
cipal and the faculty there, and we were told that our 
separate — about our separate lunch schedule and recess 
schedule.

After the meeting at the end of the day, I went to 
see the principal there, and I asked him why we would be 
on separate lunch schedules. Why wouldn’t we be with 
the rest of the children? Just because we were, you know, 
being bused, you know, because we were overcrowded, 
we should still be together with the rest of the children, 
and the children should be on the same recess and the 
same lunches. He said that he preferred to do it that way, 
and that was the end of it.

Q. Did you express any concern about whether or 
not the children and teachers should have been fully 
dispersed throughout the school at East Linden rather 
than kept in a [6276] separate class?

A. Yes. I told him that I felt that, you know, that the 
children, they would feel like they were different if they 
were separated, and I told him I didn’t think it was fair, 
you know, that they should be with the rest of the school 
because it was the same educational system, the same — 
you know, we were just bused because we were over­
crowded, and not because we are different or because we 
are taking different courses. We are taking the same 
courses. We are doing the same educational program, and 
I felt that we should be with the rest of the students and 
that we as teachers should be with the rest of the faculty.



705

Q. Did you observe in the children any differences 
in their feelings and attitudes because of their being kept 
separate and intact and away from the other children?

MR. PORTER: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (By Mr. Lucas) Go ahead, you may answer.
A. Yes, I did. The children felt hostile at times be­

cause they noticed a difference, and you — it is difficult to 
tell them that there isn’t any difference when they know 
that they are separated and there is.

Q. Did the — did you have a parents’ night for the 
children in your class?

[6277] A. Yes, we had open house like we do every
year.

Q. All right. And when you had the open house, 
where did you have the open house for your classroom?

A. We had to have our open house at East Linden in 
our own rooms.

Q. And the day you had open house at East Linden, 
was the building full or empty? In other words, was East 
Linden having its open house, too?

A. No, there were just the two teachers, me and an­
other teacher, and we were the only two in the building 
other than the janitors.

Q. So that the black parents who came in to see what 
their children were doing came into the empty school 
except for your two classes; is that right?

MR. PORTER: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. I take it with the black children, most of the 

parents were black; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. When they came to the school, were there white 

parents of children who were assigned to East Linden at 
that school for open house, teachers’ night or whatever 
you may call it?

A. No, they weren’t.



706

Q. Who else was there besides you and your children 
[6278] and the other teacher and her children?

A. No one but the janitor.
Q. No one but the janitors.
Were you in this particular situation one year or 

more than one year?
A. One year.
MR LUCAS: I have no other questions.
THE COURT: Cross-examine.
MR. PORTER: Yes, Your. Honor.

# # # # #
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. PORTER

Q. [By Mr. Porter] Airs. Langston — it is Missus; is 
that correct?

A. Yes, that’s correct.
Q. Am I correct in assuming that you disapprove of 

the concept of taking a group from one school because of 
overcrowding, placing them in another school and main­
taining that class intact in the second school; am I right 
about that?

A. No, sir, I don’t object to that. I don’t object to the 
busing intact at all from one school to another and keeping 
that class — keeping the classroom as such, you know, 
with the teacher in their room. I object to the fact that 
the children at recess time should be together with the 
other children in that building and that the [6279] teachers 
should be — share the duties equally with the rest of the 
faculty.

Q. All right. So that I understand you, please, and if 
I don’t, I would appreciate it if you would tell me —

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then you do not object to the concept itself, where 

you have overcrowding, you do not object to the concept 
to take children to another physical facility and maintain 
that class at the second physical facility as a group; am I 
correct about that?

A. No, sir, I do not object to that.



707

Q. All right. But what you do object to is what you 
would consider discrimination in this case because you 
say that the — or infer that the children from South Mifflin 
had a different recess time and a different eating time, and 
I’ve forgotten what the third is; am I correct about that?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. Now, you do recall, do you not, that the 

South Mifflin Elementary School, during the period after 
the Mifflin School System was annexed to the City of 
Columbus, that it was experiencing enormous overcrowd­
ing in the South Mifflin School; am I right about that?

A. Our school was very overcrowded, yes.
Q. And it is my understanding that it was necessary

[6280] to move about six classes a year over a period of 
several years; am I not right about that?

A. Yeah, the particular year that I was bused, there 
were over six classes.

Q. And two of them went to East Linden, and some 
went to Crossroads and some went to Arlington Park; am 
I right about that?

A. Yes, sir.
[6281] Q. And the two classes that went to East 

Linden, there was yourself as a teacher and a white 
teacher, I believe; is that right?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. And you and she had the same schedule 

at East Linden; is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. Now, it’s also my understanding that 

initially — initially, you and/or somebody on your behalf 
or on behalf of the other teachers asked that you not be 
included within the normal recess scheduling; am I not 
correct about that?

A. No, sir, you are not.
Q. It is true, is it not, that in October, approximately 

October of 1973, the scheduling of recess teachers was 
changed and you were included along with the other lady



70S

with the normal East Linden recess program of handling 
the people out on the playground; am I right about that?

A. No, sir.
Q. All right. Now, it is also my understanding that 

your class started the day at East Linden at the same 
time that the East Linden children started the class; is 
that right?

A. No, sir, we did not start at the same time.
Q. Oh, you didn’t? When did you start?
[6282] A. We — due to the bus ride, we started at 

9:00 o’clock, and their class took up at quarter of 9:00. We 
were enroute between quarter of 9:00 to 9:00 o’clock.

Q. So that your schedule was different, wasn’t it?
A. We got there about 15 minutes, you know, later 

than they did.
Q. And if I understand correctly, and you correct me, 

please, if I’m wrong, your schedule was such that you got 
back, you were brought back by bus to South Mifflin; isn’t 
that right?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you arrived back at South Mifflin in time to 

be dismissed with the total South Mifflin Schools; isn’t 
that true?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. And that meant, that meant that the 

time available for classroom curriculum or non-bus riding, 
if you wish, was decreased, was it not?

A. No, sir, not really. Even though we did not start 
at the same they did, the 15-minute period for the bus ride 
did not really take up that much of the class time. During 
a 15-minute period from quarter of 9:00 to 9:00 o’clock, 
you take attendance and the lunch count, and that’s about 
all you get done. We had reading promptly at 9:00 o’clock. 
Therefore, it did not take us that much time.

[6283] Q. Miss Langston, I am not going to argue 
with you, and that’s not my question. I will ask it again, 
please. If you came back to South Mifflin and you got out



709

of class at the same time that the youngsters who attended 
South Mifflin did, it meant that you had lost some time in 
transportation between East Linden and South Mifflin, 
did you not?

A. Oh, yes, we did.
Q. And if I recall correctly, that time was picked up 

by dropping out an afternoon recess, was it not?
A. No, by dropping out a morning recess.
Q. All right, it dropped out one of the two recesses?
A. Right.
Q. Now, there were, I believe, in East Linden 

approximately 500-and-some students; am I right about 
that?

A. I don’t know.
Q. There were several hundred, weren’t there?
A. At East Linden?
Q. Yes.
A. I don’t know what the enrollment was at East 

Linden.
Q. Let me ask it a different way. The record in this 

case will show what the enrollment is, so let me ask it a 
different way. The dining room at East Linden was not 
large enough to handle all of the student body at East 
Linden [6284] at one time, was it?

A. No, it wasn’t.
Q. And, as a matter of fact, they had a staggered or 

stacked noontime lunch period, did they not?
A. I don’t know what you mean by staggered or 

stacked.
Q. All right, I will explain what I mean. The first and 

second graders at East Linden came into the cafeteria, got 
their lunch and took their lunch back to their rooms and 
ate it, did they not?

A. Yes, they did.
Q. And the group from East Linden came in and they 

got their lunch and they sat down after those first and



second graders had moved through the cafeteria line and 
gone back; isn’t that right?

A. Yes.
Q. And then the remainder or rather another group of 

East Linden came in, got their lunch and sat down at the 
same time the group from South Mifflin was sitting there 
and eating; isn’t that true?

A. No, sir, we did not eat together.
Q. And they were followed in turn by a fourth group; 

isn’t that true?
A. No, sir.
Q. All right. When did — strike that.
[6285] Your class was a fourth grade class; am I 

correct?
A. You are correct.
Q. And I believe, if I have worked this through 

correctly, and you please correct me, that this group had 
not been taken to a school on an intact busing situation 
before, or had they?

A. Some of the children had and some hadn’t.
[6286] Q. In looking at the program for a period of 

years during this period of time, it appears as though 
there is an effort made to see that a child does not go to — 
by bus two years in a row; am I correct about that?

A. That’s correct.
Q. As a matter of fact, you have only gone the once; 

isn’t that right?
A. That’s true.
Q. But your children, some of the children that you 

have taught have been to South Mifflin, Arlington Park 
and East Linden and possibly Crossroads; am I right about 
that?

A. That’s true.
Q. Now, you have described the physical facilities 

under which you taught?
A. Yes.

710



711

Q. And I would like to ask you some questions about 
that, please. The first is, it is my understanding that the 
East Linden Elementary School was a part of the Mifflin, 
the old Mifflin School District. Am I correct about that?

A. I guess so.
Q. And it is my understanding that it was built in 

about 1911. Is that -  it is an old building, is it not?
A. It is an old building.
Q. You were located in I believe Room 6; is that 

right?
[6287] A. I guess so. I don’t remember the room 

number.
Q. It is on the second floor; isn’t it?
A. Yes.
Q. And on the second floor adjacent to you were the 

regular fourth grade classes from East Linden; isnt that 
right?

A. Next door.
Q. Well, let’s — there was a teacher by the name of 

Hall who taught fourth grade at East Linden; is that 
right?

A. That’s right.
Q. Is that Miss or Missus or Mister?
A. Mrs. Hall.
Q. And she was by your room, was she not?
A. Next door.
Q. And there was a Ferguson: is that right?
A. Right.
Q. Miss or Missus?
A. Mrs. Ferguson.
Q. And she was there right by your room, was she

not?
A. She was across and down some steps.
Q. And then there was a teacher by the name of 

Grow, Miss or Missus?
A. Mrs. Grow.



712

Q. And she was there on the second floor adjacent, 
was she not?

[8288] A. Yes, she was.
Q. So that your classroom was immediately adjacent 

in complete proximity to the other fourth grade classroom 
at East Linden; isn’t that true?

A. Yes, sir, that’s true.
Q. So that the cafeteria noises and the fan noises that 

existed over your room were exactly the same as existed 
over the others, were they not?

A. No, sir, that’s not true.
Q. Did you have any white youngsters in your class?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Approximately how many?
A. About three.
Q. Were there any black youngsters at East Linden?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Some in the fourth grade classes at East Linden?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Are the youngsters at South Mifflin now all back 

at South Mifflin with the exception of a kindergarten class?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. So they are all housed back in that building?
A. Yes.
[6289] MR. PORTER: Just a few more questions, 

Ms. Langston.

RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. PORTER
Q. [By Mr. Porter] I understand in addition to these 

other matters about which you described for Mr. Lucas or, 
rather, in that description, you have said on three occasions 
during the year you were served food that was different 
from the food that was served to the children whose nor­
mal, permanent school was East Linden; am I right about 
that?

A. Yes.



713

Q. And you made no — you did not say, nor do I 
assume do you claim that the food was inferior, do you?

A. No, sir, I don’t claim that it was inferior.
Q. It’s just that it was different?
A. It was different.
Q. You would agree, would you not, Ms. Langston, 

that the principal at South Mifflin did have a significant 
problem in his own building in the handling of these chil­
dren for about five years; isn’t that right?

A. I don’t know, sir. About the problem?
Q. Do you know about the overcrowding?
A. Oh, as far as the overcrowding?
Q. Yes.
[8290] A. The building was overcrowded.
Q. And it is true, is it not, that this put a burden 

upon the teachers and the students at South Mifflin inso­
far as the necessity of dealing with that overcrowding, 
using facilities that were too small and going to other 
classes, other buildings; isn’t that right?

A. I wouldn’t say so. We just did our job.
Q. All right. And would you agree that it placed, the 

overcrowding placed upon Arlington Park and the other 
schools, Eastland and the other schools which made room 
for and housed the students from South Mifflin, it created 
a problem for them, too, didn’t it?

A. I wouldn’t say so, sir, because they had the room 
to house us.

MR. PORTER: I have no other questions of this 
witness.

MR. LUCAS: I have a couple of questions.
# # # # #

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LUCAS

Q. [By Mr. Lucas] Ms. Langston, Mr. Porter asked 
you about the teachers who taught across the hall, down 
the stairs and on either side of you, and so forth.

A. Yes.



714

Q. Was the noise or the fan from the cafeteria or 
[6291] heat or whatever it was from the cafeteria, or 
whatever you were speaking about, different from the 
classroom you were assigned to?

A. Yes, sir, because we were on an outside room. Well, 
it would have been outside except for the cafeteria was 
right under us right here (indicating). The other rooms 
had the streets. They didn’t have the cafeteria at all. The 
cafeteria was right here (indicating) in a long building, 
right next to us. The fan would come on — we had windows 
all along the — L-shaped, and when the fan came on, even 
though we closed the windows, you could hear it con­
stantly and it connected right through the — not the heater, 
but the — you know, whatever that thing is, the vents, and 
the fan continually went and we heard it through the vents. 
We did not have — on that side of the room, they did not 
hear it.

Q. All right. Did you have any problem in teaching 
the children in your classroom when they were in class and 
the rest of the white children of the school were out at 
recess? Did that create difficulty?

A. Constantly.
MR. PORTER: Objection.
A. They played outside. After reading, we did not 

have a morning recess, and the children outside — they 
had two different primary and intermediate recess times, 
and it [6291-A] did disrupt, especially during the spring­
time and early in September.

[6292] Q. All right. Did you speak to the principal 
about it and again urge that the recesses be made at the 
same time?

A. Yes, sir, I spoke to him several times about it.

# # # # #



715

TRANSCRIPT OF JULY, 1977 REMEDY HEARINGS 
MOTION BY MR. PORTER

[4] MR. PORTER; If the Court please, there are sev­
eral issues to which I would like to speak and address two 
motions to the Court, and in doing it, I would like to guess 
review what I consider to be the law a applicable to the 
matters before the Court at this stage of this proceeding, 
and to make some comments with respect to it and the 
Court’s opinion and order of March 8th and of last week.

At the outset, I respectfully point out to the Court 
and counsel that this is a matter which is bifurcated; that 
the issue of liability has been tried and has been deter­
mined by this Court; that the matter before this Court at 
the present time is one of remedy and that, under the tra­
ditional rules governing an action of this type where equit­
able relief is sought, the matter at issue is entitled to 
treatment to the same degree of legal refinement as the 
previous part of it. [5]

By that, what I mean is this is not a sentencing, but 
rather is a hearing under the traditional Rules of Evidence 
and Burden of Proof dealing with the remedy that the 
Court must ultimately adopt.

On June 27, 1977, the Supreme Court of this country, 
in Dayton Board of Education versus Brinkman vacated a 
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision which had upheld 
a remedy plan requiring that the racial distribution of 
each school be brought within 15 percent of the 48 to 52 
percent black/white population of the Dayton schools.

Justice Rehnquist set forth the following duties of the 
lower courts in school desegregation cases:

The duty of both the District Court and the Court 
of Appeals, in a case such as this where mandatory segre­
gation by law of the races and the schools has long since 
ceased, is to first determine whether there was any action 
in the conduct of the business of the school board which



716

was intended to and did, in fact, discriminate against 
minority pupils, teachers or staff.

All parties should be free to introduce such addi­
tional testimony and other evidence as the District Court 
may deem appropriate.

If such violations are found, the District Court, in 
the first instance, subject to review by the Court of Ap­
peals, must determine how much incremental segregative 
effect these violations had on the racial distribution of 
the Dayton school population as presently constituted. [6]

When that distribution is compared to what it would 
have been in the absence of such constitutional violations, 
the remedy must be designed to address that difference, 
and only if there has been a systemwide impact may there 
be a systemwide remedy. Obviously, I am going to refer 
to that language a number of times in my comments 
this morning.

I would make this initial comment: That in the part 
of the statement on what the Court must determine; that 
is, how much incremental segregative effect these viola­
tions had on the racial distribution of the Dayton school 
population as presently constituted, is a critical question. 
It is a question or a test which, to a large degree, deals 
with the responsibility of the Court in fashioning a remedy 
to rectify violations of the Constitution which took place 
sometime in the past.

What I have reference to is that if there has been a 
violation of the Constitution, that unless there is presently 
present, but for that violation, no effect, then there is no 
remedy to be fashioned by the Court.

I will come back to this a number of times because I 
think that it is the critical issue. I think it is the United 
States Supreme Court struggling with the whole problem 
of affirmative action and what responsibility this genera­
tion has for problems that may have taken place years 
in the past.



717

If the Court will remember, the Court addressed to 
me about ten months ago in this room the question of [7] 
the responsibility of the Columbus Board of Education.
I think the example your Honor used is what responsibility, 
Mr. Porter, does the Court have or does the school have, 
if it discriminates with respect to Pilgrim Elementary 
School. What must it do in 1976?

That is paraphrasing your Honor’s question to me, 
and I believe that my answer was that if that school 
system, that school is presently racially balanced the way 
it is because of the housing patterns that exist there and 
has nothing to do with prior acts of discrimination that may 
have taken place, then it has no responsibility, and I be­
lieve that is the way I answered that question.

I believe that is exactly what this particular test of 
the United States Supreme Court is dealing with at least 
in part.

The Columbus Defendants respectfully submit that 
Dayton requires the Court to determine the incremental 
segregative effect of the constitutional violations identified 
on March 8, 1977, in an opinion and order, before any 
remedy can be required. The Dayton case also instructs 
the Court in the method of determining such effect.

The Court must compare the racial distribution of 
the Columbus school population as presently constituted 
to what the racial distribution would have been in the 
absence of the constitutional violations found.

It is the difference yielded from that comparison that 
must be remedied. [8]

The applicability of Dayton to other school desegre­
gation cases was illustrated on two Supreme Court cases 
announced on June 29, 1977.

In both cases, the Supreme Court vacated lower court 
judgments.

In the Omaha case, the District Court had originally 
found in favor of the school system. On appeal, the



718

Eighth Circuit reversed and held that the segregation in 
the Omaha schools must be eliminated root and branch 
and remanded with directions and guidelines with devel­
opment of a systemwide remedy.

The Court of Appeals in that case found: “We con­
clude that in five decision-making areas, the Appellant 
produced substantial evidence that the Defendants’ actions 
and inactions, in the face of tendered choices, had the 
natural, probable and forseeable consequence of creating 
and maintaining segregation.”

The five areas include: Faculty assignment, student 
transfers, operational attendance zone, school destruction 
and deterioration of Tech High.

The proof in each area was sufficient in and of itself 
to trigger the assumption of segregative intent.

We also conclude that the Defendants failed to carry 
their burden of establishing that segregative intent was 
not among the factors which motivated their actions. 
Accordingly, we hold that the segregation in the Omaha 
Public Schools violates the Constitution and must be 
eliminated root and branch. [9]

The Supreme Court denied certiorari in 1975 on that 
case. On remand, the District Court ordered a compre­
hensive systemwide student integration plan in accordance 
with the guidelines.

The plan was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The 
Supreme Court, on January 29, in its decision, vacated 
the Eighth Circuit’s decision, affirming a systemwide 
remedy because neither that court nor the District Court 
had addressed, “the inquiry required by our opinion.”

If the court said, neither the Court of Appeals nor the 
District Court in addressing themselves to the remedial 
plan mandated by the earlier decision of the Court of 
Appeals addressed itself to the inquiry and required by 
our opinion in Dayton Board of Education versus Brinkman 
in which we said that if such violation are found, the Dis­



719

trict Court in the first instance, subject to review by the 
Court of Appeals, must determine the incremental segrega­
tive effect these violations had on the distribution of the 
Dayton school population as presently constituted when 
that distribution is conformed to what it would have 
been in the sense of such constitutional violations.

The remedy must be designed to address that differ­
ence and only if there has been a systemwide remedy, 
may there be — systemwide impact, may there be a system- 
wide remedy.

The petition for certiorari is accordingly granted and 
the judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly va­
cated for reconsideration in the Village of Arlington Heights 
in Dayton. The systemwide remedy order in Omaha was 
vacated, pending the [10] determination of the incre­
mental segregative effect of the specific constitutional vio­
lations found.

The Court of Appeals’ broad declaration that a system- 
wide remedy was required were not sufficient, absent the 
more specific determination required by Dayton. On the 
same day, the Supreme Court applied the Dayton case to 
the Milwaukee school segregation litigation, Brennan ver­
sus Armstrong. As in Omaha, the Supreme Court vacated 
the judgment of the Court of Appeals for reconsideration 
in light of the Village of Arlington Heights in Dayton.

In the Milwaukee case, the District Court originally 
found intentionally caused segregation in the Milwaukee 
system and said the Court concludes that the defendants 
have knowingly carried out a systematic program of segre­
gation affecting all of the city’s students, teachers and 
facilities, and have intentionally brought about and main­
tained a dual school system.

“The Court therefore holds that the entire Milwaukee 
Public School System is unconstitutionally segregated.” 
The Seventh Circuit Court affirmed this finding by the 
lower court and the school board sought a Writ of Cer­
tiorari from the United States Supreme Court.



720

On March 17, 1977, the District Court ordered imple­
mentation of a systemwide plan of desegregation. On June 
29, the Supreme Court, in vacating the Seventh Circuit 
decision, said neither District Court in ordering develop­
ment of a remedial plan nor the Court of Appeals in affirm­
ing, addressed itself to the inquiry mandated in our opinion 
by the case of Brinkman in which we said and the Court 
again quoted [11] the lines I have read.

“The Petition for Certiorari is accordingly granted and 
the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and re­
manded for reconsideration in the light of the Village of 
Arlington Heights versus Metropolitan Development.”

Notwithstanding, the lower Court’s general pro­
nouncements that the violations or liability in the Mil­
waukee case was systemwide, the Supreme Court remand 
required the lower Court to address and to make the 
specific determination of incremental segregative effect as 
defined in Dayton.

Respectfully, I submit that this Court is also required 
to address itself to the inquiry mandated by the Supreme 
Court’s Dayton opinion. As in Dayton, Omaha and Bren­
nan, this Court must determine how much incremental 
segregative effect these violations had on the racial dis­
tribution of the Columbus school population as presently 
constituted when that distribution is compared to what 
it would have been in the absence of such constitutional 
violations.

As made clear in Brennan, the required inquiry 
should be made when it is ordered the development of a 
remedial plan. Only in that matter will the Court and the 
litigants know what type of remedy must be designed to 
address that difference.

The Court’s March 8 opinion and order, like the 
decisions in Omaha and Brennan, finds constitutional vio­
lations and holds that the liability is systemwide.

In its memorandum and order of July 7, the Court 
[12] said that it would not, “order implementation of a



721

plan which fails to take into account the systemwide nature 
of the liability of the Defendants.

In view of the recent decisions of the Supreme Court, 
this Court is required to do more. It must determine the 
difference between the present racial distribution in the 
Columbus Public Schools as compared to what it would 
have been in the absence of such constitutional violations.

It is only that difference, the incremental segregative 
effect, that must be remedied under constitutional prin­
ciples.

Because of the mandatory considerations now re­
quired by Dayton, Omaha and Brennan, the findings of 
fact contained in March 8, 1977 opinion and oidei of this 
Court are insufficient to permit the formulation of an 
appropriate remedy. It is respectfully submitted that a 
remedy cannot be fashioned in accordance with constitu­
tional requirements until the Court first defines the con­
temporary effects of the constitutional violations described
in the March 8 opinion and order.

In the Dayton case, the Court said, the District Court 
said, that the ultimate conclusions that racially imbalanced 
schools optional attendance zones and recent board actions 
are cumulative. A violation of the equal protection clause. 
This appears at page six of the Slip opinion by the United 
States Supreme Court.

This Court in its memorandum and opinion that was 
issued last week, stated the Court found that the Columbus 
Public Schools were officially segregated by race in 1975, 
and further found that the Board of Education never 
actively [13] set out to dismantle this dual system.

The Court discussed in detail — and I am quoting 
from your opinion and order — a variety of post-1954 
board decisions and practices, such as creating and main­
taining optional attendance zones and additions contigu­
ous to attendant zone areas and choosing sites for schools 
which had the natural formal intent of enhancing rather



722

than reducing racially imbalanced schools that were pur­
posely established by the board in 1975.”

In the Dayton case, the United States Supi*eme Court 
quoted from the Court of Appeals’ decision and it quoted 
at page nine of the Slip opinion and it stated that in the 
Dayton case, there was a three-part cumulative constitu­
tional violation amply supported by the evidence and they 
imposed a systemwide remedy and the Court then went 
on and said it had — the Court of Appeals had no warrant 
for imposing a systemwide remedy.

There was no showing that such a remedy was neces­
sary to eliminate all vestiges of the state-imposed plan.

The Court seems to have reviewed the structure of 
the Dayton School System as a sort of fruit of the poisonous 
tree. The point I wish to make is that in the Dayton case, 
there was a finding of three violations, racially imbalanced 
schools. That is a total systemwide type of finding.

Optional attendance zones, recent board actions; those 
are three general statements by the Court of Appeals and 
the District Court. When you turn and look to the basis 
of the support for those conclusions, then, you pick up 
[14] specific pieces of evidence or specific schools or 
specific acts, and the Court is saying, I respectfully submit, 
that they are saying that in this situation, there is nothing 
the matter with the three statements that are made. They 
are general, but they are not supported by the evidence.

In your Honor’s decision, you have made also general 
statements of this type and you have relied on five pre- 
1954 schools and you have relied on certain acts since 
1954, and die same type of thing can be done, I respect­
fully submit, with your decision or anybody’s decision. Or 
anybody’s decision.

I would like to move from that for just a moment 
to what I respectfully and very respectfully submit is this 
Court’s approach to this case, and in doing this, I want 
to refer to your March 8 opinion and order.

In talking about real estate in page 58 of the Court’s



723

opinion, it is stated, “It is not now possible to isolate these 
pictures and draw a picture of what schools or housing 
would have looked like today without the other influence.”

I don’t think that such an attempt is required. I 
spoke earlier of your question addressed to me concerning 
Pilgrim and I think it was Pilgrim, but it doesn’t matter. 
It was one of the pre-1954 schools and my response to 
that.

I would submit that your Honor, I believe, takes the 
position that if there was a violation at some point in time, 
there is an affirmative duty to act today.

I think that this is demonstrated in several places [15] 
in your Honor’s very fine opinion at page 60. There is the 
statement made again, which I would like to quote, that in 
discussing — it is under the burden of proof, I believe — 
no, it was dealing with the five schools.

“Nothing has occurred to substantially alleviate that 
continuity of discrimination of thousands of black stu­
dents over the intervening decades.” This appears at page 
60.

Again, at page 61, “Defendants have not proved that 
the present admitted racial imbalance in the Columbus 
Public Schools would have occurred even in the absence 
of the segregation — of their segregated acts and omis­
sions,” and at page 75, “It is extremely difficult to roll 
back the clock and determine what the school system 
would look like, had the wrongful acts and omissions never 
occurred.” [16]

In your Honor’s memorandum and order of last week, 
it is stated that the Defendant school board must cer­
tainly have the opportunity to provide to meet their Swann 
burden concerning predominantly white schools which 
remain identifiably white under a substituted plan. I 
would submit to your Honor that the substance or the 
purpose or the thrust of the Dayton case is to provide 
information to this Court and the District Court and the 
Court of Appeals.



724

It does provide a standard, and that standard is the 
one that I have read several times, and I think that there 
has to be a finding as to what the situation would be, but 
for, and absent that, I think that the Supreme Court three 
times last week or the week before said that if you don’t 
have that, then, there is no basis for such a remedy.

Now, I would submit that there is nothing unusual 
about this. There is nothing unique about it. I agree with 
your Honor’s statement that — it is a traditional approach. 
I think that is correct. It sounds a lot like normal tort lan­
guage that we are all familiar with. It is a causation prob­
lem, in part, and I see that this is not unusual.

I think it is really the traditional function of the Court, 
and I recognize that in the Dayton case, the United States 
Supreme Court recognized the difficulty of applying this 
type of standard as a matter of fact; that it is difficult to 
do, that they also stated that this is [17] what the require­
ment is.

The Court in its opinion of last week, and I should 
read it, comments that two days after the Dayton decision 
with three justices dissenting, that the Omaha and Mil­
waukee cases were vacated and remanded. The Court then 
says, “The Seventh and Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals 
and perhaps, ultimately, the Supreme Court will decide 
whether the cases cited by the Supreme Court have any 
impact upon the Omaha and Milwaukee litigation.”

It may be that I am missing the point of the language, 
but what I understand that to be saying is that the Supreme 
Court has not acted. I would suggest and respectfully sub­
mit that the Supreme Court has acted and it has said that 
where there is a finding of a systemwide violation, there 
still must be a determination of what the system would be 
like but for the violations of the Constitution, and I don’t 
understand how, I respectfully submit, that I don’t under­
stand how the Omaha and Milwaukee case can be ignored.

I think that one came up on a liability. One came up 
on a remedy. They both did substantially the same thing,



725

and the Supreme Court of the United States sent it bach 
and said, “You can’t do that. You have to make these 
findings.”

I recognize that there are great difficulties in a case of 
this type, and I recognize that they are emotional and that 
they impose an enormous burden upon a court and counsel. 
Unfortunately, I suppose, that we all [18] approach mat­
ters with some preconceived ideas, and the difficulty of 
sorting that out is hard. We certainly all recognize that it 
is not the function of the Court to replace the legally 
elected officials of the school system or to take over the 
responsibilities, even though one might do it differ­
ently. [19]

There certainly has been, in some decisions elsewhere, 
a tendency to sometimes reach far.

There was a very interesting article within the last 
week that appeared, I think, in the New York Times, deal­
ing with what appeared to be a trend in the judicial — at 
the Supreme Court level and the Legislative and Executive 
Branches of government with respect to the conceived idea 
of what is the responsibility within the legal system be­
cause of past practices. How is this dealt with?

I would suggest to the Court that the Dayton case 
really is struggling with that problem. I would suggest that 
this is exactly what it is dealing with. It is one aspect, I 
suppose in a way, of the struggling with the so-called 
affirmative action problems.

I understand that the NAACP has taken the position, 
as recently as yesterday, that there is a responsibility on 
government to rectify wrongs that were committed in the 
past. I am suggesting that in the Dayton case and the 
Omaha and the Brennan cases, the U. S. Supreme Court is 
not saying that is wrong, but they are saying you have got 
to find that there is a causal connection, and you have got 
to find out what it is but for that, and that is what the 
responsibility is, and I submit that that is a traditional con-



726

cept and a legitimate function of the Court and one that 
has to be indulged in and pursued here.

In the Milwaukee case, the lower courts said, in refer­
ring to Milwaukee, they have knowingly carried out [20] 
a systematic program of segregating affecting all the city 
students, teachers and school facilities and have intention­
ally brought about and maintained a dual school system. 
They found it existed with respect to boundary, busing, 
open transfers, faculty, additions to schools.

In the Omaha case, they said the system must be dis­
mantled root and branch there. They found there was dis­
crimination in faculty assignments, student transfers, oper­
ational attendance zones, school construction and zoning 
with Tech High School.

These are broad decisions, but yet they were re­
manded and sent back for a specific finding; findings that 
there must be a determination of what this would be 
but for.

I don’t suggest to know the answer. Alpine Elemen­
tary School, I submit, is not white because of any action 
by the Columbus Board of Education. I submit that 
Pilgrim Elementary School is not black today because of 
any action by the Columbus Board of Education, and I 
would submit that Linden McKinley is not black today 
because of any action because of the Columbus Board of 
Education.

These schools were built, as the Court pointed out 
on pages 13 and 14 of his opinion on March 8th, were 
built in accordance with recommendations by Ohio State 
University.

They are what they are because of housing patterns 
that existed around them, not because of any action by 
the Columbus Board of Education in an attempt to [21] 
discriminate.

To say that a school built on the edge of a school 
district sometime after 1954, in an area that wasn’t in 
the district in 1954, and built in response to recommenda­



727

tions by Ohio State University that it must be racially 
balanced under a rule which says the remedy must rectify 
the violations is to read something into that rule that, I 
submit, is not there.

I don’t propose to, and I am sure not permitted, but 
I don’t propose to make an opening statement at this point. 
I wish to make a comment, if I might.

I think the evidence will show that the plan that was 
submitted on June 10, by the Columbus Board of Edu­
cation, was a bona fide and legitimate effort made by 
the Board to deal with the Judge’s decision of March 8th.

The plan submitted by the Board on July 8, is a bona 
fide attempt to interpret that decision in light of Davis, 
Omaha, Brinkman.

Now, it may be that the advice or the recommenda­
tions to the Board are bad, but I assure you that is what 
gives rise to it, and I would submit that a reading of the 
Dayton case, a reading of the Dayton case and a compari­
son of the general language that exists in Judge Rubin’s 
decision and exists in the other cases and exists in this 
case, v/hen you bring it down to the specifics of the mat­
ter, and attempt to deal with the problem of what is it 
that a Board must do, what must it rectify, that the Board 
of Education has attempted to do that, and it has dealt 
with those things which the Judge has identified. [22] 
Now, we would ask the Court to, and so move, determine 
how much incremental segregative effect the constitu­
tional violations found in its March 8, 1977 opinion and 
order, had on the racial distribution of the Columbus 
Public School population as presently constituted, and 
each elementary, junior and senior high school when that 
distribution is compared to what the racial composition of 
what the Columbus school population would have been 
in the absence of such constitutional violations in each 
elementary, junior and senior high school in the system.

We would respectfully submit that that is what the 
Supreme Court requires, and we would respectfully sub­



728

mit that it is consistent with the traditional approaches 
and concepts which govern legal matters, and would re­
spectfully ask the Court to do that, and I would point 
out that it is not, is not a question of burden shifting.

The burden, I would respectfully say, by the way, 
never did shift, but putting that aside, the question of 
burden shifting has nothing to do with this problem. This 
requires specific findings, and if it is not done by the 
Court or by the Plaintiffs or if the Defendants are ordered 
to do it, and they fail, there is no basis, there is no basis 
for the Court acting consistent with that decision.

It is simply a matter of the Plaintiffs sustaining their 
burden with respect to an element of their case, to wit, 
damage or remedy.

I have a second motion that is very short, and [23] 
that is we respectfully move the Court for an order directed 
to the Plaintiff to submit a plan which the Plaintiffs believe 
complies with the Court’s opinion and order of March 8th.

I am not going to belabor it. I will simply say that it 
is not to abdicate the responsibility of Columbus Board of 
Education to submit a plan. We have done that, and we 
will continue to comply with the Court’s orders.

I do not believe any proceeding that has gone on for 
four years with the type of expertise that the Plaintiffs 
have and the talent they have that they have demonstrated 
in this courtroom, professionally and through experts, that 
they take the position that they have no responsibility to 
submit a plan. That makes no sense to me, and I think 
they should be required to do it, and I think they should 
face up to what do test decisions mean and what do 
they mean.

I thank you for your Honor’s patience.
THE COURT: Mr. Michael, the Court notes that this 

morning you caused to be filed a motion for supplemental 
finding. Would you wish to speak to that?

MR. MICHAEL: Very briefly, if I may, your Honor, 
to supplement what Mr. Porter has already said. I don’t



729

wish to belabor the -points Mr. Porter has already made, 
and I believe our motion speaks to the same issue.

A motion was filed on the same basis, that is [24] 
that the Dayton, Omaha and Milwaukee cases require this 
Court to go further in its fact finding than an application 
of presumption, which we feel is how the Court has gone 
to systemwide remedy in its plan.

I think that is reflected in the Court’s July 7 order, 
on page five, where it stated, and I quote, Systemwide 
liability is the law of this case pending review by the 
Appellate Court. Defendants had ample opportunity at 
trial to show, if they could, that the admitted racial im­
balance of the Columbus Public Schools is the result of 
social dynamics or of the acts of others for which Defend­
ants owe no responsibility. This they did not do.”

I would respectfully suggest that the Dayton, Omaha 
and Milwaukee cases do require this Court to make spe­
cific findings outlining the contemporary fashions of the 
present city school system of past segregative acts.

This Court did recognize the difficulty of making 
such determination in those portions of the March 8th 
order that Mr. Porter has already recounted.

I think the Dayton case was foreshadowed by some of 
the language in the case pending, specifically page 189 
of Keyes, where the Court stated, “In Swann we suggested 
that at some point in time the relationship between past 
segregative acts and present segregation may become so 
attenuated as to be incapable of finding de jure segrega­
tion warranting judicial intervention.

I think what the Court has said in Dayton is that [25] 
this Court must make specific findings, findings that that 
relationship in specific areas in the city, specific school 
systems has not become so attenuated.

To put it another way, I think Dayton suggests that 
while Keyes permits an influence of segregative intent 
insofar as the remainder of the school system is concerned,



730

that Dayton demands that this Court examine the present 
composition of the remainder of that system and deter­
mine whether or not that intent is actually the cause of 
the effect or the present racial imbalance.

I think the language regarding the fruit of the poison­
ous tree, as referred to at page 10 of the Dayton Slip 
opinion, allows us to draw that kind of conclusion.

Thank you.
THE COURT: The Court is going to take a ten- 

minute recess.
(Short recess.) [26]

THE COURT: Mr. Lucas, you may argue.
MR. LUCAS: May it please the Court, I am not sure 

if the Defendants are relying on this argument at all, and 
it was mentioned, for whatever reason, they recited that 
the Court in Dayton set a ratio in the assignment of 
pupils, racial ratio. I might simply point out that although 
it was a major point of argument in the Defendants’ briefs 
in the Supreme Court that the Court had set a ratio, and 
it was our response that that was simply a starting point 
and a flexible one at that.

The Supreme Court expressed no disapproval of the 
flexible ratio set by the District Court in Dayton despite 
a major dispute about that issue.

Going on to the rest of the Defendants’ argument, I 
think it is safe to say that what the Defendants are sug­
gesting here is, A, a retrial of the case, and B, an analysis 
of the Columbus Public Schools that requires the Court 
to treat it as 172 systems instead of one system with a 
number of schools.

Perhaps it is appropriate to discuss a little bit about 
what the Supreme Court said in Dayton and did not say. 
The Supreme Court noted in Dayton that the case was 
important obviously because of the important constitu­
tional issues raised, but it was every bit as important for 
the issues raised as a proper allocation of functions be­
tween the District Court and the appellate courts.



781

Very simply, the Supreme Court’s opinion, I think, 
may be fairly characterized as a critique of a District Court 
opinion which did not reach a number of issues and [27] 
which used a phrase which the Court of Appeals, the 
Supreme Court, and the parties found to be ambiguous, 
and that is the human violation phrase. It seemed to mean 
different things to the District Court as different times 
and different things — different possibilities as pointed out 
by the Supreme Court. [28]

The Supreme Court makes reference to the duty of 
District Courts, no matter how difficult, to make the kind 
of detailed findings of fact which this Court made in its 
opinion in March. It points out that the District Court in 
Dayton simply did not make those findings.

It then goes on to discuss the opinion of the Court 
of Appeals, and it notes that while the Court of Appeals 
gave a far more detailed analysis of both the historical 
facts and some of the present facts and expressed some 
concern about a variety of areas of constitutional concern 
usual in school cases, such as on page ten, serious ques­
tions as to staff assignments, school construction, break 
structure, realization, transfer and transportation, the Su­
preme Court pointed out in what I could only describe 
as frustration that the Court of Appeals had failed to 
resolve those issues.

It said that not so much as a criticism of the lower 
courts, hut rather, to indicate it is the sort of situation 
where everybody assumes that the other person knew 
what they were talking about, and perhaps the language 
of both courts, in the words of the Supreme Court was 
stated in too conclusionary terms.

That is not the situation we have here. What the 
Supreme Court sent the Dayton case back for in major 
pressure was to determine what constitutional violations 
there were in the first instance. As was pointed out in their 
opinion, all parties conceded that if you conceived [29]



782

of the violations as being only the three as articulated in 
the Petitioner’s brief in the Supreme Court and summar­
ized by the Court in its opinion, that no one said that 
standing alone was enough.

As Mr. Justice Rehnquist pointed out, however, there 
are a number of other factors in the record. In fact, there 
are quite a volume of facts in the record which were not 
decided by the District Court in some instances and not 
resolved in any instance by the Sixth Circuit, and that 
there should be further consideration of that matter.

The defendants argue that there needs to be a con­
cern by this Court with matters in the Dayton case. The 
Dayton case says that there must be new findings and 
conclusions as to violations in light of Washington versus 
Davis and Village of Arlington Heights.

This Court considered both of those cases and made 
its findings, conclusions in consideration of the principles 
expressed in both of those opinions. So that is an inquiry 
this Court has already accomplished because it had an 
opportunity to do so, those opinions having been rendered 
prior to its decision.

The Supreme Court noted in Dayton that there was 
confusion, and I quote, as to the, “applicable principles 
to be applied and confusion as to the appropriate relief.”

The Supreme Court said that where there was system- 
wide impact, there should be systemwide remedy. There 
is nothing in any of the Supreme Court decisions [30] that 
says the Court must make fact findings as to each and 
every school. That indicates that that school is solely af­
fected in its racial composition by an act of discrimination.

There is no law that says that a Court must find that 
the sole cause of racial composition of a school is racial 
discrimination on the part of the Board of Education.

Keyes, it is still good law; it is cited and relied upon 
by the Court. As a matter of fact, on page 14 of the Slip 
Opinion, the Court says, “if there has been a systemwide



783

impact, then, there may be a systemwide remedy,” and 
it cites Keyes at page 213.

Now, the Court very well could say if that were its 
intention, that there must be shown to have been an im­
pact on each school in the system. [31]

As this Court noted and as other courts and the Su­
preme Court have noted, you cannot have a black school 
without a white school. There are reciprocal situations. 
There are reciprocal effects from constitutional violations.

The Defendants make a point about certain schools 
located at the edge of the district. Well, I don’t see any­
thing in Dayton, Milwaukee, or Omaha that says Swann 
is not good law, and if Swann, as this Court noted in its 
opinion, the Court said that the location of schools at the 
furthest edge of the district, concentration of black schools 
in the inner part of the district may well be a segregative 
tool. So the fact that we have Alpine School at the edge 
of the district as a part of an overall pattern of school 
construction which more often than not opened as black 
or white, it is not an indication that that school is unaf­
fected by the racial discrimination.

At page 61 of this Court’s opinion, the Court talked 
about, and by picking a few of these out, I don t mean 
to indicate these are the only references. Let’s start at 
page 60.

The Court pointed out that the assignment of teach­
ers and administrators in the Dayton Schools have nega­
tively influenced the racial character of the schools. It 
didn’t say this only happened in one year. It didn’t say 
this happened only in the remote past. It said that it has 
happened. [32] It said that recent acts have lessened the 
sting of the practice that have not served to substantially 
removed the evil it helped to create. I think that demon­
strates that this Court has considered the present condi­
tion in schools, the present pattern in schools, and whether 
or: not there is a system of impact from the discrimination 
practice by the Board of Education.



734

At the end of page 61, the Court points out that the 
Defendants have not proved that the present racial com­
position of the Columbus Public Schools would have oc­
curred even in the absence of their segregative acts of 
admission cited in the 1977 Supreme Court case. That is 
Mount Healthy School District, Board of Education versus 
Doyle.

The Defendant’s argument requires this Court to 
assume or to require a burden of proof on its self and 
that the Plaintiffs — that the Plaintiffs create a time ma­
chine. The Defendants are saying, “Okay, assuming that 
the Court is right, that we committed all of these segre­
gative acts and the schools are still around and that the 
pattern of construction continued, the pattern of assign­
ments continued, the pattern of the faculty assignments 
continued.” Nevertheless, the Court is required to go back 
and recreate the world. We must start over and assume 
that those things hadn’t been done, and then go forward 
and say it would still be that way today. That is an assump­
tion the Defendants make. We submit that logic, whether 
it be from tort law or any [33] other law, indicates that 
where the Defendants have done certain actions and they 
have certain demonstrable effects today and that there 
is a pattern to those effects within a system operated not 
as a series of independent republics, but a series of public 
schools operated by the same administrative unit, that 
those schools as they exist today are a product of that 
discrimination. If we have to go backwards in time and 
say that that discrimination did not exist and, therefore, 
we go forward and say some other forces would have 
made it happen this way anyhow, it seems to me that that 
burden is on the Defendants in any case to establish that 
sort of condition. They had the opportunity, as this Court 
pointed out, to show that these schools were the product 
of some other forces, that the pattern of observed racial 
discrimination in this system was not a product of the



735

discriminatory acts of the Board. They simply did not meet 
that burden. [34]

We agreed with the Court that the principles have 
not changed, that the Court has made the analysis re­
quired, and the Defendant has been given the opportunity 
that is set forth in Keyes to demonstrate that somehow or 
another, areas of the system were not affected by the origi­
nal discrimination or the continuing pattern of discrimi­
nation.

I don’t think it is unusual in school desegregation law 
for the defendant to come into court after each and every 
decision and claim that somehow or another, the new de­
cision means that they are exculpated or should not be 
required to integrate their schools either completely or as 
much as they have already done or propose to do. I think 
that is a consistent phenomena. At the time that Swann 
was before the Supreme Court, many, many school dis­
tricts and the number of courts said, “We will wait to see 
what the Supreme Court does in Swann.” The school 
boards argued that Swann would be controlling and would 
decide the case.

After Swann came out, each and every school board 
said that, obviously, Swann did not apply to it because 
of some perceived difference in the facts. I think that the 
circumstances here are very similar. The school board is 
going to take — I don’t fault them, I think this is a function 
that lawyers often engage in — but every school board will 
be in its respective court saying that, somehow or another, 
the new decision means that the Court has abandoned 
busing, and the Court now requires proof as [35] to every 
school building, that somehow or another the desegrega­
tion should not take place. I think that the Court is cor­
rect, that the fundamental principles have been reaffirmed 
as Mr. Justice Brennan noted in his separate concurring 
opinion, and that this Court has conducted the requisite 
inquiry.



786

The burden is clearly, we think, on the Defendants 
to demonstrate why any school should be left out of the 
plan as the Swann requirements dictate. Once the Plain­
tiffs have shown a substantial amount of segregation in 
the district affecting schools in the district, the burden 
does not shift under Keyes, which I think is simply reaf­
firmed by the court on Dayton, to the Defendants to meet 
the burden of proof as to the intentional impact, as to the 
remedial effects, and any other matter that would cause 
a school to be left out of a particular plan of desegregation.

The language of the Supreme Court with regard to 
incremental effect, I think, is not to be read as requiring 
some sort of scale to be set in the Court and to measure 
tire number of children or each child and the effect on 
them. I think it is instructive to look at the Supreme 
Court’s decision the same day in Detroit. There is no 
requirement in the Detroit case that the Court go back 
and find out if the achievement level of each black child 
has been affected or if the achievement level of black 
children in terms of their reading test scores has been 
affected. The Court simply notes that there was testimony 
that within [36] the system, was a pattern of underachieve­
ment in terms of reading test scores that should be dealt 
with in terms of remedial orders of the Court or that it 
was appropriate for the remedial order of the Court to 
deal with.

The logical extension of the Defendants’ argument, 
and read in light of the kinds of relief set forth in Detroit, 
will require a finding as to each child before that child 
could be involved in a reading program or before it could 
be involved in the counseling services or before it could 
be affected by the in-service work with teachers or the 
changes in the testing program that are required by the 
District Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court in the 
Detroit ease.

I think it is clear that the word “system” is still with 
us. It is clear that the word “affect” is still with us, and it



787

is clear also that the Supreme Court has not required 
either a time machine or the thought of theoretical recre­
ation of the world that the Defendants would have this 
Court do.

This Court has had the advantage of the Arlington 
Heights decision, Washington versus Davis, and has re­
viewed the facts. It has found not simply three optional 
schools in what the Supreme Court characterizes vague 
language as having some segregative effect in the past. 
It has found not just statistical racial imbalance in the 
school system; it has found a whole series of detailed facts 
indicating a dual system in 1954. Certainly, there were a 
smaller number of schools at that time [37] representing 
the black population in the community of that period. The 
fact that the number of schools may have been smaller 
does not change the violations or the duty of the Defend­
ants. A dual system is precisely that, a dual system. It 
affects all schools within that system.

The Court’s findings and examples of the patterns 
and types of violations, the types of action and inaction 
on the part of the Defendants is the sort of findings that 
the Supreme Court has indicated should have been made 
one way or the other, either in favor of the Plaintiffs, in 
favor of the Defendants by the District Court in Dayton. 
That is not as much a criticism of that Court, but simply 
this Court in the way it sought to proceed in this action 
dealt with these matters in great detail. I think the parties 
submitted large volumes of proposed findings to the Court, 
and, hopefully, they were some assistance to the Court 
in coming up with its detailed comprehensive opinion.

The Defendants have suggested somehow or another 
that there is some great wrong being done to them be­
cause Plaintiffs haven’t presented a plan, and I must con­
fess that is one of the more novel arguments I have con­
fronted in a school case. [38]

While we appreciate the kind words and the com­
pliments that have been passed out by Mr. Porter with



738

respect to the witnesses we have had and the evidence 
we have presented, the Supreme Court has made it very 
clear to district courts that they must — not that they may 
— but they must in the first instance look to school boards 
for desegregation plans.

I have a suspicion that had we been in here with a 
plan and this plan had been adopted, Mr. Porter would 
have been the first man in the Sixth Circuit to complain 
that the Court had not given the school board its required 
first bite at the apple.

There are plans before the Court, some of which do 
a substantial amount of desegregation, and one of which 
prepared by the staff of the board of education and 
adopted by some of the members of the board, goes a long 
way to disestablishing the pattern of desegregation in 
Columbus.

I think that we certainly don’t have the wealth that 
was suggested by a reporter in the hall to provide all of 
the services to the system in terms of a plan. If the Court 
deems, after making a determination of the adequacy or 
inadequacy of the plans, that it would like the assistance 
of the Plaintiffs or any of their experts as to any area of 
the plan or the plan as a whole, we will endeavor to be 
of every assistance to the Court that we can be.

However, we think Swann commands this Court to 
rely on the board in the first instance. The Defendants 
have [39] suggested supplemental findings. I have covered 
that, I think, in major part. What the Defendants really 
want is another shot at the same arguments that have 
been advanced at the trial.

The Court will recall that a great deal of the defense 
of the Defendants in this case was right in line with their 
argument today about Dayton, that there were no present 
effects, that the violations in the past had become attenu­
ated. If the Court would simply review their proposed 
findings, they will see many of these arguments are artic­
ulated and articulated very well.



789

There were arguments that housing patterns had cer­
tainly overcome and subsumed whatever the board might 
or might not be doing. It was argued that they were the 
sole cause of what had gone on.

I think that basically, the Defendants’ argument is 
that you must show that desegregation or discrimination 
was the sole cause of the racial composition of the schools 
today. I don’t think that is a legal standard. I think all 
that is required is that the present condition of the segre­
gation in the district has been affected by factors of racial 
discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

For the Court to make supplemental findings concern­
ing its original opinion, it simply is in disguise a motion 
for reconsideration of that opinion. Certainly, this Court 
in making whatever determination it makes on the remedy 
will have in mind all of the applicable law, [40] all of the 
applicable decisions and will deal with it at that time.

To follow the procedure they suggest, we would ad­
journ these remedy hearings, and perhaps submit new 
briefs and the Court would issue supplemental findings, 
rearguing the original case, and thereafter, there would 
be the development of plans.

We suggest that is but a transparent device to delay 
any possibility of desegregation, not only for September, 
but for thereafter.

Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Ross?
MR. ROSS: Your Honor, the original Plaintiffs con­

cur with the intervening Plaintiffs and do feel that this 
Court has complied with those standards set by the 
Supreme Court in the Dayton case, and that the Court 
has shown there to be a reciprocal effect of the violations 
pointed out in its findings throughout the Columbus School 
System.

THE COURT: Mr. Porter, you may reply.
MR. PORTER: Your Honor, I only wish to make this 

additional comment: I recognize it is possible to make the



740

argument that Mr. Lucas has made with respect to the 
Dayton case. I don't read it the way he does, but chat 
may be expected. However, the Dayton case did not stand 
by itself. There is also the Omaha and Milwaukee cases 
and they specifically dealt with situations where there in 
the one instance by the District Court and affirmed by 
the Court of Appeals, and in the other, a reversal by the 
[41] Court of Appeals, were findings by the respective 
circuits that there was systemwide — there had to be a 
systemwide remedy, and I think in the words of the 
Omaha case, root and branch.

They dealt with a number of factors that were found 
to be violations of the Constitution and the systemwide 
remedies were put into effect or initiated, and in both 
instances, the United States Supreme Court two weeks ago 
pointed out that there had to be a determination made of 
what the system would be but for the — at the present 
time, but for these acts.

I don’t see how, personally, those cases could be 
ignored and we would respectfully renew our motion or 
request the Court to sustain our motion in this instance.

THE COURT: Mr. Michael?
MR. MICHAEL: I would join in Mr. Porter’s com­

ments. I have nothing further, your Honor.
THE COURT: I suppose that in the time that I have 

occupied this bench, I have had to make some decisions 
which are weighty and involved some very important con­
siderations, but of all those, the decision that these fine 
arguments of counsel have pointed out cause me to now 
make perhaps the most weighty that I have ever had to 
make, but nevertheless, my oath of office compels me to 
make this kind of decision. [42]

It has been my attitude throughout the course of 
this litigation that counsel for the litigants and the com­
munity should clearly understand what the Court does, 
what the Court does not do and the reasons therefor. So



741

that if the Court’s judgment has been erroneous, and I 
might say this Court is far from infallible, that erroneous­
ness will be clear for all to see, and it is with that spirit 
that I rule on this matter right now. The fact that I rule 
on it now without going in and reading the law books 
again does not mean that it is a knee jerk sort of decision, 
but rather, a decision made after reading and rereading, 
and reading and rereading the Dayton case, the Omaha 
case and the Milwaukee case.

I simply do not agree with the position taken by the 
Defendants and respect them for calling these matters to 
the Court’s attention. That is their duty and they should 
not have operated otherwise, but I simply do not agree 
and it will not help us to have further comment from me 
in this regard. I act quickly so that the hearings that we 
expect to have the rest of this week will be with the 
knowledge of the Court’s position concerning the Dayton 
case.

So therefore, the Court respectfully must say to all 
who are interested in this matter that it finds the defense 
motions urged this morning are not well taken and they 
are denied. * <* # * #

JOSEPH L. DAVIS

being first duly sworn, 
as prescribed by law, was examined 

and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PORTER

[54] Q. [By Mr. Porter] Would you state, Dr. Davis, 
your full name and your present position with the Colum­
bus Public School System?

A. Joseph L. Davis, Interim Superintendent of
Schools.

* # # # #



742

[100] Q. Dr. Davis, I will hand you what has been 
marked as Defendant’s Exhibit H and ask you if that is 
the amended plan that was adopted by the Columbus 
Board of Education on July 5th and submitted to this Court 
on the 8th of July?

A. Yes. It appears to be.
Q. What did the amended plan or the amendments 

do to the plan that we filed on July 10th? What are the 
differences, please?

A. The most significant difference was in the pupil
[101] distribution component of the July 10th plan which 
sharply reduced the number of pupils who would be in­
volved involuntarily in the pupil distribution component, 
I think, by the order of some 90 percent.

Then, the educational program and the support ser­
vices, the staff development, all of the other components 
were scaled back accordingly.

Transportation, for example, instead of requiring 250 
buses, an estimate of 250 for the involuntary component, 
that was reduced to 30.

The costs also reduced in a commensurate fashion.
Q. Directing your attention to page 12 of the amended 

plan, or exhibit H, I will ask you if one finds in the 
amended plan a statement as to the guidelines for develop­
ing the distribution plan for students, whether that is set 
forth?

A. Yes, it is.
Q. Would you read, it please?
A. The basic guidelines followed in developing a 

distribution plan for students to meet the requirements of 
the court order was to eliminate all racially identifiable 
black schools cited as instances of guilt in the Court’s 
opinion and order. If the student population of the school 
was greater than 47 percent black, it was considered to 
be racially identifiably black. The citywide ratio used in 
this plan was 32 percent black and 68 percent nonblack.



743

[102] Q. Then, in the amended plan, am I correct 
that there then appears under the involuntary section, 
there appears the schools that are so identified and the 
pairings and clusterings that were made?

A. Yes, I do note that I have two planning sheets 
Mr. Porter. It is in that very section, and they appear to 
be — it appears to be complete. There are just two extra 
blank sheets tucked in. That begins at page 15.

Q. And it continues then through page 29?
A. That is correct.
Q. And those schools were identified by the planning 

committee or it is your understanding that the schools were 
identified by the planning committee for the planning com­
mittee by counsel; is that correct?

A. That is my understanding.
# ft ft # &



744

[THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY]



745

PLAINTIFFS’
EXHIBIT

No.
11

COLUMBUS PUBLIC SCHOOLS 
Columbus, Ohio

HEW Civil Rights Survey 
1975-76 School Year 

October 8, 1975

PUPIL ENROLLMENTS
Non- Span. Amer. % Non-

School Minority Black Airier. Asian Indian TOTAL White

Briggs 229 44 273 16.1
Brookhaven 1,384 206 7 1,597 13.3
Central

(incl. Occup.) 855 369 1 1,225 30.2
East 13 1,312 1 1,326 99.0
Eastmoor 871 497 1 5 1,374 36.6
Independence Jr-Sr 790 108 2 2 902 12.4
Linden 151 1,292 1,443 89.5
M arion-F:ranklin 806 632 2 1,440 44.0
Mifflin Jr-Sr 566 949 1,515 62.6
Mohawk Jr-Sr 213 565 1 779 72.7
North 1,214 266 2 7 1,489 18.5
Northland 1,568 110 4 1,682 6.8
South 1,000 815 1 3 1 1,820 45.1
Walnut Ridge 1,919 141 4 9 2,073 7.4
West 1,558 294 3 1,855 16.0
Whetstone 1,650 44 8 15 1,717 3.9
Evening

(under 21) 90 102 8 5 1 206 56.3
Adult Day

(under 21) 31 74 1 4 110 71.8
14,908 7,820 31 64 3 22,826 34.7

Barrett 896 119 1 2 1,018 12.0
Beery 226 397 1 764 70.4



746

HEW Civil Rights Survey (Continued)

School
Non-

Minority Black
Span.
Amer. Asian

Amer.
Indian TOTAL

% Non- 
White

Buckeye 762 16 3 781 2.4
Champion 11 497 508 97.8
Clinton 1,016 83 4 6 1,109 8.4
Crestview Jr. 496 108 2 7 613 19.1
Dominion 723 77 6 806 10.3
Eastmoor Jr 309 277 5 3 594 48.0
Everett 610 218 3 831 26.6
Franklin 38 525 3 566 93.3
Hilltonia 595 224 1 1 821 27.5
Indianola Jr 398 166 6 570 30.2
Johnson Park 696 278 5 2 981 29.1
Unmoor 37 811 848 95.6
Medina 736 230 1 5 972 24.3
McGuffey Jr 401 323 2 726 44.8
Monroe 5 349 354 98.6
Ridgeview 734 27 5 10 3 779 5.8
Roosevelt 194 495 2 691 71.9
Sherwood 759 131 1 5 896 15.3
Southmoor 257 394 1 652 60.1
Starling 620 151 1 1 773 19.8
Wedgewood 662 36 698 5.2
Westmoor 822 91 1 2 916 10.3
Woodward Park 1,322 41 7 1,370 3.5
Yorktown 602 45 4 2 653 7.8

13,927 6,249 34 74 6 20,290 31.4
Alpine 512 5 9 526 2.7
Alum Crest 28 107 1 136 79.4
Arlington Park 103 402 505 79.6
Avondale 478 5 2 485 1.4
Barnett 198 23 1 222 10.8
Beatty Park 6 339 345 98.3
Beaumont 329 38 367 10.4
Beck 293 52 1 346 15.3
Bellows 245 29 274 10.6
Berwick 135 145 280 51.8
Binns 487 4 2 493 1.2
Brentnell 16 378 394 95.9



747

HEW Civil Rights Survey (Continued)
Non-

School Minority Black

Broadleigh 263 148
Burroughs 609 76
Calumet 250 41
Cassady 66 552
Cedarwood 573 11
Chicago 310 75
Clarfield 65 353
Clinton Eleni. 552 9
Colerain 90
Como 427 26
Courtright 325 164
Cranbrook 373 28
Crestview Elem. 320 39
Dana 502 4
Deshler 280 522
Devonshire 563
Douglas 42 302
Duxberry Park 60 464
Eakin 339 80
East Columbus 194 256
Eastgate 345
Easthaven 574 59
East Linden 372 175
Eleventh 49 340
Fair 16 427
Fairmoor 425 37
Fairwood 25 492
Fifth 213 8
Forest Park 489 7
Fornof 176 7
Franklinton 202 69
Garfield 225
Georgian Hts 464 1
Gettysburg 296
Gladstone 10 398
Glenmont 331 8
Hamilton 6 480
Heimandale 143 80

Span. Amer. % Non-
Amer. Asian Indian TOTAL White

3 8 422 37.7
1 686 11.2
9 300 16.7

618 89.3
2 586 2.2

3 388 20.1
418 84.4

2 5 568 2.8
2 2 94 4.2
2 1 456 6.4
1 6 496 34.5

26 40 467 20.1
2 361 11.4

506 .8
4 806 65,3
1 564 .2

5 349 88.0
i 525 88.6
i 1 421 19.5

450 56.9
345 100.0

6 639 10.2
2 549 32.2

389 87.4
443 96.4

3 2 467 9.0
1 518 95.2
8 229 7.0

1 4 501 2.4
133 3.8

3 274 26.3
225 100,0
465 .2
296 0
408 97.5
339 2.4
486 98.8
223 35.9



748

HEW Civil Rights Survey (Continued)
Non- Span. Amer. % Non-

School Minority Black Amer. Asian Indian TOTAL White

Heyl 503 93 596 15.6
Highland 192 386 2 3 583 67.1
Homedale 157 6 6 169 7.1
Hubbard 339 6 345 1.7
Hudson 57 276 333 82.9
Huy 559 12 1 572 2.3
Indianola Elem. 352 76 2 3 433 18.7
Indian Springs 380 6 1 1 388 2.1
Innis 391 149 3 2 545 28.3
James Rd 257 11 4 272 5.5
Kent 47 431 1 479 90.2
Kenwood 284 10 294 3.4
Kingswood 295 29 6 13 343 14.0
Koebel 105 291 1 397 73.0
Leawood 602 62 5 669 10.0
Lexington 7 219 226 96.9
Liberty 427 6 3 436 2.1
Lincoln Park 320 208 8 531 39.7
Lindbergh 310 7 2 319 2.8
Linden 550 246 5 801 31.3
Linden Park 277 150 i 2 430 35.6
Livingston 220 486 2 708 68.9
Main 26 373 399 93.5
Maize 409 11 2 422 3.1
Marburn 254 8 5 5 272 6.6
Maybury 442 6 448 1.3
McGuffey Elem. 325 148 1 2 476 31.7
Medary 492 21 4 517 4.8
Michigan 293 15 1 309 5.2
Milo 19 243 262 92.7
Moler 195 249 8 447 56.4
North Linden 367 25 1 2 395 7.1
Northridge 439 7 1 1 448 2.0
Northtowne 345 19 5 369 6.5
Oakland Park 248 4 3 3 258 3.9
Oakmont 405 27 3 2 437 7.3
Ohio 78 492 1 571 86.3
Olde Orchard 562 4 11 .577 2.6



749

HEW Civil Rights Survey (Continued)
Non- Span. Amer. % Non-

School Minority Black Amer. Asian Indian TOTAL White

Farlcmoor 352 24 3 379 7.1
Parsons 310 21 1 332 6.6
Pilgrim
Pinecrest

20
433

272
48 3 8

292
492

93.2
12.0

Reeb 392 60 1 4 457 14.2
Salem 512 12 2 526 2.7
Scioto Tr. 349 2 351 .6
Scottwood 288 184 472 39.0
Second 295 79 2 2 378 22.0
Shady Lane 
Sharon

377
281

23
7

3 403
288

6.5
2.4

Shepard
Siebert

7
356

168
2

175
358

96.0
.6

Smith Rd 209 154 2 365 42.7
South Mifflin 83 522 605 86.3
Southwood 583 7 1 2 593 1.7
Stewart 203 131 334 39.2
Stockbridge
Sullivant

387
80 275

1 388
355

.3
77.5

Thurber 286 86 1 3 376 23.9
Trevitt 328 328 100.0
Valley Forge 421 10 2 4 437 3.7
Valleyview
Walden

225
431

1
17

2
8

ZAo

456
l.o
5.5

Walford 273 3 276 i.i
Watkins 44 229 273 83.9
Wayne 
Weinland Pk

220
318

22
229 2 1

242
550

9.1
42.2

West Broad 867 17 1 885 2,0
Westgate 
West Mound

457
533

25
86

482
619

5.2
13.9

Willis Pk 316 26 2 1 345 8.4
Windsor 8 493 501 98.4
Winterset 708 4 16 728 2.7
Woodcrest 493 22 515 4.3

35,471 16,230 106 277 9 52,093 31.9



750

HEW Civil Rights Survey (Continued)

School
Non-

Minority Black
Span.
Amer. Asian

Amer.
Indian TOTAL

%  Non- 
White

Alexander
Graham Bell 102 20 122 16.4

Clearbrook 47 29 76 38.2
Neil Ave. 161 27 188 14.4
Third St. 86 43 1 130 33.8
Bethune Center 1 73 74 98.6

397 192 0 0 1 590 32.7
Senior High 14,908 7,820 31 64 3 22,826 34.7
Junior High 13,927 6,249 34 74 6 20,290 31.4
Elementary 35,471 16,230 106 277 9 52,093 31.9
Special Schools 397 192 1 590 32.7

64,703 30,491 171 415 19 95,799 32.5
Miscellaneous (Home Instruction, Upham Hall,
Part Time, etc.) 199

95,998



751

Excerpt from 
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 62 

“The 1958-59 Study of the Public School 
Building Needs of Columbus, Ohio,” 

Bureau of Educational Research, 
Ohio State University,

July, 1959

[page 58]

* * * * *

Elementary School Recommendations
* * * * *

11. IT IS RECOMMENDED that a primary center (ele­
mentary school grades K-3) having seven classrooms 
and one kindergarten room be constructed on the 
board-owned Sixth Avenue site, and that the site be 
expanded.

The elementary school pupil density of the area 
bounded by High Street on the west, Chittenden Avenue 
on the north, the New York Central Railroad on the east, 
and Fifth Avenue on the south has increased rapidly in 
the last two years. Although eight classrooms were added 
to the Weinland Park Elementary School in 1957, more 
classi’ooms must be provided.

* * * * *

Excerpts from 
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 63 

“The 1967-68 Study of the Public School 
Needs of Columbus, Ohio,” Educational 

Administration and Facilities Unit,
College of Education, Ohio State 

University, March, 1969 
* * * * *



752

[Page 5]

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Population Growth

1. The population of Columbus increased by 69,814 be­
tween 1940 and 1950. From 1950 to 1960 population 
grew from 375,901 to 471,316, an increase of 95,415. 
The Columbus Area Chamber of Commerce estimates 
that population in 1968 is 581,833; indicating that the 
rate of growth for Columbus is higher in the 1960’s 
than it was in the 1950’s. (See Tables 1 and 2).

2. Only three of Ohio’s other large cities gained in popu­
lation between 1950 and 1960. Dayton grew by only 
18,000; Akron, by only 16,000; and Toledo, by only 
14,000. Ohio’s four other large cities actually lost popu­
lation between 1950 and 1960. Cleveland lost 39,000; 
Canton, 3,000; Youngstown, nearly 2,000; and Cincin­
nati, more than 1,000.

3. Since 1870 Franklin County’s population has grown 
faster than either the total Ohio population or that of 
United States. Much of this growth has been in Colum­
bus. (See Table 3).

4. In discussing the Columbus area in the 1980’s, a report 
entitled The Columbus Area Economy, Structure and 
Growth, 1950 to 1985, which was prepared by the 
Bureau of Business Research, The Ohio State Univer­
sity, for the Comprehensive Regional Plan, estimates 
that some 1,300,000 people may be residing in the Co­
lumbus area. The report also states that the population 
of Franklin County will be almost as large as that of 
Cuyahoga County today, and that Columbus will un­
doubtedly surpass Cleveland in population (approxi­
mately 825,000 in 1967).



753

5. Short-range population estimates for Columbus are ex­
tremely difficult to prepare due to rapid change in 
boundaries resulting from a vigorous annexation pro­
gram. This explains why Chamber of Commerce pro­
jections are prepared on an annual basis.

6. Table 4 provides actual and estimated summaries of 
employment, population, labor, and dwelling units for 
1950 through 1985. Figures 4 and 5 show the existing 
and proposed general locations for housing, recreation, 
employment areas, activity centers, and major streets, 
highways, expressways, and freeways for 1968 and 
1985.

[page 6]

Table 1

POPULATION OF COLUMBUS BY DECADES 

1900 - 1960
Increase

Census Year Population Number Percent

1900 125,560 37,410 42.4
1910 181,511 55,951 44.6
1920 237,031 55,520 30.6
1930 290,564 55,533 . 22.6
1940 306,087 15,523 5.3
1950 375,901 69,814 22.8
1960 471,316 95,415 25.4

Source: Census Data



754

Table 2

POPULATION OF COLUMBUS BY YEAR 

1960 - 1968
Year Population

1960 ____________________________________  471,316
1961 ________________________   478,472
1962 __________________________    497,774
1963 ______ __-__ _________________-.........----- 512,881
1964 _____________        531,994
1965 _____      540,961
1966   559,389
1967 ________________________     573,280
1968 ________      581,883

Source: Census Data and Columbus Area Chamber of 
Commerce

[page 7]

Table 3

TOTAL POPULATION, COLUMBUS, FRANKLIN 
COUNTY, OHIO AND THE UNITED STATES

1900 - 1960
Year Columbus Franklin County Ohio United States

1900 125,560 164,460 4,157,545 75,994,575
1910 181,511 221,567 4,767,121 91,972,266
1920 237,031 283,951 5,759,394 105,710,620
1930 290,564 360,841 6,646,697 122,775,046
1940 306,087 388,712 6,907,612 131,669,275
1950 375,901 503,410 7,946,627 150,690,361
1960 471,316 682,962 9,706,397 178,464,236

Source: Census Data and Regional Plan Reports

#  *  #  #  *



755

[page 9]
Births and Birth Rates

1. The birth rate for Columbus has exceeded the state­
wide birth rate during each of the last thirteen years.

2. The number of annual births peaked at 13,500 in 1959 
and has decreased slightly each succeeding year to a 
total of 10,245 births in 1967.

3. During the six-year period from 1956 through 1961, 
inclusive, there were 76,787 births to Columbus resi­
dents. During the six-year period from 1962 through 
1967, inclusive, there were 68,708 births to Columbus 
residents. During the six-year period 1950 through 
1955, inclusive, there were 59,127 births to Columbus 
residents.

4. Many demographers are predicting an upturn in future 
birth rates due to the large numbers of young people 
reaching the age for marriage.

Geographical Growth

1. From January, 1954, to January, 1968, the area of 
Columbus increased from 41,735 square miles to 
114.056 square miles, or more than 72 square miles.

2. Table 7 includes all annexations to Columbus from 
January, 1964, to March, 1968, and Table 6 includes an 
annual summary of such annexation activity. From 
March, 1968, to November, 1968, eight areas involving 
approximately 1600 acres were annexed to the City of 
Columbus. The total area of the City of Columbus as of 
November, 1968, is 117.88 square miles.

3. Numerous petitions involving several hundred acres Im­
possible annexation to the City of Columbus have been 
filed with the Franklin County Commissioner.



756

4. From March 16, 1963, to March 11, 1968, inclusive, 66 
areas were annexed to the City of Columbus. Four of 
these areas were already in the Columbus City School 
District. Of the remaining 62 areas, 53 had not been 
transferred to the school district (see Table 8).

[page 10]

5. During much of the past four years, the State Board 
of Education imposed a moratorium on school district 
transfers. Such a policy has increased the difficulty of 
planning for new buildings and other school facilities. 
On June 11, 1965, eleven areas that met the published 
transfer criteria of the State Board of Education were 
requested for transfer to the Columbus City School 
District. Nine of the proposed transfers were refused. 
The two areas transferred included 23 acres in Truro 
Township and the tax-exempt property surrounding 
the Columbus workhouse. Since 1965 the only areas 
transferred to the Columbus City School District are 
as follows:

a. A small area near McNaughten Road and East 
Main Street was approved for transfer by the vot­
ers of the Reynoldsburg Local School District and 
subsequently was approved for transfer by the 
State Board of Education.

b. In 1968, the Worthington and Columbus boards 
of education agreed upon the transfer of approxi­
mately 2,000 acres to the Columbus City School 
District. This area was approved by the State 
Board of Education for transfer effective in Sep­
tember, 1968.

6. The Columbus City School District is suffering sub­
stantial loss due to the relocation of families to areas 
of Columbus that have not been transferred to the Co­
lumbus City School District. If such a policy continues



757

the entire school district will be encircled and unable 
to benefit from the expected growth of the future.

» <s #  *  #

[page 12]

Table 6

SUMMARY OF ANNEXATIONS FROM 1954 - 1967
Accumulated

Year
Number of 
Annexation Acreage

Square
Miles

Total
Squ are  Miles

1954 64-70  (7 ) 1 ,816.59 2.84 44.57

1955 71-92  (22 ) 6 ,291.45 9.83 54.40

1956 93 - 127 (35 ) 7 ,682.94 12.26 66.66

1957 128 - 144 (17 ) 11 ,613.12 18.26 84.92

1958 145 - 153 (9 ) 1 ,013.35 1.58 86.50

1959 154 - 164 (11) 1 ,612.12 2.52 89.02

1960 165 - 172 (8 ) 1 ,397.35 2.18 91.20

1961 173 -178 (6 ) 982.75 1.54 92.74

1962 179 - 186 (8 ) 309.11 0.48 93.23

1963 187 - 192 (6 ) 705.23 1.10 94.33

1964 193 -202 (10) 1 ,361.05 2.13 96.457

1965 203 -220 (18) 5 ,285.87 3.20 104.716

1966 221 -234 (14) 4 ,243.63 7.08 111.792

1967 235 -247 (13) 1 ,462.24 2.28 114.056

Total Annexed Area 1954 to 1967, Inclusive:
67.28 Square Miles

Source: City Planning Commission, Columbus, Ohio



[p
ag

e 
13

]

Figure f



759

[page 14]
Table 7

ANNEXATIONS TO COLUMBUS 
FROM JANUARY, 1954 TO MARCH, 1968

Ordinance
No. Date Number Township Acres

64 1- 4-54 2-54 Franklin 45.11
65 9-13-54 1169-54 Sharon 38.00
6 6 9-13-54 1168-54 Franklin 19.24
67 11- 8-54 1481-54 Clinton 93,33
68 11-15-54 1492-54 Truro 1,250.00
69 11-22-54 1530-54 Clinton 49.70
70 11-22-54 1529-54 Clinton 321.21
71 1-10-55 38-55 Marion 44.15
72 1-31-55 121-55 Blendon, Clinton 

Sharon, Mifflin 518.00
73 2-14-55 241-55 Clinton 14.80
74 2-14-55 242-55 Truro 319.00
75 3-14-55 393-55 Clinton 75.00
76 5-31-55 733-55 Sharon 1,037.00
77 6-20-55 830-55 Marion 151.00
78 6-20-55 831-55 Marion 168.00
79 6-20-55 832-55 Marion 282.00
80 6-27-55 876-55 Clinton 619.00
81 6-27-55 877-55 Sharon 14.50
82 7-11-55 920-55 Mifflin 170.00
83 9-12-55 1170-55 Franklin 2 1 2 .0 0

84 9-12-55 1171-55 Franklin 14.00
85 9-19-55 1222-55 Truro 19.00
86 9-19-55 1223-55 Truro 26.00
87 9-19-55 1224-55 Clinton 533.00
88 10-10-55 1308-55 Mifflin 694.00
89 10-10-55 1309-55 Truro 8 .0 0

90 10-10-55 1310-55 Clinton 78.00
91 10-17-55 1340-55 Clinton 586.00
92 10-17-55 1341-55 Jefferson 710.00
93 1-23-56 83-56 Clinton 251.00
94 1-23-56 87-56 Truro 32.00
95 2-20-56 224-56 Clinton 91.00
96 2-27-56 254-56 Franklin 138.00
97 3- 5-56 281-56 Truro 168,51



760

Ordinance
No. Date Number Township Acres

98 4-16-56 496-56 Marion 266.00
99 4-16-56 497-56 Mifflin 33.84

100 5- 7-56 617-56 Sharon 256.00
101 5-14-56 646-56 Truro 183.00
102 5-14-56 647-56 Clinton 27.25
103 5-21-56 677-56 Clinton 20.00
104 5-21-56 678-56 Clinton 120.86
105 5-21-56 679-56 T ruro 1,042.00

[page 15]
Ordinance

No. Date Number Township Acres

106 5-28-56 726-56 Mifflin 41.20
107 5-28-56 727-56 Truro 496.00
108 6- 4-56 748-56 Sharon 241.00
109 6- 4-56 749-56 Mifflin 128.85
110 6-18-56 816-56 Marion 982.00
111 6-25-56 854-56 Clinton 10.69
112 7- 9-56 909-56 Marion 142.00
113 7-30-56 982-56 Mifflin 43.60
114 9-10-56 1117-56 Mifflin 134.00
115 9-10-56 1118-56 Truro 362.87
116 10-15-56 1272-56 Truro 243.00
117 10-15-56 1273-56 Truro 101.00
118 11-19-56 1453-56 Clinton 20.99
119 12-10-56 1552-56 Franklin 90.23
120 12-13-56 1570-56 Sharon 463.00
121 12-31-56 1650-56 Franklin 100.00
122 12-31-56 1651-56 Sharon 329.00
123 12-31-56 1652-56 Sharon 359.00
124 12-31-56 1653-56 Sharon 120.00
125 12-31-56 1654-56 Franklin 401.00
126 12-31-56 1655-56 Franklin 147.00
127 12-31-56 1656-56 Franklin 259.00
128 1- 9-57 1696-56 Mifflin 2.90
129 1- 9-57 1697-56 Sharon-Blendon 182.00
130 1- 9-57 1700-56 Clinton 56.00
131 1-27-57 42-57 Marion-H amilton-

Madison 7,100.00
132 3-11-57 336-57 Truro 3.77



No.

133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155

No.

156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166

761

Ordinance
Date Number Township Acres

3-11-57 338-57 Sharon-Perry 295.58
4-10-57 480-57 Clinton 12.00
4-22-57 577-57 Mifflin 71.85
5- 6-57 641-57 Mifflin 21.53
5- 6-57 643-57 Clinton 153.00
6- 3-57 781-57 Jefferson 630.00
9-10-57 1050-57 Clinton 18.11
9-10-57 1164-57 Clinton 40.00
9-10-57 1165-57 Clinton 1.80
9-10-57 1166-57 Truro-Madison 2,754.00

12- 9-57 1519-57 Perry 7.10
12-16-67 1459-57 Jefferson 336.00
2- 3-58 165-58 Franklin 25.87
2- 3-58 166-58 Franklin 241.00
3- 3-58 314-58 Clinton-Perry 273.00
3- 3-58 315-58 Franklin 53.17
4-21-58 627-58 Franklin 16.26
4-28-58 651-58 Sharon 7.80
5-12-58 677-58 Franklin 49.26

10- 6-58 1364-58 Hanford (Marion) 64.00
11-17-58 1542-58 Truro 283.00
1-13-59 50-59 Clinton 132.00
3- 9-59 323-59 Clinton 7.80

[page 16]
Ordinance

Date Number Township Acres

4-27-59 567-59 Franklin 1.12
7-13-59 960-59 Sharon 145.00
7-20-59 1046-59 Mifflin 84.00
9-14-59 1189-59 Clinton 70.00
9-21-59 1335-59 Clinton-Mifflin 24.40

11-23-59 1574-59 Franklin 15.89
12- 7-59 1661-59 Franklin 910.00
12-28-59 1722-59 Clinton 2.91
12-28-59 1724-59 Truro 219.00
1-11-60 32-60 Clinton 3.65
6- 8-60 413-60 Truro 546.58



No.

167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205

762

Ordinance
Date Number Township

5- 3-60 445-60 Clinton
5- 2-60 532-60 Sharon
6- 6-60 669-60 Franklin

10- 4-60 1178-60 Truro
10-10-60 1723-59 Mifflin
12- 9-60 1486A-60 Franklin
7-10-61 868-61 Perry-Clinton
7-17-61 869-61 Perry
7-17-61 934-61 Hamilton
9-11-61 1092-61 Franklin

11-13-61 1398-61 Franklin
11-20-61 1423-61 Sharon

1- 8-62 14-62 Mifflin
3- 5-62 322-62 Truro
4-16-62 513-62 Mifflin
5-14-62 663-62 Sharon
6- 4-62 779-62 Franklin
7-30-62 1037-62 Franklin
9-10-62 1186-62 Franklin
9-10-62 1187-62 Truro
3-13-63 159-63 Perry
3-13-63 160-63 Sharon
7- 3-63 630-63 Truro
7-24-63 683-63 Mifflin
8-13-63 1316-63 Mifflin

12- 2-63 1420-63 Truro
1-13-64 64-64 Sharon
1-20-64 1522-63 Truro
1-28-64 102-64 Franklin
6-24-64 736-64 Franklin
7- 2-64 771-64 Franklin
7-13-64 776-64 Perry
9-21-64 1066-64 Mifflin
9-21-64 1067-64 Mifflin
9-21-64 1068-64 Mifflin

11-16-64 1270-64 Truro
2-18-65 139-65 Sharon-Blendon
3- 1-65 268-65 Truro
3- 1-65 265-65 Clinton



No.

206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219

220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242

763

[page 17]
Ordinance

Date Number Township Acres

1-19-65 1398-63 Franklin 410.29
4-19-65 510-65 Mifflin 7.48
5- 3-65 567-65 Mifflin 56.05
5-10-65 414-65 Clinton-Mifflin 23.00
4-19-65 521-65 Franklin-J ackson 257.25
6- 7-65 729-65 Perry' 46.50
6- 7-65 730-65 Perry 223.70
7- 8-65 872-65 Franklin-Prairie 735.00
9-27-65 1301-65 Franklin 30.29

10- 4-65 1336-65 Franklin 48.55
10-18-65 1406-65 Sharon 84.00
11- 8-65 1506-65 Sharon 13.48
11-29-65 1577-65 Franklin 356.00
11-30-65 1618-65 Sharon 2,413.00
2-14-66 254-66 Perry

12- 6-65 1656-65 Sharon (incld. on 219)
2-14-66 246-66 Mifflin 1,483.00
4- 4-66 468-66 Hamilton 16.94
4- 4-66 501-66 Mifflin 285.00
5- 9-66 743-66 Franklin-Prairie 748.50
5-16-66 774-66 Mifflin 445.00
5-23-66 811-66 Clinton .76
6-20-66 942-66 Mifflin 92.50
7-11-66 1027-66 Franklin 98.00
7-11-66 1030-66 Perry 227.70
7-18-66 1048-66 Franklin 38.11
7-25-66 1100-66 Hamilton 4.83
9-12-66 1254-66 Sharon-Blendon 802.00
9-12-66 1255-66 Franklin 186.00

12-12-66 1722-66 Mifflin 100.00
1- 9-67 25-67 Clinton .44
1-23-67 98-67 Sharon 135.00
2- 6-67 145-67 Sharon 55.90
5-29-67 634-67 Blendon-Sharon 367.00
6- 5-67 674-67 Clinton 3.88
7-10-67 816-67 Franklin 37.50
7-17-67 817-67 Madison 235.79
9-11-67 1052-67 Franklin 10.36



764

Ordinance
No. Date Number Township Acres

243 9-11-67 1053-67 Perry 17.00
244 9-11-67 1054-67 Blendon 550.00
245 9-11-67 1055-67 Franklin 23.25
246 10-30-67 1336-67 Jefferson 9.55
247 12-18-67 1591-67 Franklin 16.57
248 1- 1-68 1-68 Prairie 70.86
249 1- 1-68 2-68 Blendon-Mifflin 557.00
250 1- 1-68 3-68 Mifflin 87.00
251 1- 8-68 9-68 Mifflin 31.70
252 1-28-68 102-68 Madison 65.48
253 2-19-68 214-68 Clinton-Mifflin 5.74
254 3-11-68 282-68 Prairie 417.30

Source: City of Columbus, Planning Commission

[page 18]

Table 8

AREAS ANNEXED TO COLUMBUS BUT NOT 
TRANSFERRED TO THE COLUMBUS 

CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT

City Annexation 
Number

MAY, 1968

Township Acres

129 Sharon-Blendon 182.00
131s M arion-Hamilton- M adison 7,100.00
135 Mifflin 71.85
138 Jefferson 630.00
143 Perry 7.10
144 Jefferson 336.00
162 Franklin 910.00
175 Hamilton 251.00
180* Trnro 83.92
190 Mifflin 413.00
191 Mifflin 0.30
192 Truro 71.90
194 Truro 22.20



195
196
197
198
199
200
201
203*
204
207
208
209*
210
211
212*

213
214
215
216
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225

\nnes
umbe

227
228
230
231
232’
233

765

Township Acres

Franklin 29.77
Franklin 93.76
Franklin 132.50
Perry 111.00
Mifflin 245.82
Mifflin 127.00
Mifflin 150.00
Sharon-Blendon 532.00
Truro 46.02
Mifflin 7.48
Mifflin 56.05
Clinton-Mifflin 23.00
Franklin-Jackson 257.25
Perry 46.50
Perry 223.70
F ranklin-Prairie 735.00
Franklin 30.29
Franklin 48.55
Sharon 84.00
Franklin 356.00
Sharon 2,413.00
Sharon (incld. on 219)
Mifflin 1,483.00
Hamilton 16.94
Mifflin 285.00
F ranklin-Prairie 748.50
Mifflin 445.00

[page 19]

Township Acres

Mifflin 92.50
Franklin 98.00
Franklin 38.11
Hamilton 4.83
Sharon-Blendon 802.00
Franklin 186.00
Mifflin 100.00
Sharon 135.00



766

City Annexation
Number Township Acres

237 Sharon 55.90
238 Blendon-Sharon 367.00
240 Franklin 37.50
241 Madison 235.79
242 Franklin 10.36
244 Blendon 550.00
245 Franklin 23.25
246 Jefferson 9.55
247 Franklin 16.57
248 Prairie 70.86
249 Blendon-Mifflin 557.00
250 Mifflin 87.00
251 Mifflin 31.70
252 Madison 65.48
253° Clinton-Mifflin 5.74
254 Prairie 417.30

* part only
* # # *»

Excerpts from
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 64

“The 1963-64 Study of the Public School
Needs of Columbus, Ohio,” Bureau of

Educational Research, Ohio
State University, June, 1964

[page 65]
# # # # *

20. IT IS RECOMMENDED that a new elementary
school having ten classrooms and one kindergarten 
room be constructed on a site located near Gladstone
Avenue and Twenty-fourth Avenue, which site is
scheduled for purchase in 1964.

21. IT IS RECOMMENDED that a site located near the 
intersection of Clinton Street and Jefferson Avenue 
be purchased and that a new elementary school hav-



767

mg ten classrooms and one kindergarten room be con­
structed thereon.

Recommendations 20 and 21 are designed to provide 
classroom space needed in the area bounded by Hudson 
Street on the north, the Pennsylvania Railroad on the east, 
the North Freeway on the west and Seventeenth Avenue 
on the south. These recommendations not only will pro­
vide space for growth but also will provide facilities for 
approximately ten classrooms of children that will be 
transported during the 1964-65 school year.

* * * * *
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 137 

Table of Annexations to the 
Columbus City School District

* * * * *

Data is provided where available and was gathered 
from a review of numerous documents in the office of the 
Clerk-Treasurer as well as a listing of R.C. 3311.06 trans­
fers prepared by the State Department of Education.

As can be seen from a comparison of P31-7(l) and 
7(2), the following table may not be complete.

Date of 
Approval 
by State 

Board
Losing
District

Annex’n.
Nbr.

Citv
Ord. Acres

Nbr. of 
Students

6-10-57 Mifflin 136 641-57 21.5
9-14-59 Franklin Twp. 156 567-59 1.12 0

11-09-59 Mifflin 158 1046-59 84
11-09-59 Mifflin 128 1696-59 2.9

8-14-61 Worthington 168 532-60 104 80
3-12-62 Upper Arlington 174 869-61 39.39 1
3-12-62 Worthington,

Westerville 157 960-59 145 70
3-12-62 Worthington 200 0
6-11-62 Upper Arlington 1

Worthington L 173 868-61 434 18
Washington J

6-11-62 South-Western 150.58 156
4-08-63 Reynoldsburg 186 1187-62 50



768

Date of 
Approval
by State Losing Annex’n.

Board District Nbr.

4-08-63 South-Western 183
4-08-63 South-Western 184
4-08-63 South-Western 185
6-10-63 Mifflin 179
6-10-63 Mifflin 181

* 8-12-63 Reynoldsburg 105
* 8-12-63 Reynoldsburg 115
" 8-12-63 Reynoldsburg 116
4 8-12-63 Reynoldsburg 117
* 8-12-63 Reynoldsburg 153
0 8-12-63 Reynoldsburg 164
* 8-12-63 Reynoldsburg 166
* 8-12-63 Reynoldsburg 170

4-13-64 Worthington 188
6-08-64 Reynoldsburg
8-09-65 South-Western 206

11-08-65 Madison 202
4-12-71 Madison

Reynoldsburg l  265
Eastland Joint 

Vocational
44 4-12-71 Grandview 162
44 4-12-71 Westerville 129

203
232
236
238
259

44 4-12-71 Washington ) lgg 
Upper Arlington]

40 4-12-71 Washington 211
261

44 4-12-71 South-Western 218
260

City Nbr. of
Ord. Acres Students

779-62 67.5
1037-62 2.25
1186-62 44.35

14-62 21.75
513-62 14.15
679-56 1042

1118-56 362.87
1272-56 243
1273-56 101
1542-58 283
1724-59 219

413-60 546
1178-60 538

160-63 24

1398-63 410
1270-64 23

156-69 802.54 0

1661-59 910 7
1697-56 182

139-65
1254-66

98-67

532 (part) 
802 (part) 
135

400
to

643-67 367 600
1303-68 177

.

776-64 111

729-65 46.50 95
1332-68 32.0
1577-65 356.00 ' 401331-68 898.5

“Large maps showing the territory so transferred from Reynolds­
burg are in the possession of the Clerk-Treasurer and available 
to plaintiffs’ counsel pursuant to Rule 83(c).
The Columbus City Ordinance numbers shown for transfers 
listed above may provide access to maps which are in the posses­
sion of the City.

®°These transfer orders have not been effected at this time because 
of litigation. See Case No. 75-230, Ohio Supreme Court.



769

3. The entire Mifflin Local School District was trans­
ferred to the Columbus City School District pursuant to 
R.C. 3311.231 effective July 1, 1971. At that time, Mifflin 
served approximately 3300 students at South Mifflin Ele­
mentary, Cassady Elementary, East Linden Elementary, 
and Mifflin Junior-Senior High School. The approximate 
racial composition of such students is available from the 
document marked P31-34(5), which was previously pro­
vided to plaintiff’s counsel.

4. The Columbus City School District was expanded 
pursuant to the procedures set forth in R.C. § 3311.24 on 
three occasions. On March 12, 1962, the State Board of 
Education approved the transfer of territory from the 
Worthington school district to the Columbus district. On 
December 10, 1962, the State Board approved the transfer 
of territory from the Westervill school district to the Co­
lumbus district. On April 13, 1964, the State Board ap­
proved the transfer of territory from the Worthington 
school district to the Columbus district.

* # # # #

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 140 
Extract from Minutes of the

State Board of Education 
of Ohio, July 10, 1972

# # # # #

The Superintendent presented Item 29 of his report 
as follows:
29. TRANSFER OF TERRITORY UNDER SECTION

3311.24, O.R.C.
From Columbus City School District to Bexley City 

School District.
The Columbus City Board of Education transmitted 

a petition from qualified electors together with a map 
requesting the transfer of certain described territory from 
the Columbus City School District to the Bexley City



770

School District, pursuant to Section 3311.24, Ohio Revised 
Code. Pertinent information related to the transfer is out­
lined below.

I. Prior to April 1, 1972, a petition complying with 
Section 3311.24, O.R.C., was filed by the Columbus 
City Board of Education with the Ohio Department 
of Education. The Columbus City Board of Educa­
tion also filed objection to the transfer and requested 
further consideration.

II. Geographical consideration

1. Map of area provided.
2. Would not create an island district.
3. The area would relate more directly to the Bexley 

City School District.
4. Transfer would contribute to improved district 

organization.
5. Within the City of Columbus for municipal serv­

ices.
6. Residential in nature.

III. Pupils in the area

1. Twenty-five in elementary; thirteen in high school 
with only one or two in public schools.

IV. Transportation

1. No transportation required.
2. Distances to school in miles

Columbus — Elementary 1.4-1.9; Junior High 
1.5-2.3; High School 1.2-2.7 

Bexley — Elementary .8; Junior High .8; High 
School .8

V. Educational planning for the area

1. Regular planning by district serving the area.



771

VI. Financial Considerations

Operation Total Total All
Inside Outside Total Debt School Purpose

Columbus 4.51 27.10 31.61 3.65 35.26 48.26

Bexley 5.70 33.60 39.30 5.55 44.85 62.20

1. There would be an inside millage problem which 
would cost the Bexley City School District 1.19 
mills.

2. Valuation of area $952,200; per pupil valuation 
$25,058.

3. Total valuation of Columbus $1,745,505,060; 
Bexley $48,747,660. Per pupil valuation of Co­
lumbus $15,843; Bexley $18,299.

4. The per pupil value of the area is greater than 
the per pupil value of either district. The total 
value and number of pupils would not be sig­
nificant.

5. The area is paying the same millage rate as Co­
lumbus and is willing to pay the higher Bexley 
rate.

6. The equalizing effect of the foundation program 
would tend to offset any gain or loss.

VII. Miscellaneous

1. No school building in the area.
2. The potential receiving district could accommo­

date the additional pupils.
3. Raises the question of percentage of racial mix.
4. No previous transfers.
5. Columbus states that this transfer would cause a 

detrimental loss of human resources.
6. The receiving district cannot be acceptable to 

the transfer.



772

VIII. General statements by proponents of the transfer

1. Area is surrounded on three sides by the City 
of Bexley.

2. Over 75% of the residents desire the transfer.
3. Distances to schools slightly less to Bexley.
4. Area separated from Columbus on west by recre­

ation park, a creek, a railroad embankment with 
limited cross-through and another park.

5. Geographically the inhabited area is more a part 
of Bexley for most community affairs and should 
be for schools.

6. Means of travel to the west are limited by bridges 
and tunnels.

IX. General statements by opponents of the transfer

1. Columbus Board of Education policy states that 
all territory within the municipal boundaries 
should also be in the city school district.

2. The loss of $925,000 valuation and the human 
resources of the area is of vital concern.

3. Most of the schools which the students would 
attend are on a regular day program — no ex­
tended day or double session except Eastmoor 
Senior High.

The recognition of the inside millage problem sub­
stantiated by a letter from the Franklin County Auditors 
Office caused the proponents for the transfer to propose 
that their request for the transfer be withdrawn.

A hearing was held in accordance with Chapter 119, 
O.R.C., on June 8, 1972, at the Ohio Departments Build­
ing.

The hearing referee found that the proposed transfer 
would have the effect of eliminating a mutual school dis­
trict and municipal boundary insofar as the City of Colum­
bus is concerned. The interest of orderly planning prima 
facie consideration should be given to achieving an 
identity of boundaries for both school purposes and other



773

municipal purposes. The posture of the record at the time 
testimony was concluded was insufficient evidence to dic­
tate a departure from the presumption of maintaining 
co-extensive municipal and school boundaries. Hence, the 
referee recommended that the proposed transfer be dis­
approved.

It was moved by Mr. Judd and seconded by Dr. Bixler 
that the following resolution be adopted:

W hereas a petition requesting the transfer of 
certain described territory from the Columbus City 
School District to the Bexley City School District was 
filed with the State Board of Education of Ohio by 
the Columbus City Board of Education in accordance 
with Section 3311.24, Ohio Revised Code; and

W hereas the Columbus City Board of Education 
protested the proposed transfer, a hearing was held in 
compliance with Chapter 119, O.R.C., on June 6, 
1972, at the Ohio Departments Building, Columbus, 
Ohio; and

W hereas the hearing referee recommended that 
the transfer be denied, a copy of the recommendation 
was served upon all proper parties to the transfer re­
quest in accordance with Chapter 119, O.R.C.; and

W hereas the State Board of Education of Ohio 
has given due consideration to the petitioners’ re­
quest, the referee’s report and recommendation, and 
the possible effects of such proposed transfer upon 
the school districts involved, (as delineated in Item 
#29, pages 29-31 of the Agenda for the State Board 
of Education of Ohio, Regular Meeting, Monday, July 
10, 1972, and recorded in the minutes of such meet­
ing) : Now, Therefore, be it

R esolved , That the requested transfer of terri­
tory from the Columbus City School District to the 
Bexley City School District under Section 3311.24, 
O.R.C., be DENIED.

The President called for a voice vote on the motion. 
Motion carried.



774

[THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY]



775

Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 383

Columbus Public Schools 
Pupil enrollments by school by per cent 

Black from 1964 to 1975-76



ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY %  BLACK

Year
School Name Opened 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966

ALPINE 1966 —

ALUM CREST 1961 50.0 70.0 80.0
ARLINGTON

PARK 1957 — — —

AVONDALE 1891 3.0 2.0 5.0
BARNETT 1964 — - — -

BEATTY
PARK 1954 99.9 99.0 100.0

BEAUMONT 1957 — — — -

BECK 1884 12.0 12.0 9.0
BELLOW S 1905 9.0 7.0 6.0
BERW ICK 1956 0.3 0.4 0 . 1

iB E T H E L -
GODOWN __

BINNS 1957 — — —

BRETN ELL 1962 75.0 80.0 83.0
BROADLEIGH 1952-

1953 2.0 2.0 0.2
BURROUGHS 1921 16.0 16.0 15.0
CALUMET 1961 0,3 0.4 0.4
CASSADY 1964-

1971A
CEDARWOOD 1965 — —

CHICAGO 1897 37.0 40.0 45.0
CLARFIELD 1926 50.0 70.0 80.0

Non-White

1975-
1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1976

___ 0.2 0.2 0.2 0,5 0.6 0.7 0.9 1 . 0

72.9 67.3 77.0 78.6 86.4 78.5 79.2 78.7 78.7

0.4 0.8 4.9 14.5 20.6 38.9 55.8 62.2 79.6
1.2 1.2 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.2 1 . 0

— — 2.0 1.9 5.1 3.4 3.7 4.1 10.4

100.0 98.7 98.0 99.2 98.5 S8.2 98.0 98.3 98.3
— — 0.2 0.2 0.5 3.0 2.2 9.3 10.4

10.0 11.8 10.5 8.5 9.4 10.0 14.8 17.2 15.0
7.8 5.7 4.1 5.5 6.9 9.4 9.5 11.0 10.6
0.6 4.2 13.8 18.5 26.2 32.7 42.1 46.6 51.8

—T
- T
CTi

0.4 — — 0,3 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.7 0.8
87.2 87.1 90.7 92.7 92.2 94.5 95,5 95.9 95.9

3.0 2.5 4.0 4.1 7.1 7.7 14.8 28.4 35.1
14.9 14.6 14.6 16.4 14.5 12.4 11.7 12.5 11.1

1.1 0.9 0.5 — 0,3 — 3.1 3.6 13.7

31.8 43.9 47.9 55.5 89.3
___ ___ 1.1 1 . 0 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.7 1.9

39.0 40.2 32,9 33.3 30.0 29.9 26.4 19.8 19,3
84.9 85.8 87.9 87.1 89.9 87.8 87.7 83.9 84.4

A— Annexed school 
1— Schools under construction 
”— Closed schools



ELEM EN TARY SCHOOLS -  Continued
PUPIL EN RO LLM EN T BY %  BLACK

4 ear
School Name Opened 1981 1862 1963 1964 1965 196G

CLEARBROOK 1957 85.0 77.0 80.0
CLINTON’ 1904-
ELEM. 1922 T.~ _ __

COLERAIN 1957 _ _ _
COMO 1954-

1955 _ _ _
COURTRIGHT 1927 _ _
CRANBROOK 1957 _ _

‘CRESTVIEW
ELEM. 1915 _ _ _

DANA 1911 5,0 3.0 5.0
DESHLER 1953 7.0 11.0 20.0
DEVONSHIRE 1963 _ _
DOUGLAS 1875-

1900 54.0 68.0 73.0
DUNBERRY

PARK 1959 30.0 40.0 33.0
EAKIN 1960 _ _ 0.1
EAST

COLUMBUS 1920 26.0 35.0 39.0
EASTGATE 1954 95.0 98.0 99.9
EASTHAVEN 1968
EAST 1911-

LINDEN 1911A
EASTWOOD 1905 100.0 99.0 99.9
ELEVENTH 1906 79.0 90.0 90.0
FAIR 1S90 92.0 90.0 95.0

*— Combined statistics, Jr.-EIem. or

1975-
1967 I96S 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1976

87.0 81.7 88.3 90.1 94.4 96.0 closed

— — 0.2 — — 0.1 0.4 0.1 1.6
— — — 1.5 — 0.9 3.7 1.8 —

0.3 — — 0.2 1.1 1.9 2.4 2.8 5.7
— — — 2.0 3.3 11.2 20.6 27.7 33.1

0.3 0.2 0.4 1.0 1.7 1.0 4.1 4.8 6.0

0.7s — — 0.8° _ 1.4° 4.1° 5.4 10.8
2.2 2,6 1.4 2.0 1.7 0.6 0.4 1.0 0.8

35.1 39.1 46.8 51.2 53.8 59.6 61,3 63.1 64.8
— — — — — — — 0.3 —

84.0 86.0 86.7 86.4 80.9 85.9 35.1 85.0 86.5

45.8 ■50.4 74.4 80.4 86.2 86.6 91.1 90.6 SS.4
— — 0.8 1.3 3.2 2.9 3.9 9.1 19.0

43.8 49.7 55.9 53.3 57.0 59.4 59.0 59.5 56.9
99.8 GO A 98.7 98.1 97.0 99.2 100.0 98.9 100.0— — 0,6 0.7 3.0 3.9 4.9 9,2

3.8 6.0 10.7 15,3 31.9
99.0 97.6 98.7 97.6 98.1 98.5 97.4 closed
86.1 88.5 SO. 5 83.8 84.9 89.3 88.1 89.9 87.4
91.5 9*6.5 95.0 95.6 95.0 98.2 98.2 96.7 96.4

Non-White

777



School Name

FAIRMOOR 
FAIRWOOD 
FELTON 
FIFTH  AVE. 
FIRST

FOREST 
PARK 

FORNOF

FRANK- 
LINTON

FULTON 
GARFIELD 
GEORGIAN 

HGTS. 
GETTYSBURG 
GLADSTONE 
GLENMONT 
HAMILTON 
HEIMAN- 

DALE 
HEYL
HIGHLAND 

HOMEDALE 

HUBBARD

Y'ear
Opened 1961

1950
1924
1893
1886
1873-
1891

1962 
1925- 
1927 
1873- 
1887 

R.B. 1953 
1921 
1953

1969
1965
1952
1953

1955
1910
1894-
1905
1923-
1968A
1894

A— Annexed school

ELEM EN TARY SCHOOLS — Continued
PUPIL EN RO LLM EN T BY %  BLACK

1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1976

0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.9 1.3 2.4 4.2 7.0 4.6 7.9

69.0 80.0 90.0 96.6 95.0 95.9 94.2 94.8 93.7 94.7 94.2 94.9

100.0 98.0 99.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 90.0 89.4 84.2 81.5 94.9 closed

2.0 2.0 1.3 0.8 0.9 0,4 2,5 2,5 3. * 4,3 2.7 3.5

48.0 50.0 40.0 36.3 40.8 31.3 32.8 29.2 closed

— — — — — — — — — 0.3 0,8 1.4

0.2 0,3 — 1.2 0.9 2.0 1.5 0.4 1.4 3.5 3.5 3.8

35.0 40.0 22.0 17.6 27.4 20.7 no ] 21.1 27.1 27.6 25.2 25.2

85.0 60.0 40.0 48.0 41.8 44.6 48.8 47.7 49.4 55.2 closed

99.0 93.0 98.7 98.7 97.2 98.3 100.0 98.8 99.5 100.0 99,3 100.0

— — — — — — — — — 0.4 0.2

78.0 91.2 92.2 96.7 97.4 99.4 99.0 99.6 99.1 97.6

0,3 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.6 2.4

27.0 48.0 61.0 85.0 90,3 93.0 93.4 96.7 97,3 97.7 97.9 98.7

40.0 40.0 31.0 32,4 30.0 34.3 35.8 34.4 33.8 37.7 36.9 35.9

11.0 18.0 11.0 11.2 11.3 11.0 11,2 15.5 15.9 16.7 16.6 15.6

75.0 70.0 68.0 73.6 72.0 71.7 68.9 70,3 69,1 72.7 72.7 66.2

0.6 1.0 1.5 2.5 2.2 5.1 3.6

7.0 5.0 5.0 3,5 2,5 1.8 2.1 2.0 0,5 0.6 0.9 1.7

Non-White



ELEM EN TARY SCHOOLS -  Continued
PUPIL EN RO LLM EN T BY %  BLACK

Year
School Name Opened 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966

HUDSON
HUY

1966
1955

INDIANOLA
ELEN. 1904 2.0 3.0 4.5

INDIAN
SPRINGS 1950 2.0 2.0 2.0

INNIS
JAMES ROAD

1975
1952 1.0 1.0 0.1

KENT 1960 75.0 85.0 75.0
KENWOOD 1962 __ 1.0 0.1
KIXGSWOOD 1952 11.0 11.0 7.0
KOEBEL 1964 __ _ _
LEAWOOD 1960 __ _ 0.1
LEONARD 1904 94.0 96.0 100.0
LEXINGTON 1966 
LIBERTY 1975 
(Refugee Nce-Bixby) 
LINCOLN

PARK 1924 35.0 35.0 36.0
LINBERGH 1958 __ _
LINDEN 1905-

1921 0.1
LINDEN PARK 
LIVINGSTON

: 1975 
1901 29.0 40.0 39.0

MAIN 1876-
1906 77.0 75.0 87.0

1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
1975-
1976

41.9 54.3 62.4 89.2 74.8 77.9 80.1 82.7 82.9
— 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.9 1.2 2,8 3.5 2.1

6.6 6.1 5.9 9.8 11.3 21,3 19.5 15.7 17.6

1.3 1.0 — — 0.4 __ 0,5 0.8 1.5

1.3 1.4 1.0 1.5 2.6 2.8 4.0 4.4
27,3

4.0
80.1 82.5 S6.1 89.7 91.8 90.0 89,5 90.7 90.0

7.1 7.4 4.8 4.7 6,3
0,3
5.1 5.1 5.5 8.5

11.3 10.7 34.5 39.2 49.5 62,5 67.2 71.3 73.3
— — — 0.3 0.3 1.0 2,3 8.2 9 .3  r]

100.0
100.0

closed
99.7 98.8 96.7 96.1 98,0 97.8 96,8 96.9

34.7 33. / 37.0 37.7 36.9 38.6 39.2 40,5

.1.3

39.2
— 0.6 0.4 0.7 1 ° 0,5 0.8 2 a 2.2

2.4 3.5 8.3 10.6 13.0 19.1 23.3 28,5 30.7

52.9 55,2 54.0 58.7 59.6 62.5 66.9 63.7
34.9
68.6

90,8 91.6 92 7 93.0 95, T 92.0 91.5 31.6 93.5

Non-White



ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS -  Continued
PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY % BLACK 1975-

School Name Opened 1981 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966

MAIZE 1960 — — —

MARBURN 1960 — — —
MARYLAND 1958 98.0 99.0 100 .0
MAYSURY 

“McGUFFY
1964 — — —

ELEM . 1927 — — 0.1
MEDARY 1892 2 .0 2 .0 0.1
MICHIGAN 1904 13.0 15.0 15.0
MILO
MOHAWK

1894 90.0 90.0 8 8 .0

ELEM . 1952 11 .0 10.0 10.0
MOLER 1963 0 .2 0.3 2.5
NINTH
NORTH

1896 1.5 0.8 5.0

LINDEN 1950 — 0 .2 —

NORTHRIDGE
NORTH-

1956 — — —

TOWNE 1968
NORTHWOOD 1874-

1905 2 .0 2 .0 0.1
OAKLAND

PARK 1952 — — —

OAKMONT 1966 —
OHIO
OLDE

1893 80.0 so.o 8 8 .0

ORCHARD 1965 — 0 . 1

OLENTANCY 
( See Thurber) 
PARKMOOR 1966
PARSONS 1960 — — —

°— Combined statistics, Jr.-Elem. or 
Jr.-Sr. some years

1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1976
__ __ 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 2.4 2.3 2 .6
__ 0,3 — 0.3 0,3 1.1 0.4 1.6 2.9

98.5
0 .2

98.8 98.1 77.6 82,5 closed
0.1 0.4 1.0 1.3

5.9° 6.7 12.4 20,4“ 22  ^ 34.4“ 37.0“ 31.1 31.1
0.8 1.2 0,5 1.3 2.0 1.7 1.7 o 7 4.1
6.7 6.4 5.5 5.4 5.5 3.3 3.1 2.7 4.9

90.1 91.7 94.2 93,5 93.3 91.2 88.9 89.6 92.7

3.9
0,5

5.6
0.4

8.7
3.3

12.4
2.1

22.7
1.7

38.1
6.4

46.3
closed

50.1 55.7

-aQC
1.0 1.0 0.7 0,5 O. 1 •3.9 7.7 4.5 6.3

1.5

— 1.9 1.4 2.1 5.2 5.4 6.4 5.1

0.7 0.9 0.9 1.9 0.7 1,3 — 1.1 closed

1.6 0.2 0 .6 1.2 1.0 l . l 1.6
_ __ _ .— — 0.9 1.0 2.5 6 .2

90,3 89.7 91.6 93.1 91,3 87.8 90.2 87.2 86 .2

0.4 0 .2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 .2 0 .6 2 .2 7

0.3 0 .6 0.4 0.4 0,3 2,9 6.3
0 .2 0 .2 — — 0.3 0.3 1.5 1,5 6.3

Non-White



ELEM EN TARY SCHOOLS -  Continued
PU PIL EN RO LLM EN T BY %  BLACK

Year
School Name Opened 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966

PILGRIM 1922 100.0 100.0 98.8
PINECREST 1959 — — 1.0
REEB 1904 27.0 25.0 26.0
REFUGEE- ......

NOE-BIX
(See Liberty)
SALEM 1962 — — —
SCIOTO TRAIL 1927 — 0.6 —
SCOTTWOOD 1957 — — —
SECOND 1874-

1883 28.0 25.0 2S.0
SHADY LANE 1956 — — 0.1
SHARON 1947 — — —
SHEPARD 1906 86.0 87.0 91.0
SIEBERT 1888-

1902 2.0 2.0 2.0
SIXTH 1961 91.0 90.0 87.0
SMITH ROAD 1915 — — —
SOUTH 1952-

M IFFLIN 1971A
SOUTHWOOD 1894 1.0 1.5
STEWART 1874-

1893 — — —
STOCKBRIDGE 1939 _ — —
SULLIVANT 1954 60.0 70.0 51.0
THURBER 1922 11.0 10.0 10.0

(OLENTAXGY)

1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
1975-
1976

99.5 100.0 99.3 100.0 99.7 84.8 86.7 90.1 93.2
— — — — 0.2 0.9 3.3 6.2 9.8

20.8 17.0 16.8 15.3 13.4 16.1 15.7 12.6 13.1

— 0.3 — . — — 0.3 0.2 1.1 2.3
— 0.2 — — — — — — —

— 0.3 4.1 7.6 11.6 20.8 30.0 34.6 39.0

29.5 30.4 25.7 34.5 24.8 21.0 16.7 17.0 20.9
0.4 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.8 2.3 2.0 2.3 5.7
—- — — — — 1.0 1.3 1.0 2,4

91.4 94.6 95.5 94.1 94.7 90.6 90.4 93,3 96.0

0.2 — 0.4 _ _ ___ 0,3 _ 0.6
91.1 85.1 91.7 91.5 87.6 91.0 94.6 closed

— — 0.4 1.3 6.4 20,3 29,5 38.4 42.2

74.3 79.9 83.4 85,3 86,3
1.4 1.4 1.1 1.6 1,5 1.0 0.3 0.9 1.2

0.6 0.3 _ _ _ _ ____ 1.3 ____ 2.6 39.2
— — — — — __ 0.3 _ —

56.1 38.9 61.4 60.1 60.7 65.5 70.2 69.4 77.5
10.5 9.4 3.8 4.5 3.9 22,3 28.2 2] .4 22.9

A— Annexed school
Non-White



ELEM EN TARY SCHOOLS -  Continued
PU PIL EN RO LLM EN T BY %  BLACK

Year
School Name Opened 1961 1962 1963 1964 1963 1966

TKEVITT
VALLEY

1964 97.0 98.0

FORGE 1963 — — —
VALLEYVIEW 1957 — — —
WALDEN 1968
WALFORD 1961 — — —
WATKINS 1961 24.0 62,0 64.0
WAYNE 
WE INLAND

1968

PARK 1952 30.0 30.0 29.0
W EST BROAD 1910 — — 0.1
W ESTGATE . 1952 3.0 3.0 4.0
W EST MOUND 1952 15.0 15.0 15.0
W ILLIS PARK 1958 — — —
WINDSOR 1959 91.0 97.0 88.0
W IN TERSET 1968
WOODCREST 1961 0.1 0.1 —-

1975-
1967 196S 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1976

99.0 98.9 98.8 98.8 97.9 97.8 99.0 98.6 100.0

0.1 0.3 0.9 0.9 2,3 2.3
_ __ __ __ 1.3 1.0 1.2 .4 .4

__ 2.0 1.8 0.7 2.3 3.0 3.7
_ _ __ __ — 0,3 0,3 2.7 1.1

73.5 75.1 76.4 77.1 79.7 80.5 82,1 81.9 83.9
11.7 10.0 11.5 10.8 11.8 12.1 9.7 9.1

30.8 33.7 41.2 39.0 32,2 32.2 30.5 46.7 41.6
0.6 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.0 1.9
4.4 3.6 4.3 4.4 5.4 4.5 4.0 4.3 5.2

16.8 17.9 16.1 16.5 17.4 17.8 17.7 16.5 13.9 00
0.2 1.3 0.7 0.6 1.4 0.8 2.3 1.6 7.5 to

93.9 93.7 95.2 95.2 97.2 98.9 98.8 98.9 98.4
__ __ 0.5 — 0.2 0.7 0.3 0.6

__ 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.9 1.5 3.3 4.3

Non-White



JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS

School Name
Year

Opened 1961

PUPIL ENROLLMENT
1962 1963 1964 1963 1966 1967

BY % BLACK
1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974

1975-
1976

BARRETT 1898 12.0 13.0 2 0 .0 13.0 7.7 8.1 8 .0 7.9 8.4 8 .6 10.3 11.7
BERRY 1956- 
(Marion-Franklin) 1957 22.3 2 0 .0 35.0 39.6 54.1 61.4 66.9 67.2 68.9 68.9 69.9 70.3
BUCKEYE 1963 — 0.1 — 0.1 ___ 0 .6 0 .8 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 2 ,0
CHAMPION 1909 100 .0 99.0 99.9 99.5 99.3 100 .0 99.9 99.4 99.9 98,3 97.9 97.8
CLINTON Jr. 1955 — — — — ___ 0,5 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.7 3.4 7.5

“CRESTVIEW 1915 0.2 — 0.1 0.7's 0.3 0.5 0 .8 ' 1,5 1 .4 ' 4 .1 ' 10.1 17.6
Jr.-Elem.

DOMINION 1936 — — — _ 0.5 0 .8 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.3 3.8 9.6
EASTMOOR Jr. 1962-

1963 30.5 30.0 28.0 32.0 33.4 34.4 38.0 42.2 49.0 47.4 45.3 46.6
EVERETT 1898 35.0 30.0 30.0 29.9 25,3 26.4 23.6 25.6 26.5 27.8 24.9 26.2
FRANKLIN 1898 85.8 93.0 8 8 .0 98.1 94.1 96.3 97.1 96.3 95.9 95.3 93.7 92.8
HILLTOM A 1956 19.2 20 .0 23.0 23.6 23.1 9 0  0 25.0 40.1 07  0 27,3 27.4 27.3
INDEPEND-

ENCE Jr. 
INDIANOLA 
Jr.

1975

1929 13.7 13.0 16.0 19.8 36.2 27.0 25.3 33.3 28.2 ■30.6 27.6

12 .0 °

29.1
JOHNSON

PARK
1958-
1959 0.3 0.6 0 .6 0 .2 l .S 2.9 4.9 8.1 13.5 19.3 26.7 28,3

LINMOOR 1957 60.0 70.0 75.0 84.4 8S.7 89.6 92.5 93.0 97.2 96.4 96.6 95.6
MEDINA 1959-

1960 0 .2 0,3 1.1 3.1 3.0 7.4 16.0 20.5
McGUFFY
Jr.-Elem. 1927 — 7.0 4.0 5 .9 ' 13,3“ 11.9' 20.4s 32.4 3 4 .4 * 37 .0 ' 42.9 44.5

'M IFFL IN
Jr.-Sr.

1924- 
1971A

43.8 48. i * 5 1 .9 ' 5 7 .5 ' 62.6°

'MOHAWK
Jr.-Sr. 1952 40.0 43.0 35.0 50.0s 57.7 ' 61 .4 ' 66 .4 ' 67.5 7 4 .9 ' 7 2 .3 ' 72.4* 72.5*

MONROE 1963 100 .0 99.7 99.4 99.7 99. S 99.4 98,5 98.9 98.9 97.7 97.3 98.6
“—Combined statistics. Jr.-Elem. or 'Ti j~

Non-’ vbite



JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS -  Continued
PUPIL EN RO LLM EN T BY %  BLACK

Year
School Name Opened 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1968

RIDGEVIEW 1966 __
ROOSEVELT 1916 39.6 43.0 45.0
SHERWOOD 1966 —
SOUTHMOOR 1968
STARLING 1908 25.0 25.0 19.0
W EDGE- 1965-

WOOD 1966 0.1 1.0
WESTMOOR 1958-

1959 3.9 5.0 4.0
WOODWARD
PARK 1967

YORKTOWN 1967

Non-White

1967 1968 I960 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
1973-
1976

__ 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.2 0.4 0.9 3.5
55.8 55.5 55.1 68.2 69.6 74.4 73.8 76.3 71.6

0.1 0.4 0.9 1.4 1,2 2.5 5.5 8.1 14.6
33.o 45.8 44.1 41.5 52.0 56.4 60.6 60.4

19.1 19.0 17.6 16.6 19.3 18.4 17.1 1S.1 19.5

— — — 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.3 2.0 5.2

6.5 9.4 9.3 9.2 9,7 9.6 9.1 9.6 9.9

_ _ 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.7 1.2 1.4 3.0
— 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.2 1.0 2.1 2.9 6.9 784



SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 
PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY % BLACK

Year 1975-
School Name Opened 1981 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1976

ADULT DAY 
1BEECHCROFT 
i BETH EL-

32.4 55.0 53,3 44.4 62.4 69.3 67.3

GODOWN
BRIGGS 1975 16.1
BROOKHAVEN 1961-

1963 0.1 0 .2 1.1 1,3 1.8 2.5 3.8 7.4 12.9
CENTRAL 1924 27.0 28.0 26.0 31.1 31.1 30.4 33.3 30.6 28.1 28.6 33.0 30.1
EAST 1922 94.9 96.0 98.0 98.2 98.9 98.9 98.1 99.6 99.7 99.5 98.9 98.9
EASTMOOR Sr. 1955 10 .6 12 .0 11 .0 13.7 15.4 17.8 18.4 18.3 26.2 32.9 34.9 36.2
EVENING

UNDEPEND-
25.0 — 37.0 27.5 35.5 45.7 46,1 51.2 56.S 40.9 39.8 49,5

ENCE
LINDEN-

1975 1 2 .0 !

McKi n l e y 1928 12.1 15.0 ■34.0 45.0 49.4 55.8 62.2 79.9 89.6 90.6 92,3 89.5
MARION- 1952-

FRANKLIN 
1 McCUTHCH-

1953 17.6 2 0 .0 19.0 24.9 23.4 25.2 28.8 33,1 36.9 38.5 40,3 43.9

EON
'M IFFL IN  Sr. 1924- 

1971A 41.2 48.1* 51.9“ 57.5* 62.6'
'MOHAWK Sr. 1952 30.0 57.7 61.4 66.4 67.8 74.9 72.3 72.4 72.5
NORTH 1924 7.2 8.0 6 .0 ■8.4 9,3 9.6 10.4 10.5 10 .8 12.6 14.1 17.9
NORTHLAND 1966 — _ 0.3 0.3 0 .2 0,3 0.6 1.6 6.3
SOUTH
WALNUT

1923 9.8 10 .0 23.0 29.3 31.6 •33.8 35.9 34.9 40,3 43.0 44.1 44.S

RIDGE 1961 — — — 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 1.1 1.7 2.1 o “■ 6 ,8

W EST 10.8 13.0 12.0 12.6 13.4 13.5 14.1 12.9 19 7 13 9 14.1 15.8

° —Combined statistics, Jr.-Elem. or Mon-White

785



SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS -  Continued
PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY %  BLACK

School Name
Year

Opened 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 196S 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
1975-
1976

WHETSTONE 1961 —  —  —  0.1 0.1 0.2 0,3 0.6 0,5 0.4 0.9 2.6

Non-White
786



SPECIA L SCHOOLS
PU PIL EN RO LLM EN T BY %  BLACK

Year
School Name Opened 1961 1962 1963

ALEXANDER
GRAHAM

FAIRFAX
CLEARBROOK ........
GLENWOOD ........
NEIL AVE................
THIRD S T R E E T ____
BETHUNE 

CEN TER ____

1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969

10.6 8.9 _
— 43.4 44.4

85.0 77.0 80.0 87.0 81.7 88,3
19.0 24.0 40.0 34.9 — —

17.4 15.3 13.9
27.3 27.9 61.7

1975-
1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1976

12.4 13.9 29.5 17.3 13.4 16.4
26,3
90.1

43.3
94.4

35.8
95.9

42.9
53.8 38.2

_ — — — — —
14.4 17.1 16.5 • 13.6 14.S 14.7
33.9 41.2 47.0 41.8 33.6 33.1

98.6

—loo



788

(THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY]



789

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 385
Columbus Public Schools 

Professional staff by school by per cent 
Black from 1964 to 1975-76



Year
School Name Opened 1961

ALPINE 1966
ALUM CREST 
ARLINGTON

1961

PARK 1957
AVONDALE 1891
BARNETT 1964
BEATTY PARK 1954
BEAUMONT 1957
BECK 1884
BELLOW S 1905
BERW ICK 

i BETH EL
1956

GODOWN
BINNS 1957
BRETN ELL 1962
BROADLEIGH 1952-

1953
BURROUGHS 1921
CALUMET 1961
CASSADY 1964- 

1971A
CEDARWOOD 1965
CHICAGO 1897
CLARFIELD 1926

A —  Annexed School
I —  schools under construction

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
TEACHERS BY %  BLACK

1975-
1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1.971 1972 1973 1974 1976

__ _ _ 9.5 9.5 15.8 10.0

•33.3 40.0 40.0 50.0 42.9 40.0 46.2 87.5 77.8 50.0 25.0 16.7

12.5 16.2 15.8 23.5 17.7 21.4 20.0 20.0 21.4 22.2
_ 10.0 4.8 5.0 10.0 4.4 4.6 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.5 10.5

_ _ _ — — — . 8.3 — 18.2 20.0 —
100.0 90.0 70.0 62.5 61.9 62.5 57.9 57.1 64.7 41.2 27.8 26,3

_ _ — _ — — 5.9 12,5 11.8
_ 10.0 3.9 4.2 11.5 8.7 8.7 10.0 9.5 23.8 15.0

_ 14.3 12.5 _ _ 6.7 8.3 9.1 8.3 16.7 16.7 20.0
_ _ _ — _ — - — 6.2 13.3 13.3 14.3 9.1

—  4.8 5.3 8.9
29.4 22.2 21.1 18.6

_ _ 5.6 4.8
—  9.7 6.5 5.8
_ _ — —

20.0 13.3
15.7 15.0 14.3 13.9
15.0 5.9 5.9 23.4

2
White - Non-White

Data
Ex. - $ 1 8

4.6 3.7 8.7 5.0
38.1 27.3 47.8 47.4

_ _ 4.8 —
— 3.1 — —

5.6
13.3 10.5 5.3 5.6

9.1 13.0 9.1 5.0
12.0 11.5 17.4 26.1

5.0 10.0 9.1 10.0
52.6 42.1 22.2 25.0

4.8 18.2 15.0 20.0
7.4 10.7 18.5 25.0
— 6.7 7.1 9.1

8.0 15.6 25.0 25.0
4.8 9,5 15.0 21.0

10.0 15.0 26.3 27.8
27.3 19.0 15.0 30.8

too



ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS -  Continued

School Name Opened 1961 1962 1963
Year

CLEARBROOK 1937 
CLINTON 1940-

ELEM . 1922
COLERAIN 1957 
COMO 1954-

1955
COURTRIGHT 1927 
CRANBROOK 1957 

'C R EST V IE W  
ELEM . 1915

DANA 1911
DESH LER 1953 
DEVONSHIRE 1963 
DOUGLAS 1875- 

1900
DUXBERRY 

PARK 1959
EAKIN i960
EAST 1920

COLUMBUS 
EASTGATE 1954 
EASTHAVEN 1968 
EAST LINDEN 1911- 

1971A
EASTWOOD 1905 
ELEVENTH  1906 
FAIR 1890

A —  Annexed School
* —  Combined data some years, Jr. - Eiem.; 

see Jr. Hi ;h Schools

TEACHERS BY %  BLACK
1S64 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969

80.0 66.7 66.7 77.8 75.0 60.0

— — — — — —

— — — — — —

— — — 9.5 5.3 4.6
— — — — — —

— 9.1 9.1 13.6 9.5 4.2
— 4.2 8.3 — 7. / 12.5
— — — — — —

78.3 73.9 62.9 41.9 33.3 25.0

____ 14.3 12.5 13.8 15.4 8.7
— — 9.5 4.3 8,3 7.7
— 5.3 10.5 25.0 10.0 13.6

35.7 33.3 66.7 23.5 29.4 22.2

64,3 64,3 57.1 57.1 53.9 60.0
32,3 32.1 19.5 33,3 24.1 25.0
83.3 63.8 54.2 57.6 44.1 37.1

White - Non-White
Ex. - # 16  

(?) Data 1968 
possible error

1975-
L970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1976

55.6 83.3 60.0 closed

_ _ _ 3.7 8.0 9.1
— — — — 28.6 33.3

_ _ 5.0 10.0 11.1 11.1
— — 5.6 5.6 16.7 23.5
— — 5.9 5.6 11.8 18.8

2.2* 2.3* _ 6.3* 25.0 8.3
4.4 5.0 4.8 13.6 23.8 19.0

12.5 20.6 16.2 15.6 18.2 20.0
— — 4,3 8.7 9.1 9.5

26.9 29.2 36.0 30.8 og o 27,3

27,3 25.0 34.5 30.8 25.9 20.8
4.6 5.6 5,3 11.1 15.8 11,8
4.8 10.5 10.0 9.5 22.7 26.3

33,3 42.9 53.8 25.0 23.1 25.0
6.7 11.8 10.0 8.0 13.0 13.1

— 5,3 10,5 15.8 16.7

50.0 40.0 60.0 •33.3 closed
23.3 30.8 32.1 29.6 19,2 25.0
55.9 56.2 58.6 41.2 23.3 25.9



ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS -  Continued
TEACHERS BY % BLACK

Y'ear
School Name Opened IS61 1962 1963 1964 1985 1986

FAIRMOOR 1950 — — .— .

FAIRWOOD 1924 20.0 24.0 33.3
FELTON 1893 100.0 72.2 44.4
FIFTH  AVE. 1S86 — — • —

FIRST 1873-
1891 25.0 25.0 25.0

FO REST PARK 1962 — — —

FORNOF 1925-
1927 — — —

FRANK- 1873-
LINTON 1887

R.B. 1953 6.3 12.5 12.5
FULTON 1921 52.9 60.0 33.1
GARFIELD 1953 88.2 73.7 80.0
GEORGIAN

HGTS. 1959 — — —
GETTYSBURG 1969
GLADSTONE 1965 30.0
GLENMONT 1952 — — —

HAMILTON 1953 — 5.7 5.4
HEIMANDALE 1955 40.0 37.5 47.1
HEYL 1910 — 3.6 7.1
HIGHLAND 1894-

1905 4,6 13.0 8.3
HOMEDALE 1923- 

196SA
1894 —■ 5.0 4.6

1975-
1967 1968 1989 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1976

_ _ 4.0 4.4 10.0 9.1 13.6 18.2 10.0
28,6 28.0 32,1 34.6 43.5 48.0 42.3 24.1 28.0
41.9 37.9 32,0 34.8 28.6 27.3 27.3 23.8 closed
10.0 12.5 — — — — 9.1 20.0 20.0

16.7

CO00 14.3 7.7 15.4 closed
— — 3.6 4.2 4.5 4.5 4.5 10.0 11.1

8.7 7.1 10.5 12.5 _ _ 10.0 20.0 12.5

17.6 17.6 18.8 21.4 6.2 11.8 17.6 23.5 28.6
33.3 29.4 22.2 35.7 33.3 36.4 27,3 closed
78.3 75.0 63.6 72.2 71.4 80.0 53.8 27.3 25.0

_ __ ____ . . . . ____ 5.0 9.5 10.5
— — — 9.1 8.3 9.1

41.7 35.3 27.3 18.2 26.3 31.6 25.0 25.0 21.0
____ — .— — — 7.1 7.1 7.7 6.7
8.3 18.9 9.5 13.5 8.6 25.6 27.0 22.9 25.8

53.3 46.7 46.7 35.7 36.4 27.3 25.0 27.3 25.0
12.9 4.0 7.1 4.3 4.8 4.3 16.0 23.1 21.7

25.4 25.0 22.6 16.7 14.8 20.7 20.0 16.7 24.1

5.3 14,3 14.3 12.5 11.1 12,5 18.7
4.8 10.5 4.4 -— — 4.8 4,5 11.1 12.5HUBBARD



ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS -  Continued 
TEACHERS BY %  BLACK

Year 1975-
School Name Opened 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966

HUDSON
HUY

1966
1955

INDIANOLA
ELEM . 1904 4,8 5,3 4.S

INDIAN
SPRINGS 1950 _

INNIS
JAMES ROAD

1975
1952 _ __

KENT 1960 63,2 62.5 36.4
KENWOOD 1962 — — —
KINGSWOOD 1952 4.8 5.0 4.8
KOEBEL 1964 8.3 7.7
LEAWOOD 1960 — 4.0 4.0
LEONARD 1904 13.3 71.4 57.1
LEXINGTON 1966 
LIBERTY 1975 
(Refugee Noe-Bixby) 
LINCOLN

PARK 1924 7,7 15.4 23.3
LINBERGH 1958 — —■ —
LINDEN 1905-

1921 3.4
LINDEN PARK 1975 
LIVINGSTON 1901 8.7 17.2
MAIN 1876-

1906 14 3 16.0 19.3

1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1976

8.3 18.2 15.4 16.7 30.0 27.3 18.2 23.1 23.1
— 3.7 — ■ — — ■ — 7.1 11.1 12,5

— 4,3 — 5.6 6.7 6.7 17.6 17.6 12.5

— — — — — — 6,3 18.8 13.3
22.2

.— — 5.9 7.1 — 8.3 15.4 18.2 20.0
28.0 28.0 24.1 25.9 26.9 28.6 25.9 23.1 20.0

. — — 6.7 — - — — 9.1 9.1 10.0
— — .— — - — — 4.5 10,5 11.8

10.8 17.7 15.0 15,0 16.7 16.7 25.0 20.0 12,5
3.8

66.7
4.0

closed
6.9 — — 4,3 9.5 16.7 18.2

42.9 38.5 38.5 35.7 45.5 45.5 27.3 27.3 20.0
25.0

25.5 34,5 22.9 15.2 09 9 27.6 23.3 24.2 22.6
7.1 18.8 5.3 — — — T I 20.0 21.4

—  3.1 5.6 2.7 12.5 12.8 14.6 20.0
18.8

20,5 19.1 19.6 17.6 17.5 14,3 14.6 20.0 23.7

31.6 36.4 29.7 31,3 28.1 38.2 40.0 24.1 24.0



i ’, i l l ’, i Vi im n i A i u  cj •k.Jx i\j \ji-A cs — ^ u m m u e a

Year TEACHERS B Y  %  BLACK 1975-

School Name Opened 1961 1962 1963 1S64 1965 1968 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1976

MAIZE 1960 — — — — — — — — — 4.3 15.0 11.1

MARBURN 1960 — — — — — — — — — 7 7 8.3 10.0

MARYLAND
PARK 1958 88.9 75.0 62.3 70.6 60.0 5 4  5 55.6 55.6 closed

MAYBURY 1964 — — — 4.6 — — 4.0 o.V 3.8 7.1 12.5 12.5

“McGUFFY
ELEM . 1927 — — 3.7 6.8* 3.7 3.1 8.6* 15.3* 16.7* 16.7* 18,5 23.0

MEDARY 1S92 — — — 4.3 4.0 — — — — 5.6 11.8 10.0

MICHIGAN 1904 — — 5.6 5.0 4.8 4.8 5.6 6.3 5.9 i i . i 25.0 25.0

MOHAWK
ELEM . 1952 — — 80.0

MILO 1894 32.1 34,5 33.3 46.7 39,3 34.5 32.1 52.2 63.6 47.6 27.8 23,5
MOLER 1963 --- . — — 6.1 6.7 10,5 5.9 6.2 11.8 16.7 11.8 30.8*

NINTH 1896 — — 11.1 — — — — — — closed —1
NORTH O

LINDEN 1950 — — — — — — - — — — 15.0 18.8 18.8
NORTHRIDGE 1956 — — — 5.1 5.6 4.6 — — — 6.3 6.7 13,3
NORTHTOWNE 1968 — — — — — — — — 7.1 7.7 18.8 7.1
NORTHWOOD 1S79-

1905 — — — 6.7 — 5.3 — — — 10.0 11.1
OAKLAND

PARK 1952 — — — 12.5 6,3 — — 9.1 — 8,3 25.0 16.7
OAKMONT 1966 — — 7.1 7.1 7.1 6,7 11.8 12,5 17.6
OHIO 1893 44.0 4S.0 37.9 45.0 54.5 38,3 40.5 48.8 55.3 38.9 22.2 20.6
OLDE

ORCHARD 1965 — — — — — — 9.1 13.6 17.4 18.2
OLENTANGY
(See Thurber)
PARKMOOR 1966 — — — — — — 6.3 14,3 14.3
PARSONS 1960 — — — 5.6 — — — 7.1 — 13.3 21.4 9.1

"Combined data, jr . - Elem, some schools; see 
jr . High Schools



ELEM EN TA RY SCHOOLS -  Continued
TEA CH ERS BY %  BLACK

Year
School Name Opened 1961 1962 196,3 1964 1965 1966 1967 1868 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974

1975-
1976

PILGRIM 1922 100.0 86.7 75.0 94.1 87.5 73.7 76.5 80.0 72.2 52.9 27.8 28.6
PIN ECREST 1959 — — 4.0 4.1 4.4 3.7 4.4 5.0 4.8 4,3 14.3 11.1
REEB 1904 13.1 — 12.9 14.3 9.7 14.7 10,3 3.7 7.4 12.3 16.0 17.4
REFU G EE NOE-BIX. — — — — — — — — — — __ _
(See Liberty) 
SALEM 1962 4.3 4.8 10,5 11.1
SCIOTO TRAIL 1927 — — — — 5.3 — — — 6.3 5.9 6,3 7.1
SCOTTWOOD 1957 — — — — — — — — 5.9 17.6 11.1 11.1
SECOND 1S74-

1S83 10.0 10.0 15.4 13.3 11.1 21.4 18.2 19.2 13.0 22.7 23.S
SHADY LANE 1956 __ — — — — — — — 6,3 l l .S 6.7 7.1
SHARON 1947 — — — — — — — — — 6,3 7.7 8.3
SHEPARD 1906 8.3 7.7 7. i1 42.9 38.5 6.7 8.3 10.0 40.0 20.0 22.2 25.0
SIEBER T 1888-

1902 5.3 10.0 5.0 9.5 5.3 5.9 5.9 6.7 7.1 14,3
SIXTH AVE. 1961 •33.3 33.3 9 o o 18.2 36.4 41.7 50.0 70.0 57.1 30.0 closed
SMITH ROAD 1915 — — — — 6.7 10.5 5.9 — 12.5 25.0 26.7 21.4
SOUTH

M IFFLIN
SOUTHWGOD

1952- 
1971A 
1894 4.0 4.3 4.2 4.0

8,3 21.9 21.2
4,8

24.3
18.2

24.1

STEW ART 1874-
1893 7.1 10.0 .18.2 7.1

STOCKB RIDGE 1959 — — — 10.5 5.3 5.6 — 6.7 12,5 12.5 20.0 15.4
SULLIVANT 1954 I I . 1 27.8 35.0 40.0 57.1 44.0 41.7 41.7 39.1 33,3 26.1 23.8
TH UR5ER 1922 —■ — — — — — — — 18.2 19.0 20.0 22 2
( OLENTANGY)



ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS — Continued
TEACHERS BY %  BLACK

Year 1975-

School Name Opened 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1909 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1976

TREV ITT 1964 50.0 45.5 40.0 37.5 26.7 25.0 46.7 36.4 30.4 21.7 21.1

VALLEY
FORGE 1963 — — — 4.2 — — — — — 4.8 9,5 10.0

VALLEYVIEW 1957 — — — — 7.7 — — — — 9.1 11,1 12,5

WALDEN 196S . — — — — 6,3 18.8 6.7

WALFORD 1961 — — 7.7 7.7 7.7 — — — — 15.4 16.7 10.0

WATKINS 1961 20.0 10.0 10.0 14.3 20.0 00 0 31.3 35.7 33.3 33.3 21.4 25.0

WAYNE 1968 9 0  0 18.2 oo o 10.0 — 10.0 9.1 11.1

WEINLAND
PARK 1952 3.8 3.T 3.6 7.1 7.1 11.8 8.8 10.3 17.2 14.3 19.4 25.8

W EST BROAD 1910 — — — 3.3 — 3.0 — 3.4 3.2 6.3 12.1 16.1

W ESTGATE 1952 — — — — — 4.4 4.8 5.6 5.6 10.5 15.8 16.7

W EST MOUND 1952 — — 4.5 3.9 4.3 7.7 4,3 5.0 5.0 9.1 17.4 18.2

W ILLIS PARK 1958 — — — — 5.0 4.6 5.0 6.2 13.3 12,5 12.5 13.3

WINDSOR 1959 40.0 35.5 27.S 26.3 38.1 39.0 47.4 45.5 52.8 37.1 26.5 25.0

W IN TERSET 1968 — — — — — 10.0 8.7 8.7

WOODCREST 1961 — — — — — — — — 5.0 10.0 10.0 10.5



SPECIAL SCHOOLS
TEACHERS BY %  BLACK

Year
School Name Opened 1961 1962 1963

ALEXANDER
GRAHAM ____

FAIRFAX
CLEARBROOK ____
GLEN WOOD ____
N EIL AVE, ____
THIRD STREET ........
BETHUNE 

CENTER ____

1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969

5.9 5.6 3.3
30.8 9.1

80,0 66.7 66.7 77.8 75.0 60.0
22.2 ■33.3 20.0 38.5
21.4 21.4 20.0 5.7 5.3 4.5

— _ 22.2 17.4 30.0 18.2

1975-
1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1976

10.7 4.0 15.0 4.8 _ 4.8
27.3 20.0 9.1
55.6 83.3 60.0 i .7 15.4 14.3

4.5 4.5 13.0 8.0 8.0 12.0
9.1 8.3 — 16.7 8,3 °2 2

797



" jVrViO ii' xilXjjnL ’SCriOOLcy 
TEACHERS BY %  BLACK

School Name
Year

Opened 1981 1962 1S63 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
1975-
1976

BARRETT 1S9S 2.2 4.3 4.0 9.8 10.0 5.7 3.8 4.0 5.5 9.4 13.5 18.9

BERRY 1956- 
(Marion-Franklin) 1957 _ _ 3.1 7.5 10.8 7.5 20.9 19.5 27.3 27,3 23.9 23.3

BUCKEYE 1963 — 4.2 3.7 2.9 2.7 2.5 4.8 5.1 5.1 8.1 11.1 8.1

CHAMPION 1909 97.3 90.6 80.0 75.0 76.7 72.5 76.2 63.9 71.8 56.4 oD.O 24,3

CLINTON Jr. 1955 — — 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.0 4.0 4.1 6.9 7.5 8.5 14.6

’ CRESTVIEW  J:r. 1915 — — 2.4 o o* — 3.0 2.2* 2.3* — 6.3* 9.4 15.6

DOMINION 1956 — — 2.9 2.7 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.6 2.4 5.0 10,3 11.4

EASTMOOR Jr . 1962- 
1963 6.3 5.9 5.3 8.1 9.8 i . 1 9.1 8.6 11.8 15.2 15.6

EVERETT 1898 7.1 7.0 5.0 7.1 6.4 3.9 3.7 4.3 8.0 12.5 15.2 17.8

FRANKLIN 1898 32.6 28.9 31.7 43.8 42.5 34.6 78.2 78.7 70.4 54.9 45.8 23.9

HILLTONIA 1956 — 7.5 7.7 7.6 9.8 6.8 4.4 6.8 9,3 18.2 16.7 21.6

INDEPEND­
ENCE

INDIANOLA
Jr.

1975

1929 5.6 2.7 7.7 7.3 8.5 6.4 6.8 11.4 14.6 23.8 21.0

JOHNSON
PARK

1958-
1959 _ 2.4 4.5 4.4 2.0 2.0 2.1 8.9 12,5 12.7 20.4

LINMOOR 1957 — 8.3 15.9 24.3 26.8 25.8 27.4 34.5 32.2 28.3 21.7 23.7

MEDINA 1959-
1960 2.2 4.4 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.0 4.4 12.5 12.8

’ M cGUFFY ]r. 1927 —- — 3.6 6.8* 15.2 7.9 8.6* 15.3* 16.7* 18.1* 18.6 26.5

’ M IFFLIN  Jr.

’ MOHAWK Jr. 
MONROE

1924- 
1971A

11.8 5.6 8.3 18.0* 18.8* 13.8* 17.5*
19.4
29.0*

11,9*
34.8*

17.3*
35.4*

22.7*
21.7*

21.1*
23.2*

1963 — 39.4 41.2 41.7 38.9 47.4 48.6 58.8 51.4 40,5 .23,5 25.0

*— Combined statistics, Jr.-Elem. or P-31-521,
Jr.-Sr. some years Non-white

A —  Annexed School



JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS -  Continued
TEACH ERS BY %  BLACK

Year
School Name Opened 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966

RIDGEVIEW 1966
ROOSEVELT 1916 5.1 8.8 8.6
SHERWOOD 1966
SOUTHMOOR 1968
STARLING 1908 2.5 4.8 5.0
WEDGEWOODi 1965-

1966 5.9
WESTMOOR 1958-

1959 — — 2.5
WOODWARD

PARK 1967
YORKTOWN 1967

P 31-524 
Non-white

1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
1975-
1976

7.8 6.3 8.3 5.6 3.0 2.6 5,4 5.4 5.6
9.5 12.5 15.2 19.1 23.3 34.7 27.7 23.9 22.7
2.9 2,9 — — — 5.0 5.4 12.8 14,3

11.1 8.8 8.8 20.6 23.1 20.5 21.1 17.1
4.4 8.5 6.1 4.2 6.2 6.4 8.9 11.9 16.7

3.7 ■3.7 6.5 3.2 3.3 5.9 8.8 8,3 13.5

2.8 2.6 2.3 2.3 2.3 6.7 8.7 13.0 17.8

8.3 6.5 5.4 1.8 1.7 3.0 6.3 9.1 11.1
7.4 6.5 5.7 5.0 4.8 3.8 11.3 14.5 13.5



rn tr la  s C a v O ils  
TEACHERS BY %  BLACK

School Name Opened 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969

ADULT DAY —
iBEEC H C RO FT
i BETH EL-

GODOWN
BRIGGS 1973
BROOKHAYEN 1961-

1963 — 1.5 1.5 3.1 3.1 2.8

CENTRAL 1924 2.5 3.6 3.7 4.5 9.4 9.4

EAST 1922 12.7 15.0 21,3 24.8 32.4 28.9

EASTMQOR 1955 — 1.8 1.9 1.6 1.5 4.0

EVENING 7.0 4,3 5.0 9.8 11.9 8.7

IN DEPEND-
ENCE 1975

LINDEN-
m c k in l e y 1928 — 1.4 2.8 6.1 7.9 10.9

MARION- 1952-
FRANKLIN 1953 2.1 7.4 6.7 9.1 6.8 8.8

i McCUTHCH-
EON ________

“M IFFLIN 1928-
Jr.-Sr. 1971A

“MOHAWK
Jr.-Sr. 1952 18.0* 18.8* 13.8*

NORTH 1924 — 1.6 1.7 1.6 3.1 —

NORTHLAND 1966 — 1.8 1.4

SOUTH 1923 1.5 1.3 2,7 3.9 3.8 5.8

SOUTHEAST ________ — — — — —

“WALNUT
RIDGE 1961 — 1.6 3.1 1.8 — 1.4

W EST 1929 — 2.4 1.3 3.2 2.2 4.3

“— Combined Jr.-Sr. data some years. 
1— Schools under construction

1970 1971 1972
—  12.5 30.0

2.7 3.0 5.3
10.5 10.8 12.8
35.2 37.3 41.5

4.5 10.6 8.8
16.4 14.5 14.8

15.4 27.3 44.4

10,5 11.1 15.4

1975-
1973 1974 1976

10.0 10.0 12,5

22.2

5.1 7.1 8.2
15.0 17.6 23.7
36.3 31.3 23.7
13.3 15.2 16.2

— 50.0 —

25.6

37.9 30.5 22.9

15.9 17.3 19.7

00

5

12.8 11.9*

17.3* 29.0* 34.8*
3.8 4.1 5.1
1.5 3.1 2.6
5.7 3.9 8.0

2.5 2,3 2 2
4.1 5.7 5.2

17.3* 22.7* 21.3*

35.4* 21.7* 23.2
11.4 14.3 13.2

6.3 9,8 10.7
12,9 13.9 19.8

— — 13.5

6.1 9.0 9.2
9.1 12.7 13.3



SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS -  Continued
TEACHERS BY %  BLACK

School Name
Year

Opened 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1S67 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 5"974
1975-
1976

W HETSTONE 1961 —  1.9 2.0 ■ 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.4 2.6 7.4 11.1 10.0

801



802

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 505 
Table of Pupil Segregation 

indices Prepared by Plaintiffs’ 
Expert Witness, Dr. Karl Taeuber

COLUMBUS

Pupil Seg — Minority vs. Non-Minority
Elein. Jr. Sr.

Fall 1975 70 56 54
74 73 62 56
73 76 64 57
72 76 66 58
7.1 77 67 57
70 80 66 55
69 81 67 56
68 8J 68 53
67 79 69(25) 50

M ay (65) 66 80 61(20) 53
Feb. (04) 65 79 63 54
Feb.(63) 64 76 63 55