Norwood v. Harrison Appendix
Public Court Documents
January 18, 1973
This item is featured in:
Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenberg Board of Education Appendix Vol. II pp. 465-890, 1969. 01888d72-c59a-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/c732c03b-b046-476d-9af9-96f5dc2e9e3c/swann-v-charlotte-mecklenberg-board-of-education-appendix-vol-ii-pp-465-890. Accessed July 19, 2025.
Copied!
APPENDIX
Volume II— pp. 465a-890a
Supreme Court of the United States
OCTOBER TERM, 1970
No. 2 8 1
JAMES E. SWANN, ET AL., PETITIONERS,
vs.
CHARLOTTfe-MECKLENBITRG BOARD OF
EDUCATION, ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
CERTIORARI GRANTED JUNE 29, 1970
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED JUNE 18, 1970
I N D E X
Volume I
PAGE
Docket Entries .............................. ;............................... la
Motion for Further Relief, filed September 6, 1968.... 2a
Answer to Motion for Further Relief ...................... 9a
Transcript of March 10, 1969, hearing, pages 18-39,
line 20 ; page 41, line 15 through page 85, line 23;
page 352, line 10 through page 487, line 17; and
page 544, line 3 through page 678, line 2 5 .............. 11a
Opinion and Order Dated April 23, 1969, Regarding
Desegregation of Schools of Charlotte and Meck
lenburg County, North Carolina.................... 285a
Appendix ................................................................. 317a
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
dated May 15, 1969 ..................................................... 324a
Defendants’ Plan for Desegregation, filed May 28,
1969 ............................................................................ 330a
Defendants’ Report in Connection with Plan of De
segregation filed May 28, 1969 ............................... 341a
Appendix ......................... 346a
Defendants’ Response to Motion for Temporary Re
straining Order, filed May 29, 1969 .... .................. 365a
Order Dated June 3, 1969 ............................................. 370a
11
Order Adding Additional Parties, dated June 5, 1969 372a
Motion to Set Aside Order Joining Additional Par
ties Defendant, filed June 12, 1969 .......................... 376a
Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Motion to Strike
Additional Parties Defendant, filed June 16, 1969 379a
Transcript of June 16, 1969, Proceedings, page 487,
line 22 through page 544, line 8 .............................. 383a
Tentative Plan for the Integration of the Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Schools (for discussion purposes),
dated May 8, 1969 ............... ......................... ........... 431a
Opinion and Order dated June 20, 1969 ...................... 448a
Supplemental Findings of Fact in Connection with
the Order of June 20, 1969 (dated June 24, 1969) 459a
Plaintiffs’ Motion to File Supplemental Complaint,
filed July 22, 1969 ..................................................... 460a
Order Allowing Filing of Supplemental Complaint,
filed July 22, 1969 ..................................................... 464a
Volume II
Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Complaint, filed July 22,
1969 ..... 465a
Exhibit A Attached to Foregoing Supplemental
Complaint ........................................................... 477a
Defendants’ Amendment to Plan for Further Deseg
regation, filed July 29, 1969 ...................................... 480a
PAGE
I ll
Defendants’ Report in Connection with Amendment
to Plan for Further Desegregation, filed August 4,
1969 ....... 491a
Exhibits attached to foregoing R eport............... 498a
Transcript of August 5, 1969, Proceedings: page 4,
line 22 through page 41, line 17; and page 57, line
5 through page 84, line 25 ......................................... 525a
Answer of the Defendants, the North Carolina State
Board of Education and the Superintendent of
Public Instruction for the State of North Caro
lina, to the Supplemental Complaint, filed August
11, 1969 ........................................................................ 575a
Order dated August 15, 1969 ..................................... 579a
Order dated August 29, 1969 ...................................... 593a
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Further Relief, filed Septem
ber 2, 1969 .................................................................. 596a
Order dated October 10, 1969 ............... 601a
Defendants’ Response to Motion for Further Relief,
filed October 11, 1969 ............................................... 606a
Summation of Integration 1965 (March) and 1968-69
(Oct. 1, ’68) and 1969-70 (Oct. 2, ’69) (App. 1, pp.
63-70) .......................................................................... 608a
Defendants’ Report to the Court Pursuant to Order
of October 10, 1969, and filed October 30, 1969 ..... 616a
Exhibits annexed to foregoing Report ............... 626a
PAGE
IV
Order dated November 7, 1969 .................................... 655a
Memorandum Opinion dated November 7, 1969 ....... 657a
Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation of
Schools, filed November 17, 1969 .......................... 670a
Report submitted in Connection with the November
13 (17), 1969, Amendment to Plan for Further
Desegregation ........................................................... 680a
Exhibits annexed to foregoing Report ............... 691a
Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Amendment to
Plan for Further Desegregation of Schools, filed
November 21, 1969 ..................................................... 692a
Opinion ............................................................................ 698a
Order dated December 1, 1969 ..................... 714a
Order dated December 2, 1969 ........ 717a
Motion for Immediate Desegregation, filed January
20, 1970 ........................................................................ 718a
Plan for Desegregation of Schools Submitted Feb
ruary 2, 1970 ............................................................ 726a
Exhibits annexed to Foregoing P lan .................. 744a
Transcript of February 2 and February 5, 1970,
Proceedings: page 43, line 5 through page 11, line
15; and page 137, line 1 through page 150, line
1....................................................................................... 749a
PAGE
V
Motion for Hearing on Plans for Desegregation of
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Schools, filed Feb
ruary 6, 1970 ............................................................. 817a
Order dated February 5, 1970 ..................................... 819a
Motion to Add Additional Parties Defendant and for
Further Relief, filed February 13, 1970 .............. 840a
Notification and Request for a Three-Judge Court,
filed February 20, 1970 ..... 845a
Defendants’ Tender of Evidence Nunc Pro Tunc and
Objections filed February 24, 1970 .......................... 848a
Affidavit of William C. Self Referred to in Forego
ing Tender of Evidence............................................. 850a
Affidavit of J. D. Morgan Referred to in Foregoing
Tender of Evidence ................................................... 853a
Board of Education Plan Referred to in Tender of
Evidence ...................................................................... 867a
PAGE
Volume III
Affidavit of Louis W. Alexander Referred to in Ten
der of Evidence ......................................................... 891a
Affidavit of Herman J. Hoose Referred to in Tender
of Evidence ......................................................... 894a
Affidavit of Robert L. Deaton Referred to in Tender
of Evidence ............................................................... 898a
VI
Order Adding Additional Parties Defendant, filed
February 25, 1970 ....................................................... 901a
Notice of Appeal, filed February 25, 1970 ................ 904a
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Add Additional Parties Defen
dant and for Further Relief, filed February 27,
1970 .............................................................................. 906a
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
and for Contempt, filed February 27, 1970 ............. 914a
Plaintiffs’ Request for Admission of Facts, filed Feb
ruary 27, 1970 ............................................................. 918a
Amendment, Correction or Clarification of Orders of
February 5, 1970, dated March 3, 1970 .................. 921a
Court of Appeals Order Granting Stay Order of
March 5, 1970 ............................................................. 922a
Order Suspending Superior Court Temporary Re
straining Order, entered by Judge Snepp, filed
March 6, 1970 ............................................................. 925a
Order of March 6, Directing Parties to Prepare and
File Additional Evidence by March 13, 1970, dated
March 6, 1970 ............................................................. 928a
Order Directing Parties to Submit Information with
Respect to Specific Inquiries of the Court, filed
March 6, 1970............................................................... 930a
PAGE
Deposition of John A. Finger, dated March 11, 1970 932a
vu
Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Request for Ad
missions dated March 13, 1970 ................................ 1011a
Defendants’ Submissions to Court in Response to
March 6, 1970, Order and Motion for Extension of
Time, tiled March 13, 1970 ........................ ............... 1014a
Exhibits Annexed to Foregoing Submissions .... 1015a
Affidavit, of Herman J. Hoose Referred to in Forego
ing Submissions ......................................................... 1038a
Defendants’ Submissions to Court in Response to
March 6, 1970, Order, filed March 17, 1970 .......... 1041a
Affidavit of William C. Self Referred to in Foregoing
Submissions ............................................................... 1042a
Affidavits of J. D. Morgan, Ralph Neill and W. H.
Harrison Referred to in Foregoing Submissions .. 1045a
Exhibits Annexed to Foregoing Affidavits ......... 1047a
Deposition of J. D. Morgan dated March 19, 1970 .... 1069a
Exhibit Annexed to Foregoing Affidavit............. 1188a
Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Supplemental
Exhibit of March 20, 1970, submitted March 21,
1970 .............................................................................. 1192a
Response to Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Exhibit of
March 20, 1970 ........................................................... 1193a
PAGE
Tabulation 1196a
V lll
Supplementary Findings of Fact dated March 21,
1970 .............................................................................. 1198a
Supplemental Memorandum dated March 21, 1970.... 1221a
Defendants’ Objections and Exceptions to Supple
mentary Findings of Fact of March 21, 1970, and
Motion for Modification and Clarification Thereof
dated March 25, 1970 ................................................. 1239a
Order dated March 25, 1970 .......................................... 1255a
Further Findings of Fact on Matters Raised by the
March 26, 1970, Motions of Defendants dated
April 3, 1970 ............................................................... 1259a
Opinions of Court of Appeals dated May 26, 1970 .... 1262a
Judgment of Court of Appeals .................................. 1304a
Order of Three-Judge District Court dated April 29,
1970 .......................................................................... 1305a
Order Granting Certiorari dated June 29, 1970 ....... 1320a
PAGE
465a
Supplemental Complaint
(Filed July 22, 1969)
I
This Supplemental Complaint is a proceeding for a tem
porary restraining order and a preliminary and permanent
injunction against the enforcement of the portions of North
Carolina General Statutes §115-176.1, (Chapter 1274 of the
Session Laws of the 1969 General Assembly of North Caro
lina, ratified on July 2, 1969, a copy of which is attached
hereto as Exhibit A ) which reads:
“ No student shall be assigned or compelled to attend
any school on account of race, creed, color or national
origin, or for the purpose of creating a balance or ratio
of race, religion or national origin. Involuntary buss
ing of students in contravention of this Article is pro
hibited, and public funds shall not be used for any
such bussing.”
In addition, plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the
statutory provisions complained of are unconstitutional on
their face and as applied.
II
A. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1343, this being a suit in equity authorized by 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 to redress the deprivation, under color of North
Carolina Law, of rights, privileges and immunities guar
anteed by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to
the Constitution of the United States.
B. Jurisdiction is further invoked under 28 U.S.C. §§
2281 and 2284, this being a suit for a temporary restraining
order, an interlocutory and permanent injunction restrain
466a
ing the enforcement, operation and execution of portions
of North Carolina General Statues §115-176.1 and requir
ing the convening of a three-judge Federal Court. Juris
diction is further invoked under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and
2202, this being a suit for a declaratory judgment declaring
the unconstitutionality of portions of North Carolina Gen
eral Statutes 115-176.1.
III
A. The plaintiffs bringing this Supplemental Complaint
are those plaintiffs who originally brought this action
styled James E. Swann, et al., v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Board of Education, Civil Action No. 1974, which was filed
on January 12, 1965.
B. This Supplemental Complaint, as the original com
plaint, is brought on behalf of the individual plaintiffs and
other black students and parents similarly situated, pur
suant to Rule 23 (a) and (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. There are common questions of law and fact
affecting the rights of such other black students, who are
and have been limited, classified, segregated or otherwise
discriminated against in ways which deprive or tend to
deprive them of equal educational opportunities because
of race or color. The members of the class are so numerous
as to make it impracticable to bring them all before the
Court. A common relief is sought and plaintiffs adequately
represent the interests of the class.
IV
The defendants in this action are:
(a) The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, the
original defendant in this case, and the individual members
Supplemental Complaint
467a
thereof heretofore added as defendants by order of the
Court dated June 4, 1969;
(b) The North Carolina State Board of Education, a
public body corporate of the State of North Carolina, which
is charged by the State Constitution and laws with the duty
and responsibility of the general supervision and admin
istration of the public schools and educational funds of the
State of North Carolina; and
(c) Dr. A. Craig Phillips, who is the elected State Super
intendent of Public Instruction of the State of North Caro
lina, the administrative head of the Public School System
of the State and by force of law, a member and the Secre
tary of the State Board of Education.
V
Plaintiffs initially commenced this action on January 12,
1965, (Civil Action No. 1974) against the Charlotte-Meck-
lenburg Board of Education seeking to obtain the elimina
tion of racial segregation in the public schools in Mecklen
burg County.
VI
On July 14, 1969, the Court entered an Order approving
a plan submitted by the Board for the desegregation of
the schools. The plaintiffs appealed and the decision was
affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit. (Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board
of Education, 369 F .2d------ (Fourth Circuit 1966).)
VII
A. On September 6, 1968, the plaintiffs moved the Court
for further relief contending that the Board was required
Supplemental Complaint
468a
to take further steps to disestablish the dual school system
in Mecklenburg1 County.
B. On April 23, 1969, the Court, following several days
of testimony heard in March, 1969, entered an Opinion
and Order Regarding the Desegregation of the Schools of
Charlotte and Mecklenburg County. The Court found that
the schools remained segregated, that the pupil assignment
system and the placement of the schools continued to
racially segregate the pupils, that the faculties had not
been adequately desegregated as previously directed by the
Court in 1965 and that the Board was to submit a plan
for the desegregation of the schools by May 15, 1969.
C. The Order directed the defendants to submit a plan
for the active and complete desegregation of the teachers
within the system to be effective in the 1969-70 school year
and that the plan should seek to apportion teachers to
each school in substantially the same ratio (3 to 1) as the
ratio of white teachers and black teachers in the system at
large.
D. The defendants were also directed to submit a plan
and timetable for the active and complete desegregation
of the pupils within the system to be predominantly effec
tive in the fall of 1969, and to be completed by the fall
of 1970.
E. The Board was directed to consider several methods
of desegregation which had been advanced by the plaintiffs,
including pairing of grades and schools; feeding elementary
schools into junior and senior high schools; combining
zones and free choice where each method proceeds logically
toward eliminating segregation; bussing and other trans
Supplemental Complaint
469a
portation; setting up large consolidated school units freely
crossing city and county lines to serve larger areas; and
to seek aid as may be available from State and Federal
agencies.
F. The Court thereafter upon request of defendant,
granted an extension of time until May 29, 1969, within
which to file its plan.
VIII
A. On May 15, 1969, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a
temporary restraining order seeking to restrain all school
construction pending approval by the Court of a school
construction plan designed to promote desegregation of the
schools.
B. The Board filed its plan on May 28, 1969, as required
by the Order of the Court.
C. On June 4, 1969, the Court entered orders setting a
date for hearing on the adequacy of the defendant’s plan
and set forth certain questions to which the parties were
to respond at the hearing. In addition, the Court ordered
that all members of the Board of Education be added as
parties-defendant.
D. On June 11, 1969, the plaintiffs filed objections to the
plan submitted by the defendant and moved for civil con
tempt.
E. On June 11, 1969, the defendants moved to set aside
the Order of the Court adding the individual Board mem
bers as defendants. On June 12, 1969, a similar motion
was filed on behalf of the defendant, William E. Poe. The
plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to these motions.
Supplemental Complaint
470a
F. A hearing was held on the adequacy of the plan and
on all pending motions on June 16, 17, and 18, 1969.
IX
A. The Court entered an Opinion and Order dated June
20, 1969, which was supplemented by additional findings
on June 24, 1969.
B. The Court denied the motions of the individual Board
members to dismiss and denied plaintiffs’ motion for con
tempt.
C. The Court found that a desegregation plan had been
submitted to the Board by the Superintendent, but that
the Board struck out virtually all the effective provisions
of the plan; that the plan filed as to pupils and teachers
was nearly identical to the one previously found racially
discriminatory; that the attendance areas of several of the
schools were racially gerrymandered; that the defendants
had not met their burden to show that the school construc
tion plan would promote the desegregation of the schools.
D. The Court found that desegregation of schools is
something that has to be accomplished independent of
freedom of transfer.
E. The Court ordered the defendants to prepare and
submit by August 4, 1969, a positive plan for the desegre
gation of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School System as
originally directed on April 23, 1969.
Supplemental Complaint
471a
Supplemental Complaint
X
A. The April 23, 1969 Order of the Court contained the
following findings by the Court:
“ The ‘Neighborhood School’ Theory . . .
The neighborhood school concept may well be invalid
for school administrative purposes even without regard
for racial problems. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg School
Board, today, for example, is transporting 23,000 stu
dents on school busses. First graders may be the larg
est group so transported. I f a first grader lives far
enough from school to ride a bus, the school is not
part of his neighborhood.
When racial segregation was required by law, nobody
evoked the neighborhood school theory to permit black
children to attend white schools close to where they
lived. The values of the theory somehow were repudi
ated by the 1955 North Carolina General Assembly and
still stands repudiated in the Pupil Assignment Act
of 1955-56, which is quoted above. The neighborhood
school theory has no standing to override the Consti
tution.
Bussing. Under North Carolina General Statutes,
§§115-180, the Board is expressly authorized to oper
ate school busses to transport school children. The
state pays bus expenses only for rural children and
for some who have been annexed into the city in
recent years. This apparent discrimination against
city dwellers is reportedly under attack in another
Court. This Board already transports 23,000 students
to school every day out of the 32,000 who live in the
472a
area presently eligible for bus service. The present
cost of school bussing is about $19 for bus operation
plus the cost of the bus which is $4,500 per bus should
not exceed $20 per pupil a year. In other words, it
costs about $40 a year per pupil to provide school bus
transportation, out of total per pupil school operat
ing costs of about $540. The income of many black
families is so low they are not able to pay for the
cost of transportation out of segregated schools to
other schools of their choice.
The Board has the power to use school busses for all
legitimate school purposes. Busses for many years
were used to operate segregated schools. There is no
reason except emotion (and I confess to having felt
my own share of emotion on this subject in all the
years before I studied the facts) why school busses
can not be used by the Board to provide the flexibility
and economy necessary to desegregate the schools.
Busses are cheaper than new buildings; using them
might even keep property taxes down.”
B. The Court found that 95% of the blacks were con
centrated in the western portion of the City of Charlotte
and that official action taken on schools, zoning and plan
ning had contributed to this concentration.
XI
A. On May 7, 1969, a member of the Mecklenburg County
House delegation of the North Carolina General Assembly
introduced a bill (House Bill 990, a copy of which is at
tached hereto as Exhibit B) entitled “Ax A ct to protect
THE NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOL SYSTEM AND TO PROTECT THE IN
VOLUNTARY BUSSING OP PUPILS OUTSIDE THE DISTRICT IN
Supplemental Complaint
473a
w h ic h THEY beside .” The Bill, as subsequently amended,
was ratified on July 2, 1969 (See Exhibit A ), and is now
codified as North Carolina General Statutes §115-176.1.
B. The ratified bill, which has the same title as the bill
introduced on May 7, 1969, provides:
1. Students cannot be excluded from any school on
account of race.
2. Students shall be assigned to the school within the
geographical district where the pupil resides, except
for children attending special schools or except for
any reason the local board deems sufficient.
3. “No student shall be assigned or compelled to at
tend any school on account of race, creed, color or
national origin, or for the purpose of creating a bal
ance or ratio of race, religion or national origins. In
voluntary bussing of students in contravention of this
article is prohibited, and public funds shall not be used
for any such bussing.”
4. The article does not apply in temporary situations
of unsuitability of schools or over-crowding.
5. Nor does it apply to “any assignment made pursu
ant to a choice made by any pupil . . . pursuant to
. . . a freedom of choice plan voluntarily adopted by
the Board.”
xn
The defendants State Board of Education and State
Superintendent of Public Instruction are responsible to
insure that the prohibitions against involuntary student
assignments and bussing contained in North Carolina Gen
eral Statutes §115-176.1 are complied with in the Charlotte-
Supplemental Complaint
474a
Mecklenburg School System and other administrative units
throughout the State and that public funds over which they
have control not be used for any such bussing.
X III
Involuntary bussing and pupil assignments which are
prohibited by North Carolina General Statutes §115-176.1
are necessary devices to carry out the existing orders of
this and other Federal Courts in North Carolina and to
comply with the duties imposed by the Constitution upon
defendants herein and other school officials in North Caro
lina. The purpose, motive and effect of provisions of North
Carolina General Statutes §115-176.1 complained of herein,
is to forbid these defendants and other school officials in
North Carolina from complying with existing lawful orders
of this and other Federal Courts and to forbid them from
complying with the requirements of the Thirteenth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution in the State
of North Carolina. The provisions thus violate the con
stitutional rights of plaintiffs and other similarly situated.
XIV
Plaintiffs and those similarly situated and affected, on
whose behalf this action is brought are suffering irreparable
injury and will suffer irreparable injury in the future by
reason of the provisions of the Statute complained of
herein. They have no plain, adequate or complete remedy
to redress the wrongs complained of herein other than this
action for a declaratory judgment and injunction. Any
other remedy to which plaintiffs could be remitted would
be attended by such uncertainties and delays as to deny
substantial relief, would involve a multiplicity of suits
and would cause further irreparable injury.
Supplemental Complaint
475a
W h erefo re , plaintiffs respectfully pray that, upon the
filing of this Supplemental Complaint, the Court:
1. Issue a temporary restraining order restraining the
defendants, their agents and other persons acting in con
cert with them from giving consideration or effect to and
from enforcing, administering, or applying the provisions
contained in North Carolina General Statutes §115-176.1
complained of herein;
2. Convene a three-judge District Court as required by
28 U.S.C. §§2281 and 2284;
3. Advance this cause on the docket and order a speedy
hearing of this action according to law and upon such
hearing:
a. Enter judgment declaring the statutory provisions
complained of herein void as repugnant to the Thir
teenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitu
tion of the United States;
b. Enter a preliminary and permanent injunction re
straining all defendants, their agents and other per
sons acting in concert with them from giving consider
ation or effect to and from enforcing, administering,
or applying the complained provisions of North Caro
lina General Statutes §115-176.1;
c. Allow plaintiffs their costs herein, reasonable attor
neys fees and such other and further relief as to the
Court may appear equitable and just.
Supplemental Complaint
476a
Supplemental Complaint
Respectfully submitted,
/ s / A dam S te in
C onrad 0 . P earson
203% East Chapel Hill Street
Durham, North. Carolina
C h a m b e r s , S te in F erguson & L a n n in g
216 West Tenth Street
Charlotte, North Carolina
J a c k G reenburg
J am e s M. N a b r it , III
N o rm an C h a c h k in
10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
477a
Exhibit A Attached to Foregoing
Supplemental Complaint
NORTH CAROLINA
GENERAL ASSEMBLY
1969 SESSION
RATIFIED BILL
C h a pt e r 1274
H ouse B il l 990
A n A ct to protect t h e neigh borhood school system and
to pr o h ib it t h e in v o l u n t a r y bu ssing of p u p il s outside
THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THEY RESIDE.
The General Assembly of North Carolina do enact:
Section 1. There is hereby created a new Section of
Chapter 115 of the General Statutes to be codified as G.S.
115-176.1 and to read as follows:
“ G.S. 115-176.1. Assignment of pupils based on race,
creed, color or national origin prohibited. No person shall
be refused admission into or be excluded from any public
school in this State on account of race, creed, color or na
tional origin. No school attendance district or zone shall
be drawn for the purpose of segregating persons of vari
ous races, creeds, colors or national origins from the com
munity.
Where administrative units have divided the geographic
area into attendance districts or zones, pupils shall be as
signed to schools within such attendance districts; pro
vided, however, that the board of education of an admin
istrative unit may assign any pupil to a school outside of
such attendance district or zone in order that such pupil
478a
may attend a school of a specialized kind including but not
limited to a vocational school or school operated for, or
operating programs for, pupils mentally or physically
handicapped, or for any other reason which the board
of education in its sole discretion deems sufficient. No
student shall be assigned or compelled to attend any school
on account of race, creed, color or national origin, or for
the purpose of creating a balance or ratio of race, religion
or national origins. Involuntary bussing of students in
contravention of this Article is prohibited, and public funds
shall not be used for any such bussing.
The provisions of this Article shall not apply to a tempo
rary assignment due to the unsuitability of a school for its
intended purpose nor to any assignment or transfer nec
essitated by overcrowded conditions or other circumstances
which, in the sole discretion of the School Board, require
assignment or reassignment.
The provisions of this Article shall not apply to an ap
plication for the assignment or re-assignment by the parent,
guardian or person standing in loco parentis of any pupil
or to any assignment made pursuant to a choice made by
any pupil who is eligible to make such choice pursuant to
the provisions of a freedom of choice plan voluntarily
adopted by the board of education of an administrative
unit.”
Sec. 2. All laws and clauses of laws in conflict with this
Act are hereby repealed.
Sec. 3. If part of the Act is held to be in violation of
the Constitution of the United States or North Carolina,
such part shall be severed and the remainder shall remain
in full force and effect.
Exhibit A Attached to Foregoing Supplemental Complaint
479a
Sec. 4. This Act shall be in full force and effect upon its
ratification.
2 House Bill 990
In the General Assembly read three times and ratified,
this the 2nd day of July, 1969.
H. P. T aylo r , Jr.
H. P. Taylor, Jr.
President of the Senate.
Philip P. Godwin
Philip P. Godwin
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Exhibit A Attached to Foregoing Supplemental Complaint
House Bill 990 3
480a
(Filed July 29, 1969)
Pursuant to the order of the Court dated June , 1969,
the Board of Education proposed to amend and modify the
amended plan submitted to the Court on May 28, 1969, by
adding thereto the following:
Policy Statement
Equal opportunity to develop all capabilities to the full
est potential is the right of every individual in a democratic
society. Since this right is a basic precept of education,
it becomes the responsibility of those who make educational
decisions to see that equality of opportunity is provided
for all.
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education affirms
the long held principle that equality of educational oppor
tunity for all children without regard to socio-economic,
ethnic, religious, or racial differences is essential to the
continued growth of our community and is basic to a free
and open American democratic society.
The Board further believes that equality of educational
opportunity can best be provided by attempting to free
individuals from the burden and handicaps imposed by
varied circumstances, backgrounds, and environmental dif
ferences. To this end the Board has devised an educational
program which will to the greatest extent possible, provide
for the equal development of all students regardless of
such burdens and handicaps.
In this light, the Board of Education firmly believes fur
ther desegregation of students and professional staff will
contribute to the educational and social development of all
children. Based on its own experience and the experiences
of other school systems, the Board is further of the belief
Amendment to Plan for Further
Desegregation of Schools
481a
that desegregation of students should be coordinated with
desegregation of teachers, principals, and staff members,
both of which should be accomplished at the earliest pos
sible date.
The section which follow outline the immediate plans of
the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education for accom
plishing this goal.
Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation of Schools
Close Schools and Temporarily Re-assign Pupils
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg School System has certain
schools which are unsuitable for the continuation of an edu
cational program because of the obsolescence of the physi
cal plant and location, declining enrollment and other fac
tors. The Board of Education will close the following
schools and temporarily reassign students previously as
signed to such schools to other schools more suitable for
the quality of education of the students involved. Trans
portation will be provided pupils who are reassigned. The
schools to be closed are:
Elementary Schools
Alexander Street
Bethune
Fairview
Zeb Vance
Isabella Wyche
Projected Enrollment
260
195
330
235
215
Junior High Schools
Irwin Avenue
Senior High Schools
Metropolitan
1,235
Projected Enrollment
630
Projected Enrollment
1,135
482a
The schools to which the 1,235 pupils from the five closed
elementary schools will be reassigned are as follows:
1.
Elementary
Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation of Schools
Receiving School
Number
Reassigned
Projected Enrollment
%White Negro Negro
Ashley Park 75 575 75 11
Beverly Woods 75 550 75 12
Huntingtowne Farms 60 570 70 11
Idlewild 90 573 92 14
Lansdowne 75 770 75 9
Merry Oaks 45 460 45 9
Olde Providence 90 535 100 16
Park Road 60 540 60 10
Sharon 100 425 100 19
Myers Park 50 437 73 14
Albemarle Road 50 500 50 9
Briarwood 45 670 50 7
Selwyn 75 615 80 12
Shamrock Gardens 60 535 60 10
Westerly Hills 75 605 75 11
Windsor Park 75 770 75 9
Winterfield 75 715 75 9
1,175* 9,845 1,230
* The differential between students from the closed schools and
the number of students reassigned will be filled by special educa
tion students reassigned to nearby schools.
Nine of the above schools have sufficient capacity to accommo
date the students assigned. The capacity at eight schools would
have to be increased by the use of mobile units. These mobile units
would be transferred from three schools which are presently re
ceiving additions: Matthews— 2, Statesville Road— 5, and Tryon
483a
2.
Junior High
Irwin Avenue Junior High students would be reassigned
on the basis of the elementary schools they attended to
schools having a low percentage of Negro enrollment. This
reassignment would be as follows:
Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation of Schools
Projected Enrollment
Receiving School
Number
Reassigned White Negro
%
Negro
Smith 90 1470 90 6
McClintock 150 1325 200 13
Eastway 180 1360 183 12
Wilson 75 1140 135 11
Alexander Graham 135 1045 144 12
630 6,340 752
Students whose parents object to involuntary transporta
tion at Irwin Avenue Junior High School will be instructed
Hills— 7. By reopening Woodland Elementary School and housing
the fifth and sixth graders from Paw Creek at this facility, an
additional eight mobile units may be picked up from Paw Creek
for use in the above schools.
The Board is aware of the fact that some parents may oppose
the transportation of their children to distant schools which have
the capacity to receive them. Should this occur, the following
action will be taken: A program will be operated in the Zeb Vance
building for elementary students from the former Zeb Vance,
Isabella Wyehe, and Bethune areas on a first come first served
basis for students whose parents object to involuntary transporta
tion. Students from Pairview and Alexander Street whose parents
object to involuntary transportation will be instructed to enroll
in the school nearest their place of residence. Zeb Vance and such
nearby schools upon reaching a maximum capacity will not be
permitted to receive additional students and such students will be
assigned as previously reassigned.
484a
to enroll their students in the junior high school nearest
their place of residence as long as space is available and
will be reassigned on a first come first served basis. If
space is not available, such students will attend the junior
high school to which they were previously reassigned.
3.
Senior High
The Metropolitan Senior High School attendance area
would be eliminated and the area divided among the sur
rounding senior high schools. Description of the revised
attendance areas are as follows:
East Mecklenburg—Begin at the intersection of Central
Avenue and Briar Creek Road. Proceed westward on Cen
tral Avenue to McDowell Street. Proceed south on Mc
Dowell to East Fourth Street. Proceed eastward on East
Fourth Street and Randolph Road to Briar Creek.
Myers Park—Begin at Randolph Road on Briar Creek.
Proceed west on Randolph Road-East Fourth Street to
McDowell Street. Proceed north on McDowell to East
Eleventh Street. Proceed west on Eleventh Street to North
Tryon. Proceed south on Tryon Street to the intersection
of South Tryon and Independence Boulevard.
Garinger—Begin at the intersection of Central Avenue
at Briar Creek Road. Proceed westward on Central Ave
nue to the intersection of Central and McDowell Street.
Proceed north on McDowell to East Eleventh Street and
west on Eleventh Street to North Tryon, north on Tryon
to Dalton Avenue. West on Dalton to North Graham.
Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation of Schools
485a
Harding—Begin at the intersection of Summit Avenue
and South Tryon Street. Proceed north on South Tryon
to West Trade. Proceed west on West Trade to Irwin
Creek.
West Charlotte—Begin at the intersection of North Gra
ham and Dalton Avenue. Proceed southeast on Dalton Av
enue to North Tryon. Proceed south on North Tryon to
the intersection of Tryon and Trade. Proceed west on West
Trade to Irwin Creek.
South Mecklenburg—Begin at the intersection of South
Boulevard and Scaleybark Road. Proceed north on South
Boulevard and Camden Road to the intersection of South
Tryon. Proceed southwest on South Tryon in a line to
connect with Griffith Street. From Griffith Street, proceed
in a line south to Nations Ford Road and the present South
boundary. Continue southward on the present boundary.
Metropolitan Senior High School students would be re-
Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation of Schools
assigned in this manner
Receiving School
Number
Reassigned
Projected Enrollment
%
White Negro Negro
Harding 240 831 409 33
West Charlotte 185 0 1660 100
Garinger 85 2350 250 9
East Mecklenburg 250 2100 280 12
Myers Park 200 1802 308 15
South Mecklenburg 175 2084 231 10
1135 9167 3138
486a
Transfer Some Students From All Or
Predominantly Negro Schools To
All Or Predominantly White Schools
The Board of Education has determined that the follow
ing schools will experience substantial overcrowding dur
ing the 1969-70 school year. The Board of Education there
fore propses to reassign temporarily a portion of such
students as follows:
Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation of Schools
Schools
Double Oaks
Amay James
Lincoln Heights
University Park
Barringer
Villa Heights
Lakeview
Wilmore
Number Reassigned
110
225
140
140
280
225
50
75
1245
Transportation for these 1245 pupils will be provided.
The facilities and other factors of the following schools
would provide more desirable educational conditions, and,
therefore, such students would be reassigned to receiving
schools as follows: Cotswold, Sedgfield, Thomasboro, Chan
tilly, Devonshire, Enderly Park, Hidden Valley, Midwood,
Montclaire, Oakhurst, Pinewood, Rama Road, Starmount,
Steele Creek.
Facilities, student body growth and other factors make
it impossible to determine at this time the precise allocation
of such reassigned students to the receiving schools.
487a
Restructure Of Attendance Lines
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education has con
ducted a preliminary review of school attendance lines.
This review has revealed that it is possible to further pupil
desegregation by a restructuring of attendance areas. In
deed, this restructure may well be the best long-range
solution to the further desegregation of the schools.
Thus, the Board intends to undertake the extensive study
immediately. The study will require approximately six
months to complete. The procedure which the Board in
tends to use is based upon the concept of systems analysis
assisted by computer calculations.
The results of the study will be incorporated in the pupil
assignment plans for the 1970-71 school year.
Review Of Construction Program
The Board of Education will institute a comprehensive
review of the entire school construction program. The ob
jective of this study will be to locate, construct, and organ
ize school facilities in such a way as to promote desegrega
tion to the extent possible. The study of the current
construction program will be completed by February 15,
1970, and a more general long range study will be completed
by June, 1970.
In addition to the study of the building program itself,
the Board will point out to the Planning Board, the Housing
Authority, the Urban Redevelopment Commission, real
estate interests, local government officials and other inter
ested parties the extent to which they share the responsi
bility for bringing about desegregation in this community.
This study will also clarify for the community additional
building funds which will be needed by the school system
in the immediate future.
Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation of Schools
488a
While the total review of the building program is under
way, the Board will conduct specific studies on all sites
which it may be necessary to purchase and as each construc
tion project which it may be necessary to begin before the
study is completed. The purpose of each specific review is
to be assured that each site or project is so developed as
to produce the greatest degree of desegregation possible.
Support Programs
It is the opinion of this Board of Education that students
and staff members called upon to make adaptations to
change should be given support and reinforcement. To
this end, the Board plans to initiate, within the funds avail
able, a program of compensatory education for certain
students. This program, to be initiated during the 1969-70
school year, will be aimed at assisting those pupils who are
behind their classmates in academic achievement.
Furthermore, the Board is well aware that an increase
in faculty desegregation will require a more extensive pro
gram of in-service education aimed at better teacher orien
tation and adjustment. To meet this need, the Board has
instructed the central office staff to look carefully at the
resources available for the task, the obstacles to be over
come, and the specific steps to be taken to see that this task
is accomplished during the 1969-70 school year. The objec
tives of such a program would be to (1) create a willingness
to study and change one’s own behavior and develop the
ability to do this more scientifically, (2) improve the
teacher’s knowledge of the environment, background, and
special learning problems of students in a desegregated
setting, and (3) improve the teacher’s professional compe
tence—subject matter, knowledge, teaching skills, and class
room performance.
Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation of Schools
489a
Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation of Schools
Grouping Of Schools For Student Exchange
Many schools have experienced significant desegregation
moves the past several years. The Board of Education
feels that all segments win the school community should
share in the tremendous changes encountered in further
moves toward desegregation. The Board has sought in the
preceding steps to involve large numbers of schools which
to this point have been little affected. For the remaining
schools which have not been so involved, the Board plans
to implement during the 1969-70 school year student ex
change programs. Predominantly Negro schools will be
paired as matched with predominantly white schools and
intensive efforts to produce student contacts through class
projects, intramural games, field days, the exchange of stu
dents and similar activities will be initiated.
I, William C. Self, Superintendent of the Charlotte-
Mecklenburg school system and Secretary to its Board of
Education, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true,
perfect and correct copy of the Amendment to the Plan for
Further Desegregation of the Mecklenburg School Unit as
adopted by the Board of Education on the 22nd day of July,
1969, and spread upon its minutes.
490a
Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation of Schools
This the 29th day of July, 1969.
/ s / W illiam C. Sell
William C. Self
Secretary to the Board
Respectfully submitted,
/ s / Brock Barkley
Brock Barkley
Law Building
Charlotte, North Carolina
/ s / W illiam J. W aggoner
William J. Waggoner
1100 Barringer Office Tower
Charlotte, North Carolina
Attorneys for Defendant,
Charlott e-Mecklenburg
Board of Education
491a
Report in Connection With Amendment to Plan
for Further Desegregation
(Filed August 4, 1969)
On July 29, 1969, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of
Education submitted its amendment to plan for further
desegregation of the schools of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg
School Administrative Unit as approved by the Board of
Education by official action on July 22, 1969.
The following information is submitted for the informa
tion of the Court in consideration of the plan.
Following entry of the order of the Court on June 20,
1969, the Board met, reviewed the order and appointed a
subcommittee of five members to investigate, prepare and
recommend to the full Board a possible plan for further de
segregation of the schools served by the system. The com
mittee met on frequent occasions and several of its mem
bers, along with staff members, traveled to Syracuse and
Buffalo, New York, to review desegregation procedures
employed by those systems. All plans of desegregation sub
mitted in reported cases subsequent to the New Kent County
decision were reviewed in search of ideas for possible
further desegregation within the system. The staff inde
pendently and in conjunction with the committee held nu
merous meetings and explored various alternatives. Subse
quently, on July 22, the committee made its formal
recommendation to the Board. The Board of Education
adopted the recommendation for amendment to its plan for
further desegregation of the schools in the system which
was filed herein.
The Board of Education expected to file the plan of de
segregation and this report contemporaneously and se
lected the target date of July 29 for the filing date. By
492a
reason of difficulty in correlating statistical information, it
was determined that the plan of desegregation should be
filed as scheduled to prevent further public speculation
concerning its contents and that the report should be filed
as soon as the information was reasonably available. Ac
cordingly, this report is submitted for the information of
the Court for consideration in conjunction with the plan
of desegregation.
It is most important that at all times the plan of de
segregation be considered in light of the policy statement
which commits the Board to a course of desegregation to
be accomplished at the earliest possible date.
Admittedly, the first two provisions of the amendment
to the plan are interim measures to be utilized during the
1969-1970 school term. In the past, and with Court ap
proval, the Board of Education has closed a substantial
number of schools and consistent with its policy of phasing
out obsolete schools, the plan provides for closing five ele
mentary schools, one junior high and one senior high school.
All students will be reassigned for one school term pending
development of a comprehensive restructuring of attend
ance lines and review of the construction program, which
should result in substantial further desegregation.
A similar situation will exist with reference to transfers
from overcrowded schools. On restructuring attendance
zones, the overcrowding should be remedied for the school
term beginning 1970-1971.
The factual data concerning desegregation in the schools
for the year 1969-1970 discloses that 13,000 Negro students
out of 24,843 will be assigned to schools in which the white
student enrollment is ten per cent or more, which percent
age was acknowledged by plaintiff’s experts to constitute
Report in Connection With Amendment to Plan for
Further Desegregation
493a
a desegregated school. Thus, a predominance of the Negro
students in the system will be assigned to desegregated
schools this year. At this point, the Board cannot specify
the number of students or parents who may object to as
signment outside of their former attendance area. Exhibit
“A ” relating to projected racial composition of pupils and
faculty for statistical purposes assumes complete acceptance
of reassignment. It is hoped the communities affected will
respond in such manner as to assure success of this interim
measure.
Prior to reaching the decision to transfer Negro students
from their neighborhoods on a temporary basis, the Board
of Education found from studies of the school systems in
Syracuse and Buffalo, New York, one-way bussing of Ne
groes was generally acceptable to all segments of those
communities.
With reference to transportation of students from closed
schools including the junior and senior high schools, Page
2 of the Plan provides: “Transportation will be provided
pupils who are reassigned.” Students formerly attending
Irwin Avenue Junior High and Metropolitan Senior High
will be advised prior to the opening of schools of the as
sembly points for transportation to their new assignment.
At the prior hearing in this matter, the Board of Educa
tion advised the Court that transfers from majority to
minority racial situations amounts to 332 students, all of
whom are black. By reason of the closing of schools, this
number will be reduced to 227 as 105 students, though
attending the school of their choice, will not be leaving a
school in which their race is in the minority by reason of
reassignment. Nevertheless, transportation will be fur
nished for the 105 students.
Report in Connection With Amendment to Plan for
Further Desegregation
494a
Attached marked Exhibit “B” is a summary of the ac
tions taken with respect to free choice of transfer requests
processed during the period expiring June 15, 1969. As
signment will be made in conformity with the requests
granted.
In its order of June 20, 1969, the Court disapproved the
provision of the plan relating to disqualification of athletes
on transferring from one school to another. The notice at
tached as Exhibit “ C” will be distributed to all coaches at
senior high schools for distribution to all junior and senior
varsity athletes. To assure that all freshman athletes enter
ing high school will receive notice, junior high school
coaches will distribute the notice to all former ninth grade
junior and senior varsity athletes. Attempts will be made
to obtain newspaper publicity.
The most significant of the provisions of the Plan relates
to the restructuring of attendance lines. The Board’s policy
in the past has been to establish school lines on a non-racial
basis. It is most significant that the Board will undertake
to restructure attendance lines for the purpose of achieving
further pupil desegregation. Restructuring of attendance
lines coupled with a revision of the policy on building
schools to promote desegregation should offer the most
beneficial and least disruptive method for achieving fur
ther desegregation and indeed may offer the best long range
solution to the problem.
As an aid in restructuring attendance lines, the Board
will utilize a new concept in desegregation. A computer as
sisted systems analysis approach was suggested to the
Board by an interested citizen. He presented a manually
prepared illustration which admittedly did not consider all
Report in Connection With Amendment to Plan for
Further Desegregation
495a
of the options available to a computer. However, it indi
cates that dramatic changes in racial composition of many
schools may be achieved.
The Board recognizes that the systems analysis approach
is merely one of the aids to assist in restructuring of school
attendance lines. However, it will provide extremely help
ful information in conforming school lines to natural boun
daries which will promote further desegregation. It is ex
pected that this approach will provide even more dramatic
desegregation in junior and senior high schools which have
larger attendance areas.
Attached marked Exhibit “D” , the Court will find the
revised building construction program dated July 30, 1969,
which reflects the latest revision of this program and is
based upon the same criteria employed in formulating prior
programs. Attention is called to the fact that it does not
reflect any implementation of the Board’s new policy of
promoting further desegregation. Upon approval of the
plan, immediate review of the entire construction program
will be initiated to promote the stated Board policy.
Attached marked Exhibit “E” is a copy of the statement
made by Dr. Self in making presentation of this plan to
the news media.
With reference to faculty desegregation, substantial
changes have been made as indicated on Exhibit “A” . With
few exceptions, schools having black or nearly all black
students have white faculties ranging from 40 to 50 per cent
of the faculty of such schools. All other schools have sig
nificant desegregation. By the school term 1970-1971, fur
ther faculty desegregation will be experienced. With re
spect to the seven closed schools, all members of the
Report in Connection With Amendment to Plan for
Further Desegregation
496a
teaching faculty have been reassigned within the school
system. Three of the principals of the closed schools will
move to new principalships, two of which will be in pre
dominantly white schools. Four of the principals have
been assigned to positions which have equal or greater
responsibility on the central staff of the school system.
Attached marked Exhibit “F” reflects the new assignments
of such principals.
This the 4th day of August, 1969.
Respectfully submitted,
/ s / Brock Barkley
Brock Barkley
Law Building
Charlotte, North Carolina
/ s / W illiam J. W aggoner
William J. Waggoner
1100 Barringer Office Tower
Charlotte, North Carolina
Attorneys for Defendant
Report in Connection With Amendment to Plan for
Further Desegregation
497a
State of North Carolina
County of Mecklenburg
Dr. William C. Self, of lawful age, being first duly sworn,
on his oath states that he is the Superintendent of Defen
dant named in the above and foregoing matter and that
the facts stated herein are true according to his best knowl
edge and belief.
/ s / W illiam C. Self
Dr. William C. Self
Sworn and subscribed to before me
this 4th day of August, 1969.
/ s / Faye Jalley
Notary Public
My commission expires : 3-27-71
Report in Connection With Amendment to Plan for
Further Desegregation
The C harlotte-M ecklenburg Schools
COMPARISON OF PUPILS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFFING BY RACE
October 1, 1963 -6 9 and 1 969 -7 0 (Estim ated)
______________P u pils __________ ________ _ _
1 968 -6 9 1 9 6 9 -7 0 ,E s t . 1968 -6 3 1 9 6 9 -7 0 ,E sti
-,tnry B % W B % VJ B 'A W B % W
B (other) B (other) B (oth er) B (othe
Albemarle Rd. 4 PL 4 99 * ri 3 107*. 502 6 35.1.13 6 3 0 7. 14
Alexander S treet 2 57 iou"|. C losed 11 lO0»|. C losocj
Allenbrook 50 109.452 55 U*L 465 2 lol 18 5 a.7 °lo 16
Avslilev Park 0% 553 *75 1X7. 57 5 2 71. 20 6 S 3 7. 2 0
Bain 25 3*1.699 25 37. 7 35 1 37„ 23 5 17 7* 2 5
B arringer 66S m i 3 i 500 707. 55 13 417.18 14 M il. 18
3 e r r y h i l1 119 151.605 100 111. 715 2 67.32 6 \t>-L 27
Bcil.hu me 223 111* 3 Ci osed 11 1 00 l1 C. Closed
B everly Woods 07.286 *75 111- 550 1 77*12 6 i7 7 . 16
B i l l i n g s v i l le 619ico*i. 2 605 1 oo 7. 25 too7. 15 L07. 10
Briarwood 8 17.640 *55 vio 66 5 3 1X1* 22 6 i l l . 2 2
Bruns 740 111- 4 793 10O7o 2 26 137. 2 21 707. 9 |
C h a n tilly 2 07,491 *4 2 <27. 503 1 51., 21 4 to Id 17
C lear Creek 5310 .225 60 177. 260 1 % % 12 3 i 3 ‘/u 10
C ollinsw rod 72 137*490 70 13-7o 510 1 51. 21 4 1 77o IS
C orn eliu s 2 39 i n .252 230 h$7* 25 0 7 33114 5 a 67* ].4
Cot swold 11 1*1.567 * 75 11-1. 5-! 5 1 57. 21 4 117. 18
Davidson 101 -357.186 100 367* 1 99 1 3 7* 11 2 151. 11
Marie Davis 7 05 'oo*|c 695 100 7. 29 loo*U 14 50% 14
D erita 16 5 137*7 28 140 lb7o 720 3 77. 32 6 I1L 29
Devon .shire t'L 389 *110 11 clo 935 4 101. 37 7 1 71. 34
D .i Iwo r t h 223 HL3 55 225 431 295 4 157*22 6 W o 19-
Double Oaks 900 loo*(. 700 1007* 32 icc 7. 19 It 11. 12
Druid H i l l s 504 71-1* 3 512 77 % 3 20 \oc n-i 12 60*6 8
Eastover 49 Si. 580 50 S I 570 1 7 7. 24 4 l ve';o / J
ill j zaheth 270 531194 310 L-VU 150 2 77. 21 4 111* 17
Enderly Park 2 11. 374 * 57 1 b7o 15 3 111. 13
Fairview 36 3 |oo*i. Closed IS loo 7 c Closed
F ir s t Ward 749 loolc 825 lOÔ /u 30 SOO *io 16 S i l . 15
Hickory Grove SO 157-5 31 80 l*H. 505 1 47* 2 3 ' 4 177. 19
Does not include sta i i: as signed tn more than one school pe r IIEW reqj
k i s n earest whole per cent that fj i s o f t o t a l
* JV, 1 969 -7 0 as increased by sch ools which are clo sed
* Durin j 196 > -70 as increased to r e l ie v e overcrowded sch ools
(which are underlined)
(vice)
2
499a
COMPARISON OF PUPILS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFFING !)V r a c k
(Continued)
_________________ P u p i I.;;_______ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ________S l . i U _
196H-69 1969-70,EiH . 1.96'<-69 IOOm -To" ^ .
'•Momenta ry 13 % W B
B (other)
11//o
B
w
(other)
B % W
B (other
B
)
%
B
w
(oth'
Hidden V a lle y o% 977 * 140 \x% 1 025 2 5% 35 7 111. 34
Highland 47 13% 324 7 0 19 1. 305 1 TU 14 2 137. 14
Hoskins IB LI. 261 25 to Ho 2 35 2 t h i l l 2 111. 10
H u n tersv ille 162 ao.1560 16 5 037: 560 2 17. 2 5 5 111. 22
Huntingtowne Farms 7 11. 695 *67 109. 57 3 1 49. 26 5 199. 21
Id lew ild 2 01521 * 0 ?. \ 4-aJo 57 3 1 11. 22 6 331,, 20
Amay James 4 77 l e d 1 300 Ico*!. 19 »oc*h 13 l»59. 7
Lakeview 269 151:147 34 5 %4-lc> fj 5 14 ■117. 5 12 uoi. e
Lansdowr.e o1o75S *75 9 l . 770 1 3 To 30 6 i9i. 27
Lincoln H eights 817 icol. 2 62 5 lool. 30 lot Ho 16 551. ] 3
Long Creek 250 3 5 4 66 2 5 5 35*/. 4 00 2 19. 26 5 15 V. 23
Matthews 93 111. 742 95 H°lo 765 . ]. 3% 32 6 199. 26
Merry Oaks 0*1. 469 * 4 5 9 % 4 60 1 51. 19 4 199. 17
Midwood 1 C*j. 522 *65 11 1„ 505 2 31. 21 4 111. 19
M ontclaire Ok 722 *0 5 730 1 4 9. 27 5 IH 23
Myers Park 23 Hi. 54 3 *70 137. 4-55 1 41... 2 3 4 H7. 19
Nations Ford 63 |Cj*I» 5 B 5 65 ■ 97. 660 1 4-7. 25 5 Ill: 22
Newel 1 7 3 15*1.4 23 60 11*1. 48 5 1 5 % 18 4 00*1. 15
Oakdale 7 2 13-1430 70 ia.‘7. 505 1 51. 21 4 11*1. 17
Oakliurst 2 01. 615 *53 647 1 4 7. 2 3 4 licit 21
Oaklawn 650 iooi. .570 10*1. 25 931. 2 11 4Vic 12
Olde Providence 1011: 4 34 *100 lb6lc 535 1 ill,. 17 6 3,41. 19
Park Road C% 551 *60 540 1 51. 21 7 301. 16
Paw Creek 63 Tit B61 . 40 lei. 707 1 37. 31 6 IV). 28
P in e v ille 168 311.36 3 170 31*!. 330 1 5*1. 21 4 111. 19
Piiiewood 0*1. 7 07 *120 1*1*1 735 1 S I. 26 5 197. 22
Plaza Road 99 191.409 115 13'/. 375 1 5'(. 21 4 111. 17
Rama Road 2 O'i-777 * p, 2 91. 790 2. 17. 27 5 ill . 24
Sed gefield 7 11. 545 * 7 0 11*1. 570 2 9*1. 20 4 111. 18
Selwyn 5 |1, 598 *70 in . 6.17 1 4 1 .2 2 5 19*1. 21
Shamrock Gardens 01. 539 *60 jcOo 5 35 1 51 . 20 6 351. 18
Sharon 0°!.. 519 *90 ia*/. 410 1 51. 20 5 a s i. 16
Starmount 25 31. 713 *95 775 1 3 1 . 28 5 hejo 26
S t a te s v i l le Road 295 301.5 34 300 3lc‘/« 525 3 9 *1. 29 6 in . 25
S teele Creek 12 1*1.531 *30 I2l» 550 1 5*1. 20 4 i *?>i. 18
\U CAAA'Viy IS Ho i SjO
500a
comparison
.o-'i i
len'-ant v ry
Thome.s'jor:)
Tryou Hi.lit)
Tuckasee jeo
U n iv ersity Park
Zo'o V-mcp
V il la noi.ihts
W esterly H il ls
VJ i lnio.ro
Windsor Pp / k
Win t e r f ie ld
l.-a.oel la Wyche
Cii'■ id Dove
C
Da /ids '. !
. i! < .’ Ill . , ;t2
S e v e r ? v i1l e , i!3
i V a r y a n , ,74
Totn 1
E l e m o n t a r y
OF PUPILS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFFING BY RAC-i
(Continued)
p u p ils__________ _
1 968 -6 9 1 9 6 9 -7 0 ,E s t .
B % V? 1* A w
B (other B (other)
_______ S t a f f_________ ___
1 9 6 0 -6 9 1 9 6 9 -7 0 ,Hlsr J
B % W B A V
B ('Other) B (othal
01- 705 * 14 0 IT 1c 690 2 1 "Ic. 2 5
2411307.24 5 240 S U io 230 1 5 *1. 20
61 I0*i. 553 60 I0'7. 540 1 Hi. 2 3
111 ioc’7- 610 \0O 0̂ 30 917. 1
257 lr,o*i< C losed 11 1 OOc|o
796 '40.126 6 50 1 i '7o 60 23 b 14
C 'L 569 *75 57 0 1 97. 22
145 337. 29 3 200 13% 265 8 701, 12
2 O 'i-7 37 *77 97c 768 1 71. 27
O 7. 6 S 9 *75 71. 715 1 IT. 26
222 l00*u Closed 12 loo I.
5 22
3 16 7. 16
4 11% 19
21 Talc O
Closed
21 5 5 ' I* 17
5 \97o 22
10 937, 13
6 Ills 27
6 1T "h 25
Closed
5 7i‘|, I. i 7 r.o 409c 1 2 0 ) 3 c 7 0 7 3 3 c " /0 7
1 6 6 ‘b'J 7" 37 1 6 5 i 3 % 35 2 I a :f. '
f P’
90"P 2
1 7 4 371 . 26 1 7 6 ?,V1c 24 8 %0"U ? ( l 7 c7» 3
1 8 3 9 7 7 . 6 1 9 0 9 5 “(u 10 8 -iSol.. 2 V 2 ao7 o 0
9 30 3 0 *7o 1 4 ,, 18 3 3 17. 5 0 1 a n i o 5 1 0 3-T "h
3 1 ,8 1 6 3 1 ,9 9 1 1 3 5 6 1 3 3 4
501a
4
COMPARISON OF PUPILS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFFING 3Y RACE
(Continued)
P u p ils ___________ S t a f f
S c h o o l
J u n io r H ig h
1 963 -6 9 1 9 6 9 -7 0 ,E s t .
B % W B X W
B (oth er) B (other)
19 6 8 -6 9 1969 -70 ,
B % W B %
B (oth er) B
, E st
W
( o t h1
Aloe'i a r l e Road S o n . 3 :1 60 67° 960 4 77° 4 3 - 177. J' _■
7'.] ex ardor 347 3(7.7 55 375 337. 775 6 117,44 167. '1 3
C o ch ra n e 76 57.1444 75 SI. 1495 6 \c*|u 55 ! i. n=u _■ J
Cou 1. wood 119 1+7. 7 27 110 l l ‘|. 785 4 111. 34 6 1 71. : 0
E a stw a y 30113S4 *163 111.1357 3 SI. 55 n 1 17. 52
A lex. Grata.! 9 11. 10 4 *145 117.1045 4 77° 43 1 77. 4 0
Hawthorns 4 9 2 5 H 447 535 +17° 540 12 177. 3 3 13 a n . 35
Irwin f v a . 656 \oc/ k Closed 32 177< 1 Closed
McCl in took 46+7.1-22: *200 137.1325 2 4 7 .4 8 10 lu"K 52
Northwest 932 ICO'!. 1050 icon. 39 l oCl c* 22 5 5 7, IP
pi ednoit 42-. Til l. 53 4 30 117° 35 13 517.12 13 ■Ho 7° 15
Cuail Hollow 17 U1ML2S1 172 111.1318 3 -57. 61 1 0 llc7> 5 3
Randolph 27 2 161.711 255 167° 750 2 57. 34 9 107. 3 3
Ranson 2 5 3 307c5 36 280 3+7. 550 6 tulc 31 9 14 % 2
Sedgofield j 3;9 H'l. '.02 200 XX% 7 30 5 i n . 39 .8 117° 35
•Smith O'A 17 3 5 *9 0 (°*1. 1470 3 57. 57 9 147. 51
Span ih 1 6 til. '71 200 935 6 111.43 10 H I . 35
N illia n a fr-3 ico'i,. P.50 100 7. 37 loo'lc 22 567° 17
Wilson 60571132 *135 hi- 1140 4 VI. 4 5 117. 4 0
York Re. 7 27 517. 6 950 77*1° 5 32 177. 1 20 551. 15
(Kennedy)
Learning Academy - 7th & 33th
counted in
jrodos
JH, a b _> v e , 5 177. 21 4 307°
Tot a !
Junior High 5 .9 3 4 l l 7 . 6 ,1 9 5 3-9 7° 228 141° 219 3o7c
1 4 ,7 4 1 15 ,2 1 5 706 697
502a
5
CO-1PAIUSO.-! OF PUPILS MID PROFESSIONAL STAFFING BY RACK
(Continued) ■
P u pils____________ ___________S t a f f
S chooL 1 963 -6 9 1 9 6 9 -7 0 ,E st. 1'S63-69 1969 -7 0 .E s t .
Senior High 1) % W B % W B % VI B /o W
B (otlie r ) B (other) B (otlicr) B (ot hc»]
3 v ' s t Mo. ck Ion b ur j 155*7.! 7 39 * 330 IT/.2050 6 17. 8 5 17 9 2
Garin jar 20277.2157 *335 13% 226 5 6 to*l. 102 20 m . (')
H ardin j 169 11*1.314 *4 50 3b“l. 800 4 V I . 49 10 1 (f *1o 54
I n cleric n d o nee 92 1 * / . 962 115 10 *1 . 1035 6 ') el. 59 12 1*6*70 5 5
Myers Park 153 HIM 5 5 *34 5 H.4. 176 5 6 L ' R 37 17 111. 34
l'~ "th H ecklenburj 4 1 0D%1 109 4903OLH 70 6 ’ l l . 63 13 m . 64
< lyirpic 259 357cP 2 2 320 3*7o 520 5 U'1.39 10 J L i * ] , 36
Second Mere! 1139 i0o*fc 3 Closed 57 95-1. 3 Closed
South Mecklenburg 1 06t*Mr 12 *760 \\1. 2055 4 5*1.70 17 11*1. b 5
West C h a rlotte 1559 ioo"|. *16 50 lool. 74 7-3*1. 6 55 (p(o*lt> 2P
West Mockletibur I l f *1.-1340 160 107.14.15 4 5 To 7 3 14 m . &
T o t a l
S e n i o r H i g h 4 , 3 7 7 3 G 7 . 4 , 4 6 5 0 5 **!.. 1 7 8 i a . 1 . 2 1 9 M l .
1 2 , 3 1 3 1 3 , 0 7 5 6 4 4 6 9 7
503a
CORRECT™ JULY 2fj, 190 )
CHARLOTTErM2CXLK,’IBURG JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS
•—4o *-> ^ r. c oW V:
V)4-» O O VI ̂ O ft)3 O GO' « O OI< « -u ta
a o<» > t‘i rj
o o£4 r-1cs*O O
ft)C5C<-> Uo ,c 2*. u Ba
ck
t
o
1
or
ig
in
al
j
“!
!!
:_
__
_i
Gr
an
te
d
as
2
nd
ch
oi
ce
X̂ —<
LO ►"J
H «*)o fl
03
ALBEMARLE ROAD 10 3 a, a /0 -to n 0 - 3 / PX77
ALEXANDER o -Ao 4 0 - 1 0 l lS < i
COCHRANE iS Q i, 0 A l 6 - / IS O S '
COULWOOD . 84 <? / o f/4 f 10 v-xg £7 7
LASTWAY I3S~3 0 4 - 4 r 0 4 / /36'f
ALEXANDER GRAHAM T i l P-' tsj 0 s t c , ! /ora
HAWTHORNE l ° 7 cf /(, /Ah - H o 103 5 -f ! ° i S |
IRWIN AVENUE N 9 /4 Z l "43 o O -/3 , i! m 4 f.1
ROBERT V. KENNEDY ‘137, At I I I I S o -7 3 " 'a5 7 i
McCLINTOCK 137.0 o 7 -7 4 0 "5" ij
NORTHWEST 1014 37u S r -X3 37 i 4/4 I 0 5 ct Jj
PIEDMONT 5~oi S<i -4 4 ■ 1 o - 3ST |
UUAIL HOLLOW 7 . 9 -.4 4 7.j 44 / 4 i'0 ij
RANDOLPH 47/- /+ s ? -44 P-1 . I2J -ST '/';/ ||
m m r ^ i . ° 3 -3 A 6 ' i ■//j
SEDGE. FIELD T o 30 43 -1 3 D 0 ’ -,71 737 1*
SMITH H5'w elf 7 -f/4 ? 0 £ 2 l / 4 (7 1
snAUCH le n 4°) A 7 f?-<S . 444 | 1 1 'i (l 1
WILLIAMS L l £ £ i S 37. 3 -3" | V/f(i |
1 1 7 7 |WILSON °
/r* - s~ 0
LBAPNI NO ACADEMY r ____ !L _ _i
Schools.closed out for transfer requests:
Code: 0 - All Requests
** - Regular Requests
3?
504a
C H A R E . K T I i - M I C E L E S T A : E G S E N O R ! 1 I G ; s o : .
•— 4 1
c r
o
r . v-
[•-:
i ' , t-.
4 > C T 'J
l ' . < -• O
o ; . - m
rJ o r .
c c.’
O C O
4-* t
L’ i O
CO CJ
O O
c r
o o
f - 4- i
CO
f-
t i
rC
u
O
c- c
4̂ r .
• r-4 •
rV. C-G CC
u IT,
c : o o
O'- o «■
'U
O 'U O
4- c : o
r o r . r-:
« o
O t/uO
o c : u
V • -<
cJ
a >■
n »-*
p p
LO »-)
EAST MECKLENBURG Z c <5 7 ‘1 1 3 A O / / G X r X l
GARINGER T .6 ' 4 ? 37 C x - o r r 0 — A c
HARDING T H 1 3 X t lot
3 X f / / 3
INDEPENDENCE ll X I 2 S ' (r H I / X t - X X
METROPOLITAN %'C- A ‘l / x n - I C O X- O - 9 ?
MYERS PARK n n 2 3 3 1 - I I 6 " 0
NORTH MECKLENBURG U / ? 'J-'fp 6 0 <9
OLYMPIC % t 31 f 7 3 W -f
SOUTH MECKLENBURG AIS~X 3 2-1 -xi 9 O - I X
WEST CHARLOTTE 4'l 103 -JT<J 0 X - 0 7
WEST MECKLENBURG I s7z 23- A 1 tx 6 . 1
505a
J -
En
ro
ll
-
\'t:
me
ri
t
j- in Ô 'Ov, «-> <l>o c: -iJ? « cCr" (3O C *-< Cx", 4-> t0
m o
m m o o »•*« O'O O
OCDft*-J IS Ô u
O rt t:•M * A' CO CO U -fi m cs F-. on W O rj Gr
an
te
d
as
2
nd
H
|
ch
oi
ce
V'
X!•< rHC5G X{■ i*+3 2 CO
>>Cs»—i r* CO £;c *r•H "1Cc, 07
Albemarle Road trot. II /4 - 5 0 > -1 vTo-S"
Alexander Street m 51 3 +3S O 0 +3+ n s r
A1lent rook tr/? /a- 5 + 1 o 0 + 1 s x p
Ashley Park SX2. 3 7 4- +33 o 1 A 34 S S(,
Bain o C - 6 o D - c 3C%
Barringer tlo o 3 f -3 4 3 0 -31 S3C;
Berryhill VC 14- 4 r!0 J 1 -A /f 31o
Bethune ICC 0 4- - f o 0 l+ x
Beverly Woods •5 IS \o +-7T 0 0 AdT S 5 I
Billingsville Cl 7 o H> -1C o t> -1C C o/
Briarwood 111 o 7 - 7 z 0 - 3 ' 7 4 4
Bruns Avenue . %oc X- dT - 3 o 0 - 3 113
Chant i1ly +11 a 4 t 7 o 0 A 7 +S(,
Clear•Creek 30 f o - 3 o o - 3 2 0 i
3 X 4Collinswood SS4- 7 7 o V 0 o
Cornelius f CX. 7 - 4 £> 0 - X SCO
Cot swold S'32, Z l 4 IS5~ o o i x s S' s '!
Davidson XS1 P o ̂ ro o 0 A?- A l l
Marie Davis 479 /7 43 + IS £> 0 / / 7 (M *
Derita ?3<e IP 8 A 4- 7 Xj A / 3 4:4-7
Devonshire CjOX- 0 7 - 7 3 0 - 4- 4 7 7
Dilycrth So o s — 13 e o - / 7
G
48.-5
Double Oaks 8 ox- (p (f 0 0 0 ? o ,x
Druid Hills , o '/ij s 8 - 3 C o - 3 S IS'
Schools closed out for transfer requests:
Code: * - All Requests
** - Ren liar Requests
E
n
ro
ll
m
en
t
R
eq
u
es
ts
to
en
te
r
gr
an
t'
R
eq
ue
st
s
to
le
av
e
g
N
et
®
ch
an
ge
B
ac
k
to
or
ig
in
a
l
as
si
gn
m
en
t
G
ra
nt
ed
ns
2n
d
ch
oi
ce
Su
m
m
ar
y
Ju
ly
1
F
in
al
Su
m
m
ar
y
j s t o v e r (o 1 a / / 13 - 2- 0 tp - X 60S?
E l i z a b e t h 5'/S' / 4 1 3 - 4 ? 1 C? -s% +5-7
E n d e r ly Park 3SS X X 9 7 / 3 0 £ f-13 t o 1
Fai r v i ew 3 XI 4 I t 3 0 o t 3 3 M
F i r s t Ward *X I S 0 t £ 0 o t~ J
H ic k o r y Grove 4 7 7 o 4 - 4 1 o - 3 5'](n
Hidden V a l l e y 1 0 Ob' o / - / 0 H lo o t ,
H ighlan d 31-1 ± _ 4 0 o b o 3 4 7
H oskins 2 M X 3 o - n 0 o - n 2 4 3 '
H u n t e r s v i l l e feV-f ll 77 0 o n fc<?3
H untingtow ne Farms 0~i>l s 4 7 / o 0 11 57T8
1 d J. o w i 1 d 3~3'o cl / 2- - 3 0 0 - 3 4 4 7
-Amay James 4 4 4 0 3 4 - 2 4 5 0 - 2 2 . 4 2 4
LaUevi ew 4 7 4 1 3-1 'Z D 0 c> - 2 0 4 4 6
I.rnsdowne 7 ? 7 1! 3 t g 1 1 M O 7 4 7
L in c o ln H e ig h ts ? o f 4 lx- — <7 0 3 / 7 0 0
■Long Creek 736 o 31 - 3 1 v5~ £ - A t 7 ID
lie i thews * 5 1 7 <■> + / 0 0 1- / * .5 ?
Merry Oaks 445-' 3- ! o - ? o 0 - ? 4 3 7
Mi cl wood 4 is " / 4 13 -t / 4 o 4 -S' 4 ^ 0
ilo'atc l a i re i n 13 4 +-<? / j r H S ' 7 3 3
Myers Park 4 10 / 4 9 f- -5' 0 M " 4 :i 4
N a t i o n s Ford 7 13 14 IO + 4 J 0 7 7 7 2 -4
Newel 1 553 J He - 1 3 5 - S 5 4 3"
Schools closed out for transfer requests:
Code: * - All Reque r. t r»
*ft- Regular Re nests
En
ro
lI
me
nt
Re
qu
es
ts
t
o
en
te
r
gr
an
ts
:
O
4->
V)
4->V)
o o
3 >
D" C.J 0) 0)
rH
507a
cjCXj
c
c?
x.
u
+>o'X. Ba
ck
t
o
or
ig
in
a
l
as
si
gn
m
en
t
Gr
an
te
d
as
2n
d
ch
oi
ce
>•*^ rH
n 1
P P
l: ^
!
P
r~< fa CU
• r. ;i
f.7
Oakdale v T 4 3 1 ? X ■ rx i X 0 7 A ? S I X ,
Oakhurst ■ n i I X 7 4 -S' 3 0 7 ? S ' ? ?
Oaklawn 5 1 1 X IS -11 X 0 - 7 5" 6 7 "
Olde Providence 1 2 A S ’ X 0 o 4 3
Park Road 5~ 3 o 10 7 7 7 0 1 4 8 5 \ ? 8
Paw Crock l 3 o o 1- - f 0 0 - 4 - 9 K -
Pineville s n 1 1 - 7 Cs t - 7 5~1 O
Pinewood 7 H 1 II - 7 0 o - 7 n o n
Plaza Road 4 ? < J 1 X'O - / < £ 1 - s
Rama Road 7 3 ? o x - i - D 0 ~X 7 3 7
Sedgcfield f i x 3 7 - 4 0 0 - 4 5 "5 8
Selwyn £r u / 7 7 7 7 0 0 4 / 7 s ' <17
Shamrock Gardens 4?ST X I 7 7 Ao 3 0 4 . 2 3 s ' i l
Sharon 3 ? 7 p 3 3 - i -T 0 0 - ? , r 3 0 3 ,
Starmount '713 A 3 - ( 0 o - / 7 7 .7
Statesville Road SiS" 7 / x - -S' Z-' 0 - 3 « Z “ .
Steele Creek 0 t o - / 6 o D - l o s x i
Thcmasboro (•i I 17 X I - 4 0 1 - 3 6 7 ?
Tryon Hills f f X S ' XI - / 6 X c - 1 1
Tuckaseegee S V f 7 X 7 7 i 6 4 8 G or.
University Park i t n / / 1 4 7 0 c 4 7 £ 5 2
Zeb Vance O X - A- 0 o - a . J&XS’
Villa Heights 7 3 8 o U -7 6 0 0 - i t ‘13. X
Westerly Hills £ 2 '] o <1 - 7 X- - '7 3~XO
Wilmore £ b 3 4 t(> - I X 0 •3 • ; (>
Windsor Park 7 ? ') /3 * S 1 o f 6 8 6 . :|
Schools closed out for transfer requests:
Code: * - All Requests *■* - Regular Requests
r:G.’
r—I
oucw
CJo <•'
oCl ̂CO WOCJ M3 o cro c «
o<-»
wo<-»toCJ O
P > c* riC) oC: r>t
508a
CJto
n
u
4->V
4 JCr~< CJ o c; :• V ri u •»"' t-0 rX M*H U «H 10 C3 f- 10w o n G
ra
nt
ed
as
2n
d
ch
oi
ce
X»« r-ic,n
y sto
1
P•"< cJ
tJ R
.5 ytin CO
’.'inter field 7 0 2 . l-S~ S Src'Jj 0 0 f 7 ? - 7
Isabella V/yche m o A- - t 0 0 H 3
Davidson C.D.C.
Morgan C.D.C.
Pineville C.D.C.
Sevcrr.ville C.D.C.
509a
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG SCHOOLS
CHARLOTTE, N. C.
August A, 1969
NOTICE TO ALL STUDENTS PARTICIPATING IN HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETICS
Under the revised pupil assignment guidelines adopted by the Board
of Education, that section dealing with varsity athletics which requires
a student exercising freedom of choice to lose his eligibility to participate
in varsity or junior varsity athletics during his first, year at the school
of assignment is revoked. Under the new provisions a student who exercises
freedom of choice w’ill be eligible to participate in varsity or junior
varsity athletics immediately upon enrollment at the school to which he is
assigned. In the case there was a student who did not exercise freedom of
choice last spring because of this reason, he may now do so by contacting
the principal of the school where he has been assigned.
c
510a
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
March 6, 1968
Revised June 27, 1 96 8
Revised Nov. 11 , 196 3
Revised Jan. 27, 1969
Revised July 30 , 1 969
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
Five-Year Construction Program (1967-72)
1. There are 91 building projects to be undertaken in the
1967 bonds.
2 . At the present time these projects may be divided into
stages as foilows :
A. Projects completed $ 8,805,000
B. Projects under construction 7,600 ,000
C. Projects approved for bidding 3,050,000
n. Projects approved and in the planning stage 3,950,000
E. Projects approved by Board 4,600,000
F. Projects approved by staff 2,865 ,000
G. Projects not yet acted upon 4 ,800,000
$3 5 , 6:7 0 70TTO
I D
Projects completed
I. Huntingtowne Farms
2 . Hidden Valley
3. First Hard
/
4. Starmount
5 . Quail Hoi 1ow J r .
6 . P i n e v i 11 e
7. Olde Providence
8. Albemarle Road Elem.
9. Steele Creek
10. Bruns Avenue
II. Alexander J r.
12. Idlewild
13. Col 1inswood
14. Corhrane J r .
15. Huntersvi1 le
16. Lansdowne
17. Chantilly
18. Westerly Hills
19. Beverly Woods
20. Statesvi 11e Road
Projects under construction
1 . Northwest Jr.
2. Independence Sr. Hi.
3. Matthews
4. Smith Jr.
5. East Mecklenburg
6. Bain
7. Tryon Hills
8. Allenbrook
9. Harding
10. Long Creek
11. Clear Creek
12. Hawthorne
13. Project 600
14. Enderly Park
15. Wilson Jr.
513a
C . Projects approved for bidding $ 3,050,000
1. Myers Park Sr.
2. Coulwood
3. Amay James
4. Barringer
5. Hickory Grove
6. Ranson Jr.
7. Albemarle Rd. Jr.
8. North Mecklenburg
9. South Mecklenburg
514a
D . Projects approved and in planning stages S 3 , i>
Elementary Junior Senior
1. Center City * 1. Alex. Graham 1. fie
2. Spauqh
* Hold action
0,000
ronolitan *
Totals s 7s: S T ,2 P 0 ,rr - n.v>
515a
E . Projects approved by
1 . L i n c o l n H e i g h t s
2 . Uni versi ty Park
3. Villa Heights
4. Highland
5 . F a i r v i e w *
6. Moores Chapel
7. Allen Hills
8. W i 1 ora La L e
Hoard
* Hold action
516a
F • PfQJ e c t s_ ap p r o v ed by_ s_t a f f S ? ,80 :> , 0
E 1eme n t a r y J u n i o r
1 . Iakov i ow
1. Sedge f i e l d
2. Druid Hills
2 . M c C T i n t o c k
3. Dri a rwood
4. Gillingsville
b . Shanirock Gardens
6. Marie Davis
7. Cotswold
8. Ashley Park
9, Sedge fi e 1d
10. Nations Ford
11 . Montclai re
12. P i newood
13. Tuckaseegee
14. Oakhurst
15. Merry Oaks
Total $ 2 ,065 ,000 $ 800,000
517a
G. Projects not y et acted upon ? 4 , 800,000
E 1 einen tary J u n i o r
1 . Paw(Creek 1. York Road
2 . Corne1i us 2. Irwin Avenue
3. Mewe 11 3. Piedmont
4 . De r i t a 4. J . H . Gunn
5. Be rryhi 1 1
Total - $ 1 ,4 50
6 . M i d w o o d
7. Hi 1 more
3. El i zabeth
9. Eastover
10. Myers Park
11 . Davi dson
12 . Thomasboro
13 . Park Road
14. Selwyn
* Hold action
Tota 1 $ 3,350 ,000
518a
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education is about
to file its plan for further desegregation of the School
System. The Board is aware of the tremendous impact
which this action promises to have on the community.
Board members also know that the matter of how the plan
is received is, in large measure, dependent upon how well
it is understood by the community. It is imperative, there
fore, that the community know the plan and its implica
tions. The Board knows of no way to engender support for
an idea superior to the simple act of “ telling it like it is.”
It is in this spirit that these w7ords are offered in answer
to three questions in the minds of responsible Charlotte-
Mecklenburg citizens as this time. They are:
I. What does the plan seek to do!
II. What are the implications of the plan?
III. What will it take to make the plan work?
Speaking to the first question. “ What does the plan seek
to do?"
1. The first part o f the plan is iooost significant for in
• - - : - . - r garuirc I s g
t m . The policy statement begins by reasserting an «U
hrifcf Hot! every individual should have tqp d n»puti—ity
h hfe capabilities to the M h ^ . A afcwr* the
twig ae3d principle that equality of educational ?cporttt-
i -.l.i V vdtheut regard to sevto-evononue. trimw.
vv ds'W'ss’ves. ?; scans rua: rc
caa Wst W probated by- ahtvuiptt
j o 'j\ ~ ss-;v th e X - 'vvks-.N aavt 'ta "u n ca p s. m p o se » i i r o n
XOifVe H > .v's\l yi IVU'if.NSlsWS. .\«vx ,̂-'>wsv:Sy jmt U' ■
iv.nroL s' K -m -.ww Vsxi K">' X vo.ass. s UPdg
Exhibits Attached to Foregoing Report, Etc.
519a
important statement which I quote, “ In this light, the
Board of Education firmly believes further desegregation
of students and professional staff will contribute to the
educational and social development of all children.”
Finally, the Board commits itself to a course of action
by stating that “the desegregation of students should
be coordinated with desegregation of teachers, principals
and staff members and that the desegregation should be
accomplished at the earliest possible date.” Next, the
plan outlines the steps which are to be taken to achieve
this goal.
First, the Board proposes to close several schools and
reassign the students (parents permitting) to other schools
in the system so as to achieve the twin purposes of better
educational offering for those reassigned and further de
segregation for the system.
Next, the plan proposes to draw off from overcrowded
all or predominantly Negro schools a number of students
and reassigning them to other schools presently experienc
ing minimal desegregation.
Third, with the help of local experts skilled in the art
of systems analysis, the Board proposes to begin an exten
sive study of attendance areas. The purpose of this study
would be to determine whether or not alteration of certain
attendance areas would result in more desegregation.
The Board proposes to undertake a.' extensive >.*ucy
of the school system'-- com-v action program to v ...........
the effect of planned nev. c o nno t i o n Or Vm w .e , no",
pm .",o' of senooJs The Board plans to eon'O -a.v.
*~,s e* uos *- >.o o'-nm g/ovps >Pn.n to,- egy rM kfpi a
ta • - of "a . s o g n s, o,,, t y.
Exhibits Attached to Foregoing Report, Etc.
520a
The Board plans to initiate certain programs which
would give support and reinforcement to students and
teachers called upon to make adaptations to change. The
aid to pupils will be through a compensatory education
program. Teachers will have support through an orienta
tion and in-service education program whose objectives
will be to improve the teachers’ knowledge of the environ
mental background and special learning problems of stu
dents in a desegregated setting.
Lastly, the Board of Education feels that the burden
of this problem should be shared by all sections of the
school community. To accomplish this purpose, the Board
has asked the staff to explore the possibilities of student
exchange programs, school pairing, and other techniques
aimed at involving those schools in the system which, at
this point, have had only minimal contact with members
of the opposite race.
Now to the second question, “What are the implications
of the plan ? ”
This question could be approached from several different
directions. Let’s approach it statistically first. Seven
center city schools will be closed and approximately 3000
students will be reassigned. This is not the first round
of school closings. Up to this point, 16 other schools iu
the city and county have been closed. By and large tht s
'chools served a dual school system. They are ill-adapted
to a unitary school organization. As a group they are eld
to the point o f being obsolete. Bethune. fur example
years old. While the youngest, Irwin A venae, is 34.
They s:a: .1 cm small sites which someone " ‘ he past
managed to wrestle away ftoaa a gtowingr city—U T acres
aft f ifrrm Wwfce. i.30 acres at Betfewa, 7JB seres al
Exhibits Attached to Foregoing Report, Etc.
521a
Second Ward, etc. Their combined enrollment has dwindled
sharply from 4442 in 1965 to less than 3000 projected for
this fall—a 33Vs% loss in four years. Certainly the closing
of these schools can be defended administratively.
But what are the implications of the plan from the
standpoint of the cost? The Board intends to offer the
transferred students transportation. This will cost money
both to buy the equipment and to operate this equipment.
The Business Service Department estimates that we would
need to spend an additional $98,000 for the extra vehicles
needed and that the operating cost would be about $30
per pupil or about $90,000. By comparison, commercial
transportation costs are estimated at $45 per pupil or
$135,000 for the year. A maximum estimate of transporta
tion cost for the 3000 pupils from the seven closed schools
using our own department would be about $188,000.
It is estimated that 39 additional reloctable classrooms
would be needed to increase the capacity of the receiving
schools. The cost of purchasing and equipping these units
is estimated at $330,000. Delivery on these units will take
6 to 8 weeks. The first 5 to 10 units could be in operation
by the middle of September and w7e might expect a one per
day delivery rate from that point.
There are, however, some figures which might be ex
amined on the other side of the ledger. The $383,000 slated
for purchase of a few additional acres for the Metropolitan
High School site could be used for other purposes. The
$100,000 used to add to the Zeb Vance property could be
reclaimed through sale. Bond monies tentatively allocate ;
to some of these schools could be restudied. Mue-h of the
property could be declared surplus and sold.
But the question, “ What are the implication* of the
plan?” could be approached from -till another f t f
view—the student’s and the school program.
Exhibits Attached to Foregoing Report, Etc.
522a
The students who are being moved from center city
schools will have some adjustment problems. The system
is proposing to help them make this adjustment. The
students in the receiving schools will find some adjust
ments necessary. Again, every effort will be made to help
make this transition a smooth one.
The students from the center city have generally been
achieving below the students in the receiving schools. This
move will make it possible to attack the problem. Never
theless, we should not expect a dramatic improvement in
achievement during the first year. Some improvement will
be registered but the main effect will take place over
a period of years. On the other hand, the achievement
of youngsters in the receiving schools will not be adversely
affected. There is ample evidence that this does not occur
in spite of the fears on the part of some that this might
happen.
The PTA’s and school committees in the receiving school
will need to make plans to incorporate new parents in their
activities and programs else the very objectives of any
move toward desegregation will be lost.
Finally, the net result of this move will be to place some
3000 youngsters from closed schools and 1200 youngsters
from overcrowded schools in learning environments where
their chances for success will be greatly enhanced.
And now, finally, let’s consider the important question,
“What will it take to make the plan work? ”
Certainly, it will take commitment to action by the Board
of Education—united action, if possible— action by a demo
cratic majority, if necessary. But the community must
know that the Board is willing to lead the way. I feel
events o f the past month demonstrate that the Board is
ready to do this.
Exhibits Attached to Foregoing Report, Etc.
523a
Commitment on the part of the Board must be matched
by commitment on the part of the professional staff. I am
convinced by the tremendous support offered by principals
and central office staff members and by the very favorable
progress we have made in faculty desegregation that the
commitment is there.
Certainly, the plan will have a better chance of success
if it is generally accepted by those who are directly
affected. Parents of students who are involved must see
in this plan a better educational opportunity for their
child.
In order for this plan to succeed there must be an
outreach on the part of the receiving school. This must be
more than a casual letter of greeting. Vital programs must
be developed which will at one and the same time demon
strate true concern and insure incoming students and
parents that they will not be regarded as outsiders but will
have a place in the school’s life and program.
Finally, in order for the plan to succeed there must be
a commitment on the part of the community as a whole.
The policy adopted by the Board of Education must be
adopted by the community and by certain agencies and
forces within the community. The majority of the people
must truly believe that it is in the best interest of a demo
cratic society to afford equal opportunities to all people
regardless of race, creed, color or economic circumstances.
Exhibits Attached to Foregoing Report, Etc.
524a
Approved
7-31-69
PROPOSED ADM INISTRATIVE CHANGES
Exhibits Attached to Foregoing Report, Etc.
To
Asst, to SuperintendentE. E. Waddell
Gerson Stroud
Asaac Graham
John Kibler
Mrs. Mathilda Spears
B. G. Whisnant
B. D. Roberts
0. N. Freeman
Louis Hughes
W. G. Byers
From
Prin.-Second Ward
Prin.-Kennedy
Prin.-Irwin Ave.
Prin.-Bethune
Prin.-Zeb Vance
Prin.-Elizabeth
Prin.-Isabella Wyche
Prin.-Lincoln Heights
Prin.-Alexander Street
Prin.-Fairview
Prin.-P-600*
Prin.-Kennedy
Prin.-Lakeview
Prin.-Park Road
Prin.-Hidden Valley
Prin.-Elizabeth
Adm. Asst.-Personnel
Prin.-Lincoln Heights
Adm. Asst.-Elem. Ed.
* Mr. Stroud will serve as Administrative Assistant until such time as the
school is completed.
525a
Transcript of August 5, 1969 Proceedings (Excerpts)
[4] * * *
Dr. W illiam C. Self, a witness for the defendant, having
first been duly sworn, was examined and testified as fol
lows :
15] Direct Examination by Mr. Waggoner:
Q. Dr. Self, you are Superintendent of the Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Board of Education? A. I am.
Q. Dr. Self, are you familiar with the order of the Court
dated June 20, 1969? A. Yes.
Q. Did the Board of Education meet to review the order
of the Court? A. Yes, it did.
Q. What meetings were held by the Board of Education
and any committees? A. There was a meeting of the
Board of Education a few days after the Court order was
issued. As I recall, the major objective of this meeting
was to ask the Board attorney to review the Court order.
It was discussed thoroughly by the Board of Education
at that time. A second meeting of the Board of Education
was set, at which time the Board directed the staff to take
the plan for desegregation prepared by the plaintiffs, re
ferred to as the Finger plan, and present it to the Board
of Education for their study. There was this second meet
ing, then, following it at which time the staff endeavored
as best it could to interpret the Finger plan for desegrega
tion to the Board of Education, using audio-visual slides,
overlays, maps, things of this nature. After [6] consider
able discussion by that Board of Education at that meet
ing, it was determined that the Board should attempt to
devise a plan for desegregation and they also determined
that this work should be assigned to a committee of the
Board rather than to the Board as a whole. Five members
526a
of the Board of Education were appointed to this commit
tee and three staff members worked with the committee.
The committee itself held quite a few meetings. The first
one that 1 recall was on July 3. There was another meet
ing on the 11th, the 19th, the 21st and 22nd. Most of these
meetings were for long periods of time, lasting for half a
day or thereabouts. Meanwhile, the committee, or at least
members of the committee, visited other school systems to
see what was going on there and also spent a good hit of
time studying other court eases, the objective being to
identify for further study some of the approaches used to
achieve desegregation.
Q. Which systems did you study? A. We communicated
by telephone with several school systems in an attempt to
determine whether or not the approaches they were using
could say anything to us. In contacts with Buffalo and
Syracuse, Xew York, we did determine that it probablv
would be worth our while to pay them a visit, an on site
visit.
Q. How much time was spent on these visits? A. As I
recall the trip took a little better than two days.
[" ] Q. Did this special sub-committee report tack to
the committee as a whole? A. Yes. it did.
Q- X 'w . with reference to the rlan of desetrresstion. the
nrst portion reals with the policy statement Did the Board
spend — tfc tin e on the poficr statement! A I ffent tte
ream spent eeres. rename time er the ne 'e” statement
h Tees m s pehry star erne"' refect »m* ienarmtm frrm
fjmaer >.\srd pvh.-y ' A. Y«w it iocs.
V- what way* A Wet?. I behove in the Catrrr n-rcr
«* Jmsc M WM of the IM fefK *•* Star Sic Board 3 d trot
• ' . fj*.
s. er e;‘ sviKv.s. saym; -■ :— - »» -«■ isssssisw
Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct
527a
by neighborhoods. In this policy statement the Board does
acknowledge that it has a responsibility. I think that the
key phrase in the policy statement is the one which is
found in the fourth paragraph which says: The Board of
Education firmly believes further desegregation of stu
dents and professional staff will contribute to the educa
tional and social development of all children. A statement
of belief. And then a statement which, at least in my opin
ion, in a commitment: The Board is further of the belief
that desegregation of students should be coordinated with
[83 desegregation of teachers, principals and staff mem
bers, both of which should be accomplished at the earliest
possible date.
Q. Now, the first actual implementation of this policy
statement appears to be with reference to closing some seven
schools. A. That is correct.
Q. Now, what was the reasoning of the Board for clos
ing these particular schools? A. I feel that there are some
administrative reasons. The schools themselves are old to
the point of being obsolete. Bethune is the oldest one and it’s
57. Irwin Avenue is the youngest and it’s 34 years old.
All of the schools sit on inadequate sites, sites which could
be expanded only at rather sizeable cost. The enrollment
of the schools has decreased over the past several years.
I believe that statistics show that the enrollment of all of
the seven schools combined has decreased by approximately
33Vs% since 1965.
Q. Now were the schools selected to which these students
would be reassigned? A. Some of the schools that were
selected had some space but by and large the criteria which
was used was to find schools in some of the sections of
Charlotte which had experienced up to this particular point
minimum desegregation and which had good educational
programs into which these youngsters might fit.
Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct
528a
Q. From an educational standpoint is this a desirable
move? [9] A. In my opinion, it is.
Q. Why do you feel this is educationally desirable? A.
Well, I think from the standpoint of an educator moving
youngsters from one geographic area to another has been
defended down through history on the basis of improving
his educational opportunity. I think that this is the ra
tionale that prevailed in the Mecklenburg County system
when Bain and Matthews and Sterling and some of the
smaller schools were replaced by larger consolidated
schools. Here the movement was from an environment
which offered limited educational opportunity to one that
offer a greater potential, and I think that the same rationale
could be applied here.
Q. Under this plan that’s proposed, primarily blacks
would be the only ones bused. Why are only blacks bused
under this plan? A. Well, the predominant number, of
course, would be Xegro youngsters. There is one provision
that might pick up some youngsters from the disadvantaged
neighborhoods who are white and bus them to other areas
as —en. rut I think it’s beeause the blacks are found in this
parttealar area of the disadvantaged.
Q ^"kat is the motivation from an educational stand
point for busing these h acks on* of these disadvantaged
re u: to mood s ' A To provide * better educational ac
r e 'm o v m it tost sane time accent rdsb fx~ther re-
segregatooa rf tie svstem
w wfengki tksjt 4M1 feftDsf - —
XT— rfhirritiiwrl “ J L lttU h fM IflM r
re ''Ompgaters are atoned anj- tnese sehoois. dn» smr-
o tvcraattpafsi %ttt be aQattoeedi. aov
• • da .V ed'tewtoeaA o-.-xpa.r. ■' ■ -a .-cv- r-s
' 't bK> a wdf V t >-v-
Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct
529a
Court: Mr. Marshal, it may be that these people
in the hall can keep order among themselves if I tell
them they will have to close the doors unless the
noise from the hall is kept down. Can you people in
the hack of the hall hear me! We will have to close
the doors unless there is less noise in the hall.
Go ahead.
Q. Dr. Self, with reference to the black schools which are
being closed, could they he operated for another year! A.
Yes, they could he operated another year. I think that
you’d have to take into account, again, some of the things
which I mentioned, the age of the building, the limited
facilities, but yes.
Q. Have most of these schools been on the drawing board
for closing out for sometime in the school system! A. Yes.
As a part of the thirty-five million dollar construction
program it was anticipated that these schools would be
[11] abandoned.
Q. Are you familiar with the recommendation of Dr.
Finger with reference to these schools! A. I believe I recall
his recommendation, yes.
Q. What was his recommendation, if you recall! A. I
believe that he recommended closing Zeb Yance, Isabella
Wyche, Bethune, Alexander Street. I do not believe he
mentioned Fairview but mentioned in its place Elizabeth.
The plan did not deal with Irwin Avenue Junior High
School. As a matter of fact, I don’t think Irwin Avenue
was mentioned, and it did not mention Metropolitan High
School.
Q. Did Dr. Finger’s plan make any specific disposition
of the students who formerly attend those schools! A.
Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct
530a
These students were assigned to other schools although I
cannot recall exactly what schools.
Q. Now, the next feature of the plan provides for trans
portation of blacks from overcrowded black schools. On
what determination was this provision reached! A. I feel
the objective is the same as in the closing of schools, to
achieve further desegregation and to afford better educa
tional opportunities for the pupils involved.
Q. Aren’t there some white schools that have fairly severe
overcrowding? A. Yes. As a matter of fact, our physical
facilities as a whole in the school system are overcrowded.
[12] Q. Is it your feeling, then, that the educational
advantages of this move outweigh the disadvantages that
would be experienced from moving whites to other schools ?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Now, the next feature of the plan provides for re
structuring of attendance lines. Why hasn’t the School
Board restructured the attendance lines prior to this time?
A. Well, I think that probably the major reason would be
that the Board of Education did not adopt a policy on
desegregation officially until just several weeks ago. With
that policy adopted, it then became necessary for the Board
of Education to examine its present method of redrawing
attendance lines and respect this matter of desegregation
while they did so.
Q. From an administrative standpoint, would it be pos
sible to restructure the school attendance lines for the year
1969-70? A. I do not feel that it would be. I ’d have to
qualify that by saying that you could take a map and draw
a circle around schools, but this would be a very shallow
way of treating a very, very difficult problem. I view the
drawing of the attendance lines as a mammoth undertaking.
Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct
531a
one which would have to update the statistics of the school
system, arrive at some guidelines for drawing the new
attendance lines, subject these to numerous review by the
Board of Education and, to the degree that it’s possible,
to the school community, and then interpret this in terms
of administrative action.
[13] Q. This is not a job that could he accomplished by
one or several people, is this correct! A. I think it might
be supervised by one or several people, but many people
would be involved in the actual work.
Q. How long would it take to restructure the attendance
lines for the school served by the system! A. Well, again,
we can only make an estimate. We have estimated it would
take six months. I believe that’s the wording of the plan.
Q. What is the basis for the six months estimate! How
do you reach the six months estimate! A. I think on the
basis of knowing how much work there is to be accomplished
and on the experience that we have had in terms of drawing
attendance lines in the past where new schools were built,
additions to schools were completed, that sort of thing.
Q. I understand that the Board of Education proposes
using a system analysis approach as an aid to restructuring
of attendance lines, is this correct! A. The possibility has
been investigated, yes.
Q. Basically what would be involved in this approach!
A. Well, my impression is more or less a lay impression
because I ’m certainly not versed in the field of system
analysis. It’s a systematic approach where you determine
what criteria you’re going to use to redraw an attendance
line, you look at [14] the data and statistics that are avail
able and you come out with some sort of determination
where that line is going to be. I think that the possibility
Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct
532a
of adapting all this to a computer for the purpose of han
dling the tremendous amount of logistics which would be
involved has also been explored.
Q. Have you had an estimate as to how long it would
take to do the systems analysis and programming work
for a computer printout of the schools? A. I believe that
that’s where we got the six months, Mr. Waggoner.
Q. Now, there’s been a reported plan, called a plan by
the press, presented to the Board by a Mr. Weil. Are you
familiar with this illustration? A. Yes.
Q. Could this illustration prepared by Mr. Weil be im
plemented for this fall? A. No, I do not believe it could be.
Q. Why could it not be? A. I’m basing my answer on
that more from the standpoint of Mr. Weil’s comments
than I am on any intimate knowledge of the situation, but
I believe he himself indicated that it would take six months
to work it through.
Mr. Chambers: Objection.
Court: The objection to what he said would be
sustained.
[15] Q. Do you feel that any further substantial degree
of desegregation could be accomplished by restructuring
of attendance lines? A. Yes.
Q. What criteria would you basically use in restructur
ing these lines? A. Well, I think that much of the criteria
you would use would be the same we have used in the past,
the distance from school, major highway arteries, grade
levels involved, capacity of the school, things of this nature,
and one new criteria, that of achieving a racial mix in the
student body would be introduced.
Q. This - t " .....a : ......cry usee, is this : .....
Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct
533a
Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct
A. That’s correct.
Q. What would he the effect of changing one or two at
tendance zones for this current year on the proposed total
restructuring for nest year? A. It would be my opinion
that it would produce an uproar on the part of the com
munity that was involved, that we would he immediately
charged with singling them out for action and not taking
any action as far as the rest of the school system is con
cerned.
Q. When you restructure a school attendance line, is
merely one line involved or does it involve other lines?
A. All the lines in the school probably would be involved.
Of [16] course, if this is true, you’re studying the attend
ance lines of the neighboring schools as well.
Q. Now, there’s been some discussion and testimony
concerning pairing of certain schools and there are two
schools that are urged more often than others, Billings-
ville and Marie Davis. Could these schools be paired for
this year? A. Yes, they could, but I think the same com
ments that we made about singling out a particular area
for action in attendance lines would be applicable if a
single school was singled out for pairing.
Q. What effect would this have on your restructuring of
lines for next year? A. Rephrase your question, please.
Q. You have just stated that we were discussing the pair
ing of Billingsville and Marie Davis for this year. What
effect would the restructuring for next year have on the
pairing that might be accomplished for this year? A. It’s
possible that in these same schools desegregation could be
achieved through a redrawing of attendance lines. I be
lieve that the committee, in its consideration of pairing,
came to the conclusion that pairing should be resorted to
after you’ve explored other possibilities for desegregation,
534a
that attendance line restructuring holds more premise of a
permanent solution than does the pairing of schools.
Q. The plan provides another departure, that the school
[173 construction program will be reviewed. What effect
do you expect this to have on desegregation? A. As I
understand it, the construction program is to be reviewed
with the objective being to locate, construct and organize
school facilities in such a way as to promote desegregation
to the extent that it can possibly be achieved through this
technique, and I think that some progress toward further
desegregation can be achieved through this technique.
Q. Do I understand this technique to be that the schools
will be located so as to promote further desegregation?
A. Yes.
Court: Does that include giving attention to the
size or population of the proposed schools as well
as to the location with that purpose in mind?
A. I think it would although, Your Honor, I think that size
of school is an optimum way of solving a desegregation
problem. Both Syracuse and Buffalo have used many of
the techniques we’re using here but they are resting a good
bit of their hope on the construction of campus schools
where large numbers of pupils are housed and practically
everyone except those living in close proximity to the
campus are transported.
Q. Dr. Self, do you feel that the restructuring of school
attendance lines and constructing schools and setting ca
pacities so as to promote further desegregation offers
any real solution to the desegregation problem? [183 A. I
feel it offers very positive hope.
Q. Now, wuth reference to the report filed with the Court
relating to faculty, have you reviewed the various schedules
Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct
535a
relating to faculty assignments in the elementary schools for
this year? A. Yes, I have.
Q. What do you find noteworthy in the report as filed
with reference to elementary schools? A. Well, the Board
and staff set as a goal 17% minority race representation on
every faculty and with only one or two exceptions this goal
has been reached. I find this noteworthy.
Q. What has the effect been with reference to formerly
no all black or nearly black faculties. I think that we have
no all black or nearly black faculties. I think that we have
been able to desegregate faculty to the point where it is
not a token number of members of the minority race.
Q. Do you have an opinion with respect to faculty de
segregation for the school year 1970-71? A. I feel that it
is our intention to continue to make progress in this area.
Q. What is the normal attrition of your faculty during
the school year from year to year? A. Well, our turn
over is rather high. That plus the fact that we grow by
about 3000 pupils per year means that we will [19] employ
around 650 new teachers every year.
Q. Do you feel that the number of vacancies created and
new positions created will enable you to accomplish sig
nificant further desegregation of faculty? A. Yes, it will,
but we have not relied upon that as the sole technique this
year. We have moved some people.
Q. Has this been by assignment by the staff? A. This
has been by design of the staff, yes.
Q. What has the faculty acceptance of these assign
ments been? A. I think on the whole it’s been very good.
Our Assistant Superintendent, I believe, reported to the
Board of Education that there had been three resigna
tions which could be attributed to the fact that these moves
were made, but other than that I think it has been very
well accepted.
Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct
536a
Q. Has the Board taken any recent action with reference
to Second Ward High School or Metropolitan, as it is now
referred to? A. Yes. There was a motion made at the
last Board meeting which was last Thursday afternoon.
I can’t recall the wording of the motion but in effect it
reserved the bond money which had been designated for the
center-city area for the Metropolitan High School for the
construction on that site of an educational facility.
Q. Dr. Self, the plan makes mention of compensatory
education. Would you tell the Court what is intended when
we speak of compensatory education? [20] A. Well, if two
students enter a particular classroom at the same time with
the same teacher and one of them is behind the other in
terms of his achievement, the chances are that he will get
further behind his classmate as the year progresses. The
only hope that he can catch up is through providing him
with additional help and resources. This is the thinking
that educators use when you plan a summer school pro
gram, help those who need additional help to catch up to
their classmates. And actually the compensatory education
program as we have it in mind would be the application of
this same principle during the regular school year. If we
can help the youngster who is in need of it through correc
tive or remedial programs or something of this nature, we
feel that we ought to try to provide it within the limits of
the funds that are available.
Q. There is further mention of the in-service training
for teachers. What does this involve? A. Simply an at
tempt to improve the teacher’s knowledge of the environ
ment, background, special learning problems of students
in a desegregated setting. It could apply to white as well as
black.
Q. One of the last statements concerning the plan of
Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct
537a
desegregation relates to further studies of grouping or
pairing. What is the proposal of the staff with reference
to implementing this provision? [21] A. We propose to do
just that. I think that that provision is in the plan because
the Board of Education recognizes that this problem is
of such importance that every section of the school com
munity ought to be touched by it and if there are some sec
tions that are not touched by school closings or by attend
ance line alterations or something of this nature, then we
would like to find some other way to bring them into con
tact with members of the opposite race.
Q. Do you have an estimate of the cost of the interim
measures for transportation of the students during the
school year 1969-70? A. I do. Our Business Service De
partment has given us estimates on this. They used a
figure of $30.00 per pupil in terms of transportation. That
means that if all of the children of the closed area accepted
the assignment to another school that we would multiply
the 3000 pupils by $30.00 and came up with $90,000.00 in
terms of cost. In addition to this, it costs about $98,000.00
in terms of providing the equipment for use in the imple
menting the transportation program. Then in terms of the
relocatable classrooms, which would be necessary in terms
of housing the youngsters, our estimate is about $330,000.00.
Q. Dr. Self, what provision has been made for those
students attending the schools being closed who do not
wish to be transported? [22] A. The plan calls for the
youngsters in the Zeb Vance, Isabella Wyche, Bethune
areas who do not choose to take advantage of the trans
portation to be accommodated in the Zeb Vance Elementary
School facility. The plan calls for those youngsters from
the Fairview and the Alexander Street area who do not
wish to be transported to be reassigned to adjoining schools.
Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct
538a
The plan calls for the students from Irwin Avenue and
Second Ward who do not wish to be transported to be
assigned to adjoining schools.
Q. So what this basically means is that for these students
who do not want to be transported, they won’t have to be
transported, is that correct! A. That’s my interpretation
of it, yes.
Q. Do you need community support for the success of
this interim measure! A. Definitely.
Q. What support would be most helpful to you! A.
Well, I think that the parents whose youngsters are
effected by any move in terms of transportation, if they
come to an awareness that their youngsters will profit by
this, educationally speaking, it would be of great value
to us. On the other hand, if the parents in the receiving-
schools could develop an understanding that their educa
tional program would not be diminished by the move but
really would be enhanced by the move, I think we would
be helped mightily by [23] that as well.
Mr. Waggoner: I have no further questions.
Court: Cross examination!
Mr. Chambers: Yes, sir.
Cross Examination by Mr. Chambers:
Q. Dr. Self, you mentioned that after the Court’s order
in June the Board met and decided to appoint a five man
committee to draw a plan. You also stated that the Board
instructed you to review the Finger plan. Did you review
the Finger plan! A. Yes, we did.
Q. Did you prepare a written report with respect to the
Finger plan! A. Not in that sense, Mr. Chambers. We
made a presentation. We had maps and overlays and went
Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross
539a
through the Finger plan in detail. There was some written
material but I would not call it a report.
Q. You did have some written material! A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you had some maps! A. Yes.
Q. Are those in your possession! A. They are not in
my immediate possession. They are in the office.
Q. How many maps did you have! [24] A. We had
the three maps, one for the elementary schools, the junior
high and the senior high, three separate maps.
Q. How much written material do you recall that you
had in this connection! A. I don’t recall how much it
was.
Q. However, the complete material is in your possession!
A. Yes.
Q. Did you report on the possible pairing of Billingsville,
Cotswald, Eastover and Chantilly! A. We did.
Q. Would you tell the Court what you stated about the
possibility and feasibility of doing that for 1969-70!
A. Mr. Chambers, as best I recall I reported the plan
without interjecting any of my judgment into it at that
particular time. I simply interpreted what I had under
stood the Finger plan to be without trying to interject
any judgment into it.
Q. Did you state, Dr. Self, whether it was feasible to
implement the pairing of those schools for 1969-70! A.
No, I did not.
Q. Did you state whether it was possible to integrate
those schools for 1969-70! A. No, I did not.
Q. Did you consider in your report the possible pairing
of Marie Davis, Collingswood, Sedgefield, Pinewood and
Montclaire! A. I reported on that pairing arrangement
which, I believe, [25] Dr. Finger had drawn up around
Marie Davis, yes.
Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross
540a
Q. Did you state whether it was feasible to pair those
schools! A. No, I didn’t.
Q. Did you discuss the possible pairing of Hidden Valley
and Tryon Hills! A. Again, I reported on the plan itself.
Q. Did you state whether it was feasible to pair those
schools! A. No, I didn’t.
Q. Did you report on the possible pairing of Bruns
Avenue, Enderly Park and Ashley Park! A. I reported
on the plan itself, yes.
Q. Did you talk about the feasibility of pairing those
schools! A. No, sir.
Q. Did you report on the possible pairing of Thomas-
boro, Hoskins and Lakeview! A. Yes.
Q. Did you report on the feasibility of pairing those
schools! A. No, I did not.
Q. Did you report on the possible alteration of the
geographic zones for Second Ward or Metropolitan High
School! A. I do not recall that.
Q. Did you subsequently, Dr. Self, prepare a report
or some information for the Board relative to a plan
for desegregation in compliance with the Court’s order!
A. No, Mr. Chambers, I did not. The committee itself
elected to [263 avoid the technique of having the staff
prepare a plan for consideration by the committee. The
committee itself elected to be involved in the derivation
of the plan as a body, not to ask that the staff make it in
terms of recommendations to them.
Q. Did you work with the staff in the preparation of any
plan! A. I worked with the committee itself.
Q. You worked with the committee! A. Yes.
Q. H o w many plans did you prepare! A. I believe there
were several revisions, at least three that I know of.
Q. Were these revisions written up! A. They were.
Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross
541a
The majority of them had to do with revision of the policy
statement.
Q. Are those revisions in your possession? A. I have
rough notes on them, yes.
Q. Do you recall whether the committee considered the
possible pairing of the schools we just mentioned? A. Not
of these schools specifically, no.
Q. Did they consider the pairing of any schools? A. I
think in terms of school pairing the school committee con
cluded that the first alternative for desegregation which
should be attempted was the alteration of attendance lines.
Q. Did the committee consider the pairing of any schools?
[27] A. Not beyond what I have just stated.
Q. Now, you mentioned something in your direct ex
amination about a Weil report. A. Yes.
Q. Do you know the name of the individual who pre
pared that report? A. That is his name, Mr. Jack Weil.
Q. Do you know whether he is in court at this time ? A.
No, sir, I do not.
Q. Did you contact Mr. Weil? A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. Do you know who contacted Mr. Weil? A. Mr. Weil’s
first contact with me was on his initiative.
Q. He contacted you? A. He did.
Q. What followed after he contacted you? A. He asked
for a conference. He stated that as an interested citizen
that he would like to talk with me about a technique for
redrawing attendance lines. He did not know all of the
problems that there would be involved and the conference
that we had was for the purpose of trying to give him what
data he would need to make some additional judgment.
Q. Did you give him that data? A. To the best of my
ability, yes, I did.
Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross
542a
Q. Did he subsequently prepare some report or some in
formation for you? [28] A. He prepared a report and he
presented it to some of the members of the committee
working on the desegregation plan.
Q. This report was presented to the committee? A.
Yes, it was.
Q. Were you present? A. I was.
Q. Now, you’re supposed to have today a copy of that
report.
Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, if I may make
a statement. With reference to the Weil plan or
illustration or whatever it might be, we have some
pencil notes that Mr. Weil turned over to us after
his presentation at the Board meeting. He did not
pass out any papers of any kind. It was merely his
notes that he turned over to me as attorney for the
Board.
Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, it’s my understand
ing they also have a map.
Mr. Waggoner: There is a map in the back room.
Court: Are you objecting to the question?
Mr. Waggoner: I was just trying to shorten the
testimony. It appeared there was some thought
there was a formal report presented. It was an oral
report from his notes. I have his notes and I have
his map also.
Court: I have no intention of killing a lot of time
[29] on the whereabouts or the custody of the Weil
plan, but it has occurred to me listening to this ex
amination that one of the things the Court has got
to decide, if this plan in whole or in part is approved,
is what kind of timetable needs to be followed in the
preparation of plans and statements of intention for
Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross
543a
further action. With that in mind, I think the Weil
plan or uny other plan that somebody might have
worked up in whatever form it is would be relevant
in trying to set a timetable. So I would be curious
about the plan itself without attempting to pass
judgment on it.
Mr. Waggoner: If the Court pleases, with refer
ence to the plan, this was a manual plan. It doesn’t
consider all the options available to a computer.
They were a layman’s educational criteria applied to
designing these boundaries and we feel that it would
do a disservice to the community to put this map out
for public speculation that the school line could run
here or there or I may be in this school or I may be
in that school. The Board has no intention of adopt
ing this particular plan. It was merely an illustra
tion. A great deal of mischief would be done to pre
sent this to the public.
Court: Well, nobody made an objection so far.
What’s the next question1?
Mr. Chambers: I have filed with opposing counsel
a copy of our objections and response to the defen
dant’s plan. [30] We would like to get the map that
was prepared by Mr. Weil to identify.
Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, I object to
the Weil map as being irrelevant to the conduct of
this hearing. It does not represent any feature of
the plan, any adoption of the plan.
Court: Mr. Waggoner, in view of the absence of a
timetable which, as you know, the appellate deci
sions all require in such plan, it evolves upon the
Court to set a timetable. The nature of work that
may have been generated by Mr. Weil in whatever
Colloquy
544a
time he worked on it is of some relevance in enabling
the Court to decide what kind of time is reasonable
for preparation of this kind of study. If you are, in
substance, asking the Court to treat this so-called
plan as confidential or to require it not to be released
to the public, I ’ll hear both sides on that because that
would make some sense.
Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, I have no ob
jection to revealing it to the Court and counsel. I
just feel that a publication of it would not do this
community any service.
Court: You see, Mr. Waggoner, you’re in the posi
tion of asking the Court to accept the six months
timetable for the submission of plan for the further
action, but of concealing from the Court and oppos
ing counsel the [31] information from the man who
says six months is needed. I can’t accept this posi
tion. I ’ll either have to disregard all that’s been said
about computer analysis or take a look at what Mr.
Weil said and do some thinking of my own.
Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, I believe Mr.
Weil would be . . .
Court: You might be in more danger if I have to
do my thinking on my own.
Mr. Waggoner: Well, the thing that hasn’t been
explored, and I think perhaps this would be in the
nature of voir dire on determining whether or not
this particular map would even relate to a method
that would be a process for reaching a restructuring
of lines. This was a manual preparation.
Court: They all start out that way.
Mr. Waggoner: And to develop this computer
system, all of these hundreds of little boxes on the
Colloquy
545a
map, they’ve got to be stored with the numbers of
elementary, junior high and senior high by races
and a system has to be designed that would give a
computer printout. Mr. Weil has advised it will take
three months to do . . .
Court: I can’t cross examine you, Mr. Waggoner.
Mr. Waggoner: I know you can’t, Your Honor, but
I think that Dr. Self, with his familiarity with the
difficulties . . .
[32] Court: Let’s just put it this way; if you
want the Court to pay any attention to the existence
or probable contents or difficulty of preparing a
computer plan, you have to put the plan up here for
the Court to see. Otherwise I ’d just have to make
sort of a running guess about how long it would take
Dr. Self, using the resources of the Board, to do
what’s necessary to carry out the undertaking that
the plan embraces.
Mr. Waggoner: I would prefer to rely on the wis
dom of the Court’s guess.
Mr. Chambers: I would like to say one thing in
reference to that. We would like to introduce this
matter, not only because of the contention relative
to the time necessary to present a plan for complete
desegregation, but also because under Green the
Court was to consider alternatives which would pro
duce the most desegregation in the school system.
Now, the Board has submitted this plan and it’s
before the Court on the condition that it’s all the
Board or the most feasible step the Board could
take for 1969-70. We want the Court to consider
what Mr. Weil has done to determine whether there
should be some other step that the Board should
Colloquy
546a
take to desegregate the system for 1969-70. We
submit, therefore, that what evidence is presented
on the Weil plan would be relevant on the matter of
whether there should be some alternative plan or, if
the Court accepts the plan that [33] is submitted,
what time schedule should the Board be required
to present the new plan.
Court: Mr. Waggoner said he wanted me to guess
on that. I would rather not guess to the extent that
this is necessary, but I don’t think it’s really a guess,
it’s an estimate based on the evidence in the case
and in the absence of some evidence as to what it
takes to do that the Weil plan or what the use of a
computer would require, I will have to disregard
the opinions that have been given about six months
being required. We come out the same place which
ever way we start. I ’d rather get on to something
else than to . . .
Mr. Chambers: I would like to offer this evidence
on the feasibility of an alternate plan.
Court: As I recall the evidence already in the
record, the evidence of Dr. Self in this court before
was that all of these groupings and p a ir in g s about
which you've ask him were feasible if politically ac
cepted. That's substantially what you testified be
fore. isn't it?
A 1 used the titahicatiou administratively feasible.
- - - • e : '
make people mad. That's my recollection jf what
le sac ecu- a... > Y"igjrr’s matt except for a
toitpie h areas- ‘hat to retied me.
Dr. William C. Self-—for Defendant—Cross
547a
Mr. Chambers: Well, Your Honor, I also under
stood him to say that he did not consider it educa
tionally advisable [34] to pair those schools for
1969-70.
Court: He didn’t say that in his previous testi
mony. What he said earlier today is that he did not
recommend to the Board that they were feasible
for 1969-70.
Mr. Chambers: There was a question about
whether the children involved in those areas would
be going to a disadvantaged area in connection with
sending some white kids into black schools. Again,
I simply go back to Green and we should, I submit,
be able to show the Court that there are other feas
ible plans that this Board could utilize for 69-70
which would effectively desegregate the system better
than the plan that is now before the Court.
Court: Don’t you suppose the Court knows that?
Don’t you suppose everybody here knows that?
Mr. Chambers: If the Court is going to do what
we request the Court to do, that is, to bring in
another plan, if the Court requests the Board to do
that, that’s the only thing . . .
Court: If the evidence in the case already demon
strates to the satisfaction, I think, of everybody
that’s heard it that more could have been done than
is proposed to be done here, I don’t think we need
to belabor that.
Mr. Chambers: It still leaves me hanging on
whether the Court is going to require a new plan.
Court: The Court is still hanging on that point,
Colloquy
548a
[35] Mr. Chambers. I don’t believe a lot of in
formation about the Weil plan is going to help us
on that.
Mr. Chambers: May I make one further request,
Your Honor. Since it has been indicated that the
defendant would not like the plan to be offered in
public that the Court allow us to offer this plan
under Rule 46.
Court: If you’ve got it, you may offer it. I have
no objection to its being offered, and I ’ll rule that it
may be admitted if you’ve got it.
Q. Now, Dr. Self, you talked about the seven schools, the
closing of the seven black schools. In the plan submitted
by the Board in April the Board did not propose to close
either of those schools for 1969-70. A. That is correct.
Q. Now, would you tell the Court what led the Board to
decide to close those seven schools for 1969-70? A. Well,
I think the starting point for such deliberations was the
policy statement by the Board of Education. They felt
that further desegregation of students was called for at
this time. They saw this as a way of achieving it.
Q. Now, why did they decide that the closing of those
schools was the way to achieve further desegregation? A.
Well, I think that one thing that influenced their thinking
was that it was a part of the proposal by the plaintiffs’
expert in this area, and the second thing which called it to
[36] their mind was that the technique of school closing
had been employed before by this Board of Education and
was employed by both Boards of Education in Buffalo and
Syracuse.
Q. In your report you indicate that the Board considered
it more feasible to consider the closing of black schools and
Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross
549a
transportation of black students one way than to integrate
both the black and white schools, is that correct? A. I think
in my testimony I tried to indicate that the movement,
educationally speaking, is more defensible if you can move
a youngster from an area in which he may suffer educa
tional deprivation into one where he is promised a better
education.
Q. Did the Board determine that there was no black
school in the system which would allow a student to advance
educationally? A. No, the Board did not.
Q. Now, did the Board decide that there are some black
schools in the system which would allow a student to ad
vance educationally? A. I don’t believe that the committee
discussed this.
Q. All right. Now, you gave your opinion a moment ago
about the educational advantage of transferring students
from a disadvantaged area to a more advanced area. In
your opinion is there a black school in this system which
you would utilize to integrate students in the schools? A.
Not at this time.
[37] Q. You stated that the objective of the Board
was to proceed further with integration in 1970-71. Is it
your intention as you understand the policy of the Board
to close all of the black schools in this system? A. I be
lieve I stated that it was our intention to proceed further
with faculty desegregation in 70-71 but it is not my under
standing that the Board of Education contemplates closing
all black schools.
Q. Is it your understanding that the Board contemplates
closing more black schools in 1970-71? A. That is not my
understanding.
Q. Is it your understanding that it plans to close any?
A. No, it is not.
Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross
550a
Q. Then, despite the fact that you say there is no black
school in this system which would offer any educational
advantage for purposes of integration, you do not under
stand the Board of Education plans to close any more black
schools? A. I did indicate that it was not my understand
ing that the Board of Education intended to close any
additional black schools.
Q. Does the Board plan to integrate any of the remaining
black schools? A. That matter was not discussed by the
committee.
Q. Then is it your testimony, Dr. Self, that the Board
excluded any consideration of integration of black schools
for 1969-70? [38] A. For 1969-70, yes.
Q. Well, does the Board plan to integrate any of the
black schools in 1970-71? A. I have no way of knowing
that, Mr. Chambers. It has not been considered by the
committee.
Q. Well, you filed a report here that said that you were
going to draw new school zone lines and that you were
going to use the objective of the Board of promoting in
tegration. Now, is it your understanding of the policy
statement of the Board that you are to integrate the re
maining black schools? A. Well, it could be assumed from
reading the policy that this would be an ultimate goal but
this matter has not been discussed by the committee as yet.
Q. Well, you testified, Dr. Self, that you anticipated
substantial integration of students in 1970-71. I want to
know what standards of criteria you’re planning to follow
and if you are planning to integrate the remaining black
schools or leave them like they are. A. Well, these plans
have to be devised, Mr. Chambers, by the Board of Educa
tion working with the staff. I am not at liberty to say what
it is that the Board of Education intends to do.
Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross
551a
Q. You just testified about you anticipate a substantial
integration of teachers, that you anticipated substantial
integration of students as a result of the new zones and as
[39] a result of the new school plan with respect to con
struction. Are you telling the Court now that you don’t
anticipate this integration! A. No, I am not. I am saying
that we will try to use these techniques which have been
identified as a part of the plan to achieve substantial fur
ther desegregation.
Q. Isn’t it a fact, Dr. Self, that the committee discussed
and you understood the committee and the Board as re
quiring no integration with white students going into black
schools in 1969-70 or later? A. That is not my under
standing.
Q. Did you understand them to require integration of
these black schools? A. I understand from the declara
tion of the policy on the part of the Board that we will
move in this direction.
Q. In integrating black schools? A. But what techniques
will be used I have no way of knowing at this particular
time.
Q. Dr. Self, did you consider it feasible to integrate West
Charlotte in 1969-70? A. Did I or did the committee?
Q. Did you? A. No, I did not.
Q. Do you now consider it feasible ? A. Not at this time.
[40] Q. What would be the educational reason for not
integrating West Charlotte? A. The educational reason
for not integrating West Charlotte?
Q. Yes. A. I don’t know of an educational reason.
There are certainly some political and economic reasons.
Q. What would be the political reason? A. I think that
the technique for integrating West Charlotte would be a
very marked change in the attendance lines of West Char
lotte and that redrawing of an attendance line should be
Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross
552a
accompanied by a reexamination of every other attendance
line in the school system.
Q. Did you consider the feasibility of using a different
feeder system for West Charlotte? A. No, we did not.
Q. It isn’t . necessary, therefore, to redraw the lines to
integrate West Charlotte. A. If you used a feeder system.
Q. And is it feasible to use a feeder system and use
transportation for white students into West Charlotte for
1969-70? A. Not in my opinion.
Q. What would be the reasons that would indicate edu
cational disadvantages in bringing in white students by a
feeder system into West Charlotte? A. Would you repeat
your question?
[41] Q. In your opinion you say it would not be feasible
to integrate West Charlotte in 1969-70. I ’m trying to find
out why you’re saying that. A. I think I did indicate that
I thought that the technique for integrating West Char
lotte would be through the restructuring of attendance
lines and to single out one school and draw its attendance
line in a different way at this particular point would seem
to me not to be feasible.
Q. Wlel, you have singled out seven schools. Are you
saying that you can single out these seven but you should
not single out any other?
Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, this is argu
mentative rather than evidentiary.
Court: Objection overruled. How much longer do
you think your examination of Dr. Self will last?
Mr. Chambers: About another hour, Your Honor.
Court: Let’s take a ten minute recess.
* * * * *
[57] * * *
W hebettpox, Dr. Self returns to the witness stand.
Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross
553a
Cross Examination (Cont’d) by Mr. Chambers:
Q. Dr. Self, has the Board determined where it will
assign the black students at Second Ward or Metropolitan
High if that school is closed! A. Yes, it has.
Q. Would you tell the Court which schools these students
would be assigned to? A. Harding, West Charlotte, Gar-
inger, East Mecklenburg, Myers Park, South Mecklenburg.
Q. Has the Board determined how it’s going to assign
these students? A. Yes. The plan calls for dividing the
Metropolitan district in such a way that part of it falls in
the attendance areas of the schools that I named.
Q. Has that district been divided into the districts in the
schools that you named? A. Yes.
Q. Did you do this by a map? A. Yes.
Q. Do you have a copy of that map? [58] A. No. The
plan contains the description of the revised attendance lines.
Q. But you don’t have a map? A. No, I do not.
Q. Approximately what is the average distance that these
students will be bused? A. I could only guess at about
three miles.
Q. Approximately how far is East Mecklenburg from
the center part of Charlotte? A. I would estimate live
and a half miles.
Q. Approximately how far is South Mecklenburg? A.
Probably seven miles.
Q. Approximately how far is Harding? A. Prom the
center of Charlotte?
Q. Prom the center of Charlotte. A. Again, I ’m only
estimating. I would estimate about two and a half miles.
Q. Approximately how far is West Charlotte from the
center part of Charlotte? A. About the same.
Q. Now, have the faculty members at Second Ward or
Metropolitan High already been assigned by the Board?
Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross
554a
A. That’s my understanding, yes.
Q. Do you know what was done with the principal of
that school? A. Yes. Mr. Waddell was made Assistant
to the Superintendent.
[59] Q. And what does that mean? A. Just as the
name implies.
Q. What will he do ? A. He will assist in whatever areas
of work there are in the office which demand attention.
Q. That is a new position? A. Yes, it is.
Q. With no defined duties. A. None other than what
I have said.
Q. Do you know what the football coach of Second Ward
is to do for next year? A. I do not know.
Q. Are you familiar with the guidelines of the Depart
ment of Health, Education and Welfare pertaining to
teachers? A. Not intimately, no.
Q. In your determination to assign the coaches at Second
Ward or Metropolitan High School did you consider the
qualifications of all coaches in the school system? A. I
believe that pertains to dismissal of personnel, does it not?
No one has been dismissed.
Q. Did you consider the qualifications of all coaches in
the school system? A. No.
Q. He wasn’t compared, for instance, with the coach at
East Mecklenburg or South Mecklenburg? [60] A. I do
not know. I do not believe so.
Q. Your policy doesn’t provide for that, does it? A. No,
it doesn’t.
Q. So he will be assigned irrespective of his qualifica
tions or ability. A. To a position as closely as possible
as we can to the position he held at Second Ward.
Q. I gather coaches at various schools make additional
money because of their coaching duties. A. They are
supplemented.
Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross
555a
Q. And if he does not get a coaching position he will
lose this money for 1969-70. A. He will have a coaching
position and he will receive his supplement.
Q. Do you know which school he will be coaching at?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Do you know what school the basketball coach has
been assigned to? A. No, I do not.
Q. Do you know if he will have a coaching position?
A. He will.
Q. Is there a difference between the salary of an as
sistant coach and a head coach? A. There is.
Q. Will they have head coaching positions? [613 A. I
do not know. If he does not, he will not suffer a penalty
in salary. An exception will be made.
Q. This is similar to the practice you followed in 1965
in assigning the black principals to assistant principal
positions. A. I don’t believe it is the same.
Q. Now, did you have guidance counselors at the Metro
politan High School? A. Yes.
Q. Do you know what schools these guidance counselors
have been assigned to? A. I do not.
Q. Did you have cheering leaders at Second Ward High
School? A. Yes.
Q. Do you know what arrangements have been made for
them at the schools to which they are being assigned?
Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, we are going
to object to this. This is getting down to intimate
details of assignments within a particular school.
I don’t think we’re here this afternoon to get to
individual personalities and where they may be
placed. We made our statement and if they feel
this is untrue, then the burden is upon them to come
Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross
556a
forward and show that we have discriminated in
reassignments.
[62] Court: Objection is overruled.
A. It is my understanding that this matter was discussed
in the principals’ meeting where the details were being
planned and that the person who had the cheerleading
position at the Metropolitan High School would be auto
matically a cheerleader in the receiving school, if they
chose to transfer.
Q. Do you know about the student organizations at
Second Ward? A. Not in detail, no.
Q. Do you know what accommodations have been made
for the student leaders at Second Ward? A. They are to
be accorded positions similar to this in the receiving school.
If they are members of a National Honor Society, they
are automatically members of the National Honor Society
at the receiving school.
Q. What about holding offices in the organizations?
A. I do not know that that detail has been discussed.
Q. Do you know whether any of the students at Second
Ward presently were being considered for scholarship op
portunities following graduation? A. I do not know.
Q. Do you know what arrangements, if any, have been
made if any student at Second Ward was being considered
for scholarship opportunities? A. Sorry, I don’t under
stand the question.
Q. Do you know whether you have made any arrange
ments for the [63] coaches at Irwin Junior High School?
A. The same arrangements made for the coaches at Metro
politan High.
Q. Before leaving Second Ward, I believe you have at
each of the high schools you mentioned ability groupings.
Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross
557a
Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross
A. Yes.
Q. Is it your intention to give additional tests to stu
dents at the receiving schools to determine which ability
group the student should be in? A. No, it is not. We
anticipate placing these youngsters in many of the classes
in this school. We will definitely prevent the sectioning
of these youngsters by themselves in a section.
Q. Well, do you plan to have ability groupings at these
high schools, the receiving high schools? A. Yes.
Q. Do you plan to put these students in any of the
groups? A. In all of the groups, not in one.
Q. Do you know how you will place them in the groups ?
A. I think the best determinate would be the marks which
they scored at Second Ward and the teacher’s judgment
there.
Q. Now, have you decided on your bus routes? A. No,
we have not.
Q. Have you purchased your buses? A. No.
[64] Q. Do you plan to purchase these buses before the
beginning of school? A. We do if our plan is approved.
Q. When will school begin? A. September 2nd.
Q. Now, it’s my understanding you don’t have enough
mobile units at all of the schools to accommodate the stu
dents who are going to be transferred. A. That’s true.
Q. And you won’t have the mobile units there at the begin
ning of the school term. A. That’s true.
Q. And that it will take approximately six months in
some cases to get sufficient mobile units there to accommo
date the students. A. According to our conversation with
the vendors, they can deliver a certain number, five to ten,
early in September and that we might expect one or two
units per month delivery schedule from that point on.
558a
Q. Do yon anticipate having enough mobile units at the
various schools to accommodate all the students by Jan
uary, 1970! A. I ’m sure we would have by that time.
Q. Do you think you would have enough units by Decem
ber, 1969 ? A. Probably.
Q. What do you plan to do with the students in the mean
time! [65] A. Well, the section of the plan which antici
pates movement of youngsters from overcrowded black or
all black or nearly all black schools anticipates movement
during the year and that provision was written into it,
recognizing the fact that we could not have all mobile units
immediately. The children from the closed schools will be
accommodated, those of them who choose to exercise this
privilege of moving into another school, in whatever fash
ion we can come up with. We will take mobile units wher
ever possible from schools where new construction makes
them available once more. I think the Paw Creek situation
was a technique for getting some mobile units to accommo
date this purpose. Things of this nature. We have, on
occasions, had to use classrooms on stages, auditoriums,
partitioning larger than average classrooms, making them
two, the same techniques we have used all along to try to
accommodate the youngsters.
Q. Do you know the number of black schools in your
system that will be underpopulated for 1969-70! A. No.
Q. Do you recall the testimony of Dr. Larsen about the
number of black schools that had substantial space accom
modations! A. I recall the testimony of Dr. Larsen but
not in the detail you’re requiring here.
Q. You don’t recall the report that they submitted that
was identified in evidence in this proceeding! [66] A. I
recall their report but not the details of the report.
Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross
559a
Q. Dr. Self, would you state whether in your opinion
there are approximately 2500 spaces available in black or
predominantly black schools in this system for 1969-70?
A. I do not recall that detail, Mr. Chambers.
Q. Do you know approximately how many are available?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Now, there are some overcrowded white schools, are
there not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the Board has no intention of transporting any
of the white students from those overcrowded schools to
spaces available in black or predominantly black schools.
A. That is not a part of the plan.
Q. Now, Dr. Self, did you study the Weil plan? A. Not
in depth, no.
Q. Did it provide for the complete desegregation of the
elementary schools in this system? A. It did not.
Q. Do you know which schools it left segregated? A.
No, I do not.
Q. Did it leave any black school in the system racially
identifiable as a black school? A. I don’t recall.
Q. Now, in your report about faculty desegregation you
state that in 1970-71 you will move further along in de
segregating the [67] faculty members. A. Yes.
Q. Do you have a timetable for complete desegregation
of faculty members in this system ? A. I think it is generally
understood that the task would be accomplished in the
next school year.
Q. Did the Board decide to do that? A. The Board has
made no definite decision in this direction.
Q. And it’s not written in the plan. A. No, sir.
Q. Now, how did the Board arrive at the 17% ? A. I
believe that there was conversation which was introduced
Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant-—Cross
560a
relative to how much faculty desegregation could be ex
pected and a review of a court case—I don’t recall which
case—indicated that a ruling had been made which ordered
the system to move to a one to six ratio. I feel that this
influenced our group to determine this as the goal which
we would try to achieve this September.
Q. Now, in this document which has been referred to in
this record as the Self plan you proposed to completely
desegregate teachers 1969-70. A. It did, but it did not define
completely desegregated.
Q. You did not state in your proposal that you would
have the percentage of teacher desegregation as directed
by the court? A. I don’t believe that it did state a definite
percentage.
[68] Q. You don’t have a copy of your proposal with
you, do you? A. No, sir.
Q. Are you telling the Court that you didn’t state in
April of 1969 that in your opinion you could achieve 33%
desegregation in each school in the system? A. That ratio
was not used to the best of my recollection.
Q. How did you determine that you couldn’t do more
than 17% ? A. We set this goal and worked toward it, Mr.
Chambers.
Q. And you stated that you had approximately three
resignations which you could attribute to non-racial assign
ment of faculty. A. Yes.
Q. Dr. Self, did you prepare a report on the number of
students who would be affected by the elimination of free
dom of choice in this system? A. A report was prepared
in the Research Department of the school system.
Q. Are you familiar with the Court’s finding that freedom
of choice in this system had promoted segregation of the
schools in the system? A. I don’t recall that finding.
Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross
561a
Q. You don’t recall that finding? A. No.
Q. Why didn’t the Board eliminate freedom of choice for
the next school year? [69] A. I can only conjecture that
the Board members felt that freedom of choice had rather
slight effect on the overall problem.
Q. Do you know how many white students would be at
York Road if you eliminated freedom of choice? A. No, I
do not.
Q. Do you recall whether your report showed 190? A. I
don’t recall that detail.
Q. Do you recall how many white students would he at
Amy James if you eliminated freedom of choice? A. No, I
do not.
Q. Do you recall how many white students would be at
Marie G. Davis if you eliminated freedom of choice? A. No,
I do not.
Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant-—Cross
Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, this is a mat
ter of record. The exhibit is filed before the Court
and it seems to me he’s asking questions that he
couldn’t humanly he expected to recall such figures
as this.
Court: Mr. Chambers, are you about through with
this phase of your examination?
Mr. Chambers: About freedom of choice ?
Court: If you’re pursuing something that I ought
to be listening to real hard, I want to hear about it.
Mr. Chambers: I would like, then, to get the re
port of Dr. Self regarding the effect of freedom of
[70] choice in the school system.
Court: That’s not at issue here. The Court found
as a fact that freedom of choice does not promote
562a
Colloquy
desegregation and that the constitutional purposes
have to be accomplished totally without regard to
freedom of choice.
Mr. Chambers: The plan they have now doesn’t
eliminate freedom of choice.
Court: The Court did not direct that freedom of
choice he eliminated. It directed the School Board
do the job regardless of whether they kept freedom
of choice or not.
Mr. Chambers: Without it being eliminated in
1969-70 you will have 1200 or more white students
transferring out of integrated schools.
Court: That’s my recollection of the figure.
Mr. Chambers: And we contend that’s an element
that has clearly been ruled unconstitutional by the
Supreme Court and that it should be ruled out in
this plan, too.
Court: I made the clearest statement about it
that I think has ever been made. I said freedom of
choice promotes segregation. It does not promote
compliance with the constitution and that the con
stitutional mandate has to be accomplished by
methods other than [71] freedom of choice. But I
also said if the Board wanted to operate a system in
which people had some freedom to go from one
school to another and could, in spite of that, comply
with the constitution, that’s their business, not mine.
Mr. Chambers: The evidence now before the
Court, we submit—and that’s the reason I was going
into it now—clearly shows that freedom of choice
promotes segregation in this system and without it
being eliminated here and now, it would perpetuate
563a
Colloquy
segregated schools in the system. There is no justi
fiable reason whatever for allowing freedom of choice
in the system for next year, none whatsoever. They
have not advanced one educational reason for leav
ing it in the system for next year, and I think the
court decisions clearly hold that the school systems
have to get rid of it now.
Court: Well, it may be the distinction or the dif
ference that isn’t apparent yet. It seems to me that
some day you may be asking the Court to restore
freedom of choice if the Court today rules it out.
Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, that might be true
and it might be true that the Board will come in
with a plan next year which will be acceptable to all
parties and we might come back in years hence and
ask that some alterations be made. We cannot con
trol the housing patterns. We think that at this stage
of the game, where the record clearly shows that free
dom of choice perpetuates a segregated system, that
the [72] decisions of the Supreme Court and the
decisions of the Fourth Circuit require that it be
eliminated now.
Court: Are you suggesting, for example, that the
freedom of these 4200 children to stay where they
are be abrogated by the Court1?
Mr. Chambers: I am suggesting if the Board is
going to use freedom of choice in any instance that
it be only a majority to minority transfer of a stu
dent in a black school to a white school or a white
student in a white school to a black school—as we
referred to them, majority to minority transfers.
Now, the Board proposed that in the plan con
sidered by the Court in June and it also contained
564a
Colloquy
in there the general open-ended freedom of choice
provision and the Court spoke highly of the majority
to minority transfer. But we think here now, if it’s
allowed, that the only way it should he allowed would
be a situation where the students are allowed to
transfer from a school where their race is in the ma-
pority to a school where their race is in the minority.
There is no justifiable reason at all for allowing gen
eral freedom of choice and it further emphasizes the
point Bev. Leake was talking about, that we’re al
ways talking about moving black kids to white
schools.
Court: Well, this reminds me of the story that
one of the lawyers told me recently, one of the law
yers in this case. The very wise old Babbi had a man
and his wife come [73] in fighting, as husbands
and wives do, and the wife told her story and the
Babbi said, “You know, you’re right.” Then the
husband says, “ I want to be heard.” , and he said,
“Yes, I ’m going to hear you.” Then he heard the
husband and he said to the husband, “ ’Well, you’re
right.” And his clerk said, “How can they both be
right?” , and the Babbi turned to him and said,
“You’re right, too.”
Now, that story merely illustrates the point that
when you’re dealing with a situation with so many
hundreds of variables, you can’t be perfect about it
all at once. It was my judgment six days ago that
what I found and ruled about freedom of choice in
this system for this school year was substantially
correct. It may not be right, but I get your point.
It’s still a live point but I don’t know that we need
any further evidence on it. Any ruling necessary
565a
on that subject is amply covered by the evidence al
ready introduced and by the finding that I ’ve made
which says that freedom of choice, to the extent of a
thousand or 1200 students a year in this system pro
motes segregation of the races. That’s true.
Mr. Chambers: If counsel for the School Board
will stipulate that is the effect projected—
Court: That’s been found as a fact. Nobody needs
to stipulate that.
Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I’m talking about the
[74] effect in 1969-70. The evidence before the
Court was talking about what occurred in 1968-69.
Court: All right. Isn’t this covered by the state
ment in the report which says that the net effect of
it is some—no, I guess it’s not expressly covered.
Dr. Self, does that continue to be the general re
sult of the free transfer provision, that it enables
a goodly number of white students to get out of a
mostly black school! Is that the net’ result of the
free transfer provision!
A. Yes.
Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross
Court: It’s still true that if any white children
have requested transfer from a white school to a
mostly black school your records don’t reveal it!
A. That’s true.
Court: And would you estimate that the number
of white children who would be in mostly black
schools this fall without free transfer provisions
would be somewhere between a thousand and twelve
or thirteen hundred!
566a
Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant-—Cross
A. I think that’s about right, Your Honor. It’s an estimate.
Court: O-K.
Mr. Chambers: Would the Court indulge me one
moment ?
Court: Yes, sir.
Mr. Chambers: I just have one or two more ques
tions.
Q. What consideration did this Board give the anti
busing bill [75] in the drafting of its plan? A. I don’t
think it influenced the Board. It was not considered as a
part of the plan.
Q. What was the purpose in the plan for the provision
that if the black students objected to being assigned to the
school to -which they were assigned by the Board they
would then be allowed to choose Zeb Vance or attend Zeb
Vance? A. Well, I think in my own mind the provision
was introduced because in educational fields we think that
it is good to have some alternatives to a particular plan.
On occasion, if you have that alternative, it may save your
plan.
Q. What do you mean by that? A. To allow those who
object vehemently to a particular course of action some
thing else to choose from.
Q. Something— A. Something else to choose from.
Q. Is that why you used freedom of choice? A. I think
that’s one of the purposes of freedom of choice.
Q. And the reason for the provision that the students
who were assigned to Irwin and Second Ward who did not
want to go to the school to which they were assigned by
the Board that they would be allowed to attend the next
nearest school was to give them another chance or another
alternative? A. To give a second alternative.
567a
Q. Well, why did you limit them to the next nearest
school! [76] A. I don’t know.
Q. Can they request transfer to another integrated
school? A. I would assume that these youngsters, upon
being assigned could exercise freedom of choice to another
school.
Mr. Chambers: I have nothing further.
Mr. Waggoner: No further questions, Your Honor.
Court: All right, come down, Dr. Self.
I have a statement which was supplied by the rec
ord of a specially called meeting of the League of
Women Voters recently, expressing their belief that
the community should assume the responsibility for
desegregating the schools and improving the quality
of education, expressing generally support for the
point of view that the plan proposed by the Board is
unfair and one-sided and that the Weil plan should
be made public.
You may put this in the record, Miss McKnight.
Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I ’d like to correct
the record. When I was discussing the Weil plan
previously I made reference to it being admitted
under Rule 46.
Court: Well, I don’t remember the numbers of
the rules, either, Mr. Chambers.
Mr. Chambers: I meant Rule 43(e). We would
like to identify that map and the overlay, as Plain
tiffs’ Collective Exhibit # ------ .
Mr. Waggoner: Your Honor, we would like the
Court [77] to order that this be held confidentially
in the Clerk’s office.
Mr. Chambers: Does that mean we’ll be excluded
from looking at it, too?
Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross
568a
Mr. Waggoner: No, sir. Just counsel will be per
mitted to review it and the Court.
Court: Do you want it to be confidential from the
Court or do you want the Court to consider it in
making up the timetable?
Mr. Waggoner: No, sir. As I understand, he is
introducing this on the basis it’s excluded testimony
and it will be in the record in the event he appeals
and, therefore, it is not properly evidence in the
case. It’s merely an offer of proof under Rule 43(e),
and therefore it really does not constitute evidence
in the case but the proof is offered.
Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I don’t recall the
Court actually ruling that it could not be admitted.
The Court was considering its relevance but never
ruled that it was not admissable. I was tendering
it really under the rules so that whatever determina
tion the Court made, we would at least have it in
case the matter were appealed to the Fourth Circuit.
Court: Well, in view of the fact that the Court
is not going to consider what was said about the
Weil plan in making any extended timetable for fur
ther action by the Board, the request that the Weil
plan not be publicized will [78] be granted and it
will be kept confidential by the Clerk except as to
counsel, unless and until good cause is shown to
the contrary. It will be open to all counsel who want
to see it. It will be considered as evidence unre
stricted in the event the record on appeal needs to
be made up. I will not undertake to understand it
myself and I will not consider in any further orders
how long it would take to develop the Weil plan.
Mr. Weil is getting a lot of free advertising. Does
Colloquy
569a
that cover what everybody wants about the Weil
plan?
Mr. Waggoner: Yes, sir.
Mr. Chambers: No. We’d like to tender that Weil
plan as evidence to show that the Board could have
adopted a different plan which would have resulted
in more complete desegregation of the school system.
Court: Well, I can find that totally without re
gard to the Weil plan and I will, if need be, but I
don’t think that’s our real problem here. We have a
community problem that gets into this court because
it raises questions of equal treatment of people un
der the law. Nobody here created the problem. We
have all participated in it. When this case was last
heard in 1965—I was just looking back at the origi
nal order—the Court could very properly proceed
upon the assumption that teacher desegregation
could be validly accomplished by having the same
proportion of black teachers in a school as you have
black pupils. They could proceed [79] upon the as
sumption there was no duty on the Board to increase
or change the racial makeup of a school, and all that
was good law under Briggs against Elliot, which
Judge Parker decided about eight or ten years ago,
and all of that law has been changed. But the fact
that the Supreme Court has ruled as it did and that
it’s the duty of the School Board and the court to
desegregate the schools now doesn’t mean that they
need to be hung if it doesn’t happen this week. It
takes a little time and a little patience and, frankly,
I find in the policy change and in the faculty integra
tion and in the somewhat disappointing one-way
proposition a lot of action and a lot of implications
Colloquy
570a
which I think are most favorable for the completion
of this job in fairly short order.
I’d like to think, when I ’m not mad with somebody
myself, that everybody is right and is proceeding ac
cording to his own conscience, and with all of ns
this is true about 95% of the time. It will be help
ful if we remembered that we are not just here grad
ing papers on some rule that’s been in existence for
ever, but we are here taking part in a change that
nobody here started and nobody here will see the
end of. I don’t know at this moment what my duty is
under the constitution about the approval or disap
proval or modification of this plan, but if we can
leave here with everyone feeling that he has been
fairly heard and that there is time to achieve per
fection, then all the [80] commotion may have been
somewhat worthwhile.
Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I ’d like to say one
thing. Rev. Leake has spoken about the black com
munity reaction to the Board’s plan and I must say
that what the Court now has before it, I submit, is a
plan—and even though an interim one—that should
not be approved by the Court. I think for good rea
sons many of the black citizens in this community
have expressed apprehension about the portent of
this plan for 1970-71, even if the Court were to ap
prove what we have now. I think the testimony of
Dr. Self clearly demonstrates that what we’re going
to be doing in the future is moving black kids to
white schools. Now, we contend in our objections to
the plan not only that it is rank discrimination to
have one-way busing, but unconstitutional discrim
ination . . . I mean to say more persuasive discrim
Colloquy
571a
ination when you have some clearly easily obtainable
means for implementing the constitutional duty of
this Board that the Board simply refuses to under
take because of race. I mean specifically that free
dom of choice in this system has no constitutional
justifications or even any pragmatic justification at
this stage. There are many schools in this system,
black, that could easily be integrated by this Board
now, and to approve a plan now that provides for
only one-way integration is only going to set the tone
for the rest of the practices by the Board that it will
carry out plans of [81] desegregation by moving
blacks into white situations. I think that the Brown
decision itself clearly pointed out the dilatorious ef
fect this practice would have and I think that we
aren’t really accomplishing the objectives of Brown
to just talk about the idea that we’re going to get
better educational settings for black students by put
ting them in white schools without considering also
the effect that always moving blacks to white schools
will have on the students. Now, we have here in this
system, where we are trying to bring the people
together as the Court intimated, an opportunity now
for showing the black people that we’re going to
integrate the school system right even beginning
1969-70 by requiring that both black and white stu
dents he integrated into all schools in the system.
And I think this is the opportunity for doing it and
I respectfully request that the Court order that it be
done.
We have, as the Court intimated at the beginning,
for further consideration by the Board a statute
pending and we have our motion for temporary re
Colloquy
572a
straining order before the Court and whatever
future considerations are given by this Board to a
plan, we think, would probably be effected by this
statute and we would like to be heard.
Court: I don’t want to shorten the discussion of
the anti-busing law but it contains a provision in it
that the anti-busing neighborhood school law does
not apply to [82] any transfer necessitated by over
crowded conditions or other circumstances which,
in the sole discretion of the School Board, require
reassignment. That is an exception which makes the
statute totally nill. It’s a statute which attracted a
lot of attention but which contains a statement in
it that this statute doesn’t prevent a School Board
from doing what for any cause it chooses appropri
ate to do. As I read the plan which the Board has
prepared, they have quite properly read all of the
statute instead of its title and read the part that
says they may make any transfer or assignment
that, in their sole discretion, they desire and they
have not considered it in doing what’s being done
here. I am assuming that they will continue to put
that interpretation upon it and we don’t really have
to deal with the question of a temporary restraining
order as far as the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School
Board is concerned.
Mr. Stein: Your Honor, may I speak very briefly
to that? I think that possibly the statute is not a
paragon of clear legislative drafting, but I would
suggest that a contrary interpretation to that which
you have given it might be read into it and that as it
stands it has the possibility of having a chilling
Colloquy
573a
effect upon the prospects for integration. May we
point out that the plan that they have provided for
looks to the exceptions in the statute, not the general
one you speak of, but the provision here which allows
for [83] freedom of choice for everybody. I think
that despite the testimony of the Superintendent,
the fact they left Zeb Vance over there, giving all
black students an opportunity to apply there, the
fact that on Page 2 they talk about closed schools
and temporarily reassigned pupils looks to the pro
vision in the statute which says the provisions of this
article shall not apply to temporary assignment due
to the unsuitability of the school for its intended
purpose. That’s their claim here. You might he
right, Your Honor, that there is a total escape clause
here, hut we would urge that in your order, which
we expect shortly, that some language be in there
directing the Board to do what you seem to suggest
they have already done, and that is to ignore the
statute.
Court: I suppose since you haven’t paid any at
tention to it anyhow, it’s not material what’s done
as long as there is no door being closed against a
hearing by the State of North Carolina, which is
not represented here today.
Mr. Weinstein: Your Honor, we have consulted
with the Attorney General’s office in view of the
fact that they have, at least tentatively, the State
Superintendent of Education, the State Board of
Education, been made parties and we are informed
by Mr. Ralph Moody, the Deputy Attorney General
of North Carolina, that they intend to take a posi
Colloquy
574a
tion with reference to the statute now being dis
cussed. Mr. Moody did not have notice that this
might come up today until late [84] yesterday and
he was in Washington and he asked us to convey
the message to the Court that he would urge the
Court to defer any action with reference to the
statute until he had an opportunity to be heard.
Court: Certainly nothing done today will be bind
ing upon the State and I ’m just a little bit undecided
whether to put any temporai’y restraint on the
School Board in view of the fact that they’ve read
the statute and it’s not inhibiting their action here.
I ’m just going to have to think a little about whether
to include any kind of restraint on the School Board.
My inclination is really not to do it but I ’ve got to
think some about it.
Mr. Weinstein: Your Honor, as I read the statute
I heard the words used with reference to some stat
utes that the exception swallowed the statute and we
have testimony here that these exceptions, with ref
erence to the plan pending before the Court, swallow
the statute. There’s no objection to what’s been
presented to this Court or what is contemplated for
the future.
Court: Is there anything else that counsel wants
to say? I would like to talk with all the lawyers as
soon as court adjourns.
I ’d like to express my thanks to all of you who
came today and stood and sat so quietly through a
right warm afternoon. Adjournment, please.
Colloquy
575a
Answer of the Defendants, the North Carolina State
Board of Education and Superintendent of Public
Instruction of the State of North Carolina, to the
Supplemental Complaint
(Filed August 11, 1969)
(1) Answering the allegations of Paragraph I of the
Supplemental Complaint, these answering defendants al
lege that the order allowing the plaintiffs to file a supple
mental complaint is based upon a motion which was filed in
the Office of the Clerk of the Federal Court for the Western
District on July 22, 1969, and the order of the Judge of
the District Court was also filed on the same date, July 22,
1969, and said order allowing said Supplemental Complaint
to be filed is void, invalid and contrary to due process of
law for that the North Carolina State Board of Education
and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction were
never given an opportunity to appear before the Court and
resist said Motion, but, to the contrary, the same is an ex
parte order entered without service upon the said defen
dants of any notice or copy of said motion prior to the
granting of said order; it is admitted that there is quoted in
Paragraph I of the Supplemental Complaint a portion of
Chapter 1274 of the Session Laws of 1969 of the General
Assembly of this State; it is denied that the plaintiffs are
entitled to any preliminary and permanent injunction as
against these State defendants or that the plaintiffs are
entitled to a declaratory judgment as against these defen
dants.
(2) Answering the allegations of Paragraph II of the
plaintiffs’ Supplemental Complaint, it is denied that this
Court has jurisdiction as against these State defendants
under Federal statutes cited in said paragraph or under the
576a
constitutional provisions cited in said paragraph; it is de
nied that G. S. 115-176.1 is unconstitutional and invalid or
that the plaintiffs are entitled to any declaratory judgment
or the convening of a 3-judge federal court; the allegations
of Paragraph II are, therefore, untrue, and are denied.
(3) The allegations of Paragraph II are untrue and are
denied except the allegation as to the status of the plaintiffs
being the same plaintiffs who instituted the original action;
it is denied that the plaintiffs are entitled to maintain a
class action as against these State defendants.
(4) Answering the allegations of Paragraph IV, these
State defendants have nothing to do with the defendants
named as the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education
and the individual members thereof, and, therefore, are not
required to answer the allegations of subparagraph (a) of
Paragraph IV of the Complaint; it is alleged, therefore,
that the duties of Forth Carolina State Board of Education
and of Dr. A. Craig Phillips are fixed by State statutes, and,
therefore, the allegations of subparagraphs (h) and (c)
are denied.
(5) The allegations of Paragraph V are admitted.
(6) The allegations of Paragraph VI are admitted.
(7) Answering the allegations of Paragraph VII, these
State defendants allege that the same relate to a motion for
further relief filed against the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board
of Education, hearings on same, orders to submit plans of
desegregation and matters with which these State defen
dants are not concerned, and these State defendants allege
that they are not required to answer said Paragraph VII.
Answer of the Defendants, the North Carolina
State Board of Education, Etc.
577a
(8) The allegations of Paragraph VIII of the Complaint
relate to matters with which these State defendants are
not concerned and of which they have no knowledge or in
formation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of same,
and as to these State defendants the allegations of said
paragraph are, therefore, denied.
(9) Answering the allegations of Paragraph IX, these
State defendants allege that said allegations relate to mat
ters that these defendants are not concerned with and with
which State defendants have not knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief to form the truth of same and
as to these defendants said paragraph is, therefore, denied.
(10) Answering the allegations of Paragraph X, the State
defendants allege that whatever appears in the orders of
the Court previous to the filing of this Supplemental Com
plaint are matters of record, and, therefore, they are not
required to answer as to same.
(11) Answering the allegations of Paragraph XI, these
State defendants allege that the General Assembly of North
Carolina at its Session of 1969 enacted into law an Act which
is now codified as G. S. 115-176.1 and that said Act was
ratified on July 2, 1969; that said Act speaks for itself as
to its contents, and except as herein admitted the allegations
of Paragraph X II are untrue and are denied.
(12) The allegations of Paragraph X II are untrue and
are therefore, denied.
(13) The allegations of Paragraph XIII are untrue and
are therefore, denied.
(14) The allegations of Paragraph XIV are untrue and
are therefore, denied.
Ansiver of the Defendants, the North Carolina
State Board of Education, Etc.
578a
W herefore, having fully answered, these State defen
dants pray the Court that this action as to the State de
fendants he dismissed, that the plaintiffs take nothing by
their action as to these State defendants and that the State
defendants have and recover their costs to be taxed by the
Clerk of this Court.
/ s / B obert Morgan
Attorney General of North Carolina
/ s / B alph Moody
Deputy Attorney General
/ s / A ndrew A. V anore, Jr.
Staff Attorney
P. 0. Box 629
Justice Building
Baleigh, North Carolina 27602
Answer of the Defendants, the North Carolina
State Board of Education, Etc.
579a
Preliminary Summary
Pursuant to this court’s June 20, 1969 order, the defen
dants submitted on July 29, 1969 an amended plan for
desegregation of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools, in
cluding a highly significant policy statement accepting for
the first time the Board’s affirmative constitutional duty to
desegregate students, teachers, principals and staffs “at
the earliest possible date.” On August 4, 1969, a report was
filed in connection with the plan. A hearing was conducted
on August 5, 1969. The plan is before the court for ap
proval.
Because the schools must open September 2, and because
the Board’s plan includes both substantial action and gen
uine assurance of sustained effort toward prompt compli
ance with the law of the land, the plan of operation, for
1969-70 only, is approved and as indicated below, the defen
dants are directed to prepare and file by November 17,
1969, detailed plans and undertakings for completion of the
job of desegregating the schools effective in September,
1970.
The A mended Plan— A nd Its Reception
The plan proposes, among other things, to close seven
old all-black inner-city schools and to assign their 3,000
students to various outlying schools, now predominantly
white, mostly in high rent districts.
This technique of school closing and reassignment has
been employed in dozens of school districts to promote
school desegregation. It is not original with the local School
Board.
The school closing issue has provoked strident protests
from black citizens and from others; evidence showed that
Order dated August 15, 1969
580a
an estimated 19,000 names are listed on a petition denounc
ing the plan as unfair and discriminatory. The signers add
their own brand of protest to that of the 21,000 whites who
last May (though protesting their acceptance of the princi
ples of desegregation) raised a “ silk-stocking” community
outcfy against bus transportation except to schools of in
dividual choice. Another 800 white Paw Creek petitioners
have joined in protest against a part of the plan under
which some 200 fifth and sixth grade pupils would he as
signed to re-opened Woodland, a new unused (and formerly
black) school. Comment from people who have not studied
the evidence tends to ignore the law—the reason this ques
tion is before a court for decision—and to concentrate on
public acceptance or what will make people happy. A cor
respondent who signs “ Puzzled” inquires:
“If the whites don’t want it and the blacks don’t want it,
why do we have to have itf”
The answer is, the Constitution of the United States.
T he Constitution— The Law of the Land— R equip.es
Desegregation of Public Schools
Xorth Carolina reportedly refused to ratify the United
Stares Constitution until the Bill of Rights had been in
corporated into it. The Fourteenth Amendment to that
Constitution, now part of the Bill of Sights, guarantees :o
Order dated August 15, 1969
a ll eiti.tens the •’equal protection o f law s." In Brow n
B j t i r i j ~ E d u c - r - . i ~~~ U. S. 4>.: W .U , :54a rp $ ■194
■ 1955 •. the Suprem e Court held m at racia l segresatio n rw
uahhe schools produces in fe r io r edm. a d o a and m orale
strrcts- a p c o r r in iy fo r association. and thus violates- jlE
equal irocecfcr. guaranty or me _ anscxunott and s rm-
iawrai. hi .-reen x. X«**r SjatE Sotoo» Tuon*. 381
581a
U. S. 430 (1968), and two other simultaneous unanimous
decisions, the Supreme Court held that, school hoards have
the affirmative duty to get rid of dual school systems, to
eliminate “ black schools” and “ white schools,” and to oper
ate “ just schools.” The Court said:
“ The burden on a school bo;: d today is to come forward
with a plan that promises realistically to work and
promises realistically to work now” (Emphasis on the
word “ now” was put in the text by the Supreme Court.)
For years people of this community and all over the south
have quoted wistfully the statement in Briggs v. Elliott by
Judge John J. Parker (who at his death was one of my few
remaining heroes) that though the Constitution forbids
segregation it does not require integration. Passage of
time, and the revelation of conditions which might well have
changed Judge Parker’s views if he had lived, have left
Judge Parker’s Avords as a landmark but no longer a guide.
The latest decision on this subject by the Fourth Circuit
Court of Appeals (Avliich is the court that first revieAvs my
actions) contains this statement:
“The famous Briggs v. Elliott dictum—adhered to by
this court for many years—that the Constitution for
bids segregation but does not require integration, is
now dead.” Hawthorne v. Lunenburg, Nos. 13,283,
13,284, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, July 11, 1969.
“Freedom of choice,” as tins court has already pointed
out, does not legalize a segregated school system. A plan
Avith freedom of choice must be judged by the same stan
dard as a plan Avith out freedom of choice—whether or not
the plan desegregates the public schools. The courts are
concerned primarily not with the techniques of assigning
Order dated August 15, 1969
582a
students or controlling school populations, but with whether
those techniques get rid of segregation of children in public
schools. The test is pragmatic, not theoretical.
Continued Operation of Segregated Public
Schools I s U nlawful
The issue is one of law and order. Unless and until the
Constitution is amended it is and will be unlawful to oper
ate segregated public schools. Amending the Constitution
takes heavy majorities of voters or lawmakers. It is diffi
cult to imagine any majority of Supreme Court, of Con
gress or of popular vote in favor of changing the Constitu
tion to say that public school pupils may lawfully be kept
in separate schools because they are black. A community
bent on “ law and order” should expect its school board
members to obey the United States Constitution, and should
encourage them in every move they make toward such com
pliance. The call for “ law and order” in the streets and
slums is necessary, but it sounds hollow when it issues from
people content with segregated public schools.
The questions is not whether people like desegregated
public schools, but what the laiv requires of those who oper
ate them.
The Duty to Observe the Constitution and Desegregate
the Schools Cannot Be Reduced or A voided Because of
Soothing Sayings From Other Government Officials N or
Outcries F rom T hose W ho W ant the L aw to Go A way.
The rights and duties of the parties to this suit are in
this court for decision according to law■—not according to
HEW guidelines or public clamor. The court and the school
board are bound by the Constitution. So are the legislative
and executive branches of government. No one in Washing
Order dated August 15, 1969
583a
ton or Raleigh or local government is above or beyond the
Constitution. None have power to change it except by law
ful means. None have or claim the power to interfere with
the courts in cases like this one. The malleable HEW
“guidelines” put out by the President’s administrator for
educational affairs, and dubious inferences from statements
of other officials, however highly placed, are irrelevant to
the constitutional rights of the parties in this case. Also
irrelevant are soothing sayings of the Vice President (who
has the duty in this area) to black-tie political audiences,
and the not-so-soothing sayings of citizens who erroneously
talk as if the school segregation issue were a simple matter
of political pressure and short-term public opinion. As for
the Attorney General of the United States, he has just tiled
the biggest desegregation suit of all—against the whole
State of Georgia! Segregation of children in public schools,
whether they be black or white, and regardless of whether
they do or don’t want to stay apart, is unlawful. As the
Supreme Court said in Brown II:
“ . . . the vitality of these constitutional principles can
not be allowed to yield simply because of disagreement
with them.”
T he School Board’s New Plan R epresents S ubstantial
Progress.
Against this background the Board’s new plan is re
viewed :
1. The most obvious and constructive element in the plan
is that the School Board has reversed its field and lias ac
cepted its affirmative constitutional duty to desegregate
pupils, teachers, principals and staff members “ at the
earliest possible date.” It has recognized that who; people
Order dated August 15, 1969
584a
live should not control where they go to school nor the
quality of their education, and that transportation may be
necessary to comply with the law. It has recognized that
easy methods will not do the jo b ; that rezonirig of school
lines, perhaps wholesale; pairing, grouping or clustering
of schools; use of computer technology and all available
modern business methods can and must he considered in
the discharge of the Board’s constitutional duty. This court
does not take lightly the Board’s promises and the Board’s
undertaking of its affirmative duty under the Constitution
and accepts these assurances at face value. They are, in
fact, the conclusions which necessarily follow when any
group of women and men of good faith seriously study this
problem with knowledge of the facts of this school system
and in light of the law of the land.
2. In the second place, by the following actions the
Board has demonstrated its acceptance of its stated new
policies:
a) The desegregation of faculties and the non-racial
reassignment of principals and employees from newly
closed schools. In the formerly all-black faculties the
Board has dramatically exceeded its goal. It is as
sumed by the court that this process of faculty de
segregation will continue and that the goal for 1970-71
will he that faculties in all schools will approach a ratio
under which all schools in the system will have ap
proximately the same proportion of black and white
teachers.
b) The closing of seven schools and the reassign
ment of 3,000 black pupils to schools offering better
education.
Order dated August 15, 1969
585a
c) The reassignment of 1,245 students from several
overcrowded primarily black schools to a number of
outlying predominantly white schools.
d) The announced re-evaluation of the program of
locating and building and improving schools, so that
each project or site will produce the “greatest degree
of desegregation possible.”
e) The Board correctly and constructively concluded
that the so-called “anti-bussing law” adopted by the
General Assembly of North Carolina on June 24, 1969,
does not inhibit the Board in carrying out its constitu
tional duties and should not hamper the Board in its
future actions. Leaving aside its dubious constitu
tionality (if it really did what its title claims to do)
the statute contains an express exception which ren
ders it ineffectual in that it does not prevent “any
transfer necessitated by overcrowded conditions or
other circumstances which in the sole discretion of
School Board require reassignment
f) The elimination without objection of the former
provision which had the effect of inhibiting transfer
rights of black would-be athletes.
g) Quite significantly, the Board calls upon the Plan
ning Board, the Housing Authority, the Redevelopment
Commission and upon real estate interests, local gov
eminent and other interested parties to recognize and
share their responsibility for dealing with problems
of segregation in the community at large as well as in
the school system.
h) The proposals for programs of “ compensatory
education” of students, and for teacher orientation and
Order dated August 15, 196ft
586a
exchange of activities among black and white students.
The court assumes that these somewhat vaguely stated
ideas will become implemented with concrete action.
3. The Seven School Problem.—The Board plan proposes
to close Second Ward High School, Irwin Avenue Junior
High School and five inner-city elementary schools (five of
which were already marked for abandonment) and to re
assign their 3,000 students to outlying white schools. This
part of the plan has struck fire from black community
leaders and some other critics. Counsel for the plaintiffs
contend that it puts an unconstitutional and discriminatory
burden upon the black community with no corresponding
discomfort to whites. One spokesman for a large group of
dissenting and demonstrating black citizens was allowed to
express his views at the August 5, 1969 hearing. Threats
of boycotts and strikes have been publicized.
This part of the plan is distasteful, because all but 200*
of the students being reassigned en masse are black. It
can legitimately be said and has been eloquently said that
this plan is an affront to the dignity and pride of the
black citizens. Pride and dignity are important. If pride
and dignity were all that are involved, this part of the
plan ought to be disapproved. The court, out of forty-
year memory of four years of transportation on an un
heated Model-T school but thirteen miles each way from
a distant rural community to high school in a “city” of
4,000, is fully aware how alien and strange are the sensa
tions experienced by a school child who is hauled out of
his own community and into a place where the initial
welcome is uncertain or cool.
* The 200 students being reassigned from Paw Creek to Wood
land are white.
Order dated August 15, 1969
587a
However, this part of the plan is not compulsory.
Students who want to remain in the comfort of their
familiar area may elect to attend the Zebulon Vance School
instead; alternatives are also provided for the junior high
school students.
Moreover, as one of the attorneys remarked at the first
hearing in a discussion about reassignments and school
busses: “ The question is really not one of ‘bussing’ but
whether what the child gets when he gets off of the bus is
worth the trouble.”
I personally found the better education worth the bus
trip.
Despite their undoubted importance, pride and dignity
should not control over the Constitution and should not
outweigh the prospects for quality education of children.
The uncontradicted evidence before the court is that
segregation in Mecklenburg County has produced its
inevitable results in the retarded educational achievement
and capacity of segregated school children. By way of
brief illustration a table follows showing the contrasting
achievements of sixth grade students in five of the closed
schools (Bethune, Fairview, Isabella Wyche, Alexander
Street and Zeb Vance) and in five of the schools to which
black students are going to be transferred:
Order dated August 15, 1969
588a
Order dated August 15, 1969
A verage A chievement T est Scores
S ixth Grade— 1968-69
ACM. WM (Word
SP. LANG. (Math) Meaning )
(Bethune 45 34 41 41
(Ashley Park 61 62 56 58
(Fairview 46 38 42 39
(Westerly Hills 61 61 52 57
(Isabella Wyche 41 34 40 38
(Myers Park 80 84 58 73
(Alexander Street 45 38 34 40
(Shamrock Gardens 57 62 53 56
(Zeb Vance 38 34 39 42
(Park Road 71 75 58 66
This alarming contrast in performance is obviously not
known to school patrons generally.
It was not fully known to the court before he studied
the evidence in the case.
It can not be explained solely in terms of cultural, racial
or family background without honestly facing the impact
of segregation.
The degree to which this contrast pervades all levels
of academic activity and accomplishment in segregated
schools is relentlessly demonstrated.
Segregation produces inferior education, and it makes
little difference whether the school is hot and decrepit or
modern and air-conditioned.
It is painfully apparent that “quality education” can
not live in a segregated school; segregation itself is the
greatest barrier to quality education.
As hopeful relief against this grim picture is the un
contradicted testimony of the three or four experts who
589a
testified, some for each side, and the very interesting
experience of the administrators of the schools of Buffalo,
New York. The experts and administrators all agreed that
transferring underprivileged black children from black
schools into schools with 70% or more white students pro
duced a dramatic improvement in the rate of progress and
an increase in the absolute performance of the less advanced
students, without material detriment to the whites. There
was no contrary evidence. (In this system 71% of the
students are white and 29% are black.)
Moreover, the Board’s announced policy and the uncon
tradicted testimony of the superintendent show that
serious arrangements are being made to welcome, rather
than rebuff, the transferees into all school activities. This
is something new and important.
No legal authority is cited that the Constitution pro
hibits transport of consenting black children from an
inferior educational environment into a better educational
environment for the purpose of complying with the con
stitutional requirement of equal protection of laws.
The choice of how to do the job of desegregation is for
the School Board—not for the court.
The Board has wide discretion in choosing methods;
many effective methods are described in the evidence; the
court’s duty is simply to pass on the legality of the Board’s
actions. It appears to the court that the improvement in
the education of 4,200 school children is the one most
obvious result of the Board' plan of action for 1969-70,
and that this is more important constitutionally than other
considerations which have been advanced.
It is not the intention of this court to endorse or ap
prove any future plan which puts the burden of desegrega
tion primarily upon one race. However, there is not time
before September 2, 1969 to do a complete job of reassign-
Order dated August 15, 1969
590a
ing pupils; the plan is a step toward more complete
compliance with the law; the court reluctantly votes in
favor of the 4,200 school children and approves the plan
on a one-year basis.
T he M ajor T ask L ies A head T his F all
The big job remains to be done. After implementation
of the current plan, further large scale faculty transfers
will still be necessary. Sixteen years after Brown v. Board
of Education, some thirteen thousand school children will
remain in black or nearly all-black schools. Most white
students will remain in substantially all-white schools.
The failure of the plan to deal with those problems of
course can not be approved. The failure of the plan to
include a time table for the performance of specific ele
ments of the program of course can not be approved,
Felder, et al. v. Harnett County Board of Education, et al,
409 F. 2d 1070 (4th Cir., 1969). These matters must be
covered by specific instructions to the Board.
All findings of fact in the previous orders of April 23.
1969. and June 20. 1969. and the supplemental findings
of June 24. 1969. are incorporated herein to the extent
that they are consistent with the findings, conclusions and
orders herein reached and given. All evidence at all hear
ings is considered in reaching these conclusions.
Order dated August 15, 1969
Order
1 The noi-cy statement of t.n dear*.: js appro -'ed.
The taeuJty d -seg~egar.cn rregrarn - ircrtrced .
X. The maci to h s e g -e g a ~eu>; , s o r - . g s e v -n a ii-
s. !u .> g t' ' 'u ee> o oee ng •-:n
591a
schools is approved only (1) with greed reluctance, (2) as
a one-year, temporary arrangement, and (3) with the
distinct reservation that “ one-way bussing” plans for the
years after 19G9-70 will not be acceptable. If, as the school
superintendent testified, none of the modern, faculty-
integrated, expensive, “ equal” black schools in the system
are suitable for desegregation now, steps can and should
be taken to change that condition before the fall of 1970.
Unsuitability or inadequacy of a 1970 “black” school to
educate 1970 white pupils will not be considered by the
court in passing upon plans for 1970 desegregation. The
defendants contended and the court found in its April 23,
1969 order that facilities and teachers in the various black
schools were not measurably inferior to those in the
various white schools. It is too late now to expect the
court to proceed upon an opposite assumption.
4. The plan to reassign 1,245 students from presently
overcrowded black schools is approved.
5. Reassignment of the Paw Creek students to Wood
land is approved.
6. The proposals of the Board for restructure of atten
dance lines; for consideration of pairing and grouping
schools; for review of the construction programs; and for
supp rt programs, student exchange and faculty orienta
tion are approved in principle, although for lack of specific
detail and time table they are not approved as presented.
7. The Board is directed to prepare and present by
November 17, 1969, the following:
(1) Plan for complete faculty desegregation for
1970-71.
Order dated A ugust 15, 1969
592a
(2) Plan for student desegregation for 1970-71, in
cluding making full use of zoning, pairing, grouping,
clustering, transportation and other techniques, com
plete with statistics and maps and other data showing
precisely what (subject to later movement of pupils)
the assignment of pupils and teachers will be for the
year 1970-71, having in mind as its goal for 1970-71
the complete desegregation of the entire system to the
maximum extent possible. (The assumption in the
Board’s report that a school is desegregated when it
has as many as 10% of a minority race in its student
body is not accepted by the court, and neither the
Board nor the court should be guided by such a figure.)
“Possible’ as used here refers to educational—not
“political”—possibility. If Anson County, two-thirds
black, can totally desegregate its schools in 1969, as
they have now done, Mecklenburg County should be
able to muster the political will to follow suit.
(3) A detailed report showing, complete with
figures and maps, the location and nature of each
construction project proposed or under w-ay. and the
effect this project may reasonably be expected to hav-
apon the program of desegregating the schools.
-• >mee a m id-city i_.gr school m ay g rov e m ost desir
able. me B o-ari s d irected pend ing fu rth er t r ie r s i f cou rt
noc to ir--esr irsec i t any atiu, options, rent i m i s e n i s a t s
m i c i e r access to j r lea cro i / m-*r ~ea_ estate vhich t maw
to a '• cvad acea.
Order dated August 15, 1969
r .'xr*s«ricdot! s s iS u ie e .
593a
The School Board’s amended plan for desegregation of
the Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools was approved by order
of court dated August 15, 19G9. The Board has now ten
dered a modification to this plan which was filed today,
August 29, 1969.
The modification relates to the facilities to be provided
for those black children whose parents exercise freedom of
choice to attend a black elementary school in the inner city
instead of attending the white schools listed in the July 29,
1969 plan which has already been approved by the court.
The amendment calls for using the building of former
Irwin Avenue Junior High School with certain minor reno
vations, instead of Zeb Vance School, and a limit of six
hundred students upon those who would be admitted to
this program at Irwin Avenue School. This part of the
motion to amend is approved. The choice of building, per
se, is a matter for the School Board, not the court.
The amendment proposes that the Irwin Avenue School
would he operated “ as an innovative school.” The court
does not know what this means. If by this phrase is meant
that anything will be done to make this school more attrac
tive to the black students than the black schools they have
been attending, then the program will constitute the loca
tion and use of a school facility for the purpose of promot
ing segregation which by previous decisions of this and
other courts the defendants have been fully advised is un
constitutional. Felder, et nl. v. Harnett County, North Caro
lina, 409 F.2d 1070 (4th Circuit, 1969) (decided April 22,
1969), and cases cited therein. The addition of “ innova
tions” at Irwin Avenue School will not be approved by the
court unless these “ innovations” have been ana aged ami
Order dated August 29, 1969
594a
provided for all the black students who transfer to white
schools under the July 29,1969 plan of the Board previously
approved. The phrase “ innovative” may refer to what the
Board has heretofore called “compensatory education.”
The court has not yet been advised of any performance by
the Board in line with the undertaking in its July 29, 1969
plan to provide “compensatory education” for pupils who
lag behind their classmates in academic achievement. Unless
and until the court can be informed and satisfied that this
“ compensatory education” is provided in the other schools,
the court is of the opinion that providing it in the Irwin
Avenue School would set up a magnet to attract black
children awrny from desegregated assignments and there
fore on the present record at least that part of the plan is
disapproved.
The proposal to provide transportation for any of the
students attending Irwin Avenue School is expressly dis
approved. The effect of providing transportation is to sub
sidize at tax payers’ expense those who are actively seeking
to defeat the constitutional mandate to desegregate the
schools. No authority is advanced or suggested to justify
such a flagrant violation of the law, and none has been
imagined by the court. The Board is expressly restrained
from and enjoined against providing transportation in any
form to any student in the system, black or white, which
may or might enable him to travel any part of the distance
from his home to or from any school elected by or for him
under “ freedom of transfer” or “ freedom of choice,” except
that the Board may provide transportation as previously
ordered by this court to those students who elect to transfer
or who are transferred by the Board from a school in which
their race is in a majority to a school in which their race
Order dated August 29, 1969
595a
is in the minority. As this court pointed out before, bus
transportation has too long been used as a tool to promote
segregation. The year 19G9 is too late in the day to start
using this tool for that purpose in now situations.
This the 29th day of August, 1969.
/ s / J ames B. M cM illan
James B. McMillan
United States District Judge
Order dated August 29, 1969
596a
(Filed September 2, 1969)
Plaintiffs, by their undersigned counsel, respectfully move
the Court for further relief and for a show cause order in
the above styled cause and, as grounds therefore, show the
Court the following:
1. On August 15, 1969, the Court entered an Order ap
proving an amended plan of desegregation for the Char-
lotte-Mecklenburg Public Schools filed by the defendant
Board. The plan provided generally (1) for the closing of
seven all-black schools, five elementary schools, one junior
high school and one senior high school; (2) the transfer of
these students to previously all white schools; (3) the trans
fer of some black students from overcrowded black schools
to previously all-white schools; (4) the restructuring of at
tendance zones; (5) reviewing the construction program;
(6) the initiation of a compensatory education plan to
assist pupils who are behind their classmates in academic
achievement; (7) an increase in desegregation of teachers
and school personnel with a more extensive program of in-
service training for snch personnel: (8) the grouping of
schools for student exchange: and a policy statement with
respect to the hoard's obit.gatton to iSraiativeb- desenre-
gate schools and to provide equality of educational rccor-
ramties for all scudencs. The hosing of me seven 'fiscs,
scttovfis ate the musst-ciiner t of some ifiaes scERteuts tr-nn.
> - e w . ' . . v . s . eec-ovKs would mean an increase it ~~ii~
fiavs smt\ie»:s : ntegraced ss-tov-.s* The Tdard - r t - s y i
to grevode '“"Wtspv'r-'ai'vu; oos~ tne fisscs sttatstps
itt i>} tea**, -t** as oapwuMr m
;e=?S5C*> ,v~ - :vMS- -ntyitjx e c -te -vte "tera*?#* bc ie -
Motion for Further Relief and for Show Cause
597a
v. Landis,—F. Supp.— (N.D. Calif., Civ. No. 51805, Aug. 8,
1969). The Court stated however, that in view of the other
steps being taken by the Board and the apparent commit
ment of the Board to now carry out its obligations under
the Constitution the Board’s plan warranted approval, at
least for one year. The Court directed the Board to submit
a plan for complete desegregation of the system on or be
fore November 17, 1969.
2. Plaintiffs are now advised that the defendants have
failed to implement the plan approved by the Court and in
fact have taken steps to impede and limit the desegregation
ordered.
(a) The plan approved by the Court retained freedom
of choice for students to transfer out of schools after initial
assignments to other schools. Zeb Vance Elementary School
was designated as a black school to which students in the
closed elementary schools could transfer if they elected not
to attend integrated schools. Plaintiffs objected initially to
this feature of the plan because of the patent inadequacy of
this school facility. The Board now proposes to reopen
Irwin Avenue School in lieu of Zeb Vance Elementary
School and in addition to provide transportation1 and com
pensatory education for the students at this school. Plain
tiffs have no objection to the reopening of Irwin rather than
Zeb Vance if freedom of choice is to continue since Irwin
is obviously a better facility.2 Plaintiffs submit, however,
1 Similar transportation is provided for white students who re
side in Negro or predominantly Negro school zones who elect under
freedom of choice to transfer out to white or perdortunanrly white
schools such, for example, as white students transferring from
Amay James, Marie G. Davis, Hawhtorne and Piedmont
2 The Court on August 29, 1969 entered an Order .v
this proposed change but enjoined the Board front t-rv\ ex
portation and compensatory education.
Motion for Further Relief and for Show Cause
598a
that the operation of this school as well as the other racially
segregated schools in the system continues to violate the
constitutional mandate to desegregate. Freedom of choice,
however, has served and has been utilized by defendants as
a means to effectively limit and impede the desegregation
of students anticipated by the Court. Of the 1,235 students
affected by the closing of the black elementary schools, a
substantial portion have elected to attend Irwin or other
all black elementary schools. A stubstantial number of the
junior high and senior high school students have also elected
to attend all-black schools. Black students have quite ap
propriately objected to one-way desegregation and have
opted, under freedom of choice, not to shoulder the complete
burden of desegregation. A fact which is more important,
however, is that defendants have failed to institute pro
grams and policies to accommodate those students who
choose to remain in the intergrated schools. When all prac
tices of the Board are considered, freedom of choice has not
been free but patently illusory. See Green v. County School
Board of New Kent County, 391 U . S . 430, 20 L. ed. 2d 716;
Monroe v. Board of Commissioners, 391 I T .S . 450, 20 L. ed.
2d 733; Coppedge v. Franklin County Board of Education,
372 F.2d 410 (4th Cir. 1968); United States v. Jefferson
County Board of Education, 372 F. 2d 836 (5th Cir. 1967),
afFd en banc (5th Cir. 1968). The elimination of freedom of
choice in this system would promote integration of both
black and white schools. No administrative or other con
stitutionally acceptable reason has been shown for retention
of this practice. It should be eliminated notv. Green v.
County School Board of New Kent County, supra.
(b) Not one step has been taken by the Board to imple
ment the plan and Court Order with respect to reassigning
Motion for Further Relief and for Show Cause
599a
the black students now in overcrowded black schools. The
Court viewed this step by the Board as an indication of its
sincerity to desegregate. We are now told that the Board
will move some children in the midst of the school year as
mobile units are removed and secured although there are
spaces available to accommodate some students now. Plain
tiffs are advised that none of the children have been advised
of pending reassignment. It would be unconscionable to
pick up large blocks of black students in the midst of the
school year and reassign them to white schools. Despite
the order, despite the promises, the Board has done nothing
to implement this provision for the beginning o f the 1969-70
school year.
(c) The Board has failed to implement the provision of
the Order requiring compensatory education for the under
achievers. Subsequent to the Order, the Board proposed to
provide such program for the black students who remained
at the all-black Irwin School. Nothing, however, has been
done in this regard for the black students who have elected
to integrate in the previously all-white schools. What the
Board proposes is to penalize those students who would
integrate while providing compensatory programs for those
who remain. The Board should be specifically directed to
provide these programs for all students in all schools. 3
3. School is scheduled to open on September 2, 1969.
The Court will not be able to review compliance with its
Order in time to insure its complete implementation before
the beginning of school. Clearly, however, the anticipated
substantial steps toward desegregation (see Order of April
23, 1969) have not been achieved. Nor has the Board taken
even the minimal steps to desegregate as directed by the
Court. Constitutional rights are involved here. Plaintiffs
are entitled to effective relief now.
Motion for Further Relief and for Show Cause
600a
W hekefobe, plaintiffs respectfully pray:
(a) That this matter be reopened for consideration of a
plan of desegregation for the 1969-70 school year.
(b) That the defendants be enjoined to adopt and to
implement a plan for the 1969-70 school year which will
completely desegregate the schools. Plaintiffs pray that
the order specifically enjoin the defendants from placing
the primary or sole burden of desegregation upon black
students and parents.
(c) That an order be issued directing the defendants to
show cause why each of them should not be held in contempt
for failing to implement the Court’s Order of August 15,
1969.
Motion for Further Relief and for Show Cause
Respectfully submitted,
/ s / J. L evonne Chambers
Conrad O. P earson
2031/2 East Chapel Hill Street
Durham, North Carolina
Chambers, Stein, F erguson &
L anning
216 West Tenth Street
Charlotte, North Carolina
Jack Greenberg
James M. N abrit III
10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
601a
On April 23, June 20 and August 15, 1969, orders were
entered directing the defendants to submit a plan and a
time table for the desegregation of the Charlotte-Mecklen-
burg schools, to be completed by the fall of 1970. Nearly
six months after the original order, faculty desegregation
is well along and there have been a number of substantial
improvements in the stated policies of the Board, including
the stated assumption of duty by the Board to desegregate
the schoools “at the earliest possible date.” Limited steps
have been taken toward compliance with the pupil desegre
gation provisions of that original order. However, the
major part of the job remains undone, and no plan for
desegregation of the entire system has apparently been
voted on by the Board.
The latest order set November 17, 1969, as the revised
date for defendants to file a complete plan and time table.
Defendants have now filed a 15-page motion and supporting
affidavit asking the court to extend by another two and
one-half months, to February 1, 1970, the time for com
pliance with the orders. Plaintiffs oppose the extension.
The justification advanced for this delay is that they
have hired a systems analyst to re-draw attendance lines,
and that the three months between August 15 and Novem
ber 17 are not enough time to program a computer and
prepare a plan.
It would be a happy day if the job could be turned over
to a computer. A computer, if programmed objectively,
could produce objective results; all could blame the machine
(in addition to the court) for any unpleasant decisions.
Also, the court would like to avoid unnecessary pressure
on the school staff and administrators.
However, the information thus far available is inadequate
to justify the extension. Computers are for time-saving,
Order dated October 10, 1969
602a
not delay. The computer work was estimated by the Board’s
chosen systems analyst, Mr. Weil, to require ninety man
days of work. He proposes to consume ninety calendar
days with this jo b ! The Board’s motion says that their
decisions about construction and location of 21 building
projects (involving many millions of dollars) are to be
held up pending development of the plan. The school bud
get approaches fifty million dollars. The question fairly
arises why the Board should not employ or assign more
than one person at a time to feed the computer. Mr. Weil’s
original plan, which is in evidence, was prepared in a very
few days. The court has on file also three or four other
plans, including at least one which local school officials say
is educationally and technically feasible, which were pre
pared in a few days each. The use of a computer does not
appear to justify the delay.
Moreover, computers cannot make political nor legal de
cisions ; they react to what is fed into them; and the request
for postponement leaves the court to speculate over what
will be fed into the computer. The motion does not say
that Mr. “Weil has been instructed by the Board to frame a
plan to desegregate the schools; his commission, by a
Board committee only, is limited to re-drawing attendance
lines; the vague references in the Board’s motion to his
instructions as to travel limitation and specified school
capacities and desirable racial balance permit the inference,
in fact, that his mission could be re-segregation of much
of the system.
The motion also contains no commitment on the part of
the Board to adopt any plan that the computer may pro
duce; it gives no information about the Board’s intentions
as to other desegregation methods it will use; and it prom
ises no result from the delay except consideration by the
Order dated October 10, 1969
603a
Board of a computer plan for re-arranging school lines.
The motion is preoccupied with one method, and silent
about results.
Before passing on the motion, the court has a duty to
discover what the Board has accomplished since its July 29
promises were made, and whether the extra time will pro
mote genuine progress toward compliance with the Consti
tution or whether it will just he time lost.
The Board is therefore directed to file with the court by
October 29, 1969, the following information:
1. A full statistical report on the results of the
closing of the inner-city schools and where the 4,200
black pupils the Board proposed on July 29 to transfer
to white schools are actually going to school as of
October 10, 1969.
2. The figures regarding the effect of freedom of
transfer on the desegregation proposed in the July 29,
1969 plan for closing inner-city schools and transfer
ring their students.
3. A report on freedom of choice or freedom of
transfer: How many children, by school or location
and race, chose to transfer out of and into the various
schools for the 1969-70 year.
4. Full reports on the current numbers and races of
the children and teachers in the system, school by
school, with percentages of each race for each school.
5. A report on the children being provided bus
transportation, school by school.
6. A description of what has been done to provide
the compensatory education programs proposed in the
July 29 plan and policy statement.
Order dated October 10, 1969
604a
7. A copy of all September and October, 1969, re
ports of the Board to the Department of Health, Edu
cation and Welfare.
Unless the Board has made the hard decisions needed to
desegregate the schools, the time spent on a computer plan
may well be just more time lost, and delaying decision may
simply compress into fewer months next year the decisions
that should have already been made. Therefore, in addi
tion to the above, the Board is directed to answer by Octo
ber 29, 1969, the following questions:
1. What, in verbatim detail, are the instructions
that have been given to Mr. Weil!
2. What is Mr. Weil’s assigned mission or goal!
3. What areas of the district is he directed to in
clude in his program of re-drawing attendance lines!
4. What areas, if any, is he directed to exclude!
5. What schools will his program affect!
6. Will pairing, grouping or clustering of schools
be used by the Board as needed to supplement the com
puter plan!
7. Will the Weil program of re-drawing attendance
lines produce desegregation of all the schools by Sep
tember, 1970!
8. If the Weil program does not produce desegrega
tion of all the schools by September, 1970, what does
the Board plan to do to produce that result!
9. Will any plan produced by the Weil method or
any other re-drawing of attendance lines desegregate
Order dated October 10, 1969
605a
the schools if unrestricted freedom of transfer or free
dom of choice is retained?
The value of the answers to these nine questions is sub
stantially dependent on whether they are made by vote of
the full Board or by non-voting representatives such as
attorneys or other agents.
Pending receipt of the above information, the court will
defer action on the request for time extension. Action will
also be deferred for the present on the motions which have
been filed by the plaintiffs which include requests for aboli
tion of freedom of choice and appointment of an outside
expert to devise a plan in default of Board action.
This the 10th day of October, 1969.
/ s / James B. M cM illan
James B. McMillan
United States District Judge
Order dated October 10, 1969
606a
Defendants’ Response to Motion for Further Relief
(Filed October 11, 1969)
The defendants, The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of
Education and the individual Board members, answering
the motion of the plaintiffs filed herein on the second day
of September, 1969, allege and say:
1. The allegations of Paragraph 1 deal with matters and
things appearing of record in this case and this defendant
is not required to either admit or deny said allegations.
2-A. The order of the Court dated August 29, 1969, has
disposed of the allegations contained in Paragraph 2-A
and these defendants are not required to either admit or
deny the same.
2-B. The allegations contained in Paragraph 2-B are
denied and in further answer thereof, these defendants
allege that substantial steps have been taken to implement
the plan with respect to re-assigning black students now
in over-crowded schools and that the record in this cause
expressly discloses that the plan did not contemplate re
assignment of these students until such time as the addi
tional mobile units were available and some students might
not be re-assigned until the end of December. It is ex
pected that all students will be re-assigned on or before
October 15, 1969.
2-C. The allegations contained in Paragraph 2-C are
denied.
W herefore, these defendants pray the Court that the
relief demanded by the plaintiffs in said motion be denied
607a
Defendants’ Response to Motion for Further Relief
and that these defendants have such other and further
relief as it may he entitled to receive.
Brock Barkley
814 Law Building
Charlotte, North Carolina
William J. Waggoner
1100 Barringer Office Tower
Charlotte, North Carolina
The C h a r lo t t e -M e e k Ie n b u rg S c h o o ls
608a
R e se a rch R e p o rt 2 - '6 9
/*- '6f
SUMMATION OF INTEGRATION 1965 (MARCH) AND 1 9 6 8 -6 9 (OCT. I , '6 8 )
At/D / U V -H ( A t . 2 , ' ( f J
F o r P u p i1s P r o f e s s io n a l S t a f f
S c h o o ls Hav i nq In t e g r a t io n
. P u p i l s 9W
B.
476N
M in o r i t y Race
( in t e g r a t e d )
iJW
1I92W 6709N
ON
131W 208N
1 /7-VM ^
. P u p i l s
Number in
M a j o r i t y Race
( in t e g r a t e d )
393N 16.996W
8697N 97.356W
itst SZiOSrJ 1 9 3 .3 N +0W 3 13 nn
379N 2575W
T o ta l in v o lv e d by
In t e g r a t ion
. P re d o m in a n t ly
N egro S c h o o ls
- - Pup i I s
352
/e,oll
988 9 S t a f f 199 505
StO
. P re d o m in a t1y
W h ite S c h o o ls
P u p i l s 16 ,922
. . T o ta l
- - P u p i l s 1 7 ,2 7 4
o r
24% o f
72 .3 3 6
E n ro l 1ed
LD,
5 9 ,0 6 0 S t a f f
AfSl!
6 3 ,9 9 9 7 0« S t a f f
o r
o f
111
fS& 't
149
o r
J L % o f
3140 i n c l .
p a r t a s s ig n m e n t s
in s c h o o ls
3288
o r / "
91% o f . v,.'
3613 ^ s s i gned
a t one d e f in i t e
s c h o o l63
RACIAL DISTRIBUTION OF PUPILS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFF
1965 (March). 1968-69 (Oct. 1, >68). and 1968-69
G ra d e
No.
S c h o o l
1965
N
P u p i l s
7 1 W
1 -6 72 9 , 3 6 4 2 7 .6 9 6
7 - 9 17 2 ,4 7 5 1 1 ,8 0 4
1 0 -1 2 8 1 ,6 2 5 1 0 ,6 7 7
No.
S c h o o l
1 96 8 Pup i 1S
N W
No.
S c h o o l
7 6 - 1 3 ,2 9 0 3 1 , 5 4 5 7 3 -
21 5 , 9 3 4 14 ,7 4 1 2 0 -
11 4 , 3 7 7 1 2 ,3 1 3 1 0 -
1965 1 9 6 8 196 9
N W N W N W
1 9 6 9 P u p i l s
N U
1 3 . 3 7 4 3 1 , 5 2 2
6,188 15.191
4 , 4 7 2 1 2 ,8 0 8
Professiona l S ta ff
3 7 7 + 11 71 i 4 7 8
1 1 1 - 533 228
6 5 4 7 9 } 178
1 32 9 4 9 9 1 34 4
706 232 6 9 4
6 4 4 194 6 6 6
O th e r
97 1 3 ,4 6 4 5 0 . 1 7 7 108- 2 3 ,6 0 1 5 8 , 5 9 9 1 0 3 - 2 4 , 0 3 4 5 9 ,5 2 1 5 5 3 i 2 1 8 4 8 8 4 2 6 7 9 925 2 7 0 4
12 6 , 8 7 7 1 .8 1 8 4 + 6 4 0 271 4 + _ 6 5 6 3 0 7 3 2 3 i 7 9 23 27 22 3 0
:K g n . + T r a i n a b le
1 -4 1 360
1 -7 2 431 207
1 - 9 3 729 1611
5 - 9 1 505
1 -1 2 3 2 40 0
7 - 1 2 2 2 4 5 2
T o t a l * . 109 2 0 ,3 4 1 5 1 , 9 9 5 112 2 4 ,2 4 1 5 8 , 8 7 0 107
15}
17
3 2
25}
1 1 3 }
120
9 }
68
ii
2 4 , 6 9 0 59,828 8 7 7 2 2 6 3 9 0 7 2 7 0 6 9 4 7 2 7 3 4
In c lu d e N ot In c lu d e
P a r t - t im e P a r t - t im e
Among t e a c h e r s a s s i g n e d t o m ore
t h a n o n e s c h o o l
64
COMPARISON OF PUPILS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFFING BY RACE
March 6, 1965. 1968-69*. and 1969-70 *
Professiona l S ta ff
S c h o o l 1965 P u p i1s 1968-69 Pup 1 s 1 9 6 9 -7 0 P u p i l s 1965 1968- 69* 1969- 70*
E le m e n ta r y N y. w N °7C w N w N % w N ‘ 7. W N W
2___ /V ( o t h e r ) ( o t h e r ) -J l_________
t f (o t h e r ) ( o t h e r )
A lb e m a r le Rd . 4 I f . 499 4 / 7 510 6 3 2 7 . 13 6
A le x a n d e r S t r e e t 3 4 2 . CL ;> 257 /OP 7 e 1 4 .1 lec% 11 t c o l .
A1 le n b r o o k 50 IO 7 . 452 61 452 2 iC *7c 18 5 2 7 7.- 16
A s h l e y P a rk 0 % 6 9 4 0 % 553 27 574 07c 2 2 . 9 2 1 % 20 4 / 77. , 9
1 - 9 B a in o n 674 25 3 *7c 6 9 9 33 ■j.% 735 Ole 28.2 1 3 % 28 5 177. 25
•65
° X 6 0 4 6 6 8 x 131 8 5 9 "13% 16 ox, 2 4 .8 13 ♦ 2 7. 18 16 f 7 A 18
B e r r y h i 11 0 % 1 02 6 119 ! 3 Vc 6 8 5 114 I f f e 6 7 5 or. 39.6 2 6'/. 3 2 6 / < ”« 31
343 n % 9 223 117 . 3 1 7 .6 /» oTc 11 fec i.
B e v e r l y W oods O 7c 286 6 8 9 7c 6 8 4 1 t t c 12 5 23
B i d d l e v i l l e 4 3 4 /tc% 1 7 . 2 I e e l
l g | B i 1 1 i n g s v i 1 l e 729 fee 9c 6 1 9 /0O % 2 6 1 0 I C C % 0 3 2 .1 laeX 25 / e c % 16 4 2 7 . ,0
2 0 1 , $ 82 8 1 % 6 4 0 6 / % 6 8 0 »7. 2 3 . 9 3 121. 22 6 •-Z7. 21
740 1 1 7 . 4 774 ? ? ? . 10 26 131. 2 21 40 7. 11
C h a n t i l l y 0 % 41*5 2 O % 491 5 / % 4 8 7 0% , 8 . 8 1 3 7. 21 4 /7 V. 19
C le a r C re e k 0 % 207 58 20% 225 51 i'7% 2 4 4 o x 9 . 6 1 f t . 12 3 12
C o l 1 i n sw ood 0 % 375 72 13 % 4 9 0 111 2 0 % 443 0X 16.1 1 S ic 21 3 /Y^. 19
C o r n e l i u s o f . 241 2 3 9 252 195 1S % 237 0x 11.3 7 33*7* 14 5 U " - - 14
C o t s w o ld 0* 631 11 1*7* 5 6 7 23 7 % 537 oz 2 5 . 0 1 s i . 21 4 / f 7 . 18
97 t ‘ c 9o 5 . 0 /«■ %
D a v id s o n « ? . 178 101 3 5 7. 186 104 J»t % 186 o7„ 7 . 8 1 s % 11 2 777 . 10
M a r ie D a v i s 808 tt c 7c 705 /e>c 7. 691 ic cV c 0 3 4 .3 Iec7 . 2 9 ioc% 14 y i ‘7< ,5
D e r i t a 6 / 7. 892 165 I9°7* 728 163 >1‘/c 6 8 8 o Z 3 5 . 4 3 i f . 3 2 5 /Y 7. 30
D e v o n sh i re 2 o x 474 0 % 8 8 9 0 0 % 903 0% 1 9 .5 4 tc'A 3 7 7 1 S ‘7c 31
D i lw o r t h 100 xc % 1+01 223 3 1 7. 355 113 2 5 V i 336 c7. 2 3 . 8 4 /$ '7c • 22 3 /Y7« 19
D o u b le O aks 703 8 0 0 f e e 7 0 8 3 6 / c c */-> 0 28.2 IDC*7c 3 2 ICC 9. 19 12
* Does n o t i n c l u d e s t a f f a s s i g n e d t o more th a n o n e s c h o o l p e r HEW r e q u e s t .
COMPARISON OF PUPILS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFFING BY RACE
March 6, 1965, 1968-69*, and 1969-70 *
a.
s>
P r o f e s s i o n a l S t a f f
S c h o o l
E le m e n ta ry
1965 P u p i l s
N __ W
°7c
_____ Cl___________
1 9 6 8 -6 9 P u p i l s
N W
H ( o t h e r )
1 9 6 9 -7 0 P u p i l s
N W
( o t h e r )
N
1965
* W
n
1 9 6 8 - 6 9 *
N _ W
^ ( o t h e r )
1 9 6 9 - 7 0 *
N W
( o t h e r )
D r u Id H i l l s 520 /oo *7- . 506 3 6 7 2 777, 3 2 0 . 7 10 o7* 20 t c c >\ 13 £,* V* 8
E a s t o v e r OVc 706 6 9 ? 7c 5 8 0 62 7 7c 5 5 9 07. 2 7 .1 1 7 1 . 26 6 I'l /. 20
E l iz a b e t h 5 i % 6 6 8 270 5 3 % 196 3 6 6 7/V# 151 2 2 . 9 2 r % 21 6 Z 3 7 20
E n d e r ly P a r k o r . 3 6 8 2 1 % 3 7 6 3 / % 371 e% 16.9 1 U 7c 15 3 1 13
Fa I r v i ew 702 ItC % 363 ltd 7c 28.0 ICC 7. 19 t CC A-
F i r s t W ard 6 7 3 Itc 7. 7**9 to o % 8 2 0 t"-t % 0 2 2 . 8 /tt* 7c 3 0 ICr % 17 £c 7. 17
”&§ J . H . Gunn 6 9 6 toe 7* 3 3 . 6 lee 7«
H ic k o r y G ro v e o % 530 80 1 3 7 . 531 70 4 A- V'. 533 O le 2 1 . 7 1 Y* 23 3 /:• \ 20
H id d e n V a l l e y o % 9 7 7 0 C7» 1100 2 5 7. 3 5 7 1 7 7 3 5
H ig h la n d 2 1 1 . 273 6 7 13 7. 3 2 6 6 9 i f >. 3 0 5 ®7«, 1 6 .0 1 r% 16 3 /<? 13
H o s k in s o f . 362 18 1 % 261 13 5 7 228 0 7 . 1 6 .7 2 IS % 11 3 S '•s- 9
H u n t e r s v i l i e 0 7 . 553 162 ZZ'7- 560 156 V. a 7o; 535 07. 2 2 . 9 2 7 7. 25 5 22
H u n t in g to w n e Fa rm s C % 3 5 8 7 H e 6 9 5 7 / 603 d 7c 15.1 1 *7„ 26 6 / « • / , 21
1d 1ew i 1d o '”* 592 2 0 7, 521 56 7 - ’c SSI * 2 . 2 3 . 9 1 ¥-7, 22 6 1 / ' 23
Amay Jam es 360. ICO 7: 6 7 7 /oc% 1 673 11% 3 1 5 .5 Icc 7. 19 io«X 13 S I % 9
A da J e n k in s **31 tec 7» 1 7 . 0 /ocJS
L a k e v ie w o 7 c 600 2 6 9 tS 7c .167 3 6 2 I f A 102 « » 1 8 .5 16 7v*i 5 13 t z * 8
Lan sd o w n e C?i 633 0 7. 7 5 8 75 7 % 802 « * 2 3 . 9 1 3 % 30 6 1 7 % 30
L i n c o l n H e ig h t s 783 / c c X 8 1 7 ICO 7. 2 711 / r c % 0 2 9 .1 ICC % 30 /cc X 16 J 77c 12
L o n g C re e k 0?c 623 250 31% 6 6 6 267 j*-' 6 6 8 0 % 17.6 2 71 26 6 J.I 7. 23
M a tth e w s o% 937 ( , " 6 ^3 11% 762 86 /r 7c 8 0 2 0 3 3 9 . 7 1 3% 32 6 U 7. 31
M e r r y O aks o 'Z 5 3 8 0% 6 6 9 0 O Vc 6 6 2 2 1 . 9 1 57. 19 3 St 16
M id w ood 0 7 . 560 1 o f. 5 2 2 11 6 7 7 o '* 2 6 . 9 2 ?7 , 21 6 /•/ Vc 19
M o n t c l a i r e ex 720 c'% 722 0 £ 'X 718 C s 29.1 1 27 5 / ? 7. , 23
M o rg a n 3 0 5 1 6 . 9
I r w i n A v e . (E lem ) 315 l e d . 0 10 i 7 A 5
66
COMPARISON OF PUPILS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFFING BY RACE
March 6, 1965, 1968-69*. and 1969-70 *
P rofessiona l S ta ff
S c h o o l
E le m e n ta r y
1 9 6 5 P u p i l s
N - W
_ _ n .. _.....
1 9 6 8 -6 9 P u p i l s
N n W
,V ( o t h e r )
1 9 6 9 -7 0 P u p i l s
N W
( o t h e r )
N
196 5
w
-v
1968- 69*
N 7 W
y j ( o t h e r )
1 9 6 9 - 7 0 *
N W
( o t h e r !
M y e r s P a r k O'Tc
575 23 *7- 543 22 5 % 4 5 6 c% 2 4 . 9 1 v% 23 3 /-' 22
M y e r s S t r e e t 820 ICcZ 32.2 teeX
N a t io n s F o rd ©A 513 63 Ic 585 4 7 681 o ’!. 2 1 . 6 1 H-% 25 6 22
Newel 1 c X 463 73 15 7c 423 7 4 > r z 4 3 8 o Z 1 8 .3 1 5 Z 18 3 / 5 V. 17
O a k d a le 07. 4 0 2 72 n % 4 8 0 6 9 /£% 5 1 7 0 % 1 7 .2 1 21 6 * 5 7= 18
O a k h u r s t • 7. 5 4 8 2 0 7. 6 1 5 5 17. 6 1 6 c % 2 2 . 8 1 *7* 23 4 17% 20
O ak law n 6 6 6 6 5 0 ftc Ve 6 1 3 /«c % 0 2 6 . 0 n e t 25 7': 7. 2 11 15
0 1 de P r o v id e n c e 10 j. % 4 3 4 80 /¥■ 7. 512 1 17 5 20
P a r k Road e X 583 0 % 551 4 4 7 % 5 4 8 O'7- 22.7 1 S I . 21 7 3 0 % 16
Paw C re e k o7t 793 63 7% 861 27 * 7. 609 «% 3 0 . 3 1 3% 31 5 2 * 7 . 18
P l n e v i l i e oZ 3 6 4 168 3 1 % 363 146 i S -7. 3 7 5 0% 1 6 .2 1 S% 21 4 17% 19
P i new ood 7 1 9 0 % 707 0 0 % 6 7 4 o Z 2 8 .1 1 ■f% 26 4 15 % 22
P la z a Road 0% 4 0 0 9 9 11% 4 0 9 88 362 07. 1 7 .7 1 s % 21 4 /7‘V. 1 7
Rama Road Qlc 4 4 2 2 O % 7 7 7 1 £ 7* 815 c % 1 8 .7 2 1% 27 5 / 77. 24
S e d g e f i e l d 3 i% 5 2 6 7 / % 5 4 5 3 / 7 c 548 c % 2 1 . 8 2 77c 20 4 17 7. 19
P l a t o P r i c e 505 icc7c 2 5 . 4 ice z
S e lw y n • % 531 5 1% 5 9 8 31 J 7. 6 1 7 2 1 . 9 1 * 7 . 22 5 / Y % 21
S e v e r s v i 11e 96 JO% 229 0 % 1 4 .8
S h a m ro c k G a rd e n s o% 5 3 6 o7c 5 3 9 0 0 % 515 0% 2 1 . 9 1 5 % 20 4 / Y 7 . 17
S h a ro n e% 591 0 % 5 1 9 8 9 2 0 7. 3 6 4 0 % 2 2 . 9 1 5 % 20 4 a r y . 16
S ta rm o u n t o 7c 481 25 3 % 713 25 3 % 712 0% 20.9 1 y ? . 28 5 / 7 % 25
S t a t e s v i 1 l e Road o 7. 650 295 3 1 % 5 3 4 333 377. 522 0 % 2 5 . 9 3 7 % 29 8 2 Y 7 . 25
S t e e le C re e k a X 222 12 531 5 /7.. 5 0 9 0 7 . 1 0 . 7 l 5 7 . 20 4 / f 7 18
S t e r l i ng 6 9 9 tc c X •>33.S tcc%
Thom as b o ro 885 © A-
7 0 5 0 O % 6 9 0 O v 3 4 . 3 2 7 7 . 25 5 / 7 " 22
Paw C re e k A n nex 30 /c 7 . 271 1 7 7c 10
COMPARISON OF PUPILS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFFING BY RACE
March 6, 1965, 1968-69*. and 1969-70 *
S c h o o l
E le m e n ta ry
196 5 Pup
N
<v
I s
w
1 9 6 8 -6 9 P u p i l s
N ^ W
,-y ( o t h e r )
1 9 6 9 -7 0 Pup
N
(o
■ P r o f e s s io n a l S t a f f
M s
W
t h e r )
1965
N ,, W
N
1968 -69 '--
N £ ( o t h e r )
1 9 6 9 - 7 0 *
N W
(o th e
i l l T o r r e n c e - L y t l e 005 •C(% **6.1 ICC%
T ry o n H i l l s 32 i* 2**1 a 2**5 3 2 2 166 C\ 1 5 .0 1 3 1 20 U i > i 18
T u c k a se e g e e c % 631 61 /cv; 553 58 7 578 a . 2 3 . 9 1 V 7 . 23 ** /79 i 20
U n i v e r s i t y P a rk 700 i ce % 7 7 7 tec '7c 8 2 5 /Or 1 25.8 H e } . 3 0 77 7- 1 23 !C% 10
Zeb V an ce **65 ice 257 t e c ’;. 1 9 .5 tec Yo 11 tee
V i l l a H e ig h t s 23 H 2 59** 796 f t ” 126 9 2 9 /• Fj 88 0 2 2 8 . 3 23 23 S3 % 17
W e s le y H e ig h t s 21L fc X- 8 . 3 777. 2 . 2
W e s t e r l y H i l l s 0% 5 6 9 <*6 t % 5 3 9 1 77c 22 *♦ 7 7 7t 20
W iIm o re 6 2% 323 1**5 33% 293 228 235 .0 7 ,1 5 .L 8 * t 7 . 12 9 y/7. 13
W in d s o r P a r k 1 C% 6 7 9 2 cT . 737 1 o % 7**8 o'/t 25.8 1 27 6 ■-C-7. 2**
W I n t e r f i e l d o r **55 c7 - 6 8 9 **8 7 % 688 oX 1 8 .7 1 f 75 26 6 2**
W o o d la n d 360 /cc% 1**.8 !OC%
W ood law n c % 283 « 21**.0
I s a b e l l a W yche 383 ICC!: 222 ICC % 18.6 I t c 7 . 12 /oc'K
C h i l d D e ve lo p m e n t
(K g n . C e n t e r s )
D a v id s o n , #1 83 •fl% 117 80 f c ’vlt 121 3 3e?< 7 3
7
P i n e v l l l e , # 2 166 3 a. 7. 3 7 163 7 7 <* **3 2 & 8 2 2£ 9. 8
S e v e r s v i l l e , #3 17** S7 % 26 181 ■7 c r 21 8 TO 7. 2 7 7 r v . 3
M o rg a n , ttk 188 7 7 7c 6 187 f 7 /«? 12 8 j r c % 2 7 r t 7. 2
68
CT>h—
S'
CO M PAR ISO N OF P U P IL S AND P R O F E SS IO N A L S T A F F IN G BY RACE
M a rc h 6 , 1 9 6 5 , 1 9 6 8 - 6 9 * , and 1 9 6 9 -7 0 *
S c h o o l 1 9 6 5 P u p i l s 1 9 6 8 -6 9 P u p i l s 1 9 6 9 -7 0 P u p i l s
P r o f e s s i o n a l S t a f f __________________
196 5 1 9 6 8 - 6 9 * 1 9 6 9 - 7 0 *
J u n i o r H iq h N
*7c
N
w N
Jy ( o t h e r )
N
A lb e m a r le R oad 6 6 77, 881 63
A le x a n d e r c % 5 7 7 3 ^ 7 3 i % 755 3 6 9
C o c h ra n e c X 8 7 2 76 5 7c 1 W * 79
C o u lw o o d 3 I X 5 7 ^ 119 /Y7, 727 106
E a s tw a y o Z 1046 3 O ?« 1361* 61
A le x . G raham 0 % 101*8 8 / % 1081* 113
H a w th o rn e 25 * 7 . 6 7 0 1*92 M *7 596
I r w i n A v e . 785 IC C % 6 6 6 /fie 7®
M c C l in t o c k 0 7c 1273 1*6 V 7. 1228 93
N o r th w e s t 773 /Cc % 9 3 2 % 1 05 2
P ie d m o n t 121 291 1*28 yr 7. 53 1*1*3
Q y a i1 H o i low o \ 766 171 >2 Vc 1261 155
R a n d o lp h 272 711 2 8 9
R a n so n 9 /7c 6 5 8 253 J f % 586 260
S e d g e f i e ld 6 / % 920 189 / 7 6 , 8 0 2 i6 7
S m ith j - t 1115 138 9 55
Sp au g h 1 0 % 330 186 / r 7tf 871 287
W i1 1 iam s 752 ic c % 893 /re 7e 1081
V i I s o n 0 % 1C64 6 0 j :: 1132 71
Y o r k R d . ( 7 - 12)101*1 • cc V* 7 2 7 77 7c 6 851*
(K e n n e d y )
W
( o t h e r )
N W
X
N
N
p o t h e r )
N W
( o t h e r )
6 X- 995 1* n Z 43 6 /3 H 1*0
3> 7.- 771 0 % 2 8 . 9 6 1*1* 8 /K?. 1*1
1 % 1552 fl-x. 35.1* 6 56 12 /»■* 51*
7.; 770 oSfc 2 7 .1 l* //■% 31* 6 '< 7 , 32
T -7- 1356 e-S 1*3 . 2 3 n . 55 11 /a •/, 51
r-% 1 0 2 8 o r . 1*3.8 1* 7 7 . 1*3 9 / » v . 1*0
5 t 7a 1*72 °7 , 3 3 .9 12 <17. 33 15 .-*/% 31*
4 2 , 7 • 3 2 77 7c 1
77, 1288 0 % 5 1 . 5 2 7 7, 49 10 / I 5k4 8
/rr 7i- 1 3 3 . 7 IC C 7c 3 9 / . ' / Jt 22 5lSi. 20
?y-7. 55 o 7 s 26.8 13 5 -7 . 12 17 J - 7 7 13
.C 11*21 e v, 3 5 . 2 3 5 7c 61 8 *5 7- 5 5
i-y 7 . 710 2 5 7c 38 9 v t 'X 35
7 1 ‘7, 51*8 o ~ 3 0 .O 6 /<- X 31 11 y/-7, 25
/ 7 7 , 8 0 9 o 7 . 1*0.5 5 ■7 7. 39 9 i > % 3i*
11*36 « vi 1*8.6 3 5 7; 57 9 > 5 - 52
s -i % 8 3 9 0 % 1*2.5 6 ■ i. 7. 1*3 10 i i ' . 3 7
I t C *7c 0 34.9 / « v . 3 7 - C f % 27 - 5 7c |6
c % 111*5 C 7 .1 *5.6 1* •' 1*5 9 / S *■ 1*2
1 1 % 9 1 *9 .9 /£ « ? « 32 7 7 ? . 1 21 5 57. ,5
L e a r n in g Academ y - 7 t h & 8 th g r a d e s
c o u n te d in JH , a b o v e , 5 // '• 21 1* 11
69
61
5a
COMPARISON OF PUPILS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFFING BY RACE
March 6, 1965, 1968-69*, and 1969-70*
P r o f e s s i o n a l S t a f f
S c h o o l 1965 Pup i 1 s 1 9 6 8 -6 9 Pup M s 1 9 6 9 -7 0 P u p i l s 1965 1968- 69* 1 9 6 9 - 7 0 *
S e n i o r H iq h N w N W N W N W N VJ N w
M ( o t h e r ) ( o t h e r ) 'V # o th e r ) ( o t h e r )
E a s t M e c k le n b u rg c X 1782 155 17, 1 7 3 9 2 2 7 Il7r 1925 o ‘i 7 9 . 2 6 85 16 'S*\ 91
G a r i n g e r 2 O /c 2 26 6 2 0 2 7 ’h 2 1 5 7 4 9 2 f/T 2 1 4 8 10 0 . 0 6 02 22 97
H a r d in g 0 7c 1002 169 n 8 1 4 6 3 6 +77: 720 4 8 . 0 4 ■3 ■/’. 49 16 56
In d e p e n d e n c e 92 77 , 962 135 i t 7. 1111 6 7 7. 59 12 / t 7, 62
M y e r s P a r k 31 ■J- % 177 2 158 y % 1855 233 /X?.- 176 7 « -* 7 6 . 7 6 <. 7. 87 17 /o 7. 79
N o r t h M e c k le n b u rg ' 1 c 7, 115 5 4 1 0 21 % 1 1 0 9 4 6 2 118 5 c 5i 5 1 . 8 6 / 7, 63 13 / n?. 6 4
O ly m p ic
/ 5 jp - -S e c o n d W ard
2 5 9 31 V. 5 2 2 3 7 6 f.X-7. 512 5 / / ^ 3 9 10 i./ /« 38
1411 /cc 7c 1 1 3 9 / c c 3 70.0 ??>: 1.5 57 75 7. 3
S o u t h M e c k le n b u r g 3 0 2. €.\ 1430 106 6 % 181 2 109 2 0 2 4 • 0 1 72.0 4 0 'c 78 17 / f - 79
W e st C h a r l o t t e 1560 /C L 7 1 5 6 9 Zee 7. 1 6 5 8 « c 7, 0 65.0 m 2.0 74 75 7c 6 58 C7 7. 29
W e st M e c k le n b u r g 1 O 'lc 1270 118 >7, 134 0 148 1 4 4 4 6 1 . 4 4 .FX 73 13 /5 '/, 71
70
616a
On October 2, 1969, the defendants, Charlotte-Mecklen-
burg Board of Education and the individual Board mem
bers, petitioned the Court for an extension of time in which
to file its plan for faculty and student desegregation for
the 1970-1971 school year. The Court deferred ruling on
the defendants’ motion pending submission of certain in
formation to the Court.
1. Attached marked Exhibit “A ” is statistical informa
tion on the results of closing the inner-city schools and
transfers from overcrowded schools and attached marked
Exhibit “B” , the Court will find information on the de
segregation proposal contained in the July 29, 1969 plan.
With reference to elementary schools, those students re
maining in the school attendance districts, 463 blacks are
attending predominantly white schools and 446 are attend
ing predominantly black schools. Of those students remain
ing in the Irwin Junior High attendance district, 273 blacks
are attending predominantly white schools and 229 are
attending predominantly black schools. Of the students
remaining in the Second Ward school district, 506 blacks
are attending predominantly white schools and 169 are
attending predominantly black schools.
The Board is most concerned with the lack of responses
of some black students and parents in the overcrowded
schools. At the present time, 73 students from Amay James
are now attending predominantly white Ashley Park (27
students) and Westerly Hills (46 students). Two train-
able classes were transferred from the Wilmore School to
predominantly white Berryhill. The anticipated enroll
ment for Lincoln Heights did not materialize so that it
was unnecessary to move children from this school.
Defendants’ Report to the Court Pursuant to Order of
October 10, 1969
617a
The Board is continuing to examine new approaches in
an effort to gain acceptance by the patrons of moves to
relieve overcrowded schools. To this point, efforts have
included written communications, meetings in the schools
and social worker visitations in the homes. Transporta
tion has been offered in every instance.
In summation, regarding seven closed schools and trans
fers from overcrowded schools, the total pupils dealt with
were 2700. Of this number, only 2216 were available for
re-assignment. Twelve hundred eighty-seven (1287) ac
cepted re-assignment and 929 requested freedom of choice.
Thirteen hundred fifteen (1315) of the available 2216
black pupils are now going to predominantly white schools.
2. With reference to the inquiry of the Court regarding
the effect of freedom of transfer on the desegregation pro
posed in the July 29, 1969 plan for the closing of inner-
city schools and transferring their students, Section 2 of
Exhibit “ C” discloses the sending and receiving schools
for such students electing free choice of transfer totaled
929, 209 of which were granted transfers to predominantly
white schools. Exhibit “A” also shows school by school
break-down for receiving schools of students electing free
choice of transfer.
3. Attached marked Exhibit “ C” is a report of the num
ber of children, by school and race, who chose to transfer
out of anti into the various schools for the 1969-70 year.
This information reinforces the Board’s prior position
that free choice of transfer has had little adverse effect
on desegregation. The Court’s attention is directed in
Section 1 to Albemarle Road Elementary School and it is
noted that 13 white students were granted transfers to
Defendants’ Report to the Court Pursuant to Order
of October 10, 1969
618a
enter and 14 were granted transfers to leave, leaving the
school with one less white student than originally assigned.
By following this comparison, it is easy to note that the
racial composition of the schools has been affected very
little by free choice of transfer.
Attention is called to the fact that in Section 1 of Ex
hibit “ C” , there were 1610 requests for transfer, of which
1200 were granted. Black students lodged 504 requests and
were granted 402. In addition, 929 black students from
the closed inner-city schools requested and were granted
transfers. Thus, 1331 black students and 798 white stu
dents were granted free choice of transfer for the year
1969-1970.
4. Attached marked Exhibit “D” is a report on the cur
rent numbers and races of children and teachers in the
system, school by school, with percentages of each race
for each school.
The first page of this exhibit is a summation that re
flects the prior information presented to the Court with
the addition of information for the year 1969. An inter
pretation of this information on the summation page shows
that in 1969, 89 of 107 schools served both races. The 16
predominantly Negro schools integrated had 1153 white
pupils and 8858 Negro pupils to account for a total of
10,011 pupils in predominantly black schools. The 73
integrated predominantly white schools had 8490 black stu
dents attending school with 52,070 white students. Thus,
60,560 students attend predominantly white integrated
schools. Integrated schools have a total of 70,571 students,
representing 83.5 per cent of all students served by the
system. Interpretation of the staff summation shows that
Defendants’ Report to the Court Pursuant to Order
of October 10, 1969
619a
all schools are integrated, 18 schools of which are predomi
nantly Negro and 89 schools of which are predominantly
white. It is noted that the number of students attending
schools having no desegregation of their student bodies
has been reduced from 19,258 in 1968-69 to 13,947 students
for the year 1969-70. During 1969, 7,342 black students are
attending schools having no desegregation of student bodies
and 6,605 whites attend schools in which the student bodies
are not desegregated.
The remaining information of Exhibit “D” is a school
by school break-down of pupils and faculty for the years
noted.
5. Attached marked Exhibit “ E” is a report on children
being provided bus transportation, school by school. It is
noted that 599 pre-schoolers, 10,441 elementary, 8,989
junior high and 4,708 senior high students are being pro
vided transportation. This represents total daily transpor
tation for 24,737 students.
6. Attached marked Exhibit “F” is a description of what
has been done to provide the compensatory education pro
grams proposed in the July 29, 1969 plan and policy
statement.
7. The defendants are unable to furnish a copy of all
September and October, 1969, reports of the Board to the
Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Ordi
narily, the forms for reporting are made available to the
school system for a report as of October 1 of each year.
The forms for reporting for the 1969-1970 school year have
not been printed and furnished to the school system. It
is submitted that substantially all of the information that
Defendants’ Report to the Court Pursuant to Order
of October 10, 1969
620a
would be contained in the report to the Department of
Health, Education and Welfare is disclosed in the informa
tion submitted in connection with Items 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5
above.
In its order of October 10, 1969, the Court posed nine
additional questions which the Board was directed to an
swer. It is noted that the following responses were approved
by unanimous resolution of the full Board of Education,
such responses being as follows:
1. What, in verbatim detail, are the instructions that
have been given to Mr. Weil?
A n s w e r : Mr. Weil, on behalf of Systems Associates,
Inc. has been instructed to devise a computer assisted
systems analysis approach to restructuring each of
the attendance lines for all schools served by the sys
tem. In this connection, it is understood that the prod
uct of such an approach would involve a computer
print-out of all the possible configurations or combina
tions of grids within the following limitations:
1. All grids must be contiguous to the home grid
or to grids which are contiguous to the home grid.
(A grid is a 2500 ft. square as shown on the school
attendance maps filed as exhibits in this matter.)
2. No combination of grids can be considered if
they exceed the rated capacity of the school by
20%. Further, such combinations cannot under
populate the school by less than 20%.
3. A school district cannot contain the home grid
of another school.
Defendants’ Report to the Court Pursuant to Order
of October 10, 1969
621a
4. A school district must contain the home grid
in which the school is located.
5. No school district attended by whites should
have less than 60% white student population to
avoid “tipping.”
After meeting these five tests, all possible combinations
for each school will be separately printed in their order
of desirability. Desirability will be determined first
by the closeness of the integration ratio to 70% white/
30% black. Second, desirability is reflected by the com
pactness of the school district; and third, the combina
tion of grids which yields a student population closest
to 100% of the school’s rated capacity is considered
most desirable. It is observed that the first five rules
serve to identify the various combinations of grids
which are possible, and the latter three rules judge the
desirability of the various combinations.
2. What is Mr. Weil’s assigned mission or goal?
A nswer: Mr. Weil’s mission or goal is to produce for
each school, independent of all other schools, all feasible
combinations of grids which may comprise a school
district within the limitations set forth in the answer to
question 1.
3. What areas of the district is he directed to include in
his program of redrawing attendance lines?
A nswer: Mr. Weil has been directed to include all
areas of the County in developing combinations of
grids which may comprise a school district.
Defendants’ Report to the Court Pursuant to Order
of October 10, 1969
622a
4. What areas, if any, is he directed to exclude?
A nswers He has not been directed to exclude any geo
graphical areas. However, certain special education
programs, such as the learning academy and child
development centers, have been excluded from his con
sideration. These programs enroll students from large
geographic areas and in some cases, students from the
entire county.
5. What schools will his program affect?
A nswer: In making the systems analysis, the atten
dance lines of all schools served by the system will
be considered and there is substantial probability that
all attendance lines will be affected in varying degrees.
6. Will pairing, grouping or clustering of schools be
used by the Board as needed to supplement the computer
plan?
A nswer: It is not suggested by the Board of Education
that there is a “computer plan.” The information sup
plied by the systems analysis approach will be utilized
by the staff and the Board of Education along with
other information in restructuring attendance lines.
The Board of Education will consider pairing, grouping
or clustering of schools where practical, educationally
feasible and where such techniques offer reasonable
prospects of producing stable desegregation in such
affected schools.
7. Will the Weil program of redrawing attendance lines
produce desegregation of all the schools by September,
1970?
Defendants’ Report to the Court Pursuant to Order
of October 10, 1969
623a
A nsw er : The information supplied by the systems
analysis approach will not produce desegregation of
all schools by September, 1970. Dramatic results are
expected. It is hoped that the number of all white and
all black schools will be substantially reduced. The
number of such schools cannot be determined at this
time.
8. If the Weil program does not produce desegregation
of all the schools by September, 1970, what does the Board
plan to do to produce that result?
A nsw er : A s pointed out above, the Weil program
does not purport to be a single print-out of the best
possible school district. Instead, it consists of a print
out of the best alternative grids for each school which
for the purpose of such print-out is considered inde
pendently of all other school districts. This computer
information will then be considered by persons familiar
with neighborhoods, traffic patterns, natural hazards
and other factors which to a limited degree may affect
desegregation favorably or unfavorably in restructur
ing attendance lines. The Board of Education does
not feel that it will be possible to produce pupil desegre
gation in each school by September, 1970. It is expected
that faculties will fairly represent a cross section of
the total faculty so that most and possibly all schools
will not have a racially identifiable faculty. Further
more, the restructuring of attendance lines coupled
with faculty desegregation may satisfy constitutional
requirements.
9. Will any plan produced by the Weil method or any
other redrawing of attendance lines desegregate the schools
Defendants’ Report to the Court Pursuant to Order
of October 10, 1969
624a
if unrestricted freedom of transfer or freedom of choice
is retained?
A nswer: The Board does not know precisely what
effect free choice of transfer will have on desegregation
through the utilization of the Weil approach. However,
the Board does contemplate that additional restrictions
on free choice of transfer will be required. The ex
perience of this system indicates that retention of free
choice of transfer would have little adverse effect on
desegregation. During the 1968-69 school years, ap
proximately 5 per cent of the students served by the
system elected free choice of transfer, many of which
transfers had no adverse effect on desegregation. In
view of the limitation of the school population to not
less than 60 per cent white, which will tend to stabilize
racial ratios within the schools, it is believed that re
tention of a more restricted free choice of transfer
will not have any appreciable effect on desegregation
and will enable students in case of practical hardship
or educational desire to attend the school of his or her
choice.
The Board has acknowledged its duty to desegregate the
schools served by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public School
System and is earnestly striving to fulfill this responsibility.
Moreover, the Board realizes that to be workable, any plan
for further desegregation must not only be approved by
the Court, but must also be accepted by the community. In
order to enhance the chances of success, the Board feels that
it is imperative that its planning be thoroughly done, care
fully reviewed, meaningfully interpreted to the community
and realistically administered.
Defendants’ Report to the Court Pursuant to Order
of October 10, 1969
625a
In considering the defendants’ motion for an extension of
time, it is respectfully requested that the Court carefully
consider the foregoing duties of the Board.
Respectfully submitted this 29th day of October, 1969.
/ s / W illiam J. W aggoner
William J. Waggoner
1100 Barringer Office Tower
Charlotte, North Carolina
Attorney for Defendant
Defendants’ Beport to the Court Pursuant to Order
of October 10, 1969
State of North Carolina
County of Mecklenburg
Dr. William C. Self, of lawful age, being first duly sworn,
on his oath states that he is the Superintendent of Defendant
named in the above and foregoing matter and that the
facts stated in this report are true according to his best
knowledge and belief.
/ s / W illiam C. Self
Dr. William C. Self
Sworn and subscribed to before me
this 29th day of October, 1969.
/ s / F aye Jalley
Notary Public
My commission expires: 3-27-71
626a
ANSWERS TO STATISTICAL QUESTIONS
Civil Action No. 13~}b
Judge Jarr.es B. McMillan
Re: 10-10-69
1. Pupil Distribution for Closed and Overcrowded Schools
2. Accounting of These Schools in Total Relating Effect
of Freedom of Choice
3. Report on Freedom of Choice Transfers: Section I, II
U. Degree of Integration: Pupils and Professional Staff
in Each School
5. Pupils Transported Daily 1 SoS-70 - “ First Month Average
6 . Compensatory Education
7. HEW Reports (Not included, pending official printing.
Expected Report Date is December 15, 1969. Questions
2 and U, above are basic for the HEW Report).
10-28-69
The Charlotte-Mechlenbuig Schools
627aPupils f ror,i closed schools*
or
Pupils 1 rotn overcrowded schools
Prow :
Five Elementary Closed Schools
PUPIL DISTRIBUTION REPORT
(1) Reassigned School (Enrolled Oct. 10, 1969 )
S chop Is if Pupils Schools V Pupils
o
Beverly l/oods 7.6 Park Road A A
Idlewild 55 S elwy n 25
Lansdowne 75 Sharon 89
Olde Providence 71 V/interfield 48
(2) Freedom of Choi ce School (After Reassignment)
Dilwor tli 3 First Ward 14
Double Oaks 107 Oak lawn 22
E1 i z a b u t h 2 Wilmore 7
Irwin Elem. 301
(3) Moved Residence: Present School
Double Oaks 7 Oak 1 awn 17
Druid Hills 3 Try on Hills 23
Llizaiietn 18 Villa Heights 2 9
First Wa r d 35 Wi lr.iore 4
Lincoln Heights 7
(4) Left County
(5) Pupils not reporting to school (Still live in
Ares): Dropouts
Grand Total
*Five Elementary Closed Schools
Number of pupils originally assigned to these schools
at end of school year 1968-69 for 1969-70 year.
* Alexander St. (141), J'.ethune Fairview (321)
Z a b Vance (227), Isabella Wyche (197), Irwin Ave.
Junior high, Second Ward Senior High
Total j!_ Pupils
452
456
143
1 0 5 2
105 2
4
Pup i
( 1 )
C2)
(3)
( - 1 )(3)
i ' f c : osc-d • c'.onls * FRO■: I rwin Avenue d?::. ir- r Hi ghor ’
I? Tr. ■ _ovorcrowded 628a
sciioois
PUPIL DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Reassigned School (Unrolled Oct. 10, 1969)
SCI IOOI.
la? t way
Alexander Graham
IV i 11 i a ms
McClj ntock
Smi 1 1:
Wi1 son
NUMBER PUPILS
47
87
5 7 **
51
4 6
7
TOTAL
Freedom of Choice School (After Reassignment)
TOTAL PUPILS
2 95
Last way 2
Alexander Graham 5
Hawthorne 7
Kennedy 15
MeClintock 3
Northwest 78
P i edmont 5
Ranson 1
Scdgcfield 1
Sm i t h 5
Spaugh 16
Will in pi s 124
U' i 1 s o n 4
TOTAL
Moved Residence: Present School
2 64
Cochrane 1
Alexander Graban 1
Hawthorne 11
Spnugn ]
Kennedy 5
Northwest ]
Piedmont. 2
Randolph 3
Willi am s 7
TOTAL 32Left County r,
Pupils not reporting to school (Still live in area)
Propouts 23
GRAND TOTAL ------- (7T9---
Number of pupils originally assigned to this school
at end of school year 1968-69 for 1969-70 -- 619
* Alexander St., Pethune, Fairvicw, Zeb Vance, Isabella Wyche,
Irwin Avenue dr., Second Ward Senior
* * Inc 5 to Williams were Project Opportunity students. This is
a ford foundation project which was tinns forred from Irwin to
Wi 11 i n n s .
629a
Pupils from closed schools
Pupils from overcrowded schools
From: Second Ward Senior High School
PUPIL DISTRIBUTION REPORT
(1) Reassigned School (Enrolled October 10, 1969)
School # Pupils School # Pupils Total £ Pupils
East Mecklenburg . . . . . . .15 Independence . . ..........2
Garinger ........... . . . .77 Myers Park . . . . . . . SI
Harding ........... . . . 117 Olympic . . . . . . . . 55
West Charlotte . . . . . 119
466
(2) Freedom of Choice School (After Reassignment)
East Mecklenburg . . . . . . . 1 North Mecklenburg ....... 5
Garinger ........... . . . .30 Olympic....... ....... 4
Harding............. . . . Ill West Charlotte . .............50
Independence ....... . . . . 4 West Mecklenburg ...........2
Myers Park ......... . . . . 2
209
(3) Moved Residence: Present School
East Mecklenburg . . . . . . . 2 Myers Park . . . ., . . . 12
Harding............. . . . . s Olympic.........
Garinger ........... . . . . 1 West Charlotte . ., . . . . 7
28
(4) Left County
(5) Pupils not reporti
9
ng to school (Still live in Area):
Dropouts 234
GRAND TOTAL 946 **
METROPOLITAN HIGH SCHOOL Plus 10
Number of pupils originally assigned to this school
at end of school year 1968-69 for 1969-70 year.
630a
2
* Alexander Street, Bethunc, Fairview, Zeb Vance, Isabella Wyche, Irwin Avenue J1I
Second Ward S1I. **
** Distribution lacks 10 pupils' forms which were retained in the following school
Irwin 7, Northwest 1, Sedgefield 2.
631a
Statistical
F r o m :
Amay James
Report, //I (Cont'd)
Accepted Reass i gnmc-nts From Overcrowded Schools
Jo;
73 Ashley Park 27
Wester 1y Hills b6
632a
2. Total Accounting of Pupils and Pupil Distribution
(including Effect of Freedom of Transfer)
Closed Schools: Ovcrcrowdcd School : Total
Fi ve
E 1 omentary
one
Junior H i qh
one one
Senior Hiqh Elementary E K JH SH
\. Enrolled at
(l) Reassigned
school 453 295 466 73 526 296 466
1,28?
(48%)
(2) Freedom of
Choice
School 456 264 209 456 264 209
929
(34%)
(3) New-res i donee
Local School 143 32 28 32 28
203
(7i%)
left School
(̂ ) Left County 5 9 0 6 9
14
<i»
(5) Still Live in
Area - -
Dropouts 23 234 0 23 234
257
1052 619 946 (9*»
Report forms error 10
no ltd - - - - +10
lT25
10
6Ts~ 966
2627 * Total of
year assignments
for 190S-70
Principals' end of
to closed schools '2700*
—
•'Projected enrollment for closed schools was 3000 based on history-trend of these schools.
£
633a [ n ) {'■
F.J.I’HN:TA!*' SCHOOLS Freedom or Choice Deques t«x «Treedr n o f C h * i ci\
10*'V- - 3 -*J70____________ t o Inter Oran tec1 _ j'enue-ts to Lnr. \*e:
- _L_ » v
Albemarle Road 0 13
1
n 14 d l 14
A1lenbrook 0 12 0 3 0 i 3
Ashley Park
r
0 38 0 4
l
n ! 2
“ Bain 0 0 0 6
in j 6
‘ Barringer 0 0 22 12
----- 1---------
13: in
Berryhi11 0 15 o 4 0 ! 3
Beverly Woods 0 15 0 10
----- !0 i 10
Bill intjsvi lie 0 (1 14 2 14T 2 "
“ Briarwood 0 0 0 7 0 1 {■
Bruns Avenue 2 n 1 2 1 j 2
Chantilly o n 0 4 n ; 4
‘ Clear Creek 0 o 1 2 1 1 0
Collinswood 0 7 3 • 4 ___
0 • 6Cornelius 1 2 0 7
Cotswold n 18 0 4 0 ' 4
Davidson 0 2 o. 0 0 ; 0
Perj ta 0 14 7 1 0 1 1
‘ Devonshire j 0 0 0 7 0 0
Dil.worth ’ 1 1 f) 22 0 21
' j
Double Oaks 5 ! n 5 0 6 ! 0
Druid Hills 5 i 0 3
1
0 6 ; 0
liastover * 1 10 I 12 i 1 : 12
i 1P.l iznhctli 13 ; n >2 18 | 20- 17
**Cnderly Park , 0 j 22 _ > . - J n ! p
634a
Ansv.'ci to Statistic il Puestion No. 3
Report on freedon of choice transfers showing the number of
children by school and race, who chose to transfer out of
and into various schools for the 1960-70 school year.
Seed on I
Report On All Schools fxccpt the Seven Closed Down Schools
635a j f t ) f' >
r . l c n c n t n r v Schools Freedom of Choice requests' FreoCc- of Choice! '’rnrtef
1 0 6 9 - 1 i) 7 n to Inter Crnntei! ̂ P o q u o c
y
1 0
s to ! . ' envo i
,V v; V .
0 I 0 nF i r s t IVaril 2 0
* * l l i c k o r y G r o v e 0 n 1 3 1 2
‘ H i d d e n V n ] l e y 0 n 0 i n 1
H i g h l a n d p 4 0 4 0 4
H o s t , i n s / 0 2 0 2 0 p I P
l l u n t e r s v i 1 l e
>
0 1 1 1 ~ r ~ < 1 1 1
H u n t i n g t o w n e F a r m s 0 5 0 4 0 4
I d l e v i l d 0 9 0 12 n 1 2
* A m a y J a m e s 0 0 5 I P 3 1 9
L a k e v i e w 1 0 2 I P 2 18
L a n s d o w n e 0 1 2 0 3 0 3
L i n c o l n H e i g h t s 5 0 1 2 0 A P
‘ L o n g G r e e k 0 0 4 2 7 2 2 5
M a r i e D a v i s 1 7 0 2 P n n
M a t t h e w s 7 n 2 4 2 3
M e r r y O a k s 0 2 ' 0 I P n IP
M i d w o o d 0 14
7" -
3 in 0 P
M o n t c l n i r e 0 1 8
■
0 4 0 0
M y e r s P a r V 2 12 } 4 . . s _ ... . 4 . s
N a t i o n s F o r d n 14 o I P 0 0
N e w e l 1 n 6 0
f
1 6 p p
O a k d a l e i 2 8 1 i 0 n
O a k h u r s t i 11 0 7 0 . 6
O a k 1 a wn 2 n i n P 4 0
O l d c P r o v i d e n c e I s J 5 0 2 l . n -
2
636a1 I.:
1''( . t o il'trr *-rant o.l
j l>'
I’c-!! llf'r. t X r . \r: u ;r ' !
iv V 1
Pari: Peru! 0 3 7 0
1
9 ! i
0 ! 8
* Paw Creel 0 j n 1 3 1
1_J_ 7
P i n e v i 1 1 c 1 i 0 1 7 3 7
P i nowood
i
0 •1 0 3 1 0 j 9
PI a ?.a Road 1 C) 1
!
19 o t _u__.
* * Pnna Pone! * 0
1
1 n l. 0 2 0
Sedtjef I e 1 tl 0 ! 5 n 7 0 7
Selwyn 2 17 o t t- 0 2
Shamrock Cardrj15 0 27 n i dl 6
Sharon n 8 0 3 3 0 i>*
* * S t a rn o u n t 3 1 0 3 n 3
* -Statesville load 7 3 9 2 8
* '“Steel C r c c 1 | 0 n 0 10 io 10
Thomasonro 1 0 18 0
i
21 io _ 20
Tryon Hills
1
5 n 5 1 10 1-, .li_
Ttickasecpco 0 0 n 2
l
Io r
University I’m 10 0 4 0 _h . n
*Yilla Heights 0 0 7 0 i
_i3.... n
* V.'e s t e r 3 v 1! i 11 , 0 ! 0 0
t
0 1;0 0
IV i 1 more 1 ! 2 2 3 4
t
h 1 '
Winsor Par) 0 1 13
.
0 8
|
in
Kintcrfield n 1
> 25 f)
1 5
!
•n 5
To t a l : l !()S ] 4 86 1 5b 54 2 lin.I! -1 8 6
Combined Total »591 L 698 Combine d Total
Notes : 3
Schoc 1
Sc hoc
inn i or
! i t i ona 1 107 students were re tin*n e d t o school of oripinnl
cent sinee schools requosted were close 3 Col t ransfor?.
c 3 o s e d r>l!t to nil transfor rcoue s t s .
closed out to rcyu3a r transfer request on 3 v - (not. Vy to i\i r c rity reque st; .)
637a ( a ) CM
.J1!\:]0 !> I! Mill SCHOOLS Freedom oO Choice Ponucsts Freedom cl Choice Granted
tn inter - Granted ^eouests to leaveN V 1 >- Iv y v-
*Albcmarle Fond i
0 n i 9 n i n
* A1 e x a n d e r 0 0 7 13 4 . 12
*Cochrane 0 0 JO 2 0 1 o
Cou1 wood ] 33 m i n o l 1
* F a s t w a >■ 0 n ■p 4 n 0
Alexander Graham s 58 Cl 2 i
0 ; 2
llawt home 5 13 23 9R 19 25
• J. F. Kennedy 2] n 46 63 4 0 26
*McClintock 0 0 ■9 7 2 2
Northwest fs> O'
*
1 . .
__ n 4! 6 4 41 4
Piedmont 11 i * 51 8 ; 27
Quail liollow 0 9 0 9 n , 4
Randolph 4 22 0 58 n 23
* Ranson n 0 2 1 2 . 0 .
S e d g e f i e 1 d 27 0 f8 35 8 34
Smith 2 1 9 , ^ 7 n A
Spauwh •18 ; 16 13 14 1 3
\
\JL.
Willi mas 14 I n 1! 2 8 2 21 n
* W i 1 s o n i
1 0
1
| 0 j_°. ... 5 0 : 5
j
Total ! 164 171 .184 394 [164 ■ J7LNote: Combined Total 33S 578 Combined Total
Note: An Additional 2_43 Students were returned to original Assignment
since schools requested were closed out for transfers.
School clc?°^ out to all transfer requests.
School closed out to regular transfer request only - (not
majority to minority requests.)
638a
‘ I \ rnv I! 1 r,|; SfNPOI.S freedom o f Choice r e q u e s ts Treec-c5' ' ^ r Choice
IjH 9 - 1970 _ t o Frit cr Crantc-d r e q u e s ts to ! envc r;1
N 1 V N I v:
‘ f*".
Past Meet lenbure n 43 3 27 3 hr
**Cari ne.rr 13 0 1 7 37 i
1 3 i ?0
Hardi up 46 h_. 32 ____ 1 2 in l ’[7
/1 ndepenilence 1 24 0 5 n =:4
**Myers I’arl, 9 o 5 26 , k '
**North Mecklenburg 2n 10 16 10 n 6
Olympic 14 14 17 11 1 s isNote:2 i*South Mecklenburg „ 0 ___ 2 0 24 0 123
West Charlotte 29 5 92 3 67 13
Ivcst Mecklenburg 1 21 8 11 r
8 Jl l
Total : 133 141 164 170
!
.. 13 31 141
Note: - Combined Total: 274 . 334 - Combined Total
Note: An Additional 60 Students were returned to School of nripir.nl
1 Assignment since schools requested vere 'Closed for transfers.
Note: - SAT Students2
* School closed out to all transfer requests. **
** School closed out to regular transfer request only - (not majority
to minority requests.)
639a
3 . S e c t io n I I
Freedom o f C h o ice T r a n s f e r s From C lo se d S c h o o ls
To S c h o o ls in w h ich A s s ig n e d f o r the
19 6 9 -7 0 S ch o o l Year
From C lo se d E le m e n ta ry S c h o o ls
J o : A le x a n d e r S t . Bethune
D i Iw o r ih
Doub le Oaks 2
E 1 i zabe th 2
F i r s t Ward 7 7
Oaklawn 1
W ilm o rc
Ir w in (Eler.) 1 <<3
T o ta l
From 8 55
i r v i ew Zeb Vance 1 sabe 1 1 a v/yche
T o ta l
To
3 3
105 107
2
lb
21 22
1 6 7
121 90 66 301
21.7 91 55 <<56
640a
Section i! (Cont'd): Freedom of Choice Transfers
from: Irwin Avenue Junior High - - - - 264 Pupils
To: Freedom of Choice School
Eastway 2
Alexander Graham 5
Hawthorne 1
Kennedy 15
M c C 1i ntock 3
Northwest 78
P i edmont 5
Ranson 1
Sedgef ield 1
Smi th 3
Spaugh 16
Willi ams \ i k
Wi lson
Total
F rom 264
641a
Section II (Cont'd): Freedom of Choice Transfers
From: Second Ward Senior High - - - - 209 Pupils
To: Freedom of Choice School
East Mecklenburg i
Gar i nger 30
Hard i ng 111
1 ndependence k
Myers Park 2
North Mecklenburg 5
0 1ymp i c
V/est Charlotte 50
West Mecklenburg 2
Total
From 209
The Chariot tu-MeckIonburg Schools
642a
Research Report 2 - ‘69
/c~'CV
SUMMATION OF INTEGRATION 1965 (MARCH) AND 1968-69 (OCT. 1, '68)
/ U f - 1 * ( d r . 2 , ’6 1 )
For PupiIs Professional Staff
School Hav i ng I nteqrat ion
.Pupils 9W
B.
476N
Pupils
Minority Race
(i ntegrated)
U £ ! m 5.7M
1192W 6704N
Number in
Majority Race
(i ntegrated)
3̂ *3 N 16.446W
8697N 47.356W
& °%rJ 12*3■ 3N
nw 1,7 ****ON -y.y --A'
131W 208N
jyri
37*iN 297 5W
Predominantly
Negro Schools
- - Pup iIs
352
Predomi natIy
Wh i te Schools
Pupils 16,922
.Total
Total Involved by
Integrat ion
9889
/Mil
Staff
- Pupi1s 17,27^
or
2k% of
72,336
Enrol led
514,060 " s taf f
63,9̂ 9
or
21% o f83,111
W 1'Staff
f r f ' t
n sli
149 505 SCO
2783 3U!
149
or
5% of
31^0 incl.
part assignments
in schools
3288
or
.^1.7, Of .. . v -
3 6 1 3 ass igned
a t one do f i n i te
school
on / Cfi %
P
The Char lotte-Mecklenburg Schools
RACIAL DISTRIBUTION OF PUPILS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFF
1965 (M a rch ) , 1968-69 (Oct. 1, *6 8 ) , and 1963-69
Grade
N o .
School
1965
N
Pup i1s
W
No.
School
1968
N
Pupils
W
No.
School
1969
N
Pupi1s
W
1965
N w
1968
N w
196
N
Q
1-6 72 9,364 27,696 76- 13,290 31 ,5 4 5 7 3- 1 3 , 3 7 4 31,522 3 7 7 + 11 71 i 478 1329 499 13
7 -9 17 2,4 75 11,804 21 5,9 34 14,741 20- 6,188 15,131 H I - 533 228 706 232 6
10-12 8 1,625 10,677 11 4 , 3 7 7 12,313 10- 4,472 12,808 65 479i 178 644 194 6
97 13,464 50,177 108- 23,601 58,599 103- 24,034 59,521 553i 2184 884 2679 925 27
Other 12 6,877 1,818 4+ 640 271 4+ 656 307 323i 79 23 27 22
Professional Staff
: Kgn. + Tra inable
1-4 1 360 157
1-7 2 431 207 17 9i
1-9 3 729 1611 32 68
5-9 1 505 257
1-12 3 2400 1137
7-12 2 2452 120 li
Total 109 20,341 51,995 112 24,241 58,870 107 24,690 59 ,828 877 2263
Include
Part-t ime
Not Include
Part-t ime
Among teachers assigned to more
than one school
643a
COMPARISON OF PUPILS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFFING BY RACE
March 6, 1965> 1968-69*> and 1969-70 *
Professional Staff
School 1965 Pup i 1 S 1968-69 ?up i1S 1969-70 Pup Is 1965 1968-69* 1969 1 0 *
N r w N *7e w N W N .7 , W N O. w N W
N H (other) (other) /V /\. (other) (othor
Albemarle Rd. 4 He 499 4 / •- 510 6 f.r'v 13 6 \i
342 . C t :1 257 too 7C 14.1 1 1 /CC7,
50 10*7«. 452 61 tz l* 452 2 /C ‘7c 18 5 -y ‘v U
Ashley Park 0% 694 0 % 553 27 i •< 574 <??£• 22.9 2 ?7, 20 4 /; '> I-
Ba i n °-i 6?4 25 3 % 699 33 -a e7; 735 28.2 1 28 5 2!
°X feo4 668 1 ? % 131 859 p~% 16 ox 24.8 13 •tz-7 18 16 tv ... 1 j
ox. 1026 119 15 7c 685 114 1* * 675 oR 39.6 2 6/. 32 6 ( .. 3'
343 V % 9 223 77 7* 3 17.6 /»%' 11 /re 7*
Beverly Woods O 70 286 68 1 % 684 1 r7o 12 5 / 6 7. 2.
B iddlevi11e 434 /oC % 17.2 /»X
B i11i ngsv i11e 729 tcc% 619 IOC % 2 610 /cc *K 0 32.1 /*>**£ 25 /ccl\ 16 . ‘Vo 1(
07. 582 8 /7C 640 6 i % 680 23.9 3 /Z% 22 6 2'
Bruns 740 717* 4 774
O’<4 10 26 T3/<. 2 21 ’0 4> 7o 1 ’
Chant illy c % IfU 5 2 O 7c 491 5 /■/'. 487 °X 18.8 1 5 7c 21 4 / ? '7 1'
Clear Creek 0 % 207 53 225 51 i7 % 244 0 1 9.6 1 $7e 12 3 1.
Col 1i nswood 375 72 / 3 % 490 1 1 1 443 0X 16.I 1 5 7. 21 3 17 7. I<
Cornelius on 241 239 f 'H 0 252 195 * 5 % 237 *71 1 .3 7 33 7. 14 5 1'
Cotswold o x 631 i 1 X7c 567 23 7- 537 25.0 1 S7„ 21 4 / > V|> l;
Crestdale 97 /tc i\1 5.0 /**7
Dav i dson 17. 178 101 3 5 7c 186 104 & - 186 <?70 7.8 1 11 2 / ■ S’.
Marie Davis 808 /cc c.\ 705 /to 7c 691 7c 0 34.3 /®o7. 29 Icc'/C 14 V > V - 1*
Deri ta 6 ' 7. 892 165 / ? 7c 728 163 688 0% 35.4 3 77. 32 5 / V % y
Devonsh i re 2 0 % 4 74 0 % 889 0 C ‘/is 903 c7„ 19.5 4 IC % 37 7 • • 3
D i Iv/orth 100 A O J i 401 223 3 7 7c 355 113 5 6 v i 336 07. 23.8 4 7c 22 3 /Y '.V 1 ■
D o u b l e Oaks 703 /to 30C / c c 7 c 836 /< :r 0 28.2 (oe7. 32 ICC % 13 L / ■ 1 .
* Does not include staff assigned to more than one school per HEW request. £
COMPARISON OF PUPILS 'AND PROFESSIONAL STAFFING BY RACE
March 6, 1965, 1968-69*, and 1969-/0 *
Pro fe ss iona l S t a f f
School 1965 Pup •Is 1968-69 Pup 'Is 1969-70 Pupi1s 1965 968-65* j 5S9-70*
Elementarv N W N w N W N w N W N w
^ (other) (other) ;7 Mother) (other)
Druid Hills
OcmU\ /C-o 504 77 7- 3 472 7 7 3 CO 0 '-J IccV 20 /cci. 13 V. 8
Eastover O *A. 704 49 y •,*. 580 42 > A* 559 O '- 27.1 1 ~ % 24 4 r> \ 20
E 1 i zabeth 5 / A48 270 . 5.® 7- 194 366 7 ; -V c 151 Ĉ t 22.9 2 H 21 6 .-7 ■: 20
-derlv Park V Z 363 2 / -7. 37^ 3 / ?. 371 14.9 1 % 15 3 / ■■■ . 13
Fa i rv i aw 7C2 /C:' eZ 363 tec % 28.0 ICC % 19 1 c.: %
First Ward ^73 l e e *7i 749 IO C % 820 0 22.8 / e r 30 / r r % 17 r f . 17
J. H. Gunn 696 IOC / . 33.6 ;c c ’/»
Hickory Grove 0 % 530 80 ryr. 531 70 k* • • 533 0 21.7 1 23 3 / . 20
H 1 dden Vo.] 1 ey c % 977 0 r v„ 1100 2 5 >; 35 7 - ■ 35
Hi ghi and 2 273 47 / 3 324 69 A A 305 0 ';L 14.0 1 7 l/- 14 3 f i ■ 13
Hoskins C ?v 342 18 6 '7.' 261 13 .• •• 228 ;■■■ 14.7 2 / : % 11 3 7 ■•• 9
Huntersvfile o 7 - 553 162 560 154 535 c 22.9 2 7 25 5 / V 4 22
Huntingtowne Farms c k 353 7 1 % 695 7 / 603 0 ‘A 15.1 1 y-:: 26 4 . :■ V.- 21
! d 1cw iId V 592 2 C v 521 56 / - a 597 n A 2 3.9 1 V Vt 22 6 •• ' 23
\gf* Amay James 360 /i'0 7 ; 477 /re '.7 1 473 7'7 % 3
LALA Uc'L 19 /ct‘1. 13 5 7 9
Ada Jenkins 431 /.?<-' % 17.0 I C C ?
Lakevi ew 0 -x 400 269 J 5 147 362 7? 'A 102 o ‘.l 18.5 14 7*# '-1 5 13 4 • -'I 8
Lansdowne £ A 633 <7 v;. 758 75 7 % 802 23.9 1 .7 V.- 30 6 n *’■ 30
L i ncoln He i ghts
CA0
0r-̂ /Of ’ 817 IC C % 2 711 / ■' L % 0 29.1 i c e 7 30 / c r 7 t 16 12
Long Creek c A 423 250 J s % 466 267 jt 468 O rk 17 .6 2 7 7- 26 6 A 1 ? 23
■5 5 Matthews C ‘ ; 937 0 - 6 ^ l l 'it 742 36 /-■ % 802 c v ; 39.7 1 3 7 32 6 /2 31
Merry Oaks £• Vi 533 0 * 469 0 442 O'k. 21.9 1 5 % 19 3 > (. '/.■ 16
Mi dwood <> '; 560 1 cVe 522 11 477 07 , 24.9 2 ? * 2! 4 / / % 19
Monte 1 a i re c 720 £ 722 0 718 0 v; 29.1 1 27 5 /■• 23
Morqan 305 / r e "-c 14.9 / w >1
Irwin Ave. (Elem) LACA k : • O' 10 A 7 ' 5
COMPARISON OF PUPILS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFFING BY RACE
March 6, 1965, 1968-69*, end 1969-70 *
Professional Staff
School 1965 Pup i 1 s 1968-69 Pup M s 1969-70 Pupils 1965 1968-69* 1969-70*
Elementary N W N w N w N w N w N w
.v (other) (other)
■v /[/(other) (oth.
Myers Park 0 7c 575 23 “7.- 543 22 S'/t 456 c*.v 24.9 1 Y ‘7c 23 / ■ ' 22
Myers Street 820 /CcS 32.2 /C«f‘2
Nations Ford « v 513 63 /c ‘7 585 47 c - 681 0 ?. 21.6 1 •/■x 25 6 22
Newe 11 C‘.\ 463 73 / 7 7. 423 74 438 * A 18.3 1 A a 18 3 / '1 • 1 7
Oakdale o 402 72 /■'■/. 480 69 /C-7. 517 c** 17.2 1 A */: 21 6 • o * 18
Oakhurst e 7. 543 2 f/c 615 5 / v> 616 22.8 1 23 4 / 7 'X, 20
Oakl awn 666 /.V" 650 613 ICC-Z. 0 26.0 /cr >: 25 ViiS 2 1 1 h;. tv ir
01de Providence 10 - •/- 434 so 1+ % 512 1 17 5 20
Park Road 0% 533 0 <1 551 44 7 '2.' 543 6 7 22.7 1 21 7 .1.- • it
Pav/ Creek c 7c 793 63 7‘A 861 27 - -A 609 30.3 1 3 % 31 5
PInev i 11 e (3 7 364 160 J .i 7C 363 146 IS vi 375 o7. 16.2 1 r/c 21 4 /7V, |'
Pi newocd '■•7 719 n v; 707 0 c */. 674 oS 28.1 1 26 u ?/
Plaza Road 400 99 / 7 7.' 409 88 -A- A 362 o i 17.7 1 a s : 21 4 j j
Rama Road o 7c 442 2 O Vc 777 1 815 18.7 2 ? a 27 5 / 7'/' 2/:
Sedcef i eId 3 r'c 526 7 / % 545 3 / -7C 548 c'A 21.3 2 r z 20 4 /‘7 15
Plato Price 505 / CC'/( 25.4 tec /i-
So 1wyn c 7c 531 5 /7c 598 31 J % 617 oK 21.9 1 <*■*/. 22 5 //v> 21
Seversv 111 e 96 Jc 7. 229 O S 14.8
Shamrock Gardens 07. 536 O'/c 539 0 o ‘Z 515 0% 21.9 1 j-A 20 4 //•’••' 1/
Sharon 591 C/-. 519 89 2 p 'a 364 0% 22.9 1 A ‘-v 20 4 Ar 7t )/
Stnrmount C 7, 481 25 2% 713 25 7:2 0% 20.9 1 J-lv 23 5 / 7 2/
Statesville Road c 7c 650 295 3 c. ‘I 534 333 5? 9'.- 522 25.9 3 V?c 29 8
Steele Creek £/ 7. 222 1 2 ~ ‘7c 531 5 17< 509 c ‘/I- 10.7 1 •5 7c 2C 4 / 5 ;• 1 ■
Ster1i ng 699 33.9
Thomasboro O 7. 885 c* 7c 705 0 0 ~ 690 DM. 34.3 2 7 VS 25 5 j ■>
Paw Creek Annex 30 n % 271 1 '! \\ 1
COMPARISON OF PUPILS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFFING BY RACE
March 6, 1 9 6 5 , 1968-69*, and 1969-70 *
! Professional Staff
School 1965 Pupils 1968-69 Pup Is 1969- 70 Pup Is 965 1963-69" 1969-70*
El ementary N W N W N w N w N w N \.i
•> rj (°tt'er) (other) /V . (other) - (oth.
Torrence-Lyt1e 1005 •r.f'/. 46.1
• Hills ? 2d- 2A 1 245 322 U- 166 c% 15.0 1 S i 20 4 is
Tuckaseegce ■■ 631 61 /1V, 553 53 ■7 % 573 2 3.9 1 v;; 23 4 / 7Cl 20
University Park 700 /Cr 777 /£< /. 825 /O r Pc 1 25.8 K c 'u 30 77 7, 1 23 «•/.■ 10
•7eb Vance 46? /rf /l 257 /i ■: 19.5 t a 11 /o*
Villa Heights 23 4 7 53^ 796 <l c:! 126 929 •f, 88 e> 1:28.3 23 14 23 C( '4 17
Wesley Heights 214 /n 8.3 7-;r. 2 .2
Wester 1 y Hills L 569 46 $ ‘7-- 539 1 22 4 /Vv. 20
W i 1 mo re 6 323 145 37 293 228 235 15.4 8 V. 1 2 9 13
Windsor Park 1 c 673 2 co 737 1 C % 743 tiV- 25.8 1 I"-. 27 6 .: 2A
Wi nterfi e 1d 455 c.. 639 48 7 % 688 o7. 18.7 . 4 K 26 6 • 2 A
Woodland 360 /dC'/t 14.8 /oct :>
Wood1awn c 9 283 c',: 14.0
!sabei1 a Wyche 383 222 18.6 / <■ * p: 12 toe 7c
Child Development
(Kgn. Centers)
Davidson, #1 83 * ! c/t 117 80 •fL^c 121 3 7 3 r/c 7
Pi navi lie, #2 166 ’' A /l 37 163 •n*n 43 2 -it /i 8 2 -'i Vi 8
Seversv!1!e, #3 1/4 $ 7 Pc 26 181 7 o - 21 8 2 7
Morgen, #k 138 7 7 7<r 6 187 ’i f >'• 12 8 S'Clt 2 7 ? V, 2
647a
COMPARISON OF PUPILS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFFING BY RACE
Marche, 1365, 1968-65*. and 1969-7 0 *
School 1965 Pupils 1963-69 Pupils 1969-70 Pupils
Professional Staff
1965 1968-69* 1969-70*
•Junior Hiqh M
/V
W N r, W
’y (other)
N W
(other)
N
7c
- i V -
w N w
Mother)
-jtt_________
N W
(other)
66 7 7: 881 63 6 7'- 995
28
4 43 6 /.? ’ 40
C X 577 347 J / % 755 369 771 £ /I 9 6 IX ?4 44 O tc X 41
Coch rone c % 872 76 5 141+4 79 1552 u'/L 35 4 6 / T % 56 12 / i 7 54
3 / X 574 119 !‘f X 727 106 770 OS: 27 1 - .,4 //X 34 6 / w ‘Vc 32
Eostwav c'T. 1046 3 0 u 1364 61 1356 c vx 43 2 3 S V. 55 1 1 />. */« 51
c 7l 1048 8 / 7 1084 113 1028 0 7V 43 8 4 7 •** 43 9 40
25 4 X 670 492 f*/c 447 536 % 472
42
33 9 12 ■ :1X 33 15 5/ % 34
785 /:: y\ 666 /t t ■/* 7 /oc.vf 32 77 1
McC1intock O Ve 1273 46 ■» <’• 1228 93 79l 1288 51 5 2 v- " V 49 1C / / /. 48
Mcrthv/cs t 77"> / c '7 332 / v. 1052 A-V A- 1 33 7 /fc 39 /ci 7 O V
£ k ^ 20
P :edmont 121 / % 251 428 53 443 3 f '7: 55 C ■ • 26 8 13 12 1 •/ 7 13
Oua i1 Hoi 1ow o 766 17< '. -1 1261 155 - '7- 1421 0 /. 35 2 3 J V. 61 3 55
Rondo 1ph 272 711 289 A 7 7* 710 2 38 9 35
o / X 653 253 ' T<- 586 260 J’A 7.- 548 C 7 30 0 6 /C Vc 31 1 i 1/ Vi 25
Cedqcf 1 e i cl 6 / X 020 !«9 /.'-v 802 167 / 7 7j 809 0 L 40 5 5 39 r> 2; 34
Srr.i th C '7- 1115 (■-. 1389 55 V A- 1 ̂ 36 C ‘,4 48 6 3 57 9 , 52
Spauqh 1 o ■■■; 530 >86 / •) v 871 237 X ■■ 839 0 7 42 5 6 43 1C XI 37
752 ice 7\ 863 / - c 1081 /f+c 0 34 9 /cl ‘7t 37 27 .. •• •- 16
1C64 oO 1132 71 - 7- 1145 c '/ 45 6 4 45 9 42
York Rd. (7- 12)1041 /. / v„ 727 6 354 9 49 9 n. 32 1 21 15
(Kennedy)
Learn I rq Academy - 7th ■- 2th grades
counted ^ JH, above,
648a
School
Sen i H i oh
e-’St Mecklenburg
Gor ineer
Herd 1ng
! ndependence
Myers Pork
North Mecklenburg
Olympic
-Second Word
South Mecklenburg
Vest Chor’otte
Vest Meek’enburg
COMPARISON OF PUPILS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFFING BY RACE
March 6, 1965, i 263-69*, and 1969-70*
Professional Staff
’.sc 5 Pupils 1968-6 Pu d 1 1s 1969 -70 Pupils 1965 1968 -69* 1969-70*
N w N W N W N W N W N 1.7
(other) (other) ;V‘ Toother) (0 1 h 0 r
■ 1 782 155 1732 227 </6 1925 79.2 6 85 16 qi
2 c ■ 2266 202 2157 492 '■ " 2148 100.0 6 6 f 102 22 ;v ■: 97
<’v' 1002 169 814 636 720 <■'> 48.0 4 T 6 49 16
92 6 962 U 5 !t -71 1 1 11 6 7 “A 5S l_2 /:••••. 67
3 • ■ '% L772 158 ' 1855 233 /2/6 1767 ■ -6 76.7 6 0 v. 37 17 79
1 < ' 1155 410 ’ L6 1109 462 2 S'7. i;85 C 5 1 . 8 6 i x 63 13 / / v 6'i
259 ■’ 'A 522 376 6 512 5- // ■•. 39 10 38
141 i /c c 1139 /.- ■v ? ̂ j 70.0 1.5 57 6 2 3
30 1430 106 % 1812 102 2024 ■■ 72.0 4 78 17 /<" 7 0
1560 / C L 1569 /■ - X 1653 /CC 0 65.0 v % 2.0 74 - 'f 6 58 <■ " *■ 29
i 1270 llo 1340 148 V'4/, 1444 0 vt 61.4 4 73 13 /fv„ 71
649a
i. ..'.I,'/. ;; <r r u:.>; wr:”, r«u?.' v'"-?'
rsoi: ..... piv. __
2 2 2 .
.iT̂SKaL:: ,iu: j :>;t 7 / Z
.iT.hxapd :j ./O&'-J-
AT.I.SNT{fy)K 77
iiiJHiSr iw ...U.
V.AIW (o
auianitEa
pRRRY>i H.I. S ^ O
nSVEU.V V/OvTU . _3_7 £3 { T:\p-..'pr.D
PT.Paa 0T7T 2 J 1
nor.H!Ui:s Jir-jon ? c; o
•:oLT,r ■ a 'ooi/
'/0:i?IET.TV5 .
/ S3
P:)T3'-K)TD _ .^.3 .
00CIOT S o o
j.wjdso;? .. V 5
DP.IITA 3 ?S-
DWONUlOiiB / / <2
tv-ST : . J ^ Z -
?v\3T07:,ri 20
\k3T-/f'wV 5.7
•j.jzA'̂riV . _ * v _ _
.. 3 3.-5'
ALEXANDER /<?£
I'n'.lDJ'1'} I IT / 3 5
v/T::o ^ _
: l ]\ ! :
_ .■> <5 o
£
651aa r:.. , sl f v.u1 j i r s o a . . •’ . •• •<
SCHOOL' ' ' ~ PRE-SCHOOL ElSOKTLRY - JUNIOR FISH ■ -r set:toT KiGF "
HEIDSI V*TX3I
(O / .
hunters ;».le
4 1 +
HUKTIHOTAn-S Ha IS _.... 4 o
IDI.2JILD
< ? v ?
INDEPENDENCE 4 R +
AMaY JAKES 222
KENNEDY JUNIOR
/ Z ?
iansdowks
Z 4 S '
LONS GREEK
KATTHEUS .
S 6 3
KrCI.INTOGK JUNIOR
$ 2 S
MYERS PARK HIGH
/ 3 j t
NATIONS FORD
S S o
V S M L
/<>£ P O / y ’ T ~ * W o s *
NORTH :2':rr.3NTWR0 2 2 s
Oakdale 3 m
QAKKiJRS r . ^ 5
OI.DE FRO '/ID 2 V. 3 / ? 7
OLYMPIC1. * 3 2 9
PARK ROaD / O 2
ViC.I GREEK
S / 9
paw nnr.ac annex / o g
PB.'EJILLE / s s
PU2A ROAD 2 . 4
QUAIL HOT,TOW
. 1 3 3 . 2 - .
RaM\ ROaD
/ 3 3 ' . .
RaNDOLPH 3 9 0
UAHS’ ik ___
652a
<1 * J’-R.'j.’j i irU.'-3iR 0 ? PUP1L3 TtW.ioPORTED L\ XLY - 'Lyjy~’i j I’ZaAT l:.3Xr.
sdPToT-------------------- FRK-3CT.00L f.Eisssnsw __ T j s s o.- n s
9 ’nGErJEXD : 5 "
:nT-̂ iT:LD ,i'..
get;/to /OO
/ 7 0
-S: iTir .run 10: 2 1 1
;;ointi / 7 0 2 3
3PAU0U 2 3 S '
STARIIOIF?!? 2 9
■ >TAT2.j7TJJ.E ROAD 6 > % S
A TESTED ORE'S' 4 4 /
I’HYOII HILLS 7 /
Ti!CK:.:J Em EE 2 2 1
•MiT l l i M ® 3 £~
'.eat iivsixs-hiro 6 / S
WE3TSRLY If JT.TS 4 2
TJU.JA: *3 J.i. 2 2
VJILSOU JUNIOR 2 3 2
wjf'TE^ra,D 3 7
DA ‘/ID'JOI! CDS /37>
I fJE'/JTJ.E ODE 7 6 2
3 EVER 3 /ILLS EDO 7 3 9
'•ORGaO ODE.
T o T - A t S i T ? 7 / 0 4 4 2 9 2 7 4 ; 7 o 8
T o t a l 2 4 7 3 7
653a
The 1969-/0 budget adopted by the board of Education on September
9, 1969 contains the following provisions for compensatory education:
A . New p rograns:
Supplements for 12 elementary assistant principals $ 10,000.
Salary for 35 additional special education teachers 320,808.
In-service workshops, consultants, visitation 25,000.
E. Redeployment of personnel from system-wide duties to
working directly with compensatory education:
5 directors and coordinators $ 116,175.
20 corrective reading teachers 206,263.
C. Continuing support for the following activities:
Psychological services
Special education
Social work
$ 2 A 3,810 .
882 ,450 .
217,342.
Child Development Centers ' 760,000.
Learning Academy 190,000.
In addition to the budgetary allotment of funds already committed for
compensatory education, the Board of Education intends to make a request cf
•the County Commissioners for the amount of $150,000 which they have announced
publicly is being held in contingency for compensatory education. Specific
plans for the usn of this money include individualizing instruction, par
ticularly in providing materials and supplies. Attached is a proposal for
the use of these funds which is now being considered.
An application also has been made under the education component through
the City Demonstration Agency for Model Neighborhood funds as follows:
Instructional Fees for Model Neighborhood students $ 26,645.
Establishment of six Model Neighborhood Centers 1,015,188.
The Board of Education has stated its commitment for emphasis in all
departments of the school system on the underachiever and the exceptional
P<M. I d .
654a
Purposes Ir-prove rer.cLng skills of slor or retarded readers by pro
support r.aterialo, equip went end personnel.
P r o ; . f o r Con? ct. rev::-.-.y la v ,- c iu n I . ' o y .c t
1. Materials
Supplement State adopted texts 0££n series with rocc;.rr.
suppleciORt:.! re.toriels:
d-» Level Itot&rd-rd Ijcr.dovfc Support
1 2855 $23,1952 2(61 7,380
3 2637 7,180
li 21:75 3,720
5 21:10 3,660
6 2368 3,550
7 21:88 3,750
8 2375 3,570
9 2265 3,1:00
10 2230 3,33‘0
11 1870 2, 800
12 1685 2.530
Tax t.rsd Shipping
200 Tape Recorders © $1.00.00 $20,000
100 Record Players © 70.00 7,000
$00 Liotening Canters 3 $5C60 29,330
Tar and Siiippisg _3XOO
3« Personnel
Recruit 1,000 voluntc r̂n far 20 uclr,o?.i:
2 professional staff ...-siberj is
coordinate rc.ci’uit'1‘training and
supervision of vilvjfGC E.ro
Total Cost
$70,
59,
20 „
ended
835
*-V\S-'-'
C00_
13a.,
655a
On October 29, 1969, the United States Supreme Court
announced its decision in the Mississippi school case, Alex
ander v. Holmes County, Case No. 632. That decision, the
most significant in this field since Brown v. Board of Educa
tion, peremptorily reversed an order of the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals which, upon request of the United States
Attorney General, had postponed until 1970 the effective
desegregation of thirty Mississippi school districts, and
had extended from August 11 to December 1, 1969, their
deadline for filing desegregation plans. The Supreme Court
held that the Court of Appeals
“ *' * * shoidd have denied all motions for additional
time because continued operation of segregated schools
under a standard of allowing all deliberate speed for
desegregation is no longer constitutionally permissible.
Under explicit holdings of this Court, the obliga
tion of every school district is to terminate dual
school systems at once and to operate now and here
after only unitary schools. Griffin v. School Board,
377 U. S. 218, 234 (1964); Green v. School Board of
New Kent County, 391 U. S. 430, 439, 442 (1968).”
(Emphasis added.)
The Supreme Court further directed the Fifth Circuit Court
of Appeals to make such orders as might be necessary for
the immediate start in each district of the operation of a
“ totally unitary school system for all eligible pupils with
out regard to race or color.”
It is this court’s opinion that the word “dual” in the
Supreme Court opinion is another word for “ segregated,”
and that “unitary” is another word for “desegregated” or
“ integrated.” It is also this court’s opinion that although,
Order dated November 7, 1969
656a
as defendants say, this is not Mississippi, nevertheless the
Supreme Court’s prohibition against extension of time as
laid down in Alexander v. Holmes County is binding upon
this court and this school board, and liars the exercise of the
court’s usual discretion in such matters, and that to allow
the request of the defendants for extension of time to com
ply with this court’s previous judgments would be contrary
to the Supreme Court’s decision and should not be done.
Therefore, and based also upon the considerations set out
in the memorandum opinion to be tiled contemporaneously
herewith, the motion of the defendants for extension of time
for compliance with the court’s August 15, 1969 order is
denied. Ruling on all other pending motions is deferred.
This the 7th day of November, 1969.
/ s / James B. McMillan
James B. McMillan
United States District Judge
Order dated November 7, 1969
657a
Preliminary Statement
On Wednesday, October 29, 1969, the United States
Supreme Court announced its decision in the Mississippi
school case (A lex a n d er v. H o lm es C o u n ty , Case No. 632).
That decision peremptorily reversed an order of the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals which, upon request of the United
States Attorney General, had postponed until 1970 the ef
fective desegregation of thirty Mississippi school districts,
and had extended from August 11 to December 1,1969, their
deadline for filing desegregation plans. The Supreme Court
held that the Court of Appeals
“ V * * sh ou ld h ave denied all m otion s fo r additional
tim e because continued operation of seg reg a ted schools
under a standard of allowing all deliberate speed for
desegregation is no longer constitutionally permissible.
U n d er explicit holdings o f this C ou rt, the obliga
tion o f e v e r y sch ool d istrict is to term inate dual
sch ool s y s te m s at once and to op erate n ow and h ere
a fter o n ly u n ita ry sch ools. Griffin v. S chool B oa rd ,
377 U. S. 218, 234 (1964); G reen v. S chool B oa rd o f
N e w K e n t C o u n ty , 391 U. S. 430, 439, 442 (1968).”
(Emphasis added.)
The Supreme Court further directed the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals to make such orders as might be neces
sary for the im m ediate start in each district of the opera
tion of a “ totally unitary school system for all eligible
pupils without regard to race or color.”
The Mississippi school districts in the H o lm es C ou n ty
case had degrees of desegregation ranging from nearly zero
to about 16% of the Negro pupils. They like Mecklenburg
hoped that their “ freedom of choice” plans would satisfy
the Constitution.
Memorandum Opinion dated November 7, 1969
658a
The request for time extension, and all later proceedings
in this cause, must be considered in light of the Supreme
Court’s reaffirmation of the law which this court has been
following, and in light of the urgency now required by the
Holmes County decision.
T h e R esults o f t h e 1969 P la n
For pupil desegregation, the July 29, 1969 plan proposed
to close seven black inner-city schools (most or all of which
had previously been ear-marked for eventual “ phase-out” )
and to transfer their 3,000 students in specified numbers
to named suburban schools. All the transferee schools ex
cept West Charlotte were white. In addition, 1,245 black
students, in specified numbers, were to be transferred from
eight black or largely black schools to other designated
suburban white schools.
The plan was accepted and approved because of its ap
parent promise to extend the opportunities of a desegre
gated education to over 4,000 new black students.
The plan has not been carried out as advertised: (a)
Only 73 of the 1,245 scheduled for transfer from over
crowded black schools have been so transferred: those 73
were transferred not to the schools designated, but to other
'chools not mentioned in the plan, (b) It is now revealed
that the closed schools, which were billed in July to pro
duce AXt 'Jack students for transfer, actually had only
- students t ' : ~ - dosed r
The Boarc allowed full freedom ;f choice for students
from the efceed sdheefe* aad these • fmhal k l u f t m -
'*rs ' : c : r:. ' o c <ch *>• r ; - ■ Williams
A w r H ^ . EsgAi a a i other H k I
• scn o v u s . ; t ~o r t e XSsSt-XU ed ' > S O .t '.V cS . A s i —J -
' C'i~" ̂ -f v loci * " ---•• • •
Memorandum Opinion dated November 7, 1969
659a
from 17% black to 47% black. This produced community
consternation but no racial disorder among the students.
The result may be deplorable, but the fact that the students
at Harding High School have adjusted peaceably to the
situation (like others before them at Cornelius, Davidson,
Olympic, Randolph Road, Hawthorne and Elizabeth, and
like the people of Anson and other North Carolina counties)
shows that Mecklehburgers can live with desegregated
schools, (d) The transfers proposed simply appear never
to have been made to most of the suburban schools named
in the plan, (e) T h e plan therefore transferred to w hite
sch ools o n ly 1,315 in stea d of the promised 4 4̂5 black p u
p ils ! From closed schools, the elementary transferees num
bered 463 instead of the advertised 1,235; junior high
transferees were 273 instead of 630; and senior high trans
ferees were 506 instead of 1,135; and from overcrowded
schools 73 instead of 1,245. If Harding (47% black, 630
Negro students), Olympic (42% black, 376 Negro students),
and Wilmore (49% black, 228 Negro students) should be
allowed to continue their rapid shift from white to black,
the net result of the 1969 pupil plan would be nearly zero.
Faculty desegregation has significantly and commendably
improved since the April 27 order. Nevertheless, only six
“black” schools and one “black” kindergarten have pre
dominantly white faculties; and 98 out of the 106 schools
and kindergartens in the system are today readily and
obviously identifiable by the race of the heavy majority of
their faculties.
The “performance gap” is wide.
Memorandum Opinion dated November 7, 1969
660a
Memorandum Opinion dated November 7, 1969
T he Situation Today
The following table illustrates the racial distribution of
the present school population:
Schools Readily Identifiable as W hite
Number of N umbers of Students
% W hite Schools W hite B lack Totals
100% 9 6,605 2 6,607
98-99% 9 4,801 49 4,850
95-97% 12 10,836 505 11,341
90-94% 17 14,070 1,243 15,313
86-89% 10 8,700 1,169 9,869
57 45,012 2,968 47,980
Schools Readily Identifiable as B lack
N umber of Numbers of Students
% B lack Schools W hite B lack Totals
100%- 11 2 9,216 9,218
98-99% 5 41 3,432 3,473
90-97% 3 121 1,297 1,418
56-89% 6 989 2,252 3,241
25 1,153 16,197 17,350
Schools Not Readily I dentifiable by Race
Number of Numbers of Students
A B lack Schools W hite B lack Totals
32-49% 10 4,320 2,868 7.188
17-20% 8 5,363 1,230 6,593
22-29% 6 3,980 1,451 5,431
24 13,663 5,549 19,212
Totals: 106 59,828 24,714 84,542
Some of the data from the table, re-stated, is as follows:
Number of schools .................................................... 106
Number of white pupils ............................................ 59,828
Number of black pupils ............................................ 24,714
661a
Memorandum Opinion dated November 7, 1969
Total pupils ................................................................. 84,542
Per cent of white pupils ............................................ 71%
Per cent of black pupils ............................................ 29%
Number of “white” schools ...................................... 57
Number of white pupils in those schools................. 45,012
Number of “black” schools ........................................ 25
Number of black pupils in those schools................... 16,197
Number of schools not readily identifiable by race 24
Number of pupils in those schools .......................... 19,212
Number of schools 98-100% black .......................... 16
Negro pupils in those schools .......:.......................... 12,648
Number of schools 98-100% white............................ 18
White pupils in those schools .................................. 11,406
Of the 24,714 Negroes in the schools, something above
8,500 are attending “white” or schools not readily identifi
able by race. More than 16,000, however, are obviously
still in all-black or predominantly black schools. The 9,216
in 100% black situations are considerably more than the
number of black students in Charlotte in 1954 at the time
of the first B r o w n decision. The black school problem has
not been solved.
The schools are still in major part segregated or “dual”
rather than desegregated or “unitary.”
The black schools are for the most part in black residen
tial areas. However, that does not make their segregation
constitutionally benign. In previous opinions the facts re
specting their locations, their controlled size and their
population have already been found. Briefly summarized,
these facts are that the present location of white schools
in white areas and of black schools in black areas is the
result of a varied group of elements of public and private
action, all deriving their basic strength originally from
662a
public law or state or local governmental Action. These ele
ments include among others the legal ’separation of the
races in schools, school busses, public accommodations and
housing; racial restrictions in deeds to land; zoning ordi
nances; city planning; urban renewal; location of public
low rent housing; and the actions of the present School
Board and others, before and since 1954, in locating and
controlling the capacity of schools so that there would
usually be black schools handy to black neighborhoods and
white schools for white neighborhqgds. There is so much
state action embedded in and shaping toege events that the
resulting segregation is not innocent or “de facto,” and the
resulting schools are not “unitary” or desegregated.
F reedom of C hoice
Freedom of choice has tended to perpetuate segregation
by allowing children to get out of schools where their race
would be in a minority. The essential failure of the Board’s
1969 pupil plan was in good measure due to freedom of
choice.
As the court recalls the evidence, it shows that no ivhite
students have ever chosen to attend any of the “black”
schools.
Freedom of choice does not make a segregated school
system lawful. As the Supreme Court said in Green v.
New Kent C o u n t y . 391 F.S. 430 ( 1 9 6 8 ) :
u* * * If there are reasonably available other ways,
such for illustration as zoning, promising speedier and
more effective conversion to a unitary. nonracial school
system, nreedom of choice' must be held unacceptable.'*
B«dnwriaar itrendanee lines is not b.Vely to accomplish
aagtliag staUe tm u d the aaariMe
Memorandum Opinion dated November 7, 1-969
663a
as long as freedom of choice or freedom of transfer is re
tained. The operation of these schools for the foreseeable
futnre should not include freedom of choice or transfer
except to the extent that it reduces segregation, although
of course the Board under its statutory power of assign
ment can assign any pupil to any school for any lawful
reason.
Memorandum Opinion dated November 7, 1969
T he “N ational Standings”
The defendants filed some statistics concerning the one
hundred largest school systems in the country, and say that
Charlotte-Mecklenburg desegregation compares favorably
with that in most of those systems. That may well be so.
The court is not trying cases involving the other ninety-
nine school boards, and has not studied any evidence about
them and does not know their factual nor legal problems.
The court in its first order of April 23, 1969 has noted the
substantial desegregation achieved in certain areas in the
Charlotte-Mecklenburg system, and is still aware of it. The
fact that other communities might be more backward in
observing the Constitution than Mecklenburg would hardly
seem to support denial of constitutional rights to Mecklen
burg citizens. The court doubts that a double standard
exists. The Attorney General of the United States has
filed suit for desegregation in Connecticut as well as in the
whole State of Georgia. One of the most stringent de
segregation orders on record was entered recently against
a school board in the City of Chicago. Constitutional rights
will not be denied here simply because they may be denied
or delayed elsewhere. There is no “Dow-Jones average”
for such rights. With all due deference to the complexities
of this school system, which have already been fully noted
664a
in previous opinions, the Board and the community must,
still observe the Constitution. The fact that the school
system ranks high in some artificial “national standings”
or that one-third of the Negro students do attend desegre
gated schools or predominantly white schools is no answer
to the constitutional problems presented by sixteen thou
sand black Mecklenburgers still going to all-black or largely
black schools in this predominantly white community.
T he P rospects for the F uture
The second part of the Board’s report is-fcaswers to the
court s questions designed to determine whether the Board
uas made the hard decisions necessary to desegregate the
sohoos.
The answers show that those decisions have not been
made.
The eom.cu.te? expert has teen given restrictions which,
taken a: face value, indicate that his work will not lead -
ieseg-sgatzoa or all the schools. One such restrict;.; n has
me apparent meet of limiting attendance to those whr . -
a maximum of roughly a mile ami a ha~- from the -school
f i l e b the n p̂oHse gat that ak gnfe «r fe,
'‘’svffls^was So tfe? gcal or s*
- .. * Arrocher s the hnunitten fiat
mt se*mjoi aremhci sammi ha-.- less utan i N~-
■- scmaeu~ pcc?nat’.;n. .mess thus were saunie*? v-rii
a farther that no s-iev; *c-en«e*£ **■ "hacss siail
la^s a v f" than a-WiN? mars scttirenc Tutjmatam. er.s .rreurs
t u t :n u.v.>v ^ " u - v - * *vr ? .> s u . ~ T i e
eta-. V ’ ■rev s.-. d. •. • -
Wh\ UKiitlftOttSv .'50SC- ■- ~*.C .
taut ~~” itri>wniift iMiiTfiriiiiim
tFs^e* a .*fe-.u t«s >«••-
Memorandum Opinion dated November 7, 1969
665a
record is silent on what these limitations mean and whether
they are still in effect.
The Board has not accepted pairing and grouping and
clustering of schools as legitimate techniques, but has
simply indicated that it will “consider” those techniques
where they offer “ reasonable prospects of producing stable
desegregation * * (Emphasis added.)
The report states unconditionally that:
“ T h e in form a tion su pp lied b y the s y s te m s analysis ap
proach will n ot p rod u ce d eseg rega tion o f all schools
by S e p te m b e r , 1970. Dramatic results are expected.
It is h op ed that the number of all white and all black
schools will be substantially reduced. The number of
such schools cannot be determined at this time.” (Em
phasis added.)
The report also says that:
“ • • • T h e B o a rd o f E du ca tion d oes not fee l that it ivill
be p o ssib le to p rod u ce pupil d esegrega tion in each
sch ool b y S ep te m b er , 1970. It is expected that faculties
will fairly represent a cross section of the total faculty
so that most and p o ssib ly all schools will not have a
racially identifiable faculty. Furthermore, the restruc
turing of attendance lines coupled with faculty de
segregation m a y satisfy constitutional requirements.”
(Emphasis added.)
The School Board is sharply divided in the expressed
views of its members. From the testimony of its members,
and from the latest report, it cannot be concluded that a
majority of its members have accepted the court’s orders
as representing the law which applies to the local schools.
Memorandum Opinion dated November 7, 1969
666a
By the responses to the October 10 questions, the Board
has indicated that its members do not accept the duty to
desegregate the schools at any ascertainable time; and
they have clearly indicated that they intend not to do it
effective in the fall of 1970. They have also demonstrated
a yawning gap between predictions and performance.
Withholding or delaying the constitutional rights of
children to equal educational opportunity on such vague
terms as these is not the province of the School Board nor
of this court.
Furthermore, since the Supreme Court has now pro
hibited lower courts from granting extensions of time, it
may well be that the gradual time table laid down by this
court’s April 23, 1969 order contemplating substantia]
progress in 1969 and complete desegregation by September
1970) was and is too lenient.
If the plan tendered by the School Board on November
17, 1969 is thorough and informative, and sufficiently shows
an unconditional purpose on the part of the Board to com
plete its job effective by September, 1970, the Board may
perhaps be allowed to adhere to the existing time table.
Certainly a Mecklenburg plan ought if possible to be pre
pared by the Mecklenburg School Board and its large and
experienced staff, rather than by outside experts. Decision
on that and other pending questions must await further
developments, including the Board’s November 17, 1969
report.
Conclusions
The school system is still discriminatorily segregated by
race and maintained that way by state action. In many
ways it is not in compliance with the Constitution. The
Board has not shown a valid basis for an extension of time
Memorandum Opinion dated November 7, 1969
667a-669a
to comply with the court’s judgment; it has shown no in
tention to comply by any particular time with the consti
tutional mandate to desegregate the schools; and it has
suggested its intention not to comply by September, 1970.
In spite of those facts the court would like as a matter of
discretion to grant some of the time extension requested,
but is of the considered opinion that in Alexander v. Holmes
County the Supreme Court has prohibited the exercise of
such discretion. The findings of fact in this opinion will
be considered, along with facts found in previous orders,
opinions and memoranda, as the basis for such future judg
ments and orders as may be appropriate, including such
judgments and orders as may be appropriate upon receipt
of the Board’s November 17, 1969 plan. All statements of
fact in this memorandum opinion, whether or not labeled
as such, shall be deemed findings of fact, as necessary to
support such judgments and orders.
This the 7th day of November, 1969.
/ s / James B. McMillan
James B. McMillan
United States District Judge
Memorandum Opinion dated November 7, 1969
670a
The Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation
of Schools
Pursuant to the order of the Court dated August 15,
1969, and as re-affirmed by the order of the Court dated
November 7, 1969, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of
Education submits the following as its plan for further
desegregation of the schools served by the Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Public School System.
Restructuring of A ttendance Lines
The Board of Education has embarked upon a compre
hensive program for the purpose of restructuring attend
ance lines involving all schools and all students served by
die system. The primary purpose of this program is to
liinieve furrier desegregation in as many schools is pos
able Far the oast two and one-half months, mbs uro
gram has teen u n d e r w a y and an enormous amount s i
vurn jus already :een uerutrmei to bring me urogram tu
a gome vuere meaningful m irmancii ran now he rnsaat
i r r a i i
The iru -ra f ir ieveltjcog me rumpurer la s te d sys-
e a s analysis at ore am : rescruetuuruuE me amemiane?
hues are as- : lifaws
1 Systems Assseraces, Inc. me iwmiisa ̂ sairaayett ur
a mmpupfc isssced ^csosns- analyses apnrtu&m tn
'•sscrsccarng n am. ucaacs mess nss urscrmcced ti
iKstaifi ail s.'Mve' aad stjaeats ssrrst ty use sescesu Hi
me a . v : - . : > mat re r"-*»rac* u -s u
att isvthife* i JS &I
r*»eev«>£ w >.«8»}kaj»sv' ■. tyncs *rm r ur-
-v. av s -v . s e .
N d \ ; - V: s- 3̂ ' tv;'
671a
as shown on the school attendance maps filed as
exhibits in this matter.)
B. Xo combination of grids can be considered if they
exceed the rated capacity of the school by 20 per
cent. Further, such combinations cannot under
populate the school by more than 20 per cent.
C. A school district cannot contain the home grid of
another school.
D. A school district must contain the home grid in
which the school is located.
E. Xo school district to which white students are as
signed should have less than 60 per cent white
student population to avoid “tipping."
After meeting these five tests, all possible combinations
of grids are being printed separately for each school. The
combinations will be reviewed to determine their desir
ability. Desirability will be determined by the following
factors: (1) the closeness of the integration ratio to
per cent white—30 per cent black, (2) the compactness of
the school district and (3) the combination of grids which
yields a student population closest to 100 per cent of the
school's capacity.
It is observed that the first five rules serve to identify
the various combinations of grids which are possible an
the latter three rule,- judge the desirability of the variou-
combinations.
The best alternative set of grids for each school will then
he considered by school personnel familiar with n-:gnc- •
hoods, traffic patterns, natural hazards and other factors.
This review may have a limited effect upon desegregation,
The Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation
of Schools
672a
favorably or unfavorably. After consideration of the com
puter information and such factors as listed above, a new
school district will be formulated and its lines shown on
a map. Other school districts wTill be formulated in the
same manner until such time as the entire school system
serving the elementary, junior high and senior high schools
have been redistricted.
It is noted that, in any restructuring of lines, there is a
“domino” effect such that a change in any one attendance
line may cause changes in other attendance lines. Great
care must be exercised in devising attendance lines which
promise a substantial degree of stable desegregation.
Therefore, in the opinion of the Board, its staff and Sys
tems Analysis Associates, Inc., February 1, 1970, is the
earliest practicable date a uniform, comprehensive and well-
planned program which restructures attendance lines can
be developed and approved by the Board of Education
for submission to the Court.
The Board of Education has conducted an examination
of the results of the computer analysis of attendance lines
for forty-three (43) elementary schools located in the
densely populated areas of the city. This examination
discloses that it is theoretically possible to populate these
schools with the following ratios of black students:
1.. Two (2) schools at which the black student popula
tion ratio is 0%.
2. Nine (9) schools at which the black student popu
lation ranges from one to five per cent.
3. Two (2) schools in which the black student popula
tion ranges from six to ten per cent.
The Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation
of Schools
673a
4. One (1) school in which black student population
ranges from eleven to fifteen per cent.
5. Twenty-two (22) schools in which black student
population ranges from sixteen to forty per cent.
6. Seven (7) schools in which the black student popu
lation is 100 per cent.
It should be noted that these combinations are theoreti
cally possible. However, actual drawing of district lines
may disclose that one or more grids are needed in several
adjacent attendance areas in order to achieve the ratios
set forth above. Computation of the alternatives possible
at one black school disclosed that there were in excess of
2,000 possible grid configurations for the school district
each of which would yield 60 per cent or greater white
student population. The task of selecting the most desir
able configuration consistent with the needs of adjacent
schools is a monumental task which will require substan
tial efforts to accomplish for all of the 107 school served
by the system.
The Board elected to work first with elementary schools
rather than secondary schools because the size of the sec
ondary districts requires substantially greater computer
time. Therefore, the Board is not presently in position to
furnish to the Court information gained from computer
print-outs relating to the secondary schools.
The Board is most concerned with the question of “tip
ping” referred to above. It has been frequently observed
that once a school reaches a point between 35 and 45 per
cent black in student population, the school and neighbor
hood become rapidly predominantly or all black. For ex
The Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation
of Schools
674a
ample, in the school year 1954-1955, Barringer, Bethune,
Elizabeth, First Ward, Lakeview, Seversville, Zeb Vance,
Villa Heights and Wesley Heights Elementary Schools and
Hawthorne and Piedmont Junior High Schools housed all
white student bodies totaling 5,502 students. During the
school year 1968-1969, these schools except Seversville
and Wesley Heights which are now housed in Bruns Ave
nue Elementary School had student population of 4,652
(81 per cent) black and 1,105 (19 per cent) white students.
It is further noted that in March of 1965, these schools
had a black student population totaling 35 per cent of
the combined enrollments. Therefore, it is the plan of
this School Board to limit schools to which white students
are assigned to those schools in which it is possible to
provide a student population which is at least 60 per cent
white. Otherwise, schools with high percentages of blacks
become rapidly or more predominantly black and as found
by the Court, “a racial mix in which black students heavily
predominate tends to retard the progress of the whole
groups, whereas, if students are mingled with a clear white
majority, such as a 70/30 ratio, the better students can
hold their pace, with substantial improvement for the poorer
students.” It is the considered judgment of the Board of
Education supported by its staff that to create a school
district which is likely to turn predominantly black is an
exercise in futility and will neither produce quality edu
cation for the children nor offer lasting prospects for stable
desegregation.
The Board has instructed the school staff to periodically
review schools which show an unusual growth in their black
student population and report to the Board such attend
ance districts in order that the Board may consider revis-
The Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation
of Schools
675a
mg such attendance lines to avoid the possibility of “tip
ping.”
A majority of the Board of Education believes that the
constitutional requirements of desegregation will be
achieved by the restructuring of attendance lines, the re
stricting freedom of transfer and other provisions of this
plan. The majority of the Board has, therefore, discarded
further consideration of pairing, grouping, clustering and
transporting. If the majority of the Board of Education
is in error in its conviction that such measures are not
constitutionally mandated, the Board respectfully requests
clear direction to the contrary through the careful consid
eration of perplexing questions as they apply to the Char-
lotte-Mecklenburg School System. These questions include
the following:
1. What is a unitary school system?
2. What makes a school racially indistinguishable?
3. Will this school system which bases its plan pri
marily on geographic zoning be considered to have
a unitary school system!
4. Will this system be unitary even though it operates
more schools with all white student populations ?
5. Will this system be unitary even though it oper
ates one or more schools with all black student
populations ?
6. What constitutes a racially indistinguishable fac
ulty?
7. If a pupil percentage ratio (black/white) is used,
what are the acceptable limits?
The Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation
of Schools
676a
8. If pupil ratios (black/white) are used in individual
schools, must the same ratios be maintained indefi
nitely in spite of changing neighborhood patterns?
F ree Choice of T ransfer
Any black student will be permitted freedom of choice
transfer if the school to which he is originally assigned
has more than 30 per cent of his race and if the school he
is requesting to attend has less than 30 per cent of his
race and has available space. Any white student will be
permitted freedom of choice transfer if the school to
which he is originally assigned has more than 70 per cent
of his race and if the school he is requesting to attend has
less than 70 per cent of his race and has available space.
Availability of space will be determined by the school
administration under rules of uniform application estab
lished by the School Board.
In addition, transfers may be granted to students whose
request for transfer evidences conditions of hardship.
Hardship will be determined on the basis of uniform rules
developed by the administrative staff.
The administrative procedures for such transfer shall
be readily available to each student.
F aculty Desegregation
During the 1970-1971 school year, the Board of Educa
tion will staff each school so that the faculty at each school
will be predominantly white and, where practicable, will
reflect the ratio of white and black teachers employed in
the total faculty of the school system.
Recognizing that the assignment procedures necessary
to achieve this goal will place many teachers in circum
The Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation
of Schools
677a
stances with which they are unfamiliar and for which they
have only limited preparation, the Board will therefore
seek to provide special assistance to them by requesting
additional funds in its 1970-1971 budget for in-service edu
cation and by deploying its central office staff in the most
effective way possible.
It is impossible at this time for the Board to specify
the precise percentage of racial mix in each school faculty
since the school system will lose approximately 600 teach
ers at the end of the current year and will employ approxi
mately 750 teachers new to the system. Race and quali
fication of these teachers are unknown at this time, and
faculty assignments cannot be made until the summer
months immediately preceding the opening of the school
year.
School Construction Program
Until such time as the restructuring of attendance lines
is final, a comprehensive review of the new construction
program cannot be completed. As indicated in the Board’s
plan filed with the Court on July 29, 1969, a part of the
study will be completed by February 1, 1970, and a more
general long-range study will be completed by June of
1970.
The Building and Sites Committee has undertaken this
study at the direction of the Board of Education. The
Committee has conducted an extensive study involving the
90 projects identified in school system’s master plan for
construction. The Committee has reported to the Board
that 46 of the 91 projects are either completed, under
construction, or are far along in planning. Of the 45
projects remaining, 5 ($1,850,000.00) are unaffected by ary
The Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation
of Schools
678a
plan for further desegregation because they are already
integrated; and 19 ($2,690,000.00) projects are unaffected
because the work planned will have no effect on the pupil
capacity of the physical plant. The Building and Sites
Committee has authorized the staff to proceed with plan
ning on all projects unaffected by any anticipated moves
in desegregation.
The Committee concluded that the work on the remaining
21 projects might be affected by plans for further deseg
regation and delayed planning on these projects pending
further study. Funds set aside for these 21 projects
amounts to $10,475,000.00.
The names of these projects are as follows
1. Moore’s Chapel
2. Allen Hills
3. Thomasboro
4. Cotswold
5. Lincoln Heights
6. University Park
7. Villa Heights
8. Highland
9. Lakeview
10. Briarwood
11. Newell
12. Midwood
13. Berryhill
14. Selwyn
The Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation
of Schools
679a
15. Center City Elementary
16. Fairview
17. Wilora Lake
18. Elizabeth
19. Piedmont, Jr.
20. Irwin Avenue, Jr.
21. Metropolitan, Sr.
The Building and Sites Committee has analyzed the
present housing conditions for the school system. A copy
of this analysis is attached as Exhibit “A ” .
I, William C. Self, Superintendent of the Charlotte-
Mecklenburg school system and Secretary to its Board
of Education, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a
true, perfect and correct copy of the Amendment to Plan
for Further Desegregation of Schools as adopted by the
Board of Education on the 13th day of November, 1969.
and spread upon its minutes.
This the 17th day of November, 1969.
/ s / W illiam C. Self
William C. Self
Secretary to the Board
The Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation
of Schools
680a
On November 7, 1969, the Court denied the defendant’s
motion for an extension of time for submission of a plan
for further desegregation and ordered submission of a
report as directed in the order of August 15, 1969. The
defendant’s amendment to its plan for further desegrega
tion is submitted contemporaneously herewith, following
adoption by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Educa
tion.
The plan should be considered against the background
of progress in desegregation accomplished by the School
Board. The desegregation of this system began during
the school year 1962-1963 by the closing of schools and par
tial redestricting of attendance lines which was completed
in 1965. Through this program, the former dual system
of schools which had existed prior thereto was disestab
lished.
In 1965, this proceeding was instituted by the present
plaintiffs and the district court (1965) and the Court of
Appeals (1966) approved the plan of desegregation under
which the schools were operated through the school year
1968-1969. As set forth below, the degree of desegrega
tion accomplished under that plan has been substantial.
It should be kept in mind that the School Board during
that period was guided by the following pronouncement
of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, to
w it:
“Whatever the Board may do in response to its own
initiative or that of the community, we have held that
there is no constitutional requirement that it act with
the conscious purpose of achieving the maximum mix
ture of races in the school population . . . So long as
Report Submitted in Connection With the November 13,
1969 Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation
681a
the boundaries are not drawn for the purpose of main
taining racial segregation, the School Board is under
no constitutional requirement that it effectively and
completely counteract all of the effects of segregated
housing patterns.” (Emphasis supplied.)—Swann v.
Charlotte-MecMenburg Board of Education, 369 P. 2d
29 (October 24, 1966)
For almost four years, the Board proceeded in conform
ity with the plan approved by the District Court and the
Court of Appeals. It was not until 1969 that the Board
was informed that its plan was no longer acceptable and
that additional, hut generally unspecified steps were re
quired to effect further desegregation.
The School Board has acted affirmatively in many ways
to assure an equal educational opportunity for all students
and to further desegregate the system, many of these
actions having been taken on its own initiative. This posi
tive action is reflected by the following illustrations:
L Twenty schools have been closed and pupils re
assigned primarily in order to increase racial
mixing.
2. A single athletic league has been created with or:
distinction between white and black school? :r
athletes.
c Er.>ornuent practices are on a nondiscrinonattcy
oas s and employment ratios reflect the vhr.e
ratio of '".a commonity.
41 ladforfclaat mfaM faeoftfc* have boon desqgmjpilwt-
5 . l a r«u* * « n w , y e a r V/70 71f a l l f a e r d h e * m i l t e
pretew-vvar/h/ wfirite,
Report Submitted in Connection with the November 13,
1969 Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation
682a
6. Black principals have been assigned to predomi
nantly white schools and white principals have been
assigned to predominantly black schools.
7. Black professional personnel have been appointed
to ranking administrative positions.
8. A black minister was appointed by the Board of
Education to its membership when the community
twice failed to elect him to the Board. This member
currently serves on the Board of Education.
9. The dual school bus system was eliminated.
10. Nondiscriminatory practices are, and have been,
followed in all facets of the school system, includ
ing the following:
a. School fees
b. School lunches
c. Library and other instructional materials
d. Quality of school buildings
e. Use of federal funds
f. Course offerings
g. Evaluation of students
11. The black and white P.T.A. Councils have been
merged into a single organization at the urging of
the school administration.
12. Specialized and supplementary programs, such
as the residential school for underachieving stu
dents (the Learning Academy) and the kinder
garten and nursery school programs (Child Devel
Report Submitted in Connection with the November 13,
1969 Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation
683a
opment Centers), have been designed and imple
mented in such a way that desegregation has been
substantially increased.
13. Freedom of choice has been redesigned so that its
only effect is to promote increased desegregation
and to give stability to the racial mix of individual
schools.
14. The current restructuring of attendance lines is
designed to promote additional desegregation.
15. The current plan provides for periodic review of
the racial mix at each school so that corrective
action may he taken to inhibit “tipping” and avoid
further black racial isolation in the schools.
This portion of the report deals with further information
concerning the nature and effect of the Plan.
The Order dated August 15, 1969, approved the policy
statement of the Board and, therefore, a restatement of
the same is deemed unnecessary.
A review of the plan discloses that the provisions for re
structuring attendance lines are in conformity with the
plan as submitted on July 29, 1969, supplemented by later
action of the Board which was subsequently submitted to
the Court. It is important to know that the Board is nov
submitting preliminary information relating to theoretical
ratios in the elementary schools which promise a remark
able degree of desegregation. It is important mat me
Court does not construe the information submitted in me
plan relating to racial ratios of elementary schools a- temg
;r_ the nature of a guarantee by the Board smoe :t . - anttrt-
pated tne results of restructuring the attendance Lne- may
Report Submitted in Connection with the November 13,
1969 Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation
684a
produce a greater or lesser degree of desegregation, the
extent of which cannot be determined at this time. Compar
ing the theoretical ratio with the present racial ratio of
desegregation in the elementary schools, the following in
formation is disclosed:
Report Submitted in Connection with the November 13,
1969 Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation
Elementary Schools
N um ber o f N um ber o f
N um ber o f
Schools
N ot Com
P ercen t Schools 1969-70 Schools T h eoret p u ted 1969-70
B lack A ctu a l R atios ical R atios A ctu a l Ratios
0% 9 2 1
1-5% 17 11 3
6-10% 11 2 2
11-15% 6 4 3
16-40% 13 29 8
41-100% 21 8 0
It is noted that it is theoretically possible to reduce the
number of all white schools by six and the number of
schools which are all black or likely to become predominantly
black has been reduced by thirteen schools. The precise
ratios must wait the difficult task of locating all attendance
lines.
An illustration of the difficulty in designing school at
tendance lines and in preserving maximum desirable results
is shown on Exhibit “A ” attached hereto. This exhibit
shows three adjacent schools, each of which requires grids
needed by one or more of the other schools to reach maxi
mum desirable desegregation. However, by reason of the
enormous number of alternative grid combinations avail
able, it is believed that substantial further desegregation
may be achieved under this approach.
685a
The Court has previously expressed concern over Hard
ing High School, Wilmore Elementary and other schools
which have shown a rapid shift in student population from
white to black. The Board will employ three methods in an
attempt to produce stable desegregation. The methods to
be used are as follows:
1. In determining the initial attendance lines, the
ratio of black to white students will not exceed 60%
white—40% black where the school is desegregated.
2. Severe restrictions will be imposed on freedom of
choice so that exercise of freedom of choice may
have only the effect of improving desegregation in
the system.
3. The school staff will keep a watchful eye on schools
experiencing unusual growth in black student popu
lation. The school staff will report to the Board
such shifts so that attendance lines may be altered
to counteract neighborhood shifts which often lead
to racial isolation of blacks. (See Exhibit “B” at
tached hereto for examples of such shifts.)
The Court will, therefore, note that the Board’s plan is
well calculated to produce stable desegregation.
With reference to faculty desegregation, great progress
has been achieved for the second school year 1969-70. The
plan will produce substantially more desegregation since
each school will have a preponderance of white teachers
and, where practicable, a more desirable ratio. The Board
is not only interested in numbers but also in assisting its
faculty with preparation for new teaching conditions and
situations. Precise statistics for the next school year cannot
Report Submitted in Connection with the November 13,
1969 Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation
686a
be furnished at this time for the reasons stated in the plan.
To develop a meaningful, enduring and comprehensive
construction program, the Board and staff must know the
precise location of the new attendance boundaries since
the capacities of nearby schools and the effect of new con
struction on such capacities are critical factors in deter
mining the placement of new schools. Therefore, develop
ment of this phase of the plan must await restructuring of
attendance lines.
It is noted that with respect to current construction, the
five projects unaffected by the desegregation plan involve
an expenditure of $1,850,000; projects for standardization
of facilities to meet educational programs where capacity
is not a factor involve an expenditure of $2,690,000, and
projects which may be affected by desegregation involve
an expenditure of $10,475,000. The latter sum is being held
pending development of the building program specified in
the plan.
The Court has previously been furnished information for
the 1968-69 school year which indicates that Charlotte-
Mecklenburg ranks 43rd in size among the 100 largest school
systems of the Nation.
Of the 15 systems which have comparable pupil enroll
ments and comparable percentages of black students, Char-
lotte-Mecklenburg ranks 5th in the percentage of schools
having a racial mix. Locally, significant additional progress
has been made for the 1969-70 school year.
These comparisons are not intended as any indication of
a self-satisfied complacency on the part of the Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Board of Education regarding the progress
which it has made to date in the desegregation of its
schools or as a justification for any slow-down in its con
Report Submitted in Connection with the November 13,
1969 Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation
687a
tinuing efforts to afford every child in the system the edu
cation to which he is entitled. However, these comparisons
(and similar ones for prior years) do show that Charlotte-
Mecklenburg has been among the leaders in facing up to
the responsibility of providing quality education on a de
segregated basis for all children—white or black.
The Board has no intention of tailoring its performance
to those of other systems. On the contrary, the Board on
its own initiative is committed to the proposition that every
child in the system is entitled in full measure to a quality
education unimpaired by any restraints or restrictions
upon his constitutional rights.
As outlined above, in response to the June 20, 1969, order
of the Court, this Board submitted a plan for the desegre
gation of teachers and a plan and time-table for active de
segregation of pupils. These plans were conditionally ap
proved by the Court on August 15, 1969, with instructions
to submit a more comprehensive plan by November 17, 1969.
In compliance with the directions of the Court, the Board
of Education and its administrative staff have worked
diligently to formulate a plan which will satisfy the mandate
of the Court and protect and promote the Constitutional
rights of every child, without sacrificing the quality of edu
cation which we desire for all our children and without
jeopardizing the community support which our schools must
have. It is the belief of the Board of Education that the
current plan, as detailed in this report, will achieve both
these goals.
The Board of Education, however, has been handicapped
in its work. It has been required to proceed without clear
directives regarding exactly what is required of the Board
and the plan to satisfy the mandates of the Constitution
Report Submitted in Connection with the November 13,
1969 Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation
688a
to provide for our children a “non-racial” , “desegregated” ,
“unitary” school system.
The Board is now, and always has been, ready and willing
in good faith to fully acquit its Constitutional duty and to
incorporate in any plan whatever may be required by the
Constitution—regardless of what the Board may conceive
to be the effect of snch compliance on the process of edu
cating children or upon community support for the schools.
The Board takes very seriously its obligation to act re
sponsibly— actions which vitally affect in a direct and per
sonal way the lives and welfare of 85,000 students, their
parents, 5,500 school personnel and the community at large.
The formation of a stable and workable desegregation plan
involves intelligent planning and hard decisions. These
decisions should not be made more difficult by requiring the
Board to speculate unnecessarily about what must or can
be done.
If the Board is in error in its interpretation of its con
stitutional duty, then the time has come when the Board
must be given specific directions as to what are and what
are not necessaiy or permissible ingredients of an accept
able plan. When the Board understands what is required,
it can more effectively get on with the job of implementing
its plan—without the disruptive uncertainties and pro
tracted litigation involved in the submission of numerous
pieeemeaL tentative, speculative or conditionally approved
plans which are the likely results of plans submitted with
out a clear understanding o f what must be done. It is the
Board's conviction that, once the community understands
wh.it 'is required* it will support the Board and accept what
Report Submitted in Connection with the November 13,
1969 Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation
689a
ever adjustments must be made to comply with these re
quirements.
Respectfully submitted this 17th day of November, 1969.
Brock Barkley
Law Building
Charlotte, North Carolina
Ervin, H orack and McCartha
Benjamin J. Horack
806 East Trade Street
Charlotte, North Carolina
W einstein, W aggoner, Sttjrges
& Odom
W illiam J. W aggoner
1100 Barringer Office Tower
Charlotte, North Carolina
Attorneys for Defendants
Report Submitted in Connection with the November 13,
1969 Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation
690a
State oe Nobth Cabolina
County of Meckuenbubg
Dr. Robert C. Hanes, of lawful age, being first duly
sworn, on Ms oath states that he is the Assistant Super
intendent of Defendant named in the above and foregoing
matter and that the facts stated therein are true according
to his best knowledge and belief.
Report Submitted in Connection with the November 13,
1969 Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation
/ s / Robeet C. Hanes
Dr. Robert C. Hanes
Sworn and subscribed to before me
this 17th day of November, 1969
/s / F aye Jalley
Notary Public
My commission expires: 3/27/71
(See Opposite)
M'rt'Wfj • S v s t k m s A s s o c i a t e s . In c ..
fr-̂ --------
1!1]
!i Subject
U .
Exhibit ______________3/file No.
__________ Sheet No.__________ of
___ 3 y ______________Dote_____
;i
'i I
1 1 l i i ' .
li
i
i i 1 1 j i | i ' '
ii 1 3 o 3i 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 £ i • i j
■i'
!
i
I
!
I I 4 3 — — — — . I ; 1 • ■,
i l l <4 — — — ' 1 j :
i C i ! •
. ■ I i ! B £= I i 1 , ; ,
j
1
1
i 1 A < ';1 »oC. u* £ L E E E 5 £ & — - -
! , ' 1 ! • . ; I ■ j : |
■i 4 3 ,1 EL * 6 b c I
1 . ! j i ; ' :
r* ' P 5 ? £• 6 5 s 5 c 5 L .
i
! ! :
i
i
*;Vr t>o C t 6(1 1 | | ;
|: \ XI I . ! ' i l l ! 1 :
, 6 17 . i l l : ;
/
...
r 7
____ i ' ! ' 1 1 !
i ' J | | ; : j i :
I
i i j ; ' ' :
i 1 i 1 h A i
1 1
b 'ri ; i
| 1 t
i_ ! 1 i ■ 1
J ( T h r e e a c i a c e n t SC l o o l d i s t r i c t ? rv :p r ; s e : i t i n g S c h o o l s ! b , 1 c , 1 a n d e . ; T h e s q u a r e s
!
j
l1 r e p r e s e n t ghid s q u a r e s d s d isd lo s 'ed on m a s t e r e le m e n ta r y : m a p . : T h e
a s s ig n a tio n
rrr'irf.c: Thp
oi s c n p o i jg n a r e p r e s e n t^ tne io c a u u n ui su iiooi .i .c a c
1 p.ttnrR w ith in tnp. oriels T^pnrpsprt ith~ s p ^ r id s r e r i 'i ir -d £.chi*-‘ v
j d e s e g r e g a tio n r a t io s in d ic a te d 'o f 64^ 3 w h ite j/3 5 % b la c k fo r S ch o o l o ; 32% ' w h i.e
1 i3 7^o biacjc fo r ^ c h o o l E and 76°/^ w.'.ite and 2 3 % c la c k fo r s c h o o l c . 1 it i s n c te c
I : • , %
Ulo L fc>2ve L i d . a.
i 1
L-icL. rrij,n ^
r
w*-. - . w
l i '
uU.vjx per-OO_o . ,
I 1 1 i l l ' i ! I i i i • ! :
I i
! I
i
i_ _ i_ _ _ _ •i i i * : : ■ : •
j I I I 1 i 1 i
j_ _ _ _ l i i ; ; :
I ! l
1
i : E X H IB IT ', A '
j i i !
i i ■ i i ! ! ;
. r | I 1 r 1 i
I ;I I ; I
| , 1 ! : 1 ! i i
^ _ _ _ L 1 11 I ! I ! I l i I i : ! i i : i •i ' •
1 1 ! l i | ! 1 i ! 1 1 ! ; : j j ; ' ! |
! i l 1 1 | ! i i i ! 1 i
j 1 5 i 1 j | i i ; * < ! : .
103
C C i l i n ) i tt T1 o l t c - ivU?c is) cr.ii\. r
h'
r 0 ;v.v. r i y Wn i ;.o Schoo l s E x p e r i e n c i i*iQ LPiur.QG tO
Prodo.il i nap t i y B l a c k S c h o o l s , 195^ -55 th ro ug h 1968 -69
P U P 1 L S
S choo l 1954 -55 1965, March 1968- 69
3 W B W B w
B a r r i n g e r Eleni. 190 60A 668 y 'j ! » j >
Bethune 373 3^+3 9 223 j
E i i zabe th 718 5 AA8 270 19A
F i r s t Ward 597 ^73 7^9
Lakev i ew 3^1 A 00 269 H*7
S e v e r s v i 11e 361 96 229 *
Zeb Vance 221 A65 257
V i l l a H e i g h t s 772 23 59^ 796 126
Wes l e y H e i g h t s 225 2 1A *
- 0 - 3798 1619 • 228A 3232 601
+ E s t . at B run s 50G i.
3732 605
Hawtho rne J r . H i g h 785 25 670 A92 AA7
P i edmont 919 121 291 A 28 Z
- 0- 170A 1 k o 961 920 pGG
Tota l 0 + 5502 1765 + 32A5 A652 + ; 105 .
5502 5010 5757
(0% B) (35% B) (81% 3 \
J
Does not i n c 1ude
(1) P a r k s H u t c h i s o n (12! w h i t e in 195^ -55 ) c l o s e d as w h i t e (no t needed) at end
o f 1958 -59 nor No rth C h a r l o t t e (261 w h i t e in 1 95^ -55 ) c l o s e a : a s s ig nee , to
n*.>w H i g h l a n d 1955 -56 .
(2) Seven a i l - b i a c k s c h o o l s wh ich were c l o s e d in 1 9 6 6 -6 7 to e l i m i n a t e
d u a l - s c n o o l b o u n d a r i e s - -
C r e s t d a l e , Gunn, Ada J e n k i n s , P l a t o P r i c e , S t e r l i n g , T o r r e r . c e - L y t 1 e, Wood!an
97 + 696 + A 31 + 505 + 699 + 1005 + 360
o r 3793 b l a c k s t u d e n t s , as r e p o r t e d March 6, 1965.
(3) Three a l l - b l a c k s c h o o l s : B i d d l e v i l i e , Morgan + M ye r s S t r e e t
A3A + 305 + 820 (1559 in 1965)
o r 390 + 2 1 1 + 559 - ( 1 1 6 0 in 1967 -68)
and a l l - w h i t e Wood lawn sch o o l (2 73 ) .
- - T h e s e f o u r .a long wi th S e v e r s v i l l e * and W e s l e y H e i g h t s * were c l o s e d
at end or' 1967 -68 .
104
691a
692a
(Filed November 21, 1969)
On three different occasions this Court has urged, en
couraged and requested the defendant School Board to
carry out its constitutional duty to desegregate the Char-
lotte-Mecklenburg public schools. The Court has literally
leaned over backwards to seek voluntary compliance by
the Board. Even in its last order, in rejecting additional
delay to submit a plan, the Court left the opportunity
open to the Board for additional time to comply by merely
making some showing now of the Board’s intent to imple
ment its obligation at some definite time in the future.
Despite these efforts, however, the Board now unequivo
cally, defiantly and contumaciously advises the Court that
it will not now, nor in the future, carry out its constitu
tional responsibilities.
Irrespective of whether the Court’s directives are con
stitutionally mandated, and plaintiffs submit that they are
and further that they are required to be implemented with
more haste than the Court has heretofore required, the
Board is constitutionally obligated to implement these
directives pending some change, modification or vacation
by this or some other Court. Walker v. City of Birming
ham. 388 UJS. 307, IS L.ed 2d 1210; United States v. Mine
Workers. 330 U.S. 258, 91 Led. 584: Hourat v. Kansas. 258
ITS 151. 66 L-ed 550. As the Supreme Court stated in
W alkerz '“This Court cannot hold that the petitioners were
constttuti-:uahy free to ignore all the procedures of the
law and [cisccey the directives of the Court' . . _ _
[S(aspect for judicial process is a snail price to ray fur
fte- land of Imu which aloe gxrtj afcjjJ&y
meaning to rtnsutunuaai freedom.' 185 *: hul. 15
Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Amendment to Plan
for Further Desegregation of Schools
693a
L.ed 2d at 1220. Here this Court has unequivocally di
rected a plan for complete desegregation of the Charlotte-
Mecklenburg public schools. Notwithstanding this direc
tive, however, the defendants, by the Amendment to Plan
for Further Desegregation of Schools, in utter contempt
of the Court’s order, have simply refused to comply.
Plaintiffs, therefore, respectfully submit that they are not
only entitled to an order requiring defendants, and each
of them, to show cause why they should not be held in
contempt, Walker v. City of Birmingham, supra, but cer
tainly now to an order appointing educational consultants
to devise a plan for complete and immediate desegregation
of the school system. Cf. Dowell v. Board of Education of
Oklahoma City Public Schools, 244 F. Supp. 971 (W.D.
Okla. 1965), aff’d in part 375 F.2d 158 (10th Cir. 1967),
cert, den., 387 U.S. 931, 18 L.ed. 2d 993; Alexander v.
Holmes County Board of Education, ------ U.S. ------ (No.
632).
1. The Board’s response to the Court’s order of Novem
ber 7, 1969 does no more than reiterate the rejected re
quest for more time. The Board rejects any affirmative
obligation to take appropriate steps to disestablish the
segregated school system it has created. Green v. School
Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430, 20 L.ed. 2d 716;
NLRB v. Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Com
pany, 308 U.S. 241, 84 L.ed. 219; United States v. Crescent
Amusement Company, 323 U.S. 173, 89 L.ed. 160; Standard
Oil Company v. United States, 221 U.S. 1, 55 L.ed. 619.
The Board questions “tipping” , and well it should for the
record clearly demonstrates that “tipping” has been caused
by the Board’s own action and conduct See Plaintiffs'
Further Response filed on November 3, 1969. The Board
Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Amendment to Plan
for Further Desegregation of Schools
694a
Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Amendment to Plan
for Further Desegregation of Schools
then inquires what are its duties, when this Court, the
Fourth Circuit and the Supreme Court have clearly in
structed the Board with respect to its duties:
The pattern of separate “white” and “Negro” schools
in the [Charlotte-Mecklenburg] school system estab
lished under compulsion of state laws is precisely the
pattern of segregation to which Brown I and Brown II
were particularly addressed, and which Brown I de
clared unconstitutionally denied Negro school children
equal protection of the laws. . . . [Sjchool systems
were required by Brown II “to effectuate a transition
to a racially nondiscrl min atony school system.” . . . .
The School Board contends that it has fully discharged
its obligation by adopting a plan by which every
student, regardless of race, may “freely" choose the
school he will attend. The Board &trtirIILp ts to east the
issue in its broadest form by arguing that its
“ feeedom-of-choice” pan may be faulted onl- by read-
trrrp- T ;-.~--- p X ~ jm; —mry - a j - n p -p
s rea& ig it izLsLsrs Tie
wurmrrg : f the Amendment will, net sarcerr. 3ur
that argument igrems the thrust d Brown hi ht the
light ?t the eetmnard :r that rase, what s tuvrhV-I
Ira* ’’■slaftra- i t e B t o e e l l * ralnmiK.
t h e - m e t a h y r w n d S s e m m i r a r o i m s h a w l s - s s e n r * B m w n
— Jem muse ie a*:gtttared n wrier to r u s i r the
escaoiisaew tseOHsc - •. • ^ >f tm—
gee - strafc. 4WKS:' y t e - - r u s - e
b a s s : j x
^ Negye .c-dhew .sad >; ee - vh . - itiinif
> e v ' <» *£r-
695a
quiry. . . . Brown II was a call for the dismantling
of well-entrenched dual systems tempered by an aware
ness that complex and multifaceted problems would
arise which would require time and flexibility for a
successful resolution. School hoards such as the re
spondent then operating state-compelled dual systems
were nevertheless clearly charged with the affirma
tively duty to take whatever steps might be necessary
to convert to a unitary system in which racial dis
crimination would he eliminated root and branch. . . .
Green, 391 U.S. at 435-438, 18 L.ed. 2d at 722-723.
(Emphasis added.)
Further delay has now been clearly enjoined. Green,
supra; Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education,
------U.S. ------- (No. 632) and theCourt has been directed
to take immediate steps which will disestablish the segre
gated school system.
2. Defendants propose to restrict freedom-of-choice,
allowing limited racial majority to minority situations, but
also to allow transfers in hardship cases as ‘■‘determined
on the basis of uniform rnleE developed by the administra
tive staff” . Defendants' past practices and present defiance
of the directives of the Court clearly entitled plaintiffs
to some express constitutional standards which can oe
shown wiJJ not further perpetuate tins racial:y dual -.-non
system ,
3.. Defendants further promise m mre ma assign each-
era and school personnel without regard to race, die same
promise made in 1965 which the Court; found in April.
1969 had not been implemented.
Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Amendment to Plan
for Further Desegregation of Schools
696a
4. Defendants finally promise to withhold construction
on 21 proposed projects while proceeding with 24 projects.
Defendants contend that the 24 projects will not affect
desegregation. There has been no showing even as to the
24 projects that they will not adversely affect whatever
plan may subsequently be devised and directed by the
Court. Plaintiffs submit that pending the approval of a
plan by the Court, or at least some showing by the de
fendants, all construction and additions should be enjoined.
5. The Court has been further directed to devise its
own plan and to insure its prompt and effective implemen
tation, particularly where school officials simply refuse to
do so. Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education,
supra, and may do so without further hearings. While the
Court may hear and consider objections by the Board to
the Court’s directed plan, such is permitted only after the
Board has fully complied in all respects with the plan
directed. Alexander, supra.
Plaintiffs, therefore, respectfully submit and pray that
the Court reject the defendants’ Amendment to Plan for
Further Desegregation of Schools; that the Court appoint
educational consultants to devise a plan for complete
desegregation to be instituted forthwith; that the Court
direct that the expenses of the educational consultants be
borne by the defendants; that the Court enjoin any further
construction or additions pending the complete implemen
tation of the plan directed by the Court; that the Court
order that the defendants, and each of them, immediately
show cause why they should not be held in contempt of the
Court’s orders; that the Court award plaintiffs’ costs
herein, including reasonable counsel fees; that the Court
Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Amendment to Plan
for Further Desegregation of Schools
697a
retain jurisdiction of this cause and award plaintiffs such
other and further relief as the Court may deem the plain
tiffs entitled.
Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Amendment to Plan
for Further Desegregation of Schools
Respectfully submitted,
/ s / J. Levonne Chambers
Conrad 0 . Pearson
203V2 East Chapel Hill Street
Durham, North Carolina
Chambers, Stein, F erguson
& Lanning
216 West Tenth Street
Charlotte, North Carolina
Jack Greenberg
James M. Nabrit, III
Norman Chachkin
10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
698a
On April 23, June 20 and August 15, 1969, the defendant
school board was ordered to file plans to desegregate the
schools of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina. The defendants have admitted their duty to
desegregate the schools; considerable progress has been
made toward desegregation of faculties; and progress, pre
viously noted, has been made in some other areas. The
schools, however, remain for the most part unlawfully
segregated. The facts supporting that conclusion in all
the court’s previous orders are reiterated here.
The issue is what to do pursuant to the board’s latest
plan, filed November 17, 1969. The plan recites the follow
ing ostensible purpose:
“ The Board of Education has embarked upon a com
prehensive program for the purpose of restructuring
attendance lines involving all schools and all students
served by the system. The primary purpose of this
program is to achieve further desegregation in as
many schools as possible * *
The plan says that a computer analyst has been hired
to draw up various theoretical possible school zone atten
dance lines, and that school personnel, before February 1,
1970, will draw the actual lines.
The details of the plan show that it contains no promise
nor likelihood of desegregating the schools.
The plan and the report accompanying it say (emphasis
added):
“No school district to which white students are assigned
should have less than 60 per cent white student popula
tion to avoid ‘tipping.’ ” (Plan, page 2.)
Opinion and Order dated December 1, 1969
699a
“ it is the plan of this School Board to limit schools
to which w h ite stu d en ts are assigned to those schools
in which it is possible to provide a student population
which is at least 60 per cent white.” (Plan, page 5.)
• • • • •
“In determining the initial attendance lines, the ratio
of black to white students will not exceed 60% white—
40% black W here the S chool is Desegregated.”
(Report, page 5.)
• • • • •
“ A m a jo r ity o f the B o a rd o f E d u ca tion b elieves that
the constitutional req u irem en ts o f d esegrega tion will
be achieved b y the restru ctu ring o f attendance lines,
the restrictin g fr e e d o m o f tra n sfer , and oth er p r o v i
sion s o f this plan. T h e m a jo rity o f the B o a rd has,
th erefo re , discarded fu rth er consideration o f pairing,
grou p in g , clustering and tra n sp ortin g .” (Plan, page 6.)
The strongest claim made in the plan with respect to
the all-black schools is that among 43 elementary schools
in the densely populated areas of Charlotte it is “ th eoreti
cally [school board’s emphasis] possible to populate these
schools with the following ratios of black students: . . .
Seven (7) schools in which the black student population
is 100 per cent.” (Plan, pages 3 and 4.) Since the 100%
black elementary schools in the system (Billingsville, Marie
Davis, Double Oaks, First Ward, Lincoln Heights, Oak-
lawn and University Park) number exactly seven, this
language obviously proposes that these seven schools will
remain all-black.
The plan contains no factual information nor estimate
regarding plans for desegregation of the 31 other elemen
Opinion and Order dated December 1, 1969
700a
tary schools, the 20 junior high schools, and the 10 senior
high schools in the system.
Concerning faculty desegregation the plan says:
“During the 1970-71 school year, the Board of Educa
tion will staff each school so that the faculty at each
school will be predominantly white and, where practi
cable will reflect the ratio of white and black teachers
employed in the total faculty of the school system.”
(Plan, page 7.)
With regard to the physical facilities, the court on
August 15, 1969, ordered the defendants to produce by
November 17 “A detailed report showing, complete with
figures and maps, the location and nature of each construc
tion project proposed or under way, and the effect this
project may reasonably be expected to have upon the pro
gram of desegregating the schools.” In response to that
order, the plan lists the names of 21 out of 91 projects,
expresses a few opinions and conclusions about the build
ing program, and promises a partial study by February 1,
1970 and a “general long range study” “by June of 1970,”
but it sheds no factual light on the effect of any part of
the building program on the segregation issue. Since the
board has, in seven months, failed to produce a program
for desegregation, it is only natural that they can not
predict the effect of any particular building project on such
a program. The court has yet not received information
necessary to appraise the effects of current building
activity on the current unprogrammed course of desegre
gation.
When the plan is understood, it boils down to this:
1. It proposes to re-draw school zone lines, and to
restrict freedom o f choice, which the court bad already
Opinion and Order dated December 1, 1969
701a
advised the board to eliminate except where it would
promote desegregation. It states no definable desegre
gation goals.
2. The “ 60-40” ratio is a one-way street. The plan
implies that there will be no action to produce desegre
gation in schools with black populations above 40%,
and that no w h ite stu d en ts are to be a ssigned to such
sch ools.
3. Continued operation of all seven of the all-black
elementary schools would be assured. The same would
appear to be true for the. entire group of 25 mostly
“black” schools, mentioned in the court’s November 7
order, which serve 16,197 of the 24,714 black students
in the system.
4. Transportation to aid children transferring out
of segregated situations (which was ordered by the
court on April 23 as a condition of any freedom of
transfer plan, and which w a s a part o f this plan as
a d vertised in the board ’s O ctober 29 rep o rt) has been
eliminated from the plan as filed with the court.
Inevitable effects of this action would be to violate
the court order and to leave the children recently re
assigned from seven closed black inner-city schools
with no way to reach the suburban schools they now
attend! This is re-segregation.
5. Other methods (pairing, grouping, clustering of
schools) which could reduce or eliminate segregation—
and which the board, on October 29 when it was asking
for a time extension, promised to consider—have now
been expressly left out of the plan.
6. No time is set to complete the job of faculty and
pupil desegregation.
Opinion and Order dated December 1, 1969
702a
7. In the written argument (“ Report” ) filed with
the plan, with the candor characteristic of excellent
attorneys, the board’s attorneys say:
“ It is important that the Court does not construe
the information submitted in the plan relating
to racial ratios of elementary schools as being
in the nature of a guarantee by the Board since
it is anticipated the results of restructuring the
attendance lines may produce a greater or lesser
degree of desegregation, the extent of which can
not be determined at this time.” (Report, page 4;
emphasis added.)
The defendants have the burden to desegregate the
schools and to show any plan they propose will desegregate
the controls. They have not carried that burden. Re-draw
ing school zone lines won’t eliminate segregation unless the
decision to desegregate has first been made.
T he Schools A re Still Segregated
The extent to which the schools are still segregated was
illustrated by the information set out in previous orders
including the order of November 7, 1969. Nearly 13,000
out of 24,714 black students still attend schools that are
98% to 100% black. Over 16,000 black students still attend
predominantly black schools. Nine-tenths of the faculties
are still obviously “black” or “white.” Over 45,000 out of
59,000 white students still attend schools which are ob
viously “white.”
T he Result is Unequal Education
The following table further illustrates the results.
Groups A and B show that sixth graders, in the seven
Opinion and Order dated December 1, 1969
703a
100% black schools the plan would retain, perform at about
fourth grade levels, while their counterparts in the nine
100% white elementary schools perform at fifth to seventh
grade levels. Group C shows that sixth graders in
Barringer, which changed in three years from 100% middle
income white to 84% Negro, showed a performance drop
of 1% to 2 years. Group D shows however that Randolph
Road, 72% white and 28% Negro, has eighth grade per
formance results approximately comparable to Eastway,
which is 96% white, and Randolph results are approxi
mately two years ahead of all-black Williams and North
west. Until unlawful segregation is eliminated, it is idle
to speculate whether some of this gap can be charged to
racial differences or to “socio-economic-cultural” lag.
Opinion and Order dated December 1, 1969
704a
I f t h e c o u r t s s h o u ld a c c e p t t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' c o n t e n t i o n t h a t a l l
t h e y h a v e t o do i s r e - d r a w a t t e n d a n c e l i n e s and a l l o w a t y p e o f fr eed om
o f c h o i c e , t w o - t h i r d s o r more o f th e b l a c k c h i l d r e n i n M eck len b u rg
C ou n ty w o u ld b e r e l e g a t e d p e r m a n e n t ly t o t h i s k in d o f s e p a r a t e b u t
u n e q u a l e d u c a t i o n .
GROUP A -
GROUP B -
GROUP C -
100% B la c k
AVERAGE ACHIEVEMENT TEST SCORES, GRADE 6 , REPORTED IN
GRADE EQUIVALENT, 196 5 - 6 6 /1 9 6 8 - 6 9
E le m e n ta ry WM PM SP LANG ! ACM ACN AAPP SS SC
B i l l i n g s v i l l e
r r m r a
- 'L L - ' L l -■l l - ' i t ~ ‘LL ' l l
/ U s / f t p
' 'LL ' I f . ' 'LL - 'L l
/1LS / fL t
- 'LL - ’L l
7 * 7 / f t p
- U - 'L l
H l s / f t r
- 'L L " L 1
u n t u t
-'LL - 1 1
3 7 /3 9 3 9 /4 2 4 3 /4 5 3 6 /3 7 3 7 /3 8 4T /44 "38/39 '42743 1773d
M arie D av is 4 2 /4 3 4 2 /4 4 4 9 /4 8 3 9 /4 1 4 3 /4 5 4 5 /4 8 4 3 /4 1 4 3 /4 5 3 9 /4 0
D ou b le Oaks 4 4 /4 0 4 2 /4 0 4 9 /4 6 3 5 /3 6 4 1 /3 9 4 5 /4 4 4 1 /3 7 4 4 /4 0 4 1 /3 7
F i r s t Ward 4 3 /4 0 4 2 /4 1 5 0 /4 8 3 9 /3 6 4 0 /3 9 4 4 /4 6 4 3 /4 1 4 8 /4 4 4 2 /4 0
L i n c o l n H e iq h ts 4 5 /4 4 4 4 /4 4 5 2 /4 9 4 4 /4 2 4 5 /4 3 4 6 /4 8 4 3 /4 1 4 7 /4 6 4 2 /4 1
Oaklawn 4 4 /4 4 4 2 /4 5 5 0 /5 3 4 2 /4 7 4 1 /4 5 5 0 /4 9 4 3 /4 4 4 1 /4 9 4 0 /4 7
U n i v e r s i t y Park 4 4 /4 4 4 4 /4 7 5 1 /4 8 4 3 /4 3 4 0 /4 4 4 6 /4 8 4 1 /4 4 4 6 /4 6 4 1 /4 3
100% W hite
E le m e n ta ry
D e v o n s h ir e 5 2 /5 9 5 4 /6 2 5 7 /6 0 5 7 /6 4 4 9 /5 3 5 3 /6 3 5 5 /5 9 5 7 /6 4 5 7 /6 5
H idden V a l l e y / 5 9 /6 2 /6 1 /6 2 /5 1 /6 0 / 5 9 /6 4 /6 7
M erry Oaks 6 2 /6 0 6 6 /6 6 6 6 /6 7 6 6 /7 1 5 3 /5 4 5 9 /6 5 6 7 /6 4 7 0 /6 8 7 3 /7 2
M o n t c l a i r e 6 6 /6 7 6 8 /7 2 6 9 /7 0 7 1 /7 6 5 8 /6 0 6 1 /6 7 6 6 /6 8 7 0 /7 1 7 6 /7 7
P inew ood 6 7 /6 4 6 8 /6 8 7 1 /6 8 7 1 /7 1 58 /61 6 2 /6 7 6 8 /7 1 7 2 /7 1 7 3 /7 0
Rama Road 6 8 /6 7 6 8 /7 2 7 0 /7 1 7 3 /7 6 58 /6 1 6 4 /6 7 7 0 /7 0 7 2 /7 3 7 6 /7 8
Shamrock Gardens 5 9 /5 6 6 1 /5 7 6 6 /5 7 6 4 /6 2 5 2 /5 3 5 8 /5 7 6 3 /5 7 6 5 /6 1 6 2 /6 1
Thom asboro 5 8 /5 5 5 9 /5 5 6 3 /5 8 5 9 /5 8 5 2 /5 1 5 5 /5 7 6 0 /5 6 6 3 /5 9 6 4 /6 1
W in d sor Park 6 1 /6 4 6 3 /6 8 6 1 /6 6 6 5 /6 9 5 5 /5 3 5 9 /6 3 6 3 /6 2 6 5 /6 9 6 7 /7 2
B a r r i n g e r 61*/46* 6 3*/46# 64*/5C^ 6 6 % 2* 5 3 % ^ 59*/4^ 6 4 * /4 # 6 5%y* 68*/4^
*100% w h i t e in 1965
# 84% b l a c k i n 1 9 6 8 -6 9
AVERAGE ACHIEVEMENT TEST SCORES, GRADE 8 , REPORTED IN
GRADE EQUIVALENT, 1 9 6 5 - 6 6 /1 9 6 8 - 6 9
GROUP D - J u n i o r Hiqh PM SP LANG ACM ACN AAPP SS SC
R an dolph Road (28% hktf'k)
/ rZ S T fn
- ‘u - % r
/ iL sT fu i
-'LL - I f
/ fL t/ f ie
- n p ? /?Ls 77l9
-'LL - 'Ll
Jlis'H Ld IIl t ITl#
/SO" 7 8 2 7 1 9 ? 6 2 7 1 8 /7 6 718 /8 1
W i l l ia m s (100% b l a c k ) 5 5 /5 2 6 7 /6 4 5 5 /5 2 5 2 /4 9 5 8 /6 1 5 8 /5 5 56 /56 55 /56
N o r th w e s t (100% b l a c k ) 5 9 /5 8 7 3 /7 1 5 9 /5 6 5 4 /5 0 6 0 /6 1 5 8 /5 8 5 9 /5 7 5 9 /5 8
E astw ay (96% w h i t e ) 8 4 /8 2 8 5 /8 6 8 3 /8 1 7 4 /6 7 7 9 /8 2 8 1 /7 5 8 3 /8 2 8 7 /8 7
705a
T he Law Still Requires Desegregation
Segregation in public schools was outlawed by the deci
sions of the Supreme Court in B ro w n v. B oa rd o f E duca
tion , 347 U. S. 483 (1954) and 349 U. S. 294 (1955).
The first B r o w n opinion (B ro w n I ) held that racial
segregation, even though physical facilities and other
tangible factors might be equal, deprives Negro children
of equal educational opportunities. The Court recalled
prior decisions that segregation of graduate students was
unlawful because it restricted the student’s “ability to
study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with
other students, and, in general, to learn his profession.”
The Court said:
“Such considerations apply with added force to chil
dren in grade and high schools. To separate them
from others of similar age and qualifications solely
because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority
as to their status in the community that may affect
their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be
undone.”
Quoting a lower court opinion, the Supreme Court con
tinued :
“ ‘Segregation of white and colored children in public
schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored chil
dren. The impact is greater when it has the sanction
of the law; for the policy of separating the races is
usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the
Negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motiva
tion of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction
of law, therefore, has a tendence to [retard] the edu
cational and mental development of Negro children
Opinion and Order dated December 1, 1969
706a
and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would
receive in a racial [ly] integrated school system.’
“We conclude that in the field of public education the
doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. S ep a ra te
educational fa cilities are in h eren tly unequal. * *
(Emphasis added.)
• • • • •
“ * * * Such segregation has long been a nationw ide
p roblem , not m ere ly one o f sectional concern .” (Em
phasis added.)
The selection of cases for the B ro w n decision demonstrates
the nationwide reach of that concern; Brown lived in Kan
sas and the defendant board of education was that of
Topeka, Kansas; defendants in companion cases included
school authorities in Delaware and the District of Colum
bia. Later important cases have involved not just Southern
schools, but also schools in New York, Chicago, Ohio,
Denver, Oklahoma City, Kentucky, Connecticut and other
widely scattered places.
Court decisions setting out the principles upon which the
various orders of this court have been based include the
following:
Supreme Court Cases
A lex a n d er v. H o lm es C o u n ty (Mississippi), No. 632 (Octo
ber 29, 1969).
B row n v. B oa rd o f E ducation o f T opeka (Kansas), 347
U. S. 483 (1954), 349 U. S. 294 (1955).
C o o p er , M em b ers o f the B o a rd o f D irecto rs o f the L ittle
R ock (Arkansas) In d ep en d en t S chool D istrict v. A a ro n ,
358 U. S. 1 (1958).
Opinion and Order dated December 1, 1969
707a
G reen v. C o u n ty S ch ool B o a rd o f N e w K e n t C o u n ty (Vir
ginia), 391 U. S. 430 (1968).
Griffin v. C o u n ty S ch ool B o a rd o f P rin ce E d w a rd C ou n ty
(Virginia), 377 U. S. 218 (1964).
K e y e s v. D e n v e r (Colorado) S chool D istrict N u m b er 1 ,
Application for Vacation of Stay (Justice Brennan, Su
preme Court, August 29, 1969).
M o n ro e v. B o a rd o f C om m ission ers o f the C ity o f Jackson
(Tennessee), 391 U. S. 450 (1968).
R a n e y v. B o a rd o f E d u ca tion o f the G ould S chool D istrict
(Arkansas), 391 U. S. 443 (1968).
U n ited S ta tes v. M o n tg o m e r y C o u n ty (Alabama) B oa rd o f
E d u ca tion , 395 U. S. 225 (1969).
Circuit Court Cases
B r e w e r v. S ch ool B o a rd o f C ity o f N o rfo lk (Virginia), 397
F.2d 37 (4th Cir., 1968).
F e ld e r v. H a rn ett C o u n ty (North Carolina) B oa rd o f E d u
cation, 409 F.2d 1070 (4th Cir., 1969).
W a n n er v. C o u n ty S chool B o a rd o f A rlin g to n C ou n ty
(Virginia), 357 F.2d 452 (4th Cir., 1966).
H e n r y v. Clarksdale (Mississippi) M unicipal S epa ra te
S ch ool D istric t, 409 F.2d 682 (5th Cir., 1969) (petition fo r
cert, filed, 38 U.S.L.W. 3086) (U. S. 9/2/69) (No. 545).
U n ited S ta tes v. G reen w ood (Mississippi) M unicipal S e p
arate S ch ool D istrict, 406 F.2d 1086 (5th Cir., 1969) (cert,
denied, 395 U. S. 907 (1969)).
U n ited S ta tes v. H in d s C o u n ty S chool B oa rd , Nos. 28030
and 28042 (5th Cir., July 3, 1969).
Opinion and Order dated December 1, 1969
708a
Clemons v. Board of Education of Hillsboro, Ohio, 228 F.2d
853 (6th Cir., 1956) (cert, denied, 350 U. S. 1006).
United States v. School District 151 of Cook County, Illi
nois (Chicago), 404 F.2d 1125 (7th Cir., 1968) (rehearing
denied, January 27, 1969).
Distbict Court Cases
Eaton v. New Hanover County (North Carolina) Board of
Education, No. 1022 (E.D. N.C., July 14, 1969).
Keyes v. School District Number One, Denver (Colorado),
303 F. Supp. 289 (D. Colo., 1969).
Some of these principles which apply to the Charlotte-
Mecklenburg situation are:
1. Racial segregation in public schools is unlawful,
Brown I; Green v. New Kent County, Virginia; Clemons v.
Hillsboro, Ohio. Such segregation is unlawful even though
not required nor authorized by state statute, Clemons v.
Hillsboro. Acts of school boards perpetuating or restoring
separation of the races in schools are de jure, unlawful dis
crimination, Cooper v. Aaron; Keyes v. Denver, Colorado
School Board (August 14, 1969), approved by the Supreme
Court of the United States two weeks later, Keyes v. Den
ver, U. S. Supreme Court, August 29, 1969.
2. Drawing school zone lines, like “ freedom of transfer,”
is not an end in itself; and a plan of geographic zoning
which perpetuates discriminatory segregation is unlawful,
Keyes v. Denver; Brewer v. Norfolk; Clemons v. Hillsboro;
Henry v. Clarksdale, Mississippi; United States v. Hinds
County; United States v. Greenwood.
Opinion and Order dated December 1, 1969
709a
3. No procedure, plan, method or gimmick will legalize
state maintained segregation. The constitutional test of a
plan is whether it gets rid of segregation in public schools,
and does it “ now,” G reen v. N ew K e n t C o u n ty ; M o n roe v.
J a ck so n ; A lex a n d er v. H o lm es C ou n ty.
4. Good faith of the school authorities, if it exists, does
not excuse failure to desegregate the schools. “ . . . The
availability to the Board of other more promising courses
of action may indicate a lack of good faith; and at the least
it places a h ea v y burden upon the B o a rd to explain its
p referen ce fo r an a pp a ren tly less e ffective m eth od .” G reen
v. N e w K e n t C o u n ty . (Emphasis added.)
5. “ Natural boundaries” for school zones are not con
stitutionally controlling. If a zone encloses a black school
in a district like this one where white students are in a
heavy (71% white, 29% black) majority, the “naturalness”
of the boundary or the existence of reasons for the boundary
unrelated to segregation does not excuse the failure to de
segregate the school, K e y e s v. D en v er , C o lora d o ; H e n r y v.
C la rk sd a le ; C lem on s v. H illsboro.
6. It is appropriate for courts to require that school
faculties be desegregated by formula, if necessary, and by
a definite time or on a definite schedule, U n ited S ta tes v.
M o n tg o m ery . Faculty assignments so that each school has
approximately the same ratio of black teachers as the
ratio of black teachers in the school system at large are
appropriate and necessary to equalize the quality of in
struction in this school system, U n ited S ta tes v. M o n tg o m
e r y ; U n ited S ta tes v. C ook C o u n ty ; E a ton v. N ew H a n ov er
C o u n ty (North Carolina).
Opinion and Order dated December 1, 1969
710a
7. Bus transportation as a moans to eliminate segrega
tion results of discrimination may validly be employed,
Keyes v. Denver; United States v. Cook County, Illinois,
404 F.2d 1125, 1130 (1969).
8. Race may be considered in eliminating segregation in
a school system, Wanner v. Arlington County, Virginia;
United States v. Cook County; Green v. New Kent County.
9. “ . . . Whatever plan is adopted will require evalua
tion in practice and the court should retain jurisdiction
until it is clear that state imposed segregation has been
completely removed.” Green v. New Kent County; Raney
v. Board of Education.
10. The alleged high cost of desegregating schools
(which the court does not find to be a fact) would not be a
valid legal argument against desegregation, Griffin v.
School Board; United States v. Cook County, Illinois.
11. The fact that public opinion may oppose desegregat
ing the schools is no valid argument against doing it, Cooper
v. Aaron, Green v. New Kent County; Monroe v. Jackson.
12. Fixed ratios of pupils in particular schools will not
be set. If the board in one of its three tries had presented
a plan for desegregation, the court would have sought ways
to approve variations in pupil ratios. In default of any
such plan from the school board, the court will start with
the thought, originally advanced in the order of April 23,
that efforts should be made to reach a 71-29 ratio in the
various schools so that there will be no basis for contending
that one school is racially different from the others, but to
understand that variations from that norm may be un
avoidable.
Opinion and Order dated December 1, 1969
711a
13. School location and construction and renovation and
enlargement affect desegregation. Courts may properly
restrain construction and other changes in location or ca
pacity of school properties until a showing is made that
such change will promote desegregation rather than frus
trate it, F e ld e r v. H a rn ett C ou n ty .
14. Where pupils live must not control where they are
assigned to school, if some other approach is necessary in
order to eliminate racial segregation, G reen v. N ew K e n t
C o u n ty ; K e y e s v. D e n v e r ; E a to n v. N ew H a n o v er C o u n ty ,
N orth Carolina B o a rd o f E du ca tion .
15. On the facts in this record and with this background
of de ju re segregation extending full fifteen years since
B ro w n I , this court is of the opinion that all the black and
predominantly black schools in the system are illegally
segregated, G reen v. N e w K e n t C o u n ty ; H e n r y v. Clarks-
d a le; U n ited S ta tes v. H in d s C ou n ty.
16. The school board is endowed by Chapter 115, Sec
tion 176 of the General Statutes of North Carolina with
“full and complete” and “ final” authority to assign students
to whatever schools the board chooses to assign them. The
board may not shift this statutory burden to others. In
G reen v. N ew K e n t C o u n ty , the Supreme Court said of
“ freedom of choice” :
“Rather than foster the dismantling of the dual system
the plan has operated simply to burden children and
their parents with a responsibility which B ro w n I I
placed squarely on the School Board. The Board must
. . . fashion steps which promise realistically to convert
Opinion and Order dated December 1 , 1969
712a
promptly to a system without a ‘white’ school and a
‘Negro’ school but just schools.”
17. Pairing of grades has been expressly approved by
the appellate courts, G reen v. N e w K e n t C o u n ty ; Felder
v. H a rn ett C o u n ty . Pairing, grouping, clustering, and per
haps other methods may and will be considered and used
if necessary to desegregate the schools.
18. Some 25,000 out of 84,000 children in this county
ride school busses each day, and the number eligible for
transportation under present rules may be more than
30,000. A transportation system already this massive may
be adaptable to effective use in desegregating schools.
19. The school board has a duty to promote acceptance
of and compliance with the law. In a concurring opinion in
C o o p e r y . A a ro n , 358 U. S. at 26 (1958), Justice Frank
furter said:
"T h a i th e resp on sib ility o f th ose urho ex ercise p o w er in
a d em ocratic g o v ern m en t is not to reflect inflam ed pub
lic feelin g but to help fo rm its understanding, is e sp e
cially t m e when th ey are con fron ted with a problem
like « racially discriminating public sch ool s y s te m .
This is tie lessee ;o be crave from the hearten!:: .5 ex
perience rx encL.tg eetoreed racial segreg-i* or: . i the
p u h c c s ch o o ls :'i v . ::* s - , : i N e c - t v c v . f a r r :> i -r -
urccvrtomso Cootpcaorce with leciswns of A s '.'jam.
ss the jcaso-Pxrjjftiif crjaot of the supreme Law j f tin?
las* often, t-jughe jot hiscory. ioueuued -n
auc** sapijcr-t > state and oca! aafiisir-ttes. Br jt-*-
Sit’oevse'S- stivi: sappur-t. T i W'cuoic t. jn\. rsdeeti r-
ase MWvtt'cax ^ ty* 'c jarst; to :e supreme Law.
Opinion and Order dated December 1, 1969
713a
precludes the maintenance of our federal system as we
have known and cherished it for one hundred and
seventy years.
Lincoln’s appeal to ‘the better angels of our nature’
failed to avert a fratricidal war. But the compassionate
wisdom of Lincoln’s First and Second Inaugurals be
queathed to the Union, cemented with blood, a moral
heritage which, when drawn upon in times of stress
and strife, is su re to find specific w a ys and m eans to
su rm ou n t difficulties that m a y a ppea r to be insur
m ou nta ble.” (Emphasis added.)
Opinion and Order dated December 1 , 1969
714a
Order
It i s Ordered, A djudged and Decreed as follows:
1. All facts found in this and previous orders, and all
competent evidence including plans, reports and admissions
in pleadings in the record are relied upon in support of
this order.
2. The November 17 plan entitled “A mendment to Plan
for Further Desegregation of Schools” is disapproved.
3. The defendants are directed to desegregate faculties
in all the schools effective not later than September 1, 1970,
so that the ratio of black teachers to white teachers in each
school will be approximately the same as the ratio of black
teachers to white teachers in the entire school system.
4. A consultant will be designated by the court to pre
pare immediately plans and recommendations to the court
for desegregation of the scliools. The legal and practical
considerations outlined in detail in earlier parts of this
opinion and order are for his guidance.
5. The defendants are directed to cooperate fully with
the consultant. This cooperation will include but not be
limited to providing space at the headquarters of the board
or education in which he may work; [laying all of his fees
and expenses; providing stenographic assistance and the
help of business machines, draftsmen and computers it
requested, along with telephone and other comm urn mums
services. He shall have full access to maps, drawings-, re-
ports, s:a*i>i;e<, compatvr studies, and all ir f> rrr ,i
about all peases m’ ‘ be school system which may be roees-
- -
715a
O rd er
any studies and plans and partial plans for desegregation
of the schools which the defendants may have. The defend
ants will provide this consultant with full professional,
technical and other assistance which he may need in famil
iarizing himself with the school system and the various
problems to be solved in desegregating the schools. Any
and all members of the board of education who wish to
cooperate in the preparation of such a plan may do so.
The cooperation of the school administrators and staff will
be requested and will be appreciated.
6. Action on the motion of plaintiffs for an order di
recting immediate desegregation of the entire system is
deferred.
7. Further orders with reference to restraining con
struction and enlargement of schools are deferred.
8. Motion has been filed for a citation of the school
board members for contempt of court. Litigants are bound
by court orders and may be punished for disobedience of
such orders even though such orders may ultimately be
reversed on appeal, Walker v. Birmingham, 388 U. S. 307
(1967). The evidence might very well support such cita
tions. Nevertheless, this is a changing field of law. De
spite the peremptory warnings of New Kent County and
Hohnes County, strident voices, including those of school
board members, still express doubt that the law of those
cases applies to Mecklenburg County. This district court
claims no infallibility. Contempt proceedings against un
compensated public servants will be avoided if possible.
Action on the contempt citation is deferred.
9. If the members of the school board wish to develop
plans of their own for desegregation of the schools, with-
716a
Order
out delaying or interfering with the work of the consultant,
they may proceed to do so, and if they wish any guidance
from the court they will find their guidance in the previous
opinions and orders of this court and in the court decisions
and principles set out in this opinion and order.
10. Jurisdiction is retained for further orders as may
be appropriate.
This is the 1st day of December, 1969.
/ s / James B. McM illan
James B. McMillan
United States District Judge
717a
Order dated December 2, 1969
The court appoints as a consultant under the terms out
lined in the court’s order of December 1, 1969, Dr. John A.
Finger, Jr., of Providence, Rhode Island.
The school board and staff are directed to cooperate with
Dr. Finger as set out in the December 1, 1969 order.
This the 2nd day of December, 1969.
/ s / J ames B. McMillan
James B. McMillan
United States District Judge
718a
Motion for Immediate Desegregation of the Public
Schools in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County
(Filed January 20, 1970)
Plaintiffs, by their undersigned counsel, respectfully
move the Court for an order directing Dr. John A. Finger,
Jr. to immediately file with the Court his plan for the de
segregation of schools and to order the defendants to imple
ment Dr. Finger’s plan immediately and, as grounds there
for, show the following:
1. On April 23, June 20 and August 15, 1969, the Court
found the defendants to be operating an unconstitutionally
segregated school system. Each Order required the de
fendants to file a plan for the desegregation of the schools.
Each plan was blatantly defective and was rejected by the
Court.
2. On December 1, 1969, the Court entered an Opinion
and Order rejecting the plan filed by the Board on Novem
ber 17, 1969 and determined that a consultant would be
appointed by the Court to prepare immediate plans and
recommendations to the Court for the desegregation of the
schools. The following day, December 2, the Court entered
an Order appointing Dr. John A. Finger, Jr. of Providence,
Rhode Island to act as a consultant to the Court in pre
paring a plan for the desegregation of the schools.
3. Plaintiffs are informed that Dr. Finger has com
pleted the essential elements of his plans and is in the
process of refining and perfecting his proposal.
4. On October 29, 1969, the Supreme Court unanimously
reversed the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
719a
Circuit which had granted delays for the desegregation of
schools in Mississippi.
“Under explicit holdings of this Court, the obligation
of every school district is to terminate dual school
systems at once and to operate now and hereafter only
unitary schools. Griffin v. School Board, 377 U.S. 218,
234 (1964); Green v. School Board of New Kent County,
391 U.S. 430, 438, 439, 442 (1968).”
Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S.
19 (1969).
5. The day following this Court’s Opinion and Order
disapproving of the defendants’ November 17 plan, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
entered an Order in five cases, three from North Carolina.
“We consolidate these appeals for hearing and disposi
tion in light of Alexander v. Holmes County Board of
Education, 396 U.S. 19 (October 29, 1969). That recent
decision of the Supreme Court teaches ‘ [ujnder explicit
holdings of this Court the obligation of every school
district is to eliminate dual school systems at once and
to operate now and hereafter only unitary schools.’
The clear mandate of the Court is immediacy. Further
delays will not be tolerated in this circuit. No school
district may continue to operate a dual system based
on race. Each must function as a unitary system within
which no person is to be excluded from any school on
the basis of race.”
Motion for Immediate Desegregation of the Public
Schools in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County
720a
Nesbit v. Statesville City Board of Education, No. 13,229
------F.2d. ------- (Dec. 2, 1969). The three school districts
from North Carolina were given until the end of the Christ
mas vacation within which to implement plans for complete
desegregation of the schools. The two districts from Vir
ginia were given until the end of the first semester. Each
district was required to integrate faculties as well.
“All plans must include provisions for integration of
the faculty so that the ratio of Negro and white faculty
members of each school shall be approximately the
same as the ratio throughout the system.”
6. Following the Supreme Court decision in Alexander
v. Holmes County, the United States Court of Appeals for
Fifth Circuit heard and decided a large number of cases
from various states within the Circuit. The Court en banc
unanimously decided that complete integration would not
be required until the Fall of 1970. In several of the cases
where the plaintiffs were represented by private counsel,
petitions for certiorari were filed with the United tSates
Supreme Court. The petitioners requested that the Su
preme Court order the school districts to prepare for com
plete desegregation by February 1, 1970 pending a decision
by the Court on the merits. The petitioners were granted
the preliminary relief which they sought. Carter v. West
Feliciano Parish School Board, ------ U.S. ------ (Dec. 13,
1969); Davis v. Board of School Commissions of Mobile
County, ------ U.S. ------ ; and Bennett v. Evans County
Board of Education, ------ U.S. ------ (Opinions of Justice
Black in Chambers, December 13, 1969). On January 14,
Motion for Immediate Desegregation of the Public
Schools in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County
721a
1970, the Court in a per curiam and decided without oral
argument that the Court of Appeals had misread Alexander
v. Holmes County Board of Education.
“Insofar as the Court of Appeals authorized deferral
of student desegregation beyond February 1, 1970,
that Court misconstrued our holding in Alexander v.
Holmes County Board of Education, ------ U.S. ------ .
Accordingly, the petitions for writs of certiorari are
granted, the judgments of the Court of Appeals are
reversed and the cases remanded to that Court for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The
judgments in these cases are to issue forthwith.”
Carter v. West Feliciano Parish School Board, ------ U.S.
------ (Jan. 14, 1970). The decision of the Court, represent
ing the views of four members, was concurred by Mr.
Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice White. They discussed what
they thought were the practical requirements of Alexander
and found a “maximum” timetable from a Court finding
of non-compliance with the requirements of Green to the
time of the actual operative effect of the relief to be eight
weeks. Justices Black, Douglas, Brennan and Marshall
found this view to he a “retreat” from the holding in Alex
ander v. Holmes County Board of Education. Justices
Berger and Stewart dissented, being of the view that the
cases should not be decided without oral argument.
7. Findings of non-compliance with the requirements of
the Green case were made by the Court on April 23, June
20, August 15 and December 1, 1969. Eight weeks, the
Motion for Immediate Desegregation of the Public
Schools in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County
722a
“maximum” timetable which Justices Harlan and White
viewed as permissible from the date of a finding of non-
compliance, a determination which four others viewed as
a “retreat” from Alexander, has long since passed since
the decisions of April, June and August. Eight weeks from
December 1, 1969 would be January 26, 1970. That would
clearly be the outside date for the implementation of a
comprehensive plan for the desegregation of schools in this
case.
8. Dr. Finger has not yet filed his plan with the Court.
However, even if his plan remains somewhat rough, that
plan should be implemented now and any suggested modifi
cations, by the Board, by the plaintiffs or possibly by Dr.
Finger can be made later.
“It would suffice that such measures will tend to accom
plish the goals set forth in Green, and, if they are less
than educationally perfect, proposals for amendments
are in no way to suspend the relief granted in accord-
are in no way to suspend the relief granted in accor
dance with the requirements of Alexander.”
Carter v. West Feliciano Parish School Board, — — U.S.
------ (1969) (concurring opinion of Justice Harlan).
“The intent of Alexander, as I see it, was that the bur
den in actions of this type should be shifted from plain
tiffs seeking redress for a denial of constitutional
rights, to defendant school boards. What this means is
that upon a prima facie showing of noncompliance with
this court’s holding in Green v. New Kent County
School Board, 291 U.S. 430 (1968), plaintiffs may apply
Motion for Immediate Desegregation of the Public
Schools in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County
723a
for immediate relief that will at once extirpate any
lingering vestiges of a constitutionally prohibited dual
school system.”
(Concurring opinion of Justice Harlan.)
9. In this Court’s Opinion and Order of December 1,
1969, the Court held:
“12. Fixed ratios of pupils in particular schools will
not be set. If the hoard in one of its three tries had
presented a plan for desegregation, the court would
have sought ways to approve variations in pupil ratios.
In default of any such plan from the school hoard, the
court will start with the thought, originally advanced
in the order of April 23, that efforts should be made to
reach a 71-29 ratio in the various schools so that there
will be no basis for contending that one school is racially
different from the others, but to understand that varia
tions from that norm may he unavoidable. . . .
15. On the facts in this record and with this back
ground of de jure segregation extending full fifteen
years since Brown I, this court is of the opinion that
all the black and predominantly black schools in the
system are illegally segregated, Green v. New Kent
County; Henry v. Clarksdale; United States v. Hinds
County.”
In its Order, the Court invited the Board to submit a plan
conforming to the requirements established by the Court.
Motion for Immediate Desegregation of the Public
Schools in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County
724a
“If the members of the school board wish to develop
plans of their own for desegregation of the schools
without delaying or interfering with the work of the
consultant, they may proceed to do so, and if they wish
any guidance from the court they will find their guid
ance in the previous opinions and orders of this court
and in the court decisions and principles set out in this
opinion and order.”
The School Board decided not to appeal from the decision
of December 1, 1969 as it had decided not to appeal from
the previous orders of the Court. Nor has it submitted a
plan as it was invited to do. Instead, members of the Board
have continued to criticize the law of the land and to pre
tend that they do not know what the Court means when it
says that all-black schools in this system are constitution
ally impermissible. The Court and the plaintiffs have
waited patiently and in vain for an indication that the
Board would finally accept its burden to devise a constitu
tional plan for the desegregation of the schools. Since the
Board has refused to assume its responsibility, the Court
must act to vindicate the constitutional rights of children
within the School System.
W herefore, plaintiffs respectfully pray that the Court
direct Dr. Finger to file his plan forthwith and upon receipt
of his plan, order the defendants:
1. To completely implement the plan filed by Dr. Finger
on or before January 26, 1970; and
Motion for Immediate Desegregation of the Public
Schools in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County
725a
2. To reassign faculty within the School System so
that the ratio of black and white faculty members
of each school shall be approsimately the same as
the ratio throughout the System and that such re
assignments be implemented on or before January
26, 1970.
Motion for Immediate Desegregation of the Public
Schools in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County
Respectfully submitted,
Conrad 0 . Pearson
2031/2 East Chapel Hill Street
Durham, North Carolina
Chambers, Stein, Ferguson &
Lanning
216 West Tenth Street
Charlotte, North Carolina
Jack Greenberg
James M. Nabrit, III
Norman Chachkin
10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York
726a
In response to the invitation of the Court in its order
dated December 1, 1969, the Board of Education submits
its plan for desegregation in substitution of all prior plans
for implementation in September, 1970, as follows:
Policy Statement
Equal opportunity to develop all capabilities to the fullest
potential is the right of every individual in a democratic
society. Since this right is a basic precept of education, it
becomes the responsibility of those who make educational
decisions to see that equality of opportunity is provided for
all.
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education affirms
the long held principle that equality of educational oppor
tunity for all children without regard to socio-economic,
ethnic, religious or racial differences is essential to the con
tinued growth of our community and is basic to a free and
open American democratic society.
The Board further believes that equality of educational
opportunity can best be provided by attempting to free
individuals from the burden and handicaps imposed by
varied circumstances, backgrounds and environmental dif
ferences. To this end, the Board has devised an educational
program which will to the greatest extent possible, provide
for the equal development of all students regardless of
such burdens and handicaps.
In this light, the Board of Education firmly believes fur
ther desegregation of students and professional staff will
contribute to the educational and social development of all
children.
Plan for Desegregation of Schools
727a
Plan for Desegregation of Schools
I .
A ttendance A reas
Attendance areas are established for all schools within
the Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Administrative School
Unit and the boundaries thereof are hereby established as
shown onmaps dated January 31, 1970, identified as “Map
No. 1, Attendance Areas of Elementary Schools,” “Map
No. 2, Attendance Areas for Junior High Schools” and
“Map No. 3, Attendance Areas for Senior High Schools,”
copies of which are attached. Practical administrative con
siderations may require revision of some of the attendance
lines shown on these maps to conform to streets, streams,
railroads and other identifiable monuments. The adminis
trative staff, with the approval of the Board, may make
such revisions provided they do not materially affect ad
versely the racial mix of the schools involved. A copy of
each map (together with any revisions) shall be kept at
each school in the attendance areas shown thereon and
shall be open to public inspection in the office of the Super
intendent and at the schools.
Board Comment:
1. The Board has devised new and comprehensive re
structured attendance lines to achieve the degree of de
segregation which it believes the Constitution requires.
Thse outlines of the attendance lines shown on these maps
have been established with the assistance of a computer
system analysis which had as its purpose the identity and
selection of contiguous grid areas having pupil populations
that would most nearly achieve an optimum 70% white to
30% black racial mix for as many of our schools as possible.
728a
The criteria used in the establishment of these attendance
areas are as follows:
A. Each school district must be comprised of a single
set of contiguous grids. (A grid is a 2500 foot square
as shown on the school attendance maps as filed as
exhibits in this matter.)
B. No combination of grids could be considered if they
exceed the rated capacity of the school by 20 per cent.
Further, such combinations could not underpopulate
the school by more than 20 per cent.
C. A school district could not contain the home grid
of another school.
D. A school district, if feasible, must contain the home
grid in which the school is located.
E. Wherever practicable, no school district to which
white students were assigned should have less than
60 per cent white student population to avoid “tipping.”
After the meeting these five tests, all possible combina
tions of grids were printed separately for each school. The
combinations were reviewed to determine their desirability.
Desirability was determined by the following factors:
(1) closeness of the integration ratio to 70% white-30%
black, (2) compactness of the school district and (3) combi
nation of grids which yields a student population closest
to 100% of the school’s capacity.
Attached (marked Exhibit “ A” and made a part hereof)
is a report of Systems Analysis Associates, Inc. which re
flects the scope, nature of work performed, recommenda
tions and results achieved through their efforts in con
sultation with school administrative staff and the Board of
Education.
Plan for Desegregation of Schools
729a
2. It lias been the purpose of the Board to desegregate
as many of the 103 schools as possible and, in order to do
so, attendance lines have been drastically restructured and
gerrymandered, resulting in 100 schools having some degree
of desegregation. The Board is gratified with the results
of its desegregation. Sixty-eight (68) of the 103 schools
in the system will have a student body composed of 10%
to 41% blacks. Of the remaining 35 schools, only 25 will
have less than 11% black and 10 will have more than 41%
blacks.
3. The Board does not believe that it is required to
supplement its restructuring of attendance lines by other
techniques, all of which have the primary feature of necessi
tating involuntary bussing of students from one school at
tendance zone to another. Such compulsory transportation
would violate legislative policies of the United States Con
gress and the State of North Carolina.
In 1964, Congress enacted 42 USCA 2000 C. et seq., com
monly referred to as the HEW Act of 1964, which provides
that in an action instituted by the Attorney General under
such Act, the court may give “such relief as may be appro
priate” with the following limitation:
. . provided that nothing herein shall empower any
official or court of the United States to issue any order
seeking to achieve a racial balance in any school by
requiring transportation of pupils or students from
one school to another or one school district to another
in order to achieve such racial balance, or otherwise
enlarge the existing power of the court to assure com
pliance with constitutional standards . . .” (Emphasis
supplied).
Plan for Desegregation of Schools
730a
The North Carolina legislative policy is expressed in
G.S. Sec. 115-176.1, which specifies:
“ . .. No student shall be assigned or compelled to attend
any school on account of race, creed, color or national
origin or for the purpose of creating a balance or ratio
of race, religion or national origin. Involuntary bussing
of a student in contravention of this article is pro
hibited, and public funds shall not be used for any such
bussing.” (Emphasis supplied).
It is observed that the HEW Act of 1964 relates to de
segregation actions instituted by the United States At
torney General, whereas the Board is involved in an action
in the District Court which was instituted by private liti
gants. However, the purpose of each type of action is
the same; namely, to secure an adjudication of the consti
tutional rights of all members of a class in a community
who are similarly situated (i.e. black students). Com
pulsory measures imposed by the court cannot he depend
ent upon who brings the action—the United States Attorney
General or private litigants. If a court is prohibited from
requiring bussing to achieve a racial balance in the one
instance, it must be prohibited from doing so in the other.
This same limitation should be equally applicable to any
court order which (although silent on the subject of trans
portation) can be implemented as a practical matter only
by compulsory bussing.
By way of summary, the Court cannot require transporta
tion to achieve a racial balance in our schools and volun
tary action of the Board would be contrary to the law of
the State of North Carolina. Under the circumstances, the
Board rejected any arrangement for involuntary bussing
of any student outside of his attendance area. This would
Plan for Desegregation of Schools
731a
be a clear violation of the law as expressed by the United
States Congress and by the North Carolina Legislature.
4. Aside from the legal reasons which prohibit involun
tary transportation of a student outside his attendance
area, in the judgment of the Board, educational and prac
tical considerations preclude such action:
A. It is the judgment of the Board that the supposed
benefits to be obtained from the use of extensive additional
transportation to eliminate the 10 remaining black schools
referred to above would be far outweighed by the result
ing burdens, inconvenience and cost. Bussing in a school
system as large as the Charlotte-Mecklenburg system is at
best an expensive and complex operation. It is acknowl
edged that a large number of children are already being
bussed to and from school. However, the burden, expense,
hardship, inconvenience, hazards, expenditure of unproduc
tive time and the added administrative problems occasioned
by any bussing program should be minimized.
B. The Board cannot justify on any reasonable basis
the very substantial additional cost and burden of the com
pulsory bussing that would be required for the sole pur
pose of effecting a desired racial mix in the remaining 10
black schools. Under the best arrangement, the Board
could envision to eliminate these black schools, massive
cross-bussing would require the transportation of about
11,500 black and white children—5,150 into and 5,150 out of
the inner-city at the elementary level and 590 into and 590
out of the inner-city at the secondary level. This involun
tary bussing would involve an approximate 15-mile trip
each way (30 miles round drip) for each student moved
through the heart of the business and residential sections
Plan for Desegregation of Schools
732a
of the City. Pertinent information relating to such trans
portation is attached marked Exhibit “B” .
C. A plan that generates unnecessary transportation
costs and occasions unnecessary burdens and inconvenience
for parents and children alike would jeopardize the public
support which provides the tax and bond money upon which
our schools are totally dependent for financing the already
high cost of education.
D. The burden of extra bussing that would be required
to desegregate each of the 10 remaining predominantly
black schools would fall primarily on elementary children.
The major impact of this burden would be imposed upon
children who, because of their tender years, are the most
illogical candidates to bear this burden.
E. The Board has retained its neighborhood school con
cept, although admittedly, it has been strained by the gerry
mandered attendance lines adopted in this plan. It is a
concept which the Board believes is beneficial to the chil
dren and enhances the support that comes when children
and parents identify themselves with a particular school
and its programs. A fragmentation of this type of asso
ciation is not in the best interest of our schools.
5. With reference to ratios of black students in the vari
ous levels of education, attention is called to the fact that
blacks comprise 30°! of the elementary. 28% of the junior
high and 24 A of the senior high school population. To the
extent possible, the Board has sought to reach these ap
proximate ratios in each schooL
Plan for Desegregation of Schools
733a
A ssignment of Pupils
All pupils within any attendance area shall be assigned
to the school of his or her grade within such attendance
area. Assignment for any school year shall he made not
later than the last school day of the preceding year or as
soon thereafter as possible. In the case of children en
rolled during such school year, notice of assignment may
be given by noting the same on the report card of the pupil
thereof or any other means which will adequately insure
the delivery of written notice to the parent. Except for
beginners, pupils not then enrolled shall be assigned at the
time of their application for enrollment. In order to undo
the existing “ freedom of choice” assignments heretofore
permitted, such assignments will be terminated and the
students involved re-assigned to the appropriate school of
his or her attendance area.
Plan for Desegregation of Schools
II.
III.
Continuation of Elementary
V oluntary Inner-City Re-A ssignments
In its plan submitted to the Court on July 29, 1969, the
Board of Education closed certain black schools and tem
porarily re-assigned the students of those schools as well
as the students of certain other black schools whose facili
ties were overcrowded. Elementary students who were re
assigned and accepted re-assignment under the plan of
July 29, 1969, at their election will be assigned to the school
of their present attendance provided such school offers in
struction at their grade level during the 1970-1971 school
term. Free transportation will be provided such students.
734a
The Board is mindful of the educational advantages and
the desires of a student and his parents to continuing one’s
education in the school of last attendance. Therefore, the
Board has made available to those elementary inner-city
black students who in good spirit accepted transfer to other
schools the right to continue attendance at those schools
provided the grade level is offered.
IV.
Restricted Transfers
In order to encourage, facilitate and maintain desegrega
tion, transfers from the school to which a student is origi
nally assigned shall be allowed only on the limited basis out
lined below. Any black student will be permitted to transfer
only if the school to which he is originally assigned has
more than 30 per cent of his race and if the school he is
requesting to attend has less than 30 per cent of his race
and has available space. Any white student will he per
mitted to transfer only if the school to which he is originally
assigned has more than 70 per cent of his race and if the
school he is requesting to attend has less than 70 per cent
of his race and has available space. Availability of space
and rules of transfer will he determined by the school ad
ministration under rules of uniform non-racial application
authorized by the School Board.
In addition, transfers may be granted to students whose
request for transfer evidences conditions of hardship.
Hardship will be determined on the basis of uniform non-
racial criteria developed by the administrative staff.
The administrative procedure for such transfers will be
readily available to each student.
Plan for Desegregation of Schools
Board Comment:
735a
1. Under this provision, transfers are rigidly limited to
those which promote desegregation of our schools, except
ing only transfers with reference to hardship situations
which shall be determined on a strictly non-racial basis and
which necesarily must be allowed for the effective adminis
tration of the schools and the welfare of the children in
volved.
2. These restrictions on transfers are designed to com
plement the limitations imposed by the geographic assign
ments and to assure the stability and permanence of the
desegregation achieved by this plan. Specifically, the plan
is designed to accomplish these objectives:
A. Encourage the transfer of hlack students from
predominantly black schools or schools likely to become
predominantly black to a school which will promote the
permanence of a desirable racial mix.
B. Encourage white students from predominantly
white or all white schools wishing to transfer to help
stabilize desegregation to do so.
C. Prevent the movement of white students from pre
dominantly black schools or schools likely to become
predominantly black.
D. Prevent black students from singling out a school
for attendance so that blacks predominate or nearly
predominate.
3. It is believed that the foregoing restrictions will tend
to minimize tipping and resegregation.
Plan for Desegregation of Schools
Board Comment:
736a
V.
Transportation
Transportation will be provided to and from school for
all students who are entitled thereto under State law and
applicable rules and regulations promulgated by the State.
VI.
Stability op E nrollment
A student enrolled in any school after original assign
ment or by transfer after original assignment shall remain
in the school of enrollment for the school year and no sub
sequent transfer will be permitted for such year except for
hardship or a change of residence from one attendance area
to another. In the event of change of residence, the pupil
may elect to remain in the school of enrollment for the
remainder of the school year. A student enrolled in a school
by virtue of utilizing a restricted transfer authorized by
Article IV (Restricted Transfers) shall be advanced to the
next grade in such school from year to year unless such
student prior to the expiration of any current year gives
notice of his or her wish to return to the school serving the
attendance area of his residence. A pupil enrolled in a
school in an attendance area other than that of his or her
residence shall be advanced at the appropriate time to the
junior or senior high school, as the case may be, serving
the attendance area in which the pupil resides. This pro
vision shall not have the effect of denying or enlarging
such pupil’s right to transfer to another school of his grade
pursuant to Article IV.
Plan for Desegregation of Schools
737a
The purpose of this section is to prevent voluntary
transfers of students during the course of any school year
other than those permitted for hardship or change of
residence. The Board foresees that an unrestricted right
with reference to time to transfer could create a chaotic
condition in the administration of our schools. Addi
tionally, this provision in effect sends the student back
to his attendance area for re-assignment to secondary
schools at the appropriate level. However, restricted
transfer is still available to the student.
VII.
F aculty Desegregation
The faculties of all schools will be assigned so that the
ratio of black teachers to white teachers in each school
will be approximately the same as the ratio of black teach
ers to white teachers in the entire school system.
Board Comment:
This provision is in conformity with the order of the
Court dated December 1, 1969.
Concluding Comments of Board
With all due respect to the previously expressed views
of the Court (pursuant to whose order this plan is sub
mitted) the Board still adheres to its conviction that the
Constitutional requirements of desegregation in the school
system will be achieved by the restructuring of attendance
lines and further faculty desegregation. In reiterating this
conviction, the Board acknowledges that it does so with
Plan for Desegregation of Schools
Board Comment:
738a
out clear guidance from appellate courts concerning a clear
definition of a “unitary” or “desegregated” school system.
In its search for guidance from the Supreme Court regard
ing the true meaning of these and similar terms, the Board
is not alone. However, recent appellate and district court
decisions acknowledging this lack of guidance have arrived
at conclusions that square with the Board’s position. The
most recent appellate decision comes from the Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals, Northcross v. Board of Education of
Memphis, CA 6 ,------Fed. 2nd (January 12, 1970), wherein
the court stated:
“ . . . Upon the oral argument of this appeal, we asked
counsel for plaintiffs to advise what he considered
would be the ‘unitary system’ that should be forth
with accomplished in Memphis. He replied that such
a system would require that in every public school in
Memphis there would have to be 55% Negroes and
45% whites. Departures of 5% to 10% from such rule
would be tolerated. The United States Supreme Court
has not announced that such a formula is the only
way to accomplish a ‘unitary system.’ We have ex
pressed our own view that such a formula for racial
composition of all of today’s public schools is not
required to meet the requirement of a unitary system.
Deal v. Cincinnati Board of Education (Ohio schools)
369 F(2) 55 (6th Cir. 1966), cert denied, 389 U.S. 847
(1967); Mapp v. Board of Education (Tennessee
schools) 373 F (2) 75, 78 (6th Cir. 1967); Goss v. Knox
ville Board of Education (Tenn. schools) 406 F(2)
1183 (6th Cir. 1969); Deal v. Cincinnati Board of
Education (Ohio schools) ------F(2) (6th Cir. 1969).”
Plan for Desegregation of Schools
739a
Three district judges, Judges Smith, Edenfield and
Henderson of the Northern District of Georgia in United
States of America v. State of Georgia, et al., USDC, ND,
Ga. (Dec. 17, 1969), stated there was uncertainty with re
spect to specific standards which should be uniformly ap
plied in desegregation cases and went on to state further:
“ . . . In this respect, the higher courts have not yet
issued definitive rules as to just what steps are legally
required of each local school district.”
In that opinion, ratios were specified which permitted
retention of some schools entirely populated by the
minority race.
In Bivins v. Bibb County, USDC, M.D. Ga. (Jan. 21,
1970), the Court indicated its impatience with the vague
terms typically employed in desegregation cases:
“The phrase ‘student body merger’ is new in school
desegregation law . . . The word ‘merge’ is a most
imprecise term. Just as some of the other customary
expressions used by the courts in this field, for in
stance, ‘desegregate’, ‘integrate’, ‘black schools’, ‘all
black schools’, ‘white schools’, ‘just schools’, ‘dual
system’, ‘unitary system’ ; the word ‘work’ in ‘a plan
which promises realistically to work.’ When appellate
courts use language like this, they must intend to leave
its interpretation and application to the trial courts
in the light of the facts and circumstances of each
particular case. If the Congress were legislating in
this field it would necessarily have to use precise lan
guage. If it used language such as that quoted, it
would have to define such terms; otherwise, its enact
ments would be struck down by the courts as being
‘void for vagueness.’ ”
Plan for Desegregation of Schools
740a
In Bickett, et al., v. School of the City of Norfolk
et al., USDC, ED Ya. (Dec. 30, 1969), Judge Hoffman
indicated a similar concern over the lack of clear guidance
from appellate courts; approved a plan for the Norfolk,
Ya. schools in which the percentage of Negroes in the
school levels (attending schools housing less than 10%
of one race) will be 23% in elementary schools, 43% in
junior high schools and 100% in senior high schools;
declined “to require massive compulsory bussing merely
to achieve desegregation” ; and concluded:
“Nor do we feel that the Constitution commands racial
balancing in each school building predicated upon
percentage of white and black children in the several
levels of public education; to wit, elementary, junior
high school and senior high school.”
“ . . . Until the Supreme Court speaks on the subject,
no one can tell what is correct (‘racially unidentifiable’
or ‘desegregated’ ).” (Information in parenthesis sup
plied.)
In Bivins, supra, the court addressed itself to the ques
tion of a merged or desegregated system in which approxi
mately 75 per cent of the blacks were in all black schools
and concluded:
“ This court is of the opinion and finds and concludes
that the student body in this system is sufficiently
so merged, especially when we take into consideration
the complete faculty merger above mentioned. . . . ”
That same court found no legal mandate requiring racial
balances in each school and stated:
Plan for Desegregation of Schools
741a
“ (A)ll three plans were drawn under the impression
or apprehension that the law requires the achievement
of racial balances. The Board probably came to this
apprehension from the repeated use of more and more
sweeping and expansive, though still imprecise, lan
guage by the courts. For instance, a recent order
refers to ‘full implementation of complete desegrega
tion.’ We look in vain for any authoritative statute
or decree defining ‘complete desegregation.’ ”
Further comment on the unsettled state of the law ap
pears in Thornie v. Houston County, USDC, M.D. Ga.
(Jan. 21, 1970), to wit:
“No one affected by this area of the law as fast as
it is moving should let his hopes soar too high or
his fears sink too low. Tomorrow might be a new
day.”
Plan fot Desegregation of Schools
It is apparent that the courts have not reached a common
understanding of what is required under the Constitution.
The Board understandably is prone to exercise caution lest,
in protecting the rights of some of its citizens, it tramples
upon the rights of others in the absence of a clear mandate
from the Supreme Court.
The Board has great faith in the citizens of this com
munity and shares the conviction of the court in Ililson v.
Washington County. USDC, M.D. Ga. (Jan. 28, 1970),
when it stated:
“ This is a nation of law abiding people. A\ hen we know
what the law is and that it is the law, faithful com
pliance can be fully expected from everyone.”
742a
Respectfully submitted this second day of February,
1970.
Plan for Desegregation of Schools
W illiam J. W aggoner
W einstein, W aggoner, Sturges,
Odom & B igger
1100 Barringer Office Tower
Charlotte, North Carolina
Benj. S. H orace
E rvin, H orace & McCartha
400 Law Building
Charlotte, North Carolina
Brock Barkley
Law Building
Charlotte. North Carolina
Attorneys for Defendant. Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Board of Education
743a
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF MECKLENBURG
I, WILLIAM C. SELF, do hereby certify that I am Superintendent
of Charlotte-Mecklenburg public schools and that the foregoing is a true
and complete copy of the plan of desegregation with official Board
comments duly adopted at a meeting of.the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board o
Education on the 31st day of January, 1970.
This the31st day of January, 1970.
William C. Self
Sworn to and subscribed before me
this 31st day of January, 1970.
Notary Public
My commission expires:_
137
Rt. search Report
January 31, 1970
The Chariotte-Mecklenburg Schools
DESEGREGATION PLAN for 1970-71
Elementary Schools
School
Base
1970-71
Capac i ty
+ 12% B
1969-
W
70 *
T %B B
Board
W
PI an
T %B
Add i t ional
Pupils to
T ransport
Albemarle Rd. 432 484 4 510 514 1% 4 469 473 1%
regulat ions
A11enbrook 540 605 61 452 513 12% 59 496 555 1 r/o
Ashley Park 621 696 27 574 601 4% 155 421 576 27%
Ba i n 702 786 33 735 768 4% 25 706 731 3%Barr i nger 486 544 843 16 859 98% 203 320 523 39% 197
Berryh i11 836 936 98 639 737 13% 24? 574 821 30% 274Beverly Woods 540 605 68 684 752 9% 8 648 656 1%B i11i nsgv il1e 594 665 596 0 596 100% 113 325 438 26% 259Bri arwood 540 605 6 680 686 1% 2 663 665 0%
Bruns Ave. 675 756 759 10 769 99% 624 73 697 90%
Chant illy 432 484 0 472 472 0% 142 303 445 32%
Clear Creek 324 363 48 229 277 17% 43 266 309 14%
Colli nswood 621 696 1 1 1 443 554 20% 224 448 672 33% 233Corneli us 459 514 181 235 416 44% 182 265 447 41%
Cotswold 540 605 23 537 560 4% 128 449 577 24% 193
Dav i dson 324 363 104 186 290 36% 102 174 276 32%Marie Davis 756 847 662 0 662 100% 666 82 748 88%Per i ta 783 877 150 678 828 18% 152 595 747 20%Pevonsh i re 648 726 0 903 903 0% 0 925 925 0%Di1 worth 648 726 90 317 407 22% 241 376 617 39%
Double Oaks 675 756 836 0 836 100% 825 3 828 100%Druid Hills 486 544 472 3 475 99% 465 20 485 96%Eastover 648 726 42 559 601 7% 157 478 635 25% 62E 1 i zabeth 405 454 314 125 439 72% 112 294 4o6 28%Enderly Park 513 575 3 371 374 1% 119 238 357 33%
* N >t including Special Educat ion in self-containec classes
138
live Charh. . to-Mecklenburg Schools
DESEGREGATION PLAN for 1970-71
Elementary Schools
School
1970-/1
Capaci ty
Base + i2% B
1969-70
W T %8
\
B
Board
W
PI an
T %B
Addi t ional
Pupils to
Transport
(By State
f i r s t 'lard 702 786 805 0 805 100% 7/0 7 777 39%
regulat ions)
Hickory Grove 659 516 70 533 603 12% 76 556 630 12% 20
:t i dden Val Icy 668 726 0 1 100 1100 0% 1 1077 1078 0%
! 11gh1 and 297 333 69 305 376 18% 76 237 313 26%
I'oski ns 297 333 13 212 225 6% 12*+ 219 363 36%
Hunlersvi11e 675 756 • 165 531 6/6 21% 130 556 686 19%
Hunt i ngtowne Farms 596 665 7 603 610 1% 3 616 617 0%
IdlewiId 56? 635 67 581 628 7% 59 569 608 10%
Irwin Avc. 292 0 292 100% k
Amoy James 378 623 662 3 665 99% 90 169 259 35%
Lakevi ew 378 623 366 89 635 80% 119 285 606 29% *+7
Lansdcwne 756 867 75 802 877 9% 79 719 798 10%
Li ncoln He i gh cs 6;-+8 726 711 0 711 100% 903 6 909 99%Long Crock 702 786 267 668 735 36% 259 523 782 33%
h-: l Loews 965 1058 86 802 888 10% 81 837 918 9%
Kerry 0,i k5 686 566 0 662 Mi 2 0% 0 557 557 0%
i ! i dwood 659 516 9 637 666 2% 116 601 517 23%.ontclai re 675 756 0 718 718 0% 1 781 782 0%
Myers Park 632 686 22 666 666 5% 150 316 666 32%
Nations Ford 621 6°6 63 669 712 6% 177 568 725 26% 153
Nawo11 596 665 76 638 512 16% 66 636 500 13%0 i kdale 560 605 69 517 586 12% 202 660 662 31%Oakhurst 596 665 5 616 621 1% 92 506 596 15% 105Oak i a’./n 596 665 586 0 586 100% 597 3 600 99%Otde Providence 560 605 80 512 592 16% 83 661 566 15%
‘̂ distributed to surround ng schc ol s
139
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
DESEGREGATION PLAN for 1970-71
“4
Elementary Schools
School
1970-71
Capacity
Base +12% B
1969-70
W T %B B
Board
W
PI an
T %8
Add i t ions
Pupils to
Transport
(By State
Park Road 540 605 44 548 592 7% 41 571 612 7% regulat ions)
Paw Creek 594 665 27 609 636 4% 83 602 685 12%
Paw Creek Annex 270 302 30 271 301 10%
P i nev i11e 486 544 136 356 492 28% 123 379 502 25%
P i newood 648 726 0 674 674 0% 0 900 900 0%
Plaza Road 459 514 80 340 420 19% 181 350 531 34%
Rama Road 648 726 1 815 816 0% 3 71(4 747 0%
Sedgef i eld 540 605 3 548 551 1% 223 364 587 38%
Selwyn 486 544 31 617 648 5% 32 459 491 7%
Shamrock Gardens 486 544 0 515 515 0% 84 496 580 15%
Sharon 459 514 72 361 433 17% 91 421 512 18%
Starmount 648 726 25 712 737 3% 67 833 900 7%
Statesvi1le Road 648 726 333 522 855 39% 160 553 713 23%
Steele Creek 378 423 5 509 514 1% 195 475 670 29% 86
Thomasboro 729 816 0 690 690 0% 135 777 912 15% 353
Tryon Hills 486 544 309 164 473 65% 200 342 542 37%
Tuckaseegee 540 605 58 578 636 97. 57 510 567 10% 30
Univers i ty Park 648 726 825 1 826 100% 735 132 867 85%
Villa Hei ghts 810 907 902 83 985 92% 877 170 1047 83%
'./esterl y Hills 405 454 46 539 585 8% 144 332 476 30% 156
V/i Imore 378 423 222 210 432 51% 153 250 403 38%
Windsor Park 648 726 1 748 749 0% 1 782 783 0%
Wi nterf i eld 648 726 48 688 736 7% 52 653 705 7% 140
Total 40,391 45,239 13,010 31,278 44,288 12,885 31,523 44,408 2,345
The Char lotto-Mecklenburg Schools
R e se a rc h Repor t
J.m iM ry jl, 19/0 DESEGREGATION PLAN for 1970-71
-a
Junior High Schools
School
1970
Capac
Base
71
ty
-■■■20% B
1969-70
W T %B B
Board Plan
W T %B
Add i t ions
Pupils to
Transport
(By State
Albemarle Road 398 1138 63 995 1058 5% 19 753 772 2%
regulat ions)
A1 exander 879 1099 328 761 1089 30% 303 698 1001 30%
Cochrane 1190 1928 72 1599 1616 5% 571 1150 1721 33% 539
Coulwood 709 895 101 770 871 12% 313 551 869 36% 220
Eas tway 1093 1312 61 1356 1917 9% 375 971 1396 28%
Alexander Graham 996 1199 • 101 1028 1 129 8% 261 888 1199 23%
Hawthorne 850 910 550 972 1022 59% 276 709 980 28%
Kennedy 801 961 302 9 811 99% 325 510 835 39%
HeCli ntock 923 1 100 89 1288 1372 6% 25 1098 1073 2%
Horthwest 1068 1282 1032 1 1033 296 675 971 30%
PIedmont 631 757 908 55 963 89% 758 89 892 90%
Qua i1 Hollow 1238 1986 129 1921 1550 9% 138 1199 1282 11%
Randolph 972 1170 279 710 989 28% 307 683 990 31% 59
Panson 851 1021 296 598 799 31% 295 558 853 35%
Sedgefield 777 930 167 809 976 17% 239 612 896 28%
Smi th 1093 1312 51 1936 1987 9% 330 957 1287 26% 900
Spaugh 826 1091 262 839 1101 29% 396 752 1098 32%
Williams 801 967 1081 0 1081 100% 336 722 1058 32%
V/ i 1 son 1099 1253 60 1195 1205 5% 396 795 1191 30% 169
Carmel 558 670 • 2 555 557 0%
J. H. Gunn (Wi Igrovi ) 558 670 99 970 519 9%
Total 18,796 22,596 5,877 15,187 21,069 5,905 15,280 21,185 1,377
141
Research Report
January 31, 1970
The Charlotto-Mecklenburg Schools
DESEGREGATION PLAN for 1970-71
Senior H igh Schools
School 1970-71
Capoc i ty
Base +20/6 B
1969-70
W T VS B
Board Plan
W T %B
Add i t ions
Pupils to
T ransport
(By State
East Mecklenburg T700 2040 215 1925 2140 10% 360 1716 2076 17 %
regu1 at ions
Gar i nger 1874 2249 492 2148 2640 ' 18% 721 1914 2635 27% 78Hard i ng 1202 11+42 612 720 1332 45% 395 692 1087 36%
1ndependence 10/f 7 1256 101 1 111 1212 9% 23 1241 1264 2%
Myers Park 1679 2015 224 1767 1991 12% 426 1883 2309 18%
North Mecklenburg 1158 1390 446 1185 1631 28% 440 998 1438 31%01ymp i c 807 968 ' 351 512 863 41% 201 687 888 23%South Mecklenburg 1523 1828 90 2024 2114 5% ' 482 1846 2328 21% 600
V/est Charlotte 1593 1912 1641 0 1641 1 00% 597 1045 1642 36% 53West Mecklenburg 1371* 161(9 141 1444 1585 9% 494 998 1492 33% 198
Total 13,957 16,749 4,313 12,836 17,149 4,139 3,020 17,159 1 ,202
749a
Transcript of February 2 and 5, 1970 Proceedings
(Excerpts)
[43] # * *
W illiam C. Self, a witness for the defendant, having
first been duly sworn, was examined and testified as fol
lows :
Direct Examination by Mr. Waggoner:
Q. State your name and official position, please, sir. A.
William C. Self, Superintendent, Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Schools.
Q. Dr. Self, with reference to the plan for desegregation
submitted on behalf of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board
of Education, would you briefly review the circumstances
leading to the adoption of this plan? A. The Board of
Education was ordered to come up with a plan for desegre
gation. They employed the services of Systems Analysis,
Inc., instructed this firm to use the technique of restruc
turing attendance lines with the express purpose of achiev
ing a racial balance in schools.
Q. Did Systems Associates, Inc., submit to you a report
of their efforts? A. Yes, they did.
Q. Is that attached to and forms a part of the plan for
desegregation that was submitted to the Court? [44] A. I
believe it was.
Q. I direct your attention to the document attached to
the plan for desegregation entitled A plan for Student De
segregation by Systems Associates, Inc., and ask you, if
you will, to briefly review the contents of this document for
the benefit of the Court.
Mr. Chambers: I object. I think that document
would speak for itself.
750a
Court: Well, if the answer is brief enough, I ’ll
overrule the objection. I assume he’s asking for a
brief summary of what it does or says.
A. The document contains several sections. The first one
is entitled Scope and in that section the author of the docu
ment sets forth the objectives of the study, the three func
tions of the computer program, the computational rules that
were employed, the criteria for selecting the various grade
combinations. Section 2 consists of a set of recommenda
tions. The great majority of those has to do with how we
might improve our present system of pupils census opera
tion. The third section consists of a section entitled Statis
tics, and in this section the statistics have to do with what
the study was able to accomplish in the way of desegregat
ing the various schools. They are shown by elementary
schools, junior high schools and senior high schools. The
Fourth section is the largest part of the document. In this
section are attached [45] the maps of all of the attendance
areas of the schools. The fifth section and the last is simply
an account by the firm as to the chronology of events that
took place.
Q. Dr. Self, with reference to the scope of the computer
assisted approach to restructuring grid lines, would you
briefly describe what was involved in this approach? A.
Well, using pupil census data and computer programming
techniques, the firm attempted to achieve a racial balance
under the guilding principles that they would try to get as
nearly as possible a 70-30 white to black rati£> in every
school, that they would attempt to preserve the compact or
contiguous neighborhood school attendance area and would
attempt to find a student body that would neither over
crowd nor underpopulate the school building.
William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct
751a
Q. Could you briefly describe the method of computation
that was used? A. The rules which governed the computa
tion are listed on Page 3 of the document. The first one
states that a combination of grids which is considered ac
ceptable must contain only grids contig-uous to one another
on at least one full side, contain only grids contiguous to
one another and at least must be contiguous on one full
side to the grids in which the school is located and not con
tain the home grid of another school of a type similar to
the one for which the computations are being made. The
second rule had to do with the [46] capacity. Any combina
tion containing a number of students whose total was less
than 80% or more than 100% of the school’s rated capacity
is not considered acceptable in the initial computation.
Court: Mr. Waggoner, I don’t want to interrupt
you if this is pertinent, but all this is on the record
in the previous evidence in this case filed last October
and November and December.
Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, this plan does
differ in some slight . . .
Court: Don’t you remember that you put it in the
record?
Mr. Waggoner: Yes, sir, I remember I put it in
the record for our other plans, but this present plan
does differ and the results do differ somewhat from
what was previously submitted.
Mr. Chambers: I have further objection that this
document that Dr. Self is discussing is already in
evidence and we can read that. Our objection is to
the whole proceeding. It’s just a further delaying
tactic on the part of the School Board.
Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, this is not a
delaying tactic.
William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct
752a
Court: I ’ll overrule the objection so proceed, but
try not to duplicate stuff already introduced. This
has been [47] before the Court four months.
Mr. Waggoner: All right.
Q. Continue, Dr. Self. A. I think I had completed the
answer to your question.
Mr. Waggoner: I’d like for these to be marked as
Defendant’s Exhibit #3.
Court: If you have any other exhibits, get them
marked now so we can proceed with them, or are they
already marked?
Mr. Waggoner: One moment, Your Honor.
Court: The rolled up maps are just like the folded
maps?
Mr. Waggoner: The rolled up will spread out
smoothly.
Q. Dr. Self, I hand to you Defendant’s Exhibit # 3 and
ask you if you can identify it. A. This is the computer
printout on Midwood Elementary School.
Q. What do the various columns represent on this print
out ? A. The first two columns represent the racial break
down in the school. The next column is a column entitled
Cell Difference which is really a term that has to do with
the compactness of the grid. The next columns have to do
with the number of pupils, total black and white. The next
column has to do with the capacity and the last columns
are headed Cells Used and in these columns are listed the
various grid combinations that can be used to make up the
attendance area of the school.
[48] Q. All right, sir. I direct your attention to the last
William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct
753a
page of that document and ask if you can tell the Court
the number of combinations that were printed out for that
particular school. A. The words at the bottom of the
printout are “Number of records read 320, number of rec
ords printed 320.”
Q. I next hand you another exhibit entitled Defendant’s
Exhibit # 4 and ask you if this relates to another school.
A. This relates to the Bruns Avenue Elementary School.
Q. I direct your attention to the last page as to the
number of records read and records printed. A. The num
ber of records read 1065, number of records printed 1065.
Q. Dr. Self, does that represent the total number of
combinations the computer tried for the various schools
to reach a grid configuration? A. Yes, it does.
Mr. Stein: Your Honor, could we have a descrip
tion of these exhibits so we could have a list to know
what he’s talking about. Perhaps he could call off
the exhibits he has marked and give us descriptions.
Court: Well, have you got copies of what he’s
talking about?
Mr. Waggoner: No, sir, these are the only copies.
They are on rolls, tremendous sheets.
[49] Court: This hearing was called at the request
of the defendant on short notice and it wasn’t sched
uled until last night after we found out everybody
could be here and we may get along faster if you
all come up here and look over his shoulder, which
is a bit unusual. Dr. Self, if you’d like to get down
here to the Clerk’s desk so that everything you’re
displaying can be seen by all counsel, just stand
there or sit, as the case may be. It may help every
body.
William C. Self-—for Defendant—Direct
754a
Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, I don’t plan
to go into specifics. I ’m just submitting these as ex
amples of the nature of the work of the computer.
Court: Let me ask a question. Did the computer
decide what line to draw for Midwood School or did
people have to do that after looking at the printouts f
A. No, sir. A human factor entered the picture at this
point. From all of the various grid combinations that were
listed one was chosen and that combination was drawn on
the map which is part of the court record.
Court: So the maps you’ve got are people plans
instead of computer plans.
A. Well, the person actually made a choice from among
the grid combinations but it wasn’t a random choice. There
were some criteria which were used in that selection and
the criteria are listed on Page 5 of the report. There is
also an example [50] given of how that selection was made
which uses the Lakeview Elementary School and that be
gins on Page 7 and lasts through Page 10.
Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, we’d just like to
know right now what is Exhibit 1 and 2, the plan
the Board filed!
Court: Exhibit 1 is the minority opinion or state
ment made by Mrs. Mauldin and Rev. Kerry. I ’m
not sure that these are identical, but anyhow, #1
is Mr. Kerry’s dissenting opinion. # 2 is the combi
nation plan and brief of the School Board that was
filed the other day. Do you have copies of those!
Mr. Chambers: We have copies of those. I guess
# 3 is one of these documents.
William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct
755a
Mr. Waggoner: Yes.
Court: Midwood computer data.
Mr. Waggoner: Those two as samples of the nature
of the work performed by the computer and our next
develops how it was used.
Court: Mr. Waggoner, if this is for my informa
tion, this has been exhaustively developed already
in your previous testimony and I see no reason to
go ahead with it.
Mr. Waggoner: This information has not been
before [51] the Court prior to this time.
Court: I am aware that there are various pieces
of information that may not be but if your purpose
is to show the function of the computer, I think it’s
already been shown. It produces possible plans and
then the people who draw the plan take the computer
information and use it as a starting point to draw
a plan. Now and then I suppose it would produce
something you could just print and use. Does this
help in any decision I have to make!
Mr. Waggoner: It would show an Appellate Court
the great extremes we went to in trying to seek all
the alternatives to redistrict the zones in this system.
Court: How much longer are you going to spend
on this computer!
Mr. Waggoner: Not very long, Your Honor. We
propose moving to the maps quickly.
Court: All right. If you promise not to take long,
I will instruct Mr. Chambers not to object but give
him an objection to all the rest of the testimony.
Q. Dr. Self, will you describe to the Court the manner in
which the [52] printouts of the computer information as
William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct
756a
appears on Exhibits 3 and 4 was utilized in preparing the
maps that we will introduce later? A. Prom the various
alternative grid selections one was selected in accordance
with the criteria on Page 5 of the firm’s report and the
one that was selected was drawn on the map. At that point
you go to the next school, print it out, make your selection
of it, put it on the map. You determine whether or not there
is a conflict between the attendance line of the second school
and the attendance line of the first school. If there is, you
attempt to resolve it and move on to another school. In that
way you build the attendance lines of all of your schools
in the district.
Q. So you took this information and then physically and
manually plotted on the map the grid zones or school zones
that are on the maps, is this correct? A. The actual selec
tion of the grid combination was done by the consulting
firm. The lines were put on the map by the firm. Our staff
was involved in terms of reviewing this work and offering
suggestions for modification.
Q. Dr. Self, were you submitted any statistics with refer
ences to the restructured lines that were proposed by Sys
tems Associates? A. Yes. The statistics are a part of the
report.
Q. Did your school staff participate in drawing the school
lines [53] which appear on the maps? A. The school lines,
we looked at what the consultant had done. We offered
suggestions for revision or modification. We actually in
volved the principals of the schools in this examination and
permitted them an opportunity to offer suggestions.
Q. Cotdd you give us several examples of suggestions
that would be made with reference not to particular lines
but just generally? A. One suggestion that came in rather
frequently from principals was you have altered my line
and you’ve put some children out of my school and taken
in some others, yet both of these groups of children are of
William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct
757a
the same race so what do you profit by altering the line.
Of course, in this case it was a valid point and on the
basis of that the line could be restored to its original pur
pose. There were some cases where principals made sug
gestions conforming to natural boundary-type reasoning
which were rejected because to accept them would have
upset the racial balance achieved under using the grid
pattern.
Q. All right, sir. Did the transportation or access to the
school form any factors in the development of these school
lines ? A. It did not, not up to this point. I would say that
there is probably some additional work that needs to be
done on these lines [543 and that accessibility, blocked off
sections of the community, things like that would have to
be considered. I do believe that the consultant says that
this adaptation can probably be accomplished and not
change the statistical data by more than 2%.
Mr. Chambers: May I ask for a clarification and
have Dr. Self define which consultant he’s talking
about.
Court: He’s talking about Mr. Weil.
A. The consultant employed by the Board of Education,
yes, sir.
Q. Dr. Self, based on this technique of restructuring
attendance lines, could you give us comparisons between
the 1969-70 school populations and those for the projected
1970-71 school year? A. I think to show that comparison,
Mr. Waggoner, you would use the summary of the results
page which is Page #23 of the report. Without going
through elementary, junior and senior high schools, if you
William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct
758a
look at the total at the bottom of the page, you can see the
comparison of the two years in terms of the number of
students and also by the number of schools that would be
involved. The figures are listed by the percent of black
pupils that would be in the schools. For example, using
the percent black, let’s say 16 to 41, these are schools in
which the student population ranges from 16 to 41%. The
number of black pupils in 69-70 is 15,852. Using the re
structured attendance line technique, that number is tripled,
[55] overtripled to 49,748.
Q. Dr. Self, I direct your attention to Page 25 and ask if
you can indicate the percentage of students that would be
in schools having a black student population ranging be
tween 16% and 41%. A. That data would be at the bottom
of the page. The percent of black students in that particular
category would be 61.4.
Q. Dr. Self, are there any schools in this system which
do not have white students that will be assigned to them!
A. Examining pages 26, 27—I believe that there are three.
I think you would find this fact by looking down the column
entitled Black Students and if there were a zero in that
column this would indicate that was a school which fell in
the category you were trying to identify.
Q. This is all white you’re talking about? A. That’s
right, sir. The three schools are Devonshire, Merry Oaks
and Pinewood, I believe.
Q. Are there any black schools at which there are no
white students? A. To answer that question you would
move over to the column entitled white students and see if
you found any zeros, and there are none.
Q. So there are no all black schools in the full sense of
the term, is this correct? [56] A. According to these statis
tics and that assignment pattern, yes, sir.
William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct
759a
Court: Have you got a copy of the report of the
School Board describing the population of various
schools under the proposed Board plan!
Mr. Waggoner: Yes, sir, we do.
Court: I thought I had one here but I don’t seem
to find it.
Mr. Stein: Your Honor, could we make an inquiry
at this point! Mr. Waggoner began his questioning
by going through the history of the process of the
development of the plan and we’d like to know
whether what he’s talking about now are statistics
relating to the plan submitted to the Court or
whether they are statistics relating to proposals by
Weil at some intermediate stage.
Court: What are you reading from, Dr. Self!
A. From the report.
Court: You’re reading from Mr. Weil’s informa
tion.
A. That’s true.
Court: Let’s get away from that and get to what
you submitted to the Court.
A. If I might offer . . .
Court: Is that identical with the information sheet
that was filed as a part of the proposed plan of the
[57] Board?
A. There is one exception, if I’m not mistaken. The Weil
plan presumes to continue the Erwin Avenue Elementary
William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct
760a
School. Under the plan which the Board of Education sub
mitted this school was closed. If there is variance in terms
of the data submitted under the Weil plan and that sup
portive data sheet which is part of the Board’s report, it’s
because Mr. Weil was working with pupil census data from
October 1 and this has been updated to January 21 in the
Board’s report.
Mr. Chambers: Sir, I ’d like to make one further
inquiry. I understand Dr. Self is talking about three
all white schools and getting his percentages from
Pages 26 and 27.
A. I was not using percentages, Mr. Chambers, I was using
numbers of pupils.
Mr. Chambers: May I make one further inquiry?
Which column were you reading from, the last col
umns on Pages 26 and 27 ?
A. No, sir, the last line is percent. My information came
from the third column which is entitled black students.
Mr. Stein: Your Honor, at this point we would
suggest at this point if we go through statistics re
lating to October and then statistics relating to Jan
uary, the Board could keep us here for two or three
weeks and we think we have passed the stage where
we have that [58] kind of time.
Court: Well, I ’ve given an indication at the outset
as to the amount of time that I can devote to this,
so, Mr. Waggoner, you be guided as to how you spend
the time.
William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct
761a
Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, the purpose
we have is to develop our evidence as fully as we
can and we will try to do it in the shortest time
possible. We feel we must present our case in our
own manner and this is what we propose doing and
I am moving as quickly as I can. Now, with reference
to the question Mr. Chambers asked, there is no
substantial difference between the Weil statistics,
the summaries, and those that the Board has sub
mitted. Is this correct, Dr. Self?
A. That’s correct.
Court: Well, I have studied the information sub
mitted by the Board and have not studied the Weil
information to know in what way it varies. I had
not intended to go back and study the Weil figures
in detail.
Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, I am merely
pointing out some broad categories. I haven’t gotten
into specifics except in the predominant figure of 16
to 41%.
[59] Court: Let me ask a question. Are there
any schools with a black population of between 41
and 84% ? Are there black schools either under 41 or
over 83% ?
Mr. Waggoner: Yes, sir, 84% is the minimum per
centage in the all black schools.
Court: So you’ve got schools which run up to
41% black and a majority of white and then you have
no schools with a black population anywhere between
41 and 84.
Mr. Waggoner: That’s correct.
William C. Self—for Defendant-—Direct
762a
Court: So any reference to a collection of schools
from 42 to 100% really means 84 to 100%, doesn’t
it!
Mr. Waggoner: That is correct and it is so clearly
set out in the Weil report.
Q. Dr. Self, will you name the all black schools that will
remain in that range of 84% and 100%! A. The elemen
tary schools are Bruns, Marie Davis, Double Oaks, Druid
Hills, First Ward, Lincoln Heights, Oaklawn, University
Park, Villa Heights.
Q. Erwin Avenue has been closed, is this correct! A.
That’s correct.
Q. I understand there are certain schools that were pre
dominantly black or are now predominantly black that will
not be predominantly black under the projected figures. I
direct your attention to Page 29. [60] Would you name
those schools! A. The schools that were predominantly
black in 69-70 or at this particular time and would not be
predominantly black next year under the Board’s plan are
Barringer, Billingsville, Elizabeth, Amay James, Lakeview,
Tryon Hills.
Q. Each of the schools you just named will have less
than 41% black, is that correct! A. That’s correct.
Q. Now, with reference to the elementary schools with
99 to 100% white population, which ones have been removed
from that category under your projected figure! A.
Those schools are Chantilly, Enderly Park, Oakhurst,
Sedgefield, Shamrock Gardens, Steel Creek and Thomas-
boro.
Q. Dr. Self, I direct your attention to Page 31 and ask
you to tell me those junior high schools which it is pro
jected will have less than 15% black student population.
A. One of those would be Albemarle Road with 2% black;
William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct
763a
McClintock with 2% ; Carmel Road with 0% and J. H. Gunn
with 9%.
Q. I direct your attention to Quail Hollow. A. I beg
your pardon, Quail Hollow would have 11%.
Q. Dr. Self, with reference to the high schools would you
tell us the percentage of black students that it’s projected
would be attending those schools? A. West would be 33% ;
Olympic 23; Harding 36; West Charlotte 36; [61] South
Mecklenburg 21; Myers Park 18; Garringer 27; East 17;
Independence 2; North Mecklenburg 31.
Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, can we take
a short recess to get the maps on the board?
Court: They won’t go on the board. Why don’t
you lay them on the floor. That’s what I do with
them so I can see them. Let’s take a recess until
11:00 o’clock so these maps can be straightened out.
Be ready to go again at 11:00.
Short Recess
Q. Dr. Self, will you come down to the maps which are on
the board which represent the Board maps that were sub
mitted in connection with this plan for desegregation and
I ask you to identify the first map that you see there. A.
The first map is a map of the attendance areas of the
elementary schools.
Q. Dr. Self, with reference to the lines that appear on
that map, can you describe those lines for us? A. There
are two sets of lines. First there is a dotted blue line which
represents the attendance area as it exists at the present
time. There are solid lines superimposed over those which
represent the line as drawn by Systems Associates study.
Q. All right, sir. I direct your attention to the outlying
or so-called county elementary schools and ask you if there
William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct
764a
lias been any substantial differences in the configuration of
those [62] attendance lines. A. No substantial change in
those.
Q. Where has the substantial change taken place? A.
For the most part I think in the schools under this par
ticular belt which would be the northwest to west to south
west section. There are some rather drastic changes
through here. In other words, I guess you would call it the
suburban area of the city.
Q. In what would be normally regarded as the city limits
but the outer perimeter of that, is that correct! A. That’s
right.
Q. Dr. Self, applying the technique used in drawing those
lines could you illustrate how one district may have been
formed? A. Well, I think perhaps the best way to do that
would be to trace the dotted line to show how it exists now
and then to point out the grid line as it would be recom
mended. This is Nations Ford. The old attendance line
comes down Highway 49, follows the branch here, comes
out through the countryside, heads north again, again to
open countryside for the most part, picks up with . . . I was
wrong on this, that’s South Blvd. This is Highway 49 and
York Road . . . and uses the new north-south expressway
at this point and goes cross country to join the line again.
The new Nations Ford Road you can see is straight lines
like this, following the general configuration of the old
line in this section but departing from C63] it rather radi
cally here to reach up into and take a part of what was the
Amay James attendance area so as to bring the black stu
dent population up in Nations Ford.
Q. That is a rather long elementary district, is it not?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. All right, sir. I direct your attention to the Marie
Davis attendance district. A. Right here.
William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct
765a
Q. Do yon know what the racial population of that school
will be approximately? A. Marie Davis is one of the
schools we listed as predominantly black.
Q. What efforts were made to desegregate that school?
A. Well, the same stipulation governed the attempt to
change the Marie Davis line as did here. The difficulty is
that as you move out from Marie Davis you get into a heavy
student population and you have very soon rounded up
enough pupils to fill your building to capacity. The net ef
fect of the move is to leave the school as predominantly
black.
Q. Do the surrounding schools to the attendance lines of
Marie Davis have a substantial degree of desegregation?
A. Yes. The neighboring school to Marie Davis is Bar
ringer. That is one of the schools that I indicated would be
changed from an all or predominantly black school to an
approximately 70-30 ratio this next year.
[64] Q. With reference to the Barringer School where
does its new attendance line extend generally? A. Well,
it actually moves up into what is presently the Ashley
Park area, crosses Wilkinson Blvd. to pick up a comple
ment of white children. It excludes a section of black
children in this particular section. The effect is to move
black youngsters out and incorporate a group of white
youngsters to get the racial balance in Barringer.
Q. Does it remove some of the students who live in the
Barringer Woods subdivision or Bollingwood section? A.
I ’m sorry, I ’m not that familiar with the section.
Q. Now, as I understand, this map does leave a sub
stantial or some black schools in it in the so-called inner-
city which lies generally northwest of Tryon Street, is
that correct? A. That’s correct.
Q. What efforts were made to desegregate those schools?
William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct
766a
A, We looked at other possibilities. We thought in terms
at one time of pairing or clustering arrangement with
Marie Davis hut to have done that would have upset the
surrounding schools. The schools that are up in this par
ticular section could not be desegregated through re
structuring attendance lines.
Q. I direct your attention to Billingsville. What efforts
were made to desegregate that school? A. Billingsville
is desegregated by using restructured attendance [65]
lines.
Q. I next direct your attention to the next map which
I understand is the junior high attendance map. As I
understand this map, many of the outlying junior high
schools were not affected substantially by the desegrega
tion on this map, is that correct? A. Well, I think the
same condition prevailed with the junior high schools in
the outer region of the county. For example, veiy little
was done in terms of the Alexander Junior High School
attendance lines. It is already desegregated.
Q. All right, sir. With reference to Northwest Junior
High, what efforts were made to desegregate this school?
A. We draw the attendance line and through that technique
and through projecting the attendance lines out in a
westerly direction, Northwest can be desegregated.
Q. I ask you about Williams Junior High. A. The same
technique was employed except this time the direction was
in the easterly direction.
Q. With reference to Cochran. A. The Cochran area
was actually reduced a bit and the area extended in to
pick up black students to get the black student complement
for Cochran.
Q. I next direct your attention to the map called the
senior high map under the Board of Education plan and
William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct
767a
again ask you about the outlying or so-called county
schools. [636 A. Well, the attendance lines at the senior
high school level were affected by our attempts to desegre
gate West Charlotte.
Q. Could you say this is the beginning point in trying
to formulate a desegregation of the senior high school
system? A. I think that would be a true statement.
Q. Would you describe the former West Charlotte at
tendance area? A. The former West Charlotte attendance
area is very compact, one located around the school itself.
The northern boundary is Interstate 85, the southern or
southwestern boundary is West Trade, for the most part
the boundary on the east is Graham Street.
Q. What did the resulting attendance lines, what area
did it encompass that it didn’t formerly encompass? A.
The major change, of course, was to extend the West
Charlotte area westerly for this block of students and into
an easterly direction for this block of students.
Q. That line extends to the Cabarrus County line, does
it not? A. It does.
Q. I direct your attention to Harding. What efforts were
made to reduce the black population for that school? A.
Efforts were made to extend the surrounding school dis
tricts by Harding School in such a way as to pick up black
students and bring the black ratio up in the surrounding
schools and reduce it at Harding.
Q. I direct your attention to South Mecklenburg. Would
you [67] describe the former attendance area there? A.
The former attendance area produces some desegregation
in South Mecklenburg by penetrating up into a section of
the inner city. The revised attendance area does the same
thing except branches out in to pick up more black students.
Q. I next direct your attention to East Mecklenburg.
William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct
768a
Describe the present attendance line. A. The East Meck
lenburg attendance lines, of course, start at the county.
There is a section which is pie-shaped which accommodates
East Mecklenburg at the present time, one of the bound
aries being Central Avenue, Lawyers Eoad and out U. S.
74, and the other boundary being Randolph and Providence
and going to the county line.
Q. What efforts were made to desegregate that school?
A. The same technique as we used on South Mecklenburg,
extend the area up into the city to bring in more black
students.
Q. You may return to the stand. (The witness does so.)
Dr. Self, I understand the Board plan contemplates pro
viding transportation as permitted by state law. Under
these revised attendance lines would there by any addi
tional students transported? A. The Board’s provision is
correct as you stated it. We do not intend to extend the
transportation system beyond its present limits. However,
in Board deliberations it has been acknowledged that a
hardship probably would be placed on some [683 students
and for these students we would need to come back and
make some sort of provisions for transportation. Our
handicap, of course, in this is we must secure the funds
with which to act.
Q. Now, I believe in the press of time you have requested
Mr. J. D. Morgan to familiarize himself with the trans
portation information, is this correct? A. This is correct.
Q. Dr. Self, are you familiar with the Finger plan for
desegregation of the schools? A. Yes, I am.
Q. Could you use the maps we now have to briefly de
scribe the difference between his plan and the plan that
the Board has submitted? A. Yes, sir.
William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct
769a
Q. With reference to the high schools, describe in what
way differently he treats the assignment of students.
A. Well, looking at the high school map and at the figures
which are a part of the Weil document, the thing that
concerned Dr. Finger was the 2% black enrollment at
Independence. He instructed our staff to try to modify
the lines in such a way as to correct this factor. The way
to do that is to designate a section of the inner city as a
satellite district for Independence and bus those children
to Independence High School.
[69] Q. Do you know generally where the area is that
would be used as a satellite district? A. It is in the inner
city section and I believe it’s shown in color on the maps
which Dr. Finger submitted.
Q. With reference to the junior high plan, how does
his differ from the Board’s plan? A. His concern with
the junior high plans was the high percentage of black at
Piedmont and the correspondingly low percentage of white
in the schools that I named earlier, Albemarle Road, Mc-
Clintock, Quail Hollow, Carmel Road and J. H. Gunn, and
he instructed our staff to attempt to redraw the lines in
such a way as to rectify this condition. Again, through the
use of satellite districts we were able to do this. It enabled
us to redraw an attendance area around Piedmont and also
to set up some satellite districts for those predominantly
white junior high schools that I named.
Q. Under this junior high plan would it be basically bus
ing the blacks out of the Piedmont district or cross-busing?
A. Cross-busing if you think in terms of a system because
the elongated junior high school district for Northwest
and Williams would certainly require that white pupils
be bused into them. Also the same would be the case for
William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct
770a
Kennedy Junior High School. The black youngsters would
be bused out to the predominantly white schools.
Q. All right, sir. Now, with reference to the elementary
how [70] does his plan differ basically from that of the
Board? A. Again, starting with the plan and examining
it, Dr. Finger notes, of course, there were some all black
schools and some all or predominantly white schools re
maining.
Q. Let me ask you this, did he basically utilize the
Board’s restructured lines in these three systems to formu
late his plan? A. I think it would be fair to say that Dr.
Finger had access to these maps. He also thought that, at
least he seemed to think that restructuring attendance lines
was a legitimate approach to achieving desegregation.
Mr. Chambers: Objection.
Court: Why don’t you confine yourself to your
own opinions, Dr. Self, and observations instead of
seeking to testify for him. That’s the basis of the
objection.
A. All right, sir.
Q. Now, with reference to the elementary plan, how does
his plan differ from that of the Board of Education? A.
It uses pairing for the schools that are all black and those
that are all or predominantly white.
Q. Now, could you come down again to the elementary
map and briefly describe the white schools he would pro-
pose pairing and the black schools he would propose pair
ing. (The witness does so.)
[71] Court: Have you got a list of those schools?
A. Yes, sir. They are a part of Dr. Finger’s plan.
William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct
771a
Court: That’s what I was going to hand you if
you wanted it. Go ahead.
A. The black schools that we mentioned earlier as being
Bruns Avenue, Marie Davis, Double Oaks, Druid Hills,
First Ward, Lincoln Heights, Oaklawn, Tryon Hills, Uni
versity Park and Villa Heights, and they are found in this
particular section. The white schools or predominantly
white are Huntingtown Farms, Sharon, Starmount, Park
Road, Pinewood, Briarwood, Devonshire, Hidden Valley,
Beverely Woods, Lansdowne, Old Providence, Albemarle
Road, Idlewild, Merry Oaks, Allenbrook, Paw Creek, Paw
Creek annex as a part of Paw Creek, Tuckaseegee, Hickory
Grove, Montclaire, Rama Road, Selwyn, Windsor Park
and Winterfield.
Q. All right, sir. Would you basically describe how he
would effect his pairing? A. The pairing plan assumes
that the white schools that were named would become
schools in which grades 1 through 4 are housed. The 5th
and 6th grade youngsters would be taken out of those
schools. The black schools would become schools in which
grades 5 and 6 are housed. The 5th and 6th grade young
sters from the white neighborhood would be bused into
the 5th and 6th grade schools in the inner city and at the
same time the 1st through 4th grade black youngsters would
be [72] bused into the white schools I named.
Q. Generally what is the size of a pairing group that he
would propose here? A. It ranges in terms of the capacity
of the schools but by and large it would be pairing a black
school with either two or three whites. (The witness re
turns to the witness stand.)
Q. Dr. Self, with reference to the pairing plan proposed
William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct
772a
by Dr. Finger, bow does his plan propose getting the stu
dents to the schools? A. I believe that Dr. Finger recom
mends that children beyond a mile and a half distance from
the school be transported.
Q. Do you know how many total students this would in
volve? A. You can come to a very rough approximation.
Again, I think this figure could be polished, if you care to,
in Mr. Morgan’s testimony. The black inner city schools
number approximately 7000 youngsters. If you assume you
want a 70% white ratio in there, you must also assume
that you’re going to move 70% of the youngsters who are
there. That would be approximately 5000 youngsters. If
there are 5000 youngsters who are moved out of these
schools, then 5000 white are moved in to replace them.
This gives you a rough approximation of 10,000 youngsters
involved in the paired schools.
Q. Is there additional busing that his plan contemplates?
A. In the satellite districts of the junior and senior high
schools, yes.
[73] Q. Dr. Self, do you as an educator have any prefer
ence with reference to Dr. Finger’s plan or to the plan
submitted to the Board?
Mr. Chambers: Objection.
Court: Well, answer the question if you can from
the standpoint of the educational desirability of the
two plans as to the three different levels of schools
educationally and administratively, I suppose. You’re
asking both of those rather than personal opinion.
Mr. Waggoner: Yes, sir.
Court: Go ahead.
A. As far as the secondary schools are concerned—
Court: What do you mean secondary?
William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct
773a
A. Junior and senior high schools. I think I could support
the idea of using the elongated districts and, if necessary,
the busing arrangement to achieve the racial balance in
the secondary schools. I think that there is a basis for
Dr. Finger’s work in that area. In the elementary schools
your question forces me to make a value judgment against
the relative worth of the neighborhood school as against
the benefits of the desegregated classroom. I think I have
testified in this hearing before that I do think that there
are values of a desegregated classroom. You’re in a quandry
as to whether or not the steps that would be necessary to
achieve Dr. Finger’s plan would be so traumatic that what
you were [743 hoping would happen in a desegregated
classroom would be beyond the realm of possibility. In
other words, if people would be so upset this would never
occur.
Court: You’re talking now about whether people
like it or not, aren’t you?
A. I ’m talking about whether the system can adapt to that
drastic a change, whether teachers can be—
Court: Let’s confine ourselves not to whether we
like what the law requires but to the educational
questions involved.
Mr. Waggoner: Can we get his testimony in the
record?
Court: I don’t think it’s pertinent and I told you
Monday that we’re not holding a popularity hearing
on this question, and I’m not going to do it today.
Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, what he is
stating is that the opinion of children and parents
can so affect the educational system that the bene-
William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct
774a
Colloquy
fits to be derived from desegregation can be sub
merged because of lack of popular support or ac
ceptance.
Court: The Court is not going to entertain evi
dence on whether these things are popular or not.
There is ample evidence of the unpopularity of the
constitution in Mecklenburg County and I don’t need
expert opinion on that subject.
Mr. Waggoner: We would like to tender his an
swer.
[75] Court: I think his answer is adequately on
the record.
Mr. Waggoner: May we tender his answer!
Court: Oh, yes, you may supply it later.
Mr. Waggoner: May he finish his answer that he
was on, Your Honor!
Court: No, sir. I overruled the objection. You
may supply the answer later for the record.
Mr. Waggoner: At the conclusion of his testimony!
Court: Any time you like.
Mr. Waggoner: May we do it now!
Court: I have instructed you not to call for any
more evidence on the question of whether the people
of Mecklenburg County like or don’t like what the
law requires. Now, if he wants to supply the an
swer to the Reporter privately, all right. I ’m in
structing you, Mr. Waggoner, not to proceed any
further with comment on what people like or don’t
like about the law of the land.
Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, we are not
proceeding on what the people like or don’t like about
the law of the land. What we are proceeding on is
in the area of education, the benefits. I think this is
775a
something to be taken into account. If an educator
says that the acceptance—
[76] Court: You may supply the answer after
this witness has testified, Mr. Waggoner, but I don’t
want to hear any more on this subject.
Q. Dr. Self, the Court has expressed interest in the
amount of time that would be required to implement a plan
for desegregation this spring, have you given any thought
and study to this? A. Yes, we have, Mr. Waggoner. The
staff has attempted to devise what we call a planning net
work which would list the various events and activities that
must unfold if the Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools are de
segregated.
Q. Do you have a chart prepared indicating the steps
that must be accomplished in the order! A. Ido.
Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, we would like
for the witness to be permitted to use this rather
long chart to illustrate the testimony. It’s not large
enough for everyone to see and perhaps if the wit
ness could move close to the Court, he could describe
what he’s talking about.
Court: Go ahead. I think I can follow all right.
Mr. Chambers: May we see a copy of what we’re
talking about now!
Court: Do you have only one copy of this?
Mr. Waggoner: We have only one copy. v
[77] Mr. Chambers: We’d like to note another ob
jection for the record. Mr. Waggoner, we submit,
persists in trying to make this a popularity showing.
We think that if he has pertinent evidence about
the time schedule needed to desegregate that that
William C. Self—for Defendant-—Direct
776a
Colloquy
might be of some interest to the Court. But we sub
mit that that, too, has been foreclosed in the decisions
of the Fourth Circuit and the decisions of the Su
preme Court. The courts explicitly held what the
obligations of the School Board were and that doesn’t
include . . .
Court: Mr. Waggoner, you may go ahead and
offer the exhibit if you think it’s pertinent but I will
be far more interested in getting a timetable some
time next week on implementation of the Court order
than I am in evidence on the implementation of the
Board plan or anything else as a theoretical matter
at this point. Let me see the outline, do you have it ?
(Paper writing is handed to the Court.) You may
certainly offer it and I ’ll accept it, but I think it will
be time better spent if it’s with some dates before us
so the staff will know what job they’re trying to do
when.
Mr. Waggoner: That’s the reason I wish to use the
witness, Your Honor, to supply the dates.
Court: How much discretion do you think the
Court has [78] on this in light of what the Chief
Judge of this Circuit said about Greenville?
Mr. Waggoner: The Court has the discretion that
it will not order an impossible or vain act. This
dates through all the cases in the history of the law
that I know, that the Court does not order a vain or
useless act. They have ordered the Greenville and
Darlington school districts to desegregate now. They
said come up with a plan and whether or not the
plan will produce actual and total mixing on the
deadline is speculative at this point.
777a
Colloquy
Court: Well, Mr. Waggoner, don’t you understand
that I ’m going to allow just as much time as I be
lieve the law will permit me to allow?
Mr. Waggoner: I feel certain that . . .
Court: And I cannot he controlled by whether it’s
somewhat disturbing or not. If you think the evi
dence will help, go ahead, but I’m already on your1
side from that standpoint and I think you know it.
The problem is how far I can go in good conscience
to extend the deadline which the Chief Judge of the
Circuit has already put into effect in his hometown
on three weeks notice.
Mr. Waggoner: Mr. Chambers has already indi
cated that he thinks March 1st is the latest this should
be [79] accomplished.
Court: Let’s don’t conduct a hearing that that’s
controlling upon the Court nor that this evidence
that you have here can be controlling.
Mr. Waggoner: Well, with Mr. Chambers com
muting to Richmond these days on . . . .
Court: Let’s leave personalities out of the case.
Mr. Chambers: I object to that. Regardless of
whether I go to Richmond or Washington I don’t
think it’s pertinent to this case.
Court: Did I miss something funny? I was talk
ing.
Mr. Waggoner: Well, the point I was making,
Your Honor, Julius jokingly, Mr. Chambers jokingly
asked me if I was prepared to be in Richmond to
morrow to meet with the Court of Appeals. So I feel
if he is insistent upon his deadline there may be
some application and it is our desire to protect our
778a
record, so that we do have something on which yon
base your order.
Court: Let me get a little information from Dr.
Self that I missed while you were asking about these
plans. Dr. Self, looking at the Board’s proposal with
regard to senior high schools, as I understand it Dr.
Finger has not presented any proposed change with
regard to the Board’s plan except that he proposed
[80] that there be a transfer of some three or four
hundred students from the central part of town out
to Independence which is almost entirely white under
the lines drawn by the Board.
A. This is true. This move causes a slight ripple effect in
terms of adjusting other lines to capacity, but that’s the
major difference.
Court: Now, with regard to junior high schools,
am I correct—leaving aside the problems of trans
portation right now, which may cut through the
whole thing—with regard to the junior high schools
am I correct that there again Dr. Finger’s plan
starts with the basic school attendance zones that
the Board had prepared and that the main difference
between those two plans is that the Board plan
leaves Piedmont High School still substantially black,
90% or so, and that he has drawn a plan which does
not leave any all black or nearly black schools f
A. That’s correct.
Court: And is it correct that the Board plan could
be, if it were decided there ought to be a change in
William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct
779a
the Board plan, the choice would be between rezoning
or transporting children hack and forth, to and from
Piedmont or closing Piedmont and reassigning those
students to some of the outlying white junior high
[81] schools.
A. That would be the alternative. The plan really revolves
around Piedmont. If you say that the Board plan permits
preponderance of black in Piedmont, do something about
it, and if you do something about Piedmont you affect all
the other schools as well. If you are considering closing
Piedmont, I would have to say it’s not a very good alter
native because we’re talking about the use and Dr. Finger
projects the use of two junior high schools that are not
now in existence. That’s J. H. Gunn, in which the Clear
Creek elementary youngsters are being housed while the
new building is being built, and Carmel Road, which is
under construction and will open next fall, which is another
way of saying that we’re tight capacitywise at the junior
high school level and it would make it more difficult to close
Piedmont.
Court: If the Court felt that under the decisions
of the higher court in this area, if the Court felt that
Piedmont could not he maintained as a nearly black
school and if you assume the decision is made that
that cannot be maintained, would you in that event
feel that Dr. Finger’s plan for the junior highs would
be preferable to closing Piedmont?
A. I believe so, yes, sir.
Court: I ’m not asking you to make the decision
whether Piedmont can or cannot be maintained, but
William, C. Self—for Defendant—Direct
780a
[82] simply assuming it would have to be changed
in its school population. That was the assumption
of the question.
A. Yes, sir.
Court: Now, with reference to the elementary
schools, is it correct to say that the Board’s plan
goes as far as you can go under the restrictions that
all the school zones must be contiguous and that you
not contemplate any substantial plans for transporta
tion?
A. It is correct to say that.
Court: And is it correct to say that the Board’s
plan was drafted upon the premise that there was no
duty to eliminate all of the black schools or at least
that the plan might reasonably present that question
for appellate review? I ’m not trying to ask you
another legal question, let me rephrase it. The plan
for elementary schools is frankly drawn upon the
assumption that there is no duty to eliminate all of
the all black or nearly all black schools.
A. I believe the Board started out on a more positive as
sumption than that, Your Honor. I think they wanted to
determine whether restructuring attendance lines could
have a significant impact in terms of reaching better racial
balance.
William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct
Court: And they found it could have a significant
impact and it has had as reflected in the plan of the
[83] Board.
781a
A. That’s correct.
Court: So with regard to all three levels of school
population the plan proposed to the Court by the
Board represents a very drastic improvement in the
situation from the standpoint of progress towards
racially indistinguishable schools.
A. That’s correct, they do.
Court: Just how was the plan that is represented
in the map and the figures of Dr. Finger, how was
that plan arrived at with regard to the elementary?
Did he start with substantially those attendance
zones which when drawn by Mr. Weil and the Board’s
staff did result in the desegregation of a great many
of the schools? Are those incorporated in what is
referred to as the Finger plan?
A. They are, yes, sir.
Court: And the fundamental difference in those
two plans starts after the Finger plan includes es
sentially those rezoned areas which have resulted in
the desegregation of a great many schools.
A. That’s right.
Court: And then the problem of what to do about
the other schools has been dealt with by pairing or
grouping black inner-city schools with outlying white
[84] schools and providing for transportation.
William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct
A. That’s correct.
782a
Court: If children are assigned from a city school
to a rural or a perimeter area school do they receive
transportation under the present arrangement?
A. They do and the converse to that is true. If a child who
resides in the county is moved to a city school, he is pro
vided with transportation.
Court: I suppose the transportation estimates are
still rather rough at this stage and there is no way
to tell exactly what the net result of any one of these
plans would he as far as ultimate increase in trans
portation costs.
A. I believe, Your Honor, that the transportation estimates
are as accurate as we can possibly make them at this time.
Court: As near as you can tell it involves some
10,000 children elementary with some margin for
error?
A. The 10,000 figure that I used in earlier testimony had to
do with the paired elementary schools. I think there would
be some additional transportation for the satellite zones in
the junior high and for the senior high.
Court: Well, now, I have some recollection from
previous testimony that the county pays somewhere
around eighteen or $20.00 a year per pupil and the
state cost for transportation is about eighteen or
$20.00 a year [85] per pupil as a long range proposi
tion for bus transportation.
A. I think the figure used in the earlier testimony was
William C. Self—•for Defendant—Direct
783a
around $19.00. I believe the figure this year is slightly
higher than that.
Court: But if you add up all the costs, wherever
the money comes from, it runs somewhere between
thirty-seven or -eight and $40.00 a year per pupil for
transportation.
A. I believe I ’d have to let Mr. Morgan give specific data
on that, sir.
Mr. Waggoner: May I continue, Your Honor!
Court: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Waggoner.
Q. Dr. Self, with reference to the required steps and
the time required to perform the various functions to imple
ment the Board plan, do you have an opinion satisfactory
to yourself as to the steps needed! A. Mr. Waggoner, the
planning network for the secondary schools is predicated
upon the statement that you made in testimony in court on
Monday, which anticipates an actual merging of student
bodies three weeks prior to the close of school. The ele
mentary plan assumes that we will attempt to move, if
implementation is ordered, as quickly as possible and here
we are concerned with whether or not we are dealing with
an elementary school around which a new attendance line
has been [86] drawn or with an elementary school which
is associated with the pairing technique. If we’re talking
about the attendance line restructuring, then we have more
or less an administrative logistic problem which must be
handled and I think we can move fairly readily. But if
we’re talking about the paired schools, then transportation
enters the picture and our efforts to determine how we could
William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct
784a
respond to this transportation need has not been too en
couraging.
Q. Can you give us some of the specific tasks that must
be performed aside from transportation? A. I might say
that the planning network was devised for use by our of
fice. It was not intended as a part of the testimony. We
were trying to prepare ourselves for the task. While it
looks fairly complicated, there are two basic elements to
the planning network. The rectangular shape on the plan
ning network is simply a listing of the events which must
take place. The Circle diagrams which run all over the page
are the activities that must be performed by school person
nel before that event can ever take place. The first event on
the map is approval of the maps by the Board. That would
mean approval of the maps as they are presented here with
the final polishing being done, adaptation to the natural
geographic lines. Of course, I don’t think the Court is in
terested in all the administrative staff has to do to get it
ready for the Board to approve.
[87] Q. How long do you anticipate that would take?
A. We think that could be done by February 17.
Court: What is this you say could be done by
then?
A. The approval of the maps by the Board, the refinement
of them and placed before the Board for approval.
Q. These refinements, you say, would not vary substan
tially from the ratios of these lines now established, is that
correct? A. We would have to see that it did not vary
substantially from the racial balance. That was the object
of restructuring the line to begin with. I ’m talking now
about the elementary schools which would be desegregated
through use of restructured attendance lines.
William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct
785a
Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I assume we don’t
have to continue to note our objection. We would
like to note objections to this testimony.
Court: All right. The objection is overruled.
A. The next three events occur simultaneously and we set
aside March 6 for this task. The three tasks are prepara
tion of the community, assignment of pupils and assign
ment of teachers. The next four events occur simulta
neously and we have set those down for April 1. They are
transfer of pupil records, preparation of the building, stu
dents reporting to school and have the revised transporta
tion schedules in operation.
Q. Now, as I understand the chart that you have has
a lot of [88] sub-tasks that must be performed to reach
these events that you speak of, is this correct! A. They
do. I think that we might emphasize that regardless of
the date that is set, all of these tasks will have to be per
formed one way or another.
Q. Are the events and sub-tasks that must be performed
accurate as they appear on that chart to the best of your
knowledge? A. I must emphasize that they are judgment
items. We have had to look at the task that was ahead and
make some judgment as to how quickly we could perform
them, how quickly all of the jobs could he done.
Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, we would like
at this time to offer the elementary chart as an
exhibit.
Court: Let me ask a question about the last couple
of minutes of testimony. Are you talking now about
the elementary system or all three systems?
William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct
786a
A. In our staff work, Your Honor, we have, just to keep
things straight, divided the elementary schools from the
secondary schools and one group of people worked on the
schedule for implementation of any order that would
effect the secondary schools. Another group worked on
the elementary school task and in working with the ele
mentary schools, we divided them, sub-divided them into
two categories, those elementary schools affected by simply
altering the attendance lines and those elementary schools
that would be involved in pairing.
[89] Court: These working schedules that you’re
talking about, do they relate to which group of
schools do they relate to? All three types of schools?
A. They do, yes, sir.
Court: You’re handling these problems separately
with a separate administrator and staff for senior
high and junior high and elementary but you’re
working towards the same timetable for all of them ?
A. No, sir. We are following a varying time schedule. The
time schedule that I went through a moment ago had to
do with the elementary schools desegregated by attendance
lines. It’s necessary to separate them in your thinking
because. . . .
Court: That’s what I ’m trying to do.
Q. Dr. Self, with reference to the secondary schools, is
there more difficulty in making the change of school for
the students than there is in the elementary level? A. Yes,
there is. I think it's related to the nature of the secondary
school program and courses of study.
William C. 8elf~ for Defendant—Direct
787a
Q. Could you elaborate? A. May I do so simply through
reciting the events that need to unfold!
Q. Yes, if you will.
Court: Let me go back to the elementaries for a
minutes, Dr. Self. Assuming you had all the neces
sary transportation available, is it fair to say that
the [90] easiest job as an administrative matter is
the job that involves the grouping or clustering
schools where the pupils are not being reassigned
geographically but simply being taken as a school
grade from one part of town to another?
A. From an administrative point of view, yes.
Court: And the hangup there is whether or not
transportation can be had.
A. Can be had and can be supported financially.
Court: Now, the matter of redrawing the atten
dance zones and transferring children from one
school to another where no serious transportation
problem is involved is more difficult administratively
but still something you think can be done, can be
completed in a couple of months, perhaps by April
1.
A. Yes, it can. I think that it may be completed because
of the skill or knowhow that we have acquired in the use
of the computer.
Court: All right. Well, I think I’ve got my bear
ings now on what you’ve just told us.
William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct
788a
Q. If yon will, with reference to secondary schools de
scribe the events. A. The first event. . . .
Q. Is this with reference to junior high schools? A.
Junior and senior. The first major event is the same one
as [91] for the elementary school, the adoption of the
official maps by the Board of Education. We think that we
can work our way through to the point where these can be
presented to and approved by the Board by February 25th.
At the same time that this work is going on with the maps,
we would need to develop our staffing plan, our pupil as
signment process and the curriculum that was to be offered
in the schools in question. Simultaneously with that we
would he attempting to develop or modify our transporta
tion system. The next big event in terms of our pupils—
and I think these are the common thread that go through
all of this—is the assignment of pupils for the 70-71 term
and we say that this can be done by March 25th and that
pupils and parents can be notified about that immediately
thereafter. The next major event is the assignment of
teachers which can he done by May 1st. The teacher assign
ment to secondary schools is dependent a great deal upon
the courses which the pupils have registered for because
that tells you whether you need Social Studies teachers
or math teachers and the like.
Court: Is your thinking in terms of starting the
19 < 0-11 school year in: mediately after the shift over
- - high and senior are
eerued*
A . \ eSv ' t s.
Court: hac are you tnmktng; .scout me oupiis-
are ?e<uors - u g g ssatooi?
William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct
789a
A. We would propose to advance the graduation date for
the seniors in high school and, in effect, make room in the
senior high schools so that we could move the rising 9th
graders up to become a part of the new senior high school
the last three weeks of the school term. At the same time
this would give us room in the junior high schools to actu
ally promote and involve the 6th grade students as a part
of the junior high. So what we would really be doing would
be organizing for the next school term.
Court: All right, go ahead.
A. There are four events actually which we are envisioning
as occurring on May 26th and this would include event #1,
teachers report to new assignments, event #2, students
report to the new school assignments, event #3, the master
schedule and the student schedule will have been completed,
event #4 , the bus transportation system would be opera
tive.
Q. Dr. Self, the chart you have just read from contains
the events and the sub-tasks that must be performed to
reach those, is that correct? A. The events only. The sub-
tasks, o f course, I have not read.
Q. Are they sub-tasks required to reach the events ac
cording to the best of your knowledge or information ’ A.
Yes, sir. There are quite a few of them.
Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, we wonA
like to [93] introduce these as Exhibits 5 and t to
illustrate the testimony of the witness.
Mr. Chambers: Objection.
Mr. Horack: Excuse me, they are 13 and 14.
William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct
790a
Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, again we are missing
some exhibits. You’ve got 13 and 14 now?
Mr. Horack: Yes. These were marked earlier at
the Judge’s request.
Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, Exhibit 13 is
the planning network for desegregation of elemen
tary schools and Exhibit 14 is the planning network
for desegregation of secondary schools.
Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, we’d like to point
out for the record that we have not seen either one
of those exhibits.
Court: We are still operating under a somewhat
unusual set of circumstances here.
Q. Dr. Self, have you given consideration to the planning
network required for pairing these schools? A. Yes, we
have.
Q. Would you describe the network for the events that
you must reach to accomplish that desegregation? A. To
save the time of the Court, Mr. Waggoner, the planning
network is essentially the same as that for the elementary
schools affected by restructuring attendance lines. The
[94] handicapping feature is the transportation so while
you can draw the planning network, it’s difficult to put
dates on it until such time as you clear the question of
transportation entirely.
Q. Dr. Self, with reference to transportation you testified
that the pairing alone would require the transportation of
something in the neighborhood of 10.000 children. Dr.
Fingers plan proposes transporting all students irrespec
tive of where they live if they reside a mile and a half from
their school. Do you know approximately how many sra-
William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct
791a
dents would have to be transported additionally under Dr.
Finger’s plan?
Mr. Chambers: Objection.
A. Mr. Waggoner, I believe Mr. Morgan can answer the
questions regarding transportation with more clarity.
Q. All right. Does your budget have funds for acquisi
tion of a substantial number of buses? A. No, sir.
Mr. Waggoner: We have no further questions at
this time.
Court: I don’t mean to try to make a tough job
seem easy hut I do want to he sure I have a simple
little accurate picture of what you have said to me.
As I understand it, you think it would he administra
tively possible or practicable to complete the re
assignment of the elementary students who are being
relocated by [95] rezoning by the 1st of April or
thereabouts.
A. Yes, sir.
Court: And the reassignment of the students who
are to be relocated by pairing or clustering, if that
is directed, will be dependent in any given case on
what transportation can he arranged.
A. That’s true, sir.
Court: Is it correct to say that the pairing and
clustering of schools is a method which can be se: up
for any particular group or cluster of schools as a
small amount of transportation does become avail
William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct
792a
able without waiting for the same thing to take place
with respect to all the other pairs or clusters?
A. It’s correct to assume that. I think we said earlier that
the pairing arrangement usually identified one black school
and two or three whites. If you had a limited amount of
transportation available, you could move with those schools
and move then with other clusters of schools as additional
transportation became available.
Court: And your present recommendation would
be to the Board that the transition for the junior
and senior highs not actually take place until to
wards the end of May?
A. That would be my recommendation, yes, sir.
Court: You use the date May 26, what is the
present [96] scheduled time for the completion of
the conventional school year?
A. June 9.
Court: So this would give what, a full week?
A. It would give two, if I ’m not mistaken.
Court: Well, you’ve got five more days in May.
That’s two weeks by the calendar, but is the gradua
tion not usually removed by a few days from the end
of the actual school year?
A. Yes, sir, usually the commencement exercise precedes
the end of the school year.
William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct
793a
Court: Have you got a calendar there?
A. No, sir. I looked for one and I do not have one.
Court: I was wondering when Easter is. Isn’t it
quite early in April this year?
Marshal Beam: 29th of March.
A. I have a calendar here now.
Court: April 1 is the Wednesday after Easter.
A. That’s correct.
Court: At the present time by the number, just
about half of the elementary students, black ele
mentary students who are going to schools that are
very nearly or all black or entirely black, are they
not? Have you ever run a total on that?
A. I ’m sure that we have although I find it very hard to
keep all [97] the figures in my mind, Your Honor.
Court: How many students, Dr. Self, not in exact
amounts but approximately, of the elementary stu
dents will be involved in the defective desegregation
that will result from restructuring the elementary at
tendance lines?
Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, I might direct
his attention to Page 23 of the Weil report.
A. Let’s see if we can piece this together. From Page 23
we can get an approximation of the number of students in
the elementary schools as being approximately 45,000. The
William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct
794a
children who would he involved in the pairing arrangement
in the schools that I listed earlier would total 22,000.
Court: You mean they would be involved in it as
persons attending those schools, not necessarily per
sons being transported.
A. That’s right, they would he. In other words, all of the
paired schools the total pupil population would he approxi
mately 22,000. That would mean that in school A, which was
a 1 through 4 school that the white pupils there would he
in the school and counted in the 22,000. The black children
would he bused in. Vice versa on the 5 through 6 schools.
If you take 22,000 from the 45,000 you get a very rough
approximation that 23,000 of our youngsters are in the
zoned schools and about 22,000 are in the paired schools.
[98] Court: Do counsel for the plaintiffs have
any questions of Dr. Self?
Mr. Chambers: Just one or two, Your Honor.
Cross Examination by Mr. Chambers:
Q. Dr. Self, were you present at the Board meeting where
you decided to employ Systems Analysis to prepare this
plan for you! A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you recall what instructions, if any, you gave
Systems Analysis to follow in the preparation of these
plans? A. Yes, sir, and the instructions are part of the
report.
Q. Did you instruct Systems Analysis not to consider
pairing or clustering of any schools? A. We did.
Q. Did you agree to a contract price per hour or per day
for the work by Systems Analysis? A. Yes, we did.
William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross
795a
Q. What price was that?
Mr. Waggoner: Objection.
Court: Overruled.
A. The price varied according to the individuals who would
be employed.
Q. Would you tell us the price per day or per hour for
the work by Systems Analysis?
[99] Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, this is
totally irrelevant to the considerations before the
Court. I think it’s some attempt on the part of the
plaintiffs to try to embarrass the Board in some way.
Court: Well, I believe lawyers and consultants
all ought to he paid whether hired by the Board or
appointed by the Court. I saw in his report, though,
I believe that he had 200 days of work on it. I guess
that’s a good deal more than Jack Finger has been
able to put on it in the last few weeks, isn’t it? I don’t
think that’s relevant.
Q. How much did you pay Systems Analysis, Dr. Self?
Mr. Waggoner: Objection.
Mr. Chambers: I’d like to get that in the record,
Your Honor.
Court: Overruled. How much have you paid them
up to now?
A. I don’t really recall the exact figure, Your Honor. I can
make an approximation.
William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross
Court: Hive us your approximation.
796a
Mr. Waggoner : Objection.
Court: Well, go on.
A. I ’d say approximately ten to $11,000.00.
Court: So far. Do you think you got your money’s
worth ?
[100] A. Yes, sir.
Court: Did having Dr. Finger here help in some
ways to move along towards the solution of a very
knotty hunch of problems f
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, on the high school map where you were talking
about Piedmont, as I recall, just taking West Charlotte, for
instance, your line proposed extends out to the county line,
is that correct? A. That’s correct.
Q. Now, I believe under the present state law you would
be providing bus transportation for basically all of the
students in the county coming into West Charlotte. A.
That’s true.
Q. It would just be the students now in this small area
here who would not be receiving bus transportation? A.
That’s right.
Q. I believe that for East, as another example, your line
goes up into the inner city but because East is in the county
these students, too, would be receiving bus transportation.
A. That’s correct.
Q. The same thing would be true of South, I believe you
talked about, too. A. That’s right.
Q. In fact, you contemplate quite a bit of bus transporta
William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross
797a
tion [101] under your plan. A. Within the attendance
area, yes, sir.
Q. The same would be true of the junior high schools.
A. That’s right.
Q. I think you told the Court a moment ago a kid resid
ing in the city, assigned to a school in the county would re
ceive bus transportation. A. Yes.
Q. Or assigned to a school annexed to the city subsequent
to 1957. A. Until that date in April where all of this is
supposed to reach a climax in the court.
Court: That’s a different court.
Mr. Chambers: I understand, Your Honor.
Q. And vice versa for the kids in the county coming into
inner-city schools. A. Transported!
Q. Yes. A. Yes.
Q. So under both plans, in order to desegregate the
schools, you would require some bus transportation for the
students. A. Yes.
Q. Now, Dr. Self, in preparation of your plan how did
you intend to provide bus transportation for these students
who under the state law would be entitled to bus transporta
tion, if you [102] had to implement it this year! A. Well,
the larger number of pupils we have under consideration
here are at the secondary level and you notice in our plan
ning network what we were intending to do was to assign
the pupils, register them, build a master schedule and post
pone the actual movement of the student into the school
until that date of May 26. This has the effect of postponing
the need for the buses until that time.
Q. Did you plan to get the buses by that time? A. We
are investigating every possible means of acquiring buses.
William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross
798a
Q. Was it your intent to inform the Court you were
going to have bus transportation by that time?
Mr. Waggoner: Objection, if the Court please.
Our plan has stated it proposed implementation in
1970, September.
Court: He’s simply asking what the testimony
was. My notation as to the testimony that gives rise
to the question is that on the 26th of May the trans
portation system would be operating as far as the
junior and senior high schools are concerned. That’s
what you said, I believe, wasn’t it?
A. That’s true. We set the date. It’s our intent to either
if we have the buses we will use them; if we don’t, we’ll
try to implement some other technique such as staggering
the opening of school, pressing activity buses into service,
or something [103] of that nature, or perhaps use contract
transportation.
Q. You did intend to have bus transportation by that
time, did you not? A. Yes.
Q. Where were you planning to get the money for that?
A. We would have to approach the County Commissioners
and petition them for the money to purchase any additional
buses needed and then, of course, we would overature the
State to pick up the operational costs.
Q. In fact, you had intended to go back to the County
Commissioners to get additional funds for buses. A. This
amount of busing, yes, sir.
Q. Now, how many buses did you contemplate you would
need under your plan? A. I don’t have that detail. I
think we’ll have to have that testimony supplied by Mr.
Morgan.
William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross
799a
Q. Do you have any idea of how much money you would
need to provide buses under your plan! A. No.
Q. Have you, in fact, or the Board consulted with the
County Commissioners about the availability of additional
funds? A. I have not.
Q. To your knowledge has this been done by the Board?
A. If it has, it has not been done in formal board session.
Q. To your knowledge has it been done? [104] A. I think
there have been conversations between Board members
and members of the County Commissioner.
Q. Isn’t it a fact, Dr. Self, that the Board has advised
you that they might make funds available for bus trans-
portation? A. No, sir, they have not.
Q. The County Commissioners have not?
Court: Mr. Chambers, I think this further pursuit
of the transportation question is also irrelevant be
cause as I read what the courts are saying, the fact
it may cost some money is not a legal reason to do
or not to do anything about it.
Mr. Chambers: All right, I’ll pursue another sub
ject.
Q. Dr. Self, how do you buy buses in the State for this
system? A. I buy the buses through the State Depart
ment of Public Instruction.
Q. Does the State Department of Public Instruction
maintain distribution centers around the State! A. I do
not know.
Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, we might
shorten this. We have a man who is with the State
Department here today to testify and he can give
precise answers.
William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross
800a
Court: Well, I always learn when I keep my mouth
shut but I really think that within the limits of what
we’re talking about here are the things I have to do
that won’t be helped by knowing a lot of detail about
[105] transportation, I really do.
Mr. Chambers: I ’ll withdraw the question, Your
Honor, and go to another area.
Court: Hr. Self, am I correct in my recollection
that the budget of the school system for this year
is fifty million dollars'?
A. Closer to forty-five million, I think, Your Honor.
Court: Does that include money supplied by the
State?
A. Yes, it does.
Court: As well as local.
A. A combination of all sources, State, Federal and local.
Q. Looking at your time schedule that you introduced,
Exhibits 13 and 14, why would it take until February 17
and February 25 to get Board approval of a map? A. The
major reason can be found in the activities which precede
that event. The work must be parceled out among a large
number of people. The principals must be involved in this.
It virtually will be necessary in some cases to ride the
districts and actually make a visual survey where the
computer did draw the lines and to take into account any
hardships as far as transportations are concerned, and
things like that. The time is not for Board approval. The
time would be in the preparation of the maps where we
would feel confident in recommending the maps to the
Board for approval.
William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross
801a
Q. Are you suggesting that those maps are not the maps
for the [106] Board? A. They are the maps of the Board
but in approving that—and I believe that’s contained in
the study as well—it is admitted that they will have to
be examined very carefully with a view toward eliminating
any discrepancies that have not yet been found.
Q. If the Court were to order implementation of the
Finger plan, would you have to redraw those lines? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. You don’t think they are accurate? A. They are ac
curate, the lines are accurate. Our major problem is to
adapt the grid line to an identifiable natural geographic
marker. It may be necessary to even go so far as to say
this lines goes between these two houses.
Q. Why would it be necessary to wait until March 25th
before actual assignment of pupils? A. Because of the
various activities that must be accomplished prior to that
event.
Q. Why did you figure on starting a new year for the
secondary students rather than transferring them now!
A. For the most part because their curriculum in the new
school would stand a pretty good chance of being altered
from the course of study that they had in the old school.
We figured it would be better to move the seniors on out
to get over the problem of whether or not they would grad
uate from the school [107] they had attended, to make
room in the senior school to accommodate the rising 10th
grade class and start them off on a new year.
Q. If the Court were to order you to integrate the schools
by March 1st, would you be able to accomplish it? A. If
the Court would order us to integrate by March 1st, all
the activities and events that you see outlined before you
William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross
802a
would have to be accomplished in one way, shape or form
before it could be done.
Q. In your opinion could it be done! A. No.
Court Reporter’s Note: At this point in the pro
ceedings there was applause from some of the
spectators.)
Court: Any more demonstration and the court
room will be cleared.
Q. Could it be done by April 1st? A. I think that we
get back to comment that the judge offered in opening
this case on Monday. He wanted the minimum amount of
time but at the same time the amount of disruption to be
considered. If you disregard the amount of disruption that
would be caused to secondary pupils with April 1st trans
fers, I suspect it could be done administratively.
Court: Mr. Chambers, I think you’ve got a can-do
man here and that’s why I wanted his serious recom
mendations on the very practical problems that have
got to be [108] dealt with. Let me ask another ques
tion about the technique of drawing some of these
pupil attendance lines. How about turning to the
junior high map. If you examine the Board’s map
for the rezoning of the junior high attendance lines,
you find some of them with corridors a half-mile
wide and five miles long, reaching from a suburban
area into an inner-city pocket. From the standpoint
of administration and ease and economy of trans
portation which is easier, to have a pocket of people
in the center of town who are close together and
easy to identify and have them transported by the
most convenient route to some suburban school, or
William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross
803a
in the opposite direction, as the case may be? Is that
not more convenient than having a half-mile wide
corridor which may have to attend the school several
miles away?
A. Yes, sir. I think that the net effect in terms of your
transportation system is that you probably would have one
or two pickup points in that satellite zone and then ex
press the bus to the school. Whereas in the corridor you
would probably have a number of on route pickup points.
Court: Is that transportation problem com
pounded by the fact that the streets in Charlotte are
laid off sort of slantwise or catercornered and these
corridors run diagonally across the major thorough
fares?
[109] A. Well, I ’m not sure whether that’s the case in
point. I think certainly our transportation problems, oper
ating within the city limits, are going to be quite different
from the transportation problems in the rural areas.
Court: Mr. Hicks, what’s the name of that junior
high on the lower left center which has a finger ex
tending?
Mr. Hicks: Smith.
Court: Taking Smith Junior High as an illustra
tion, doesn’t the corridor extending north into the
center of town from Smith Junior High extend as
far as the satellite zone that Dr. Finger has set up
for Smith Junior High?
William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross
A. Basically it does, yes, sir?
804a
Court: That’s true of Sedgefield and a number of
others, is it not?
A. Yes, sir.
Court: It has to be true to get substantially the
same result, doesn’t it?
A. That’s right.
Court: Is this part of the problem that needs to
be worked out whichever one of these plans is used?
A. Yes, sir. Quite frankly, we do not have a perfect answer
to the question of natural geographic lines versus grid
lines. Grid lines give us the ability to manipulate data by
the [110] computer and it has the disadvantage of not
being visible to people so they can say I am in this school
zone or that school zone. The natural geographic boundary
has the advantage of being clearly identifiable by the
citizenry but at the same time does not lend itself to mass
manipulation of pupil data.
Court: I think I have run out of questions. Do
you have any more. Mr. Waggoner ’
Wxttmunition bit Jfr_ Wxinrvimr:
- a -seerent■: x r rign. vs .r u :
ilac "he ;iuui)r itgu atretuianee ast ers are suoscannaJr
aiUP** aati :ae - b i n a r y drst'- :s a. Yss*. nt-~ an:
tvs % Mtuttn x o w m t fc
- Agg - . Ue ; “ v m ." e s s -U s uc e- mere,
•’w a -a «.»«.•> veaxxg; • v * cs - ^ ^tstisass- r
A i l i i s t . O u. >• s -e u tv -g » * .:£ . *v g g -S U iS S iX - U3X X
William C. Self—for Defendant—Redirect
805a
you’re speaking about a single school, you do not have
the cross-busing. If you’re talking about the school system,
bringing into account the present all black junior highs,
you’re talking about two-way busing in that whites would
be bused into Northwest, Williams, Kennedy.
Mr. Waggoner: I have no further questions.
Mr. Chambers: We have no further questions.
[111] Court: Thank you, Dr. Self.
Mr. Horack: If Your Honor please, we’d like to
call Mr. J. D. Morgan.
Court: I ’m going to run out of time in about a
half-hour, Mr. Horack. Are you going to run out of
witnesses by then?
Mr. Horack: I ’d seriously doubt it.
If Your Honor please, in compliance with your
suggestion earlier we had various exhibits which we
went ahead and had marked. Mr. Chambers, you
want these now?
Mr. Chambers: Are those all of them?
Mr. Horack: It’s Exhibits 5 through 12 with th~
exception of 8 and 9 which I do not have copies.
5 through 12 are all offered in evidence.
* * * * *
[1373 D irect E xa m in a tion b y M r. H orack:
Q. State your name, please. A. My name is D. J. Dari.
Q. What is your position? A. My position ts Director of
the Division of Transportation, State Board of
Q. And your office is in Raleigh ? A. Yes, it is.
Q. I hand you Defendant’s Exhibit #8 and a>.r yc. v
it is and whether you are familiar with its contents
D. J. Dark—for Defendant—Direct
806a
D. J. Dark—for Defendant—Direct
Court: What is it !
Mr. Horack: It’s a letter from the State Superin
tendent Craig Philips to Dr. Self.
Court: Let Mr. Dark testify about what he knows.
I’ll read the letter and see if it’s competent. Did
he write the letter!
A. No, I assisted in the preparation of it.
Q. Mr. Dark, although that letter is over the signature
of Dr. Craig Philips have you indicated you did write it!
A. Well, I did not write it. I had a part in its preparation.
Q. Do you agree with the analysis of Dr. Craig Philips
as set forth herein as it relates to the availability of buses
and financing for them!
Mr. Chambers: Objection.
[138] A. Yes, I do with one clarification. The availability
of buses . . .
Court: The question is, Mr. Dark, do you know
the facts in the letter, whatever they are!
A. Yes, I do.
Court: Use the letter to refresh your memory and
go ahead and testify.
Q. The letter says there are 75 at a maximum, at the very
outside, 75 buses can he made available. If you agree with
that statement, please do so, if you do, and explain why.
A. I agree. That is the largest number that we felt like
that could be made available to Mecklenburg County until
a new contract was let and a new order for buses placed.
807a
Q. When is the earliest time that a new contract can be
let? A. We hope that one can be let by March 27.
Q. After a new contract is let and an order is placed for
buses, from your experience stemming from the past how
long does it take to obtain a bus from a manufacturer after
it’s once ordered? A. Approximately six to seven months.
This means that if conditions are favorable. If conditions
are unfavorable it will take longer.
Q. Is there currently any unusual strain on the bus
manufacturers as far as the amount of orders they are
receiving? A. The usual rush period is from approximately
March through September. At this time most manufac
turers have as many [139] orders as they can fill during
that period. The reason for this rush period, school ad
ministrators are purchasing buses. So to have them de
livered prior to the opening of school, many orders have
already been placed.
Q. The testimony has indicated that under the board’s
plan 104 buses will be required. How long would it take to
fulfill the need for those 104 buses? A. I would say they
could be delivered by October or November, in the fall.
Q. Under Dr. Finger’s plan 297 buses are required . . .
Mr. Chambers: Objection.
Q. . . . purely on the basis that State law busing is pro
vided and confined to that, how long would that take?
Mr. Chambers: Objection, Your Honor.
Court: Overruled.
A. That number could be delivered in about the same length
of time.
D. J. Dark—for Defendant—Direct
808a
Q. And you state that 75 buses is the maximum number
that can now be made available to this system ? A. That are
in possession of the State Board of Education.
Mr. Horack: This is a letter, Your Honor, it’s
Defendant’s Exhibit #9, a letter from the Super
visor of Purchases to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Board of Education, of which you do not have a
copy, Mr. Chambers.
[140] Q. Please read that letter and tell me whether you
agree with the statement set forth therein. A. This letter
is addressed to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Edu
cation, Post Office Box 149, Charlotte, North Carolina, At
tention : Mr. J. R. Cameron. Gentlemen:
Mr. Chambers: I object to the reading of this
letter. There is no foundation that Mr. Dark had
any connection in the preparation of it.
Court: The letter is from whom?
A. This letter, Your Honor, is from Mr. A. W. Allers. He’s
Purchasing Agent, an Assistant Purchasing Agent for
purchasing contracts.
Court: Objection is sustained.
Mr. Horack: That’s all, Your Honor.
Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I know the Court
wants to leave but we would certainly have some ex
amination of Mr. Dark. My understanding of the
testimony presently is that it’s concerned with pur
chasing new buses and we would like to examine him
D. J. Dark—for Defendant—Direct
809a
relative not only to the new buses and present avail
ability, but . . .
Court: Go ahead and examine him. I said a while
ago I Avas going to take his testimony.
Cross Examination by Mr. Chambers:
Q. Mr. Dark, is there a distribution center for buses in
the [141] State of North Carolina! A. Usually there are
one or two distribution centers, depending on the number
of manufacturers who are awarded contracts.
Q. Does the State Board of Education itself maintain a
distribution center! A. No.
Q. Is there a center in Winston-Salem, North Carolina!
A. This center is maintained by Wayne-Devco Corporation
from Richmond, Indiana.
Q. Does the State have anything to do with it! A. Yes,
it’s on the State, well, it’s on the Winston-Salem-Forsyth
County school bus garage.
Q. And isn’t it under your supervision as Director of
Transportation for the State of North Carolina! A. After
the buses are delivered to us, it becomes under our super
vision, yes.
Q. Aren’t there some buses there right now! A. Yes,
there are some there.
Q. Tell the Court how many buses are there right now.
A. There are approximately eighty buses there.
Q. Where is the other center for distribution in the State!
A. At the present time!
Q. Yes, sir. A. Perley A. Thomas Car Works.
Q. Where is that! [142] A. High Point, North Carolina.
Q. Is that directly under your supervision also! A.
That’s under the Perley A. Thomas Car Works’ supervi
sion. However, they build buses for the State of North
D. J. Dark—for Defendant—Cross
810a
Carolina and turned over to the State Board of Education.
Q. Don’t you have some there right now, Mr. Dark? A.
Yes, we do.
Q. Tell the Court how many you have there. A. I ’m not
sure how many is at High Point. I can tell you the total
number that we have in North Carolina.
Q. What’s the total number? A. At the present time
on hand we have 412 buses.
Q. The other center I believe is in Wilson, isn’t it? A.
No center in Wilson. At the present time we have a few
buses parked in Nashville, North Carolina.
Q. That’s the eastern district distribution center. A. It
is at the present time, but it could be in Salisbury, it could
be in Wilson. At the present time that isn’t a distribution
center except at the present time we’re storing a few buses
there.
Q. What you do is just store these buses around at these
areas we just talked about? A. We have for this year, yes.
Q. And you can sell those buses to any school board in the
State? A. We could but we’re not in a position to.
[143] Q. You can sell them to any school district in the
state, cant you? A. Let me explain my answer.
Q. Would you say yes or no and then explain it? A. I
don’t think it’s a yes or no question.
Court: The question is are you free to sell the
buses to any local board that can pay for them.
A. Your Honor, we have obligations to a hundred counties
in North Carolina.
Court: I think he's trying to fnd out i f you can
se~ tnese ruses to anybody you take a notion ~o sell
them to.
D. J. Dark—for Defendant—Cross
811a
A. No, sir, they can only be sold to the Boards of Educa
tion.
Court: Any Board of Education you choose to sell
to, that’s the question.
A. That is correct. However, may I substantiate that?
Court: Yes, sir.
A. When we said 75 buses to Charlotte-Mecklenburg, we
promised or committed to them 12% of the buses we have
on order and they are operating 3% of the buses in North
Carolina. It seems that we extended our help there as much
as possible. Let me go along further. At the present time
there are approximately 10,000 buses in North Carolina in
dire need of replacements. These buses that I ’ve told you
about have been purchased for replacements. It means that
if 75 are sold to [144] Mecklenburg County, the children
will have to suffer for lack of replacement buses that ride
these other 1087 buse.
Court: How many buses do you buy and sell to
county boards a year?
A. We had anticipated approximately 100 for this year.
Court: To all of them?
A. Yes, sir. We have anticipated about that number for
next year.
This is an extraordinary situation.
Q. Mr. Dark, what would prevent you from replacing
these buses you’re talking about replacing in October
D. J. Dark—for Defendant—Cross
812a
when you get the new order! A. We plan to place an order
after July 1st. We’ve spent the money that’s available
for bus purposes up to July 1st.
Q. You do plan to purchase some more for this coming
school year and you say they would be available in October
or November, didn’t you! A. That is correct.
Q. You’ve got 400 and some buses and you say some
of them you intend to use to replace existing buses. A.
That’s correct.
Q. What would prevent you from using those buses you
have now for Charlotte-Mecklenburg and replacing these
other buses in October or November! A. We also have
obligations to other counties all over the State who need
capital outlay buses just like Mecklenburg County, [1453
desegregated schools, and what have you.
Q. Do you have an order for those buses! A. No, but
we will have.
Q. You don’t have presently! A. Not at the present
time.
Q. What do you do with buses that you replace! A.
They are priced for sale eventually and sold.
Q. Don’t you keep some on hand! A. Yes, we do.
Q. How many of those do you have on hand! A. We
have 375.
Q. On hand now! A. On hand.
Q. I believe the State statute permits the Board to pur
chase a bus to operate or contracting service with some
other service, is that correct! A. That is correct.
Q. In other words, Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system
could contract with the City Bus Lines to operate buses
in the city, could it not! A. It could if it had sufficient
funds.
Q. Well, the State would pay the funds, as I understand
D. J. Dark—for Defendant— Cross
813a
it, as long as they satisfied the State requirements. A. The
State will pay per capita cost of that amount on the basis
of what the cost is to Mecklenburg County to operate
[146] their buses.
Q. You’re familiar with General Statute 115-189? A. Is
that the statute that has to do with contract transporta
tion?
Q. That’s right. A. Will you read that all the way
through ?
Q. Are you also familiar with 115-190, that’s also dealing
with contract transportation. A. I ’m not familiar with
all the numbers.
Mr. Waggoner: If he’d show the book to the wit
ness, he could identify them. I can’t recall these
statutes either.
Mr. Chambers: I don’t mind showing him the
book.
Q. You’re looking at 115-190? A. That’s correct. That’s
the one I was talking about.
Q. It does provide for the State paying for transporta
tion of students whose transportation is contracted?
A. On what basis? Read the whole statute.
Q. You read it. A. I just told you that.
Mr. Horack: Your Honor, I don’t think the wit
ness ought to be asked to interpret the general
statutes.
Court: What was the question?
Mr. Chambers: I was asking the witness only,
Your Honor, what practice the State had followed
with [147] respect to contracting bus services.
D. J. Dark—for Defendant—Cross
814a
Court: Objection overruled. Wbat practice does
the State follow in contracting bus services!
A. At the present time the State does not contract any
transportation and so far as I know very little, if any, is
contracted other than Special Education with transit bus
companies. A contract as you mentioned in the law there,
with the transit bus company or any other company, would
be done by local boards of education rather than the State
Board of Education and the statute specifies that the
local unit could use any State money that it would generally
use for the operation of its buses, regular buses. It also
specifies that local boards can supplement the amount
necessary if they prefer contracts to pay these contracts.
Q. Mr. Dark, the only thing I ’m asking is under the
present practice of the State wouldn’t the local board be
able to contract to provide transportation with the City
Bus Company where the children would qualify for bus
transportation under the State law! A. Under the law,
they would.
Q. And their transportation expenses would be paid for
by the State of North Carolina. A. Not necessarily in
total.
Q. Well, whatever the State would allow for transporta
tion, is that correct! [148] A. Whatever they would cost
on a per pupil basis on the regular transportation.
Q. So your agreement with this letter of February 3rd
would have to be taken subject to what you have just
testified to? Do you recall this letter of February 3, 1970!
A. What’s your question?
Q. I think you said you agreed that only 75 buses would
be available. A. That is correct.
Q. But you also said you had 400 and some buses new
D. J. Dark—for Defendant—-Cross
815a
and 400 and some used buses? A. I can qualify that by
saying we have obligations to one hundred counties.
Court: Answer the question and then qualify it.
A. Yes.
Court: You’ve got about 400 new buses and 375
old buses?
A. Yes.
Court: Are those the figures you said ?
A. Yes. Could I qualify those? Insofar as the used buses,
if they had been in such shape . . . . first let say these
buses that have been replaced and the ones that I have
mentioned that need to be replaced are thirteen and four
teen years old. They have been in service that long. Had
they been in such shape that we would have w7anted to
continue them in operation, we [149] wouldn’t have re
placed them in the first place, we wouldn’t have authorized
them being replaced. And your second question is what?
Q. I just wanted to follow that up a little bit. As I
recall, the State practice was to take these buses back
and doctor them up and then resell them to other groups?
A. They are priced for sale but they are sold as is where
they are.
Q. And several groups buy them and use them ? A. And
recondition them, that’s correct.
Mr. Chambers: I have nothing further at this
time.
Court: Anything else f
D. J. Dark—for Defendant—Cross
816a
Redirect Examination by Mr. Horack:
Q. Mr. Dark, are these buses that have been retired
and obsolete, why are they obsolete! Don’t they include
junked buses and you say typically they are about twelve
to fourteen years old! A. Yes, they are at least that.
Q. Are these buses suitable for bringing into a system
such as Charlotte-Mecklenburg and put into a bus trans
portation system like ours! A. In my opinion they would
not be.
Q. Would we have an assurance that those buses when
they’re being driven from wherever they are now to
Charlotte that they’d make it! [150] A. I wouldn’t
guarantee it.
D. J. Dark—for Defendant—Redirect
817a
Motion for Hearing on Plans for Desegregation of
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Schools
(Filed February 6, 1970)
The Defendants, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of
Education and the individual Board members, respectfully
move the Court that:
1. Before issuing any Order in response to the Plaintiffs’
“Motion for Immediate Desegregation of the Public Schools
in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County” (dated January 19,
1970) a hearing be held at a time to be fixed by the Court
regarding the “ Plan for Desegregation of Schools” filed
by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education on Feb
ruary 2, 1970, and the Plan filed or to be filed by Dr. John
A. Finger, Jr. in response to the December 1, 1969 Order
of the Court.
2. At said hearing the Defendants be heard and per
mitted to introduce evidence relating to the “Board Plan”
and the “Finger Plan” and the implementation of these
Plans.
3. Dr. John A. Finger, Jr. be present at said hearing
and available for examination by the Defendants regarding
each of the above-mentioned Plans.
4. In the alternative, if said hearing is not held as re
quested in this Motion, the Defendants be permitted to
tender pertinent evidence regarding the two Plans and re
lated matters.
In support of this Motion the Defendants show the Court
that the hearing and evidence referred to herein is neces
sary for a full explanation and evaluation of each of the
two Plans and with reference to the implementation re-
818a
Motion for Hearing on Plans for Desegregation of
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Schools
quested in the above-mentioned Motion heretofore filed by
the Plaintiffs.
W herefore, the Defendants respectfully pray the Court
that it grant the request of the Defendants as set forth in
the foregoing Motion.
This 4 day of February, 1970.
W illiam J. W aggoner
William J. Waggoner
Weinstein, Waggoner, Sturges, Odom
& Bigger
1100 Barringer Office Tower
Charlotte, North Carolina
B e n j . S. H orace:
Benj. S. Horac-k
Ervin, Horack & McCartha
400 Attorneys Building
Charlotte, North Carolina
B r o c k B a r k l e y
Brock Barkley
Law Building
Charlotte. North Carolina
A rtm m vs fe r Drr'Dttiitnu. Cwr-'orre-
f r r ar-i >r P iur-icum
819a
On December 2, 1969, this court appointed Dr. John A.
Finger, Jr., of Providence, Rhode Isand, to study the
Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system and advise the court
how the schools could be desegregated. The defendant
school board, by order of December 1, 1969, had been ex
tended a fourth opportunity to submit a plan if they wished.
Dr. Finger went to work; the school staff worked with him;
and they have produced some extremely useful information
and reports, which will be referred to in this order as the
Board plan and the Finger plan.
Hearings on the plans were conducted on February 2
and February 5, 1970.
The Board plan, prepared by the school staff, relies
almost entirely on geographic attendance zones, and is
tailored to the Board’s limiting specifications. It leaves
many schools segregated. The Finger plan incorporates
most of those parts of the Board plan which achieve de
segregation in particular districts by re-zoning; however,
the Finger plan goes further and produces desegregation
of all the schools in the system.
Taken together, the plans provide adequate supplements
to a final desegregation order.
The court would like again to express appreciation to
Dr. Finger for the intelligence, resourcefulness and tact
with which he has pursued his difficult assignment, and to
Dr. William Self, Superintendent of the schools, and to
his able staff, for the excellent work done by them in their
difficult role of helping prepare one plan to comply with
what the court believes the law requires, and simultaneously
preparing another plan to suit the majority of the School
Board who, at last reckoning, still did not appear to accept
the court’s order as representing the law of the land.
Order dated February 5, 1970
820a
The court is also grateful to the Board’s outside con
sultant, Mr. Weil, of Systems Associates, Inc., whose two
hundred days of work and whose computer studies formed
the building blocks, or points of departure, for much of
the work of the others.
Recent appellate court decisions have hammered home
the message that sixteen years of “deliberate speed” are
long enough to desegregate tax supported schools. On
October 29, 1969, in A lex a n d er v. H o lm es C o u n ty , 369 U.S.
19, the Supreme Court ordered numerous Deep South
school districts to be completely desegregated by January
1, 1970; schools in Atlanta, Miami and parts of Chicago
have been ordered totally desegregated; the Supreme Court
in January ordered February 1, 1970, desegregation of
300,000 pupils in six Gulf Coast states; the Fourth Circuit
Court of Appeals in N esb it v. S t a t e s v i l le ,------ F.2d. ------
(December 2, 1969), ordered elimination by January 1, 1970,
of the racial characteristics of the last black schools in
Durham, Reidsville and Statesville, North Carolina; and
in W h itten b erg v. G reen ville , S ou th Carolina, the Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals, in an opinion by Chief Judge
Clement F. Haynsworth, Jr., has just last month ordered
the desegregation by February 16, 1970, of the 58,000 stu
dents in Judge Haynsworth’s own home town. Judge
Robert Martin of Greenville, pursuant to that mandate, on
February 2, 1970, ordered all the Greenville schools to be
populated by February 16, 1970, on a basis of 80% white
and 20% black.
In the G reenville opinion the court said:
“These decisions leave us with no discretion to con
sider delays in pupil integration until September 1970.
Whatever the state of progress in a particular school
Order dated February 5, 1970
821a
district and whatever the disruption which will he occa
sioned by the immediate reassignment of teachers and
pupils in mid-year, there remains no judicial discretion
to postpone immediate implementation of the consti
tutional principles as announced in Green v. County
School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430;
Alexander v. Holmes County Bd. of Educ., 396 U.S. 19
(Oct. 29,1969) ; Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School
B d .,------U.S. ------- (Jan. 14, 1970).”
These decisions are binding on the United States District
Court for the Western District of North Carolina. Unless
that were true, the Constitution would mean whatever
might be the temporary notion of whichever one of 340-odd
federal judges happened to hear the case. This is a matter
of law, not anarchy; of constitutional right, not popular
sentiment.
The order which follows is not based upon any require
ment of “ racial balance.” The School Board, after four
opportunities and nearly ten months of time, have failed
to submit a lawful plan (one which desegregates all the
schools). This default on their part leaves the court in
the position of being forced to prepare or choose a lawful
plan. The fairest way the court knows to deal with this
situation was stated clearly in the December 1, 1969 order,
as follows:
“In default of any such plan from the school board,
the court will start with the thought, originally ad
vanced in the order of April 23, that efforts should be
made to reach a 71-29 ratio in the various schools so
that there will be no basis for contending that one
school is racially different from the others, but to
Order dated February 5, 1970
822a
understand that variations from that norm may be
unavoidable.”
T herefore, and in accordance with the specific, detailed,
numbered guidelines of this court’s order of December 1,
1969, It Is Ordered:
1. That the defendants discontinue the operation of
segregated schools.
2. That the defendants take such action as is necessary
to desegregate all the schools—students and faculty.
3. That desegregation of faculty he accomplished, as
previously ordered, by assigning faculty (specialized faculty
positions excepted) so that the ratio of black and white
faculty members of each school shall be approximately the
same as the ratio of black and white faculty members
throughout the system.
4. That teachers be assigned so that the competence and
experience of teachers in formerly or recently black schools
will not be inferior to those in the formerly or recently
white schools in the system.
5. That no school be operated with an all-black or pre
dominantly black student body.
6. That pupils of all grades be assigned in such a way
that as nearly as practicable the various schools at various
grade levels have about the same proportion of black and
white students.
7. That transportation be offered on a uniform non-
racial basis to all children whose attendance in any school
Order dated February 5, 1970
823a
is necessary to bring about the reduction of segregation,
and who live farther from the school to which they are
assigned than the Board determines to be walking distance.
Estimates of the number of children who may have to be
transported have run as high as 10,000 or more. Since the
cost to the local system is about $18 or $20 a year per
pupil, and the cost to the state in those areas where the
state provides transportation funds is about another $18
or $20 a year per pupil, the average cost for transportation
is apparently less than $40 per pupil per year. The local
school budget is about $45,000,000 a year. It would appear
that transporting 10,000 additional children, if that is
necessary, and if the defendants had to pay it all, would
add less than one per cent to the local cost of operating the
schools. The significant point, however, is that the cost is
not a valid legal reason for continued denial of constitu
tional rights.
8. That if geographic zones are used in making school
assignments, the parts of a zone need not be contiguous.
9. That the defendants maintain a continuing control
over the race of children in each school, just as was done
for many decades before Brown v. Board of Education,
and maintain the racial make-up of each school (including
any new and any re-opened schools) to prevent any school
from becoming racially identifiable.
10. That “ freedom of choice” or “ freedom of transfer”
may not be allowed by the Board if the effect of any given
transfer or group of transfers is to increase the degree of
segregation in the school from which the transfer is re
quested or in the school to which the transfer is desired.
Order dated February 5, 1970
824a
11. That the Board retain its statutory power and duty
to make assignments of pupils for administrative reasons,
with or without requests from parents. Administrative
transfers shall not be made if the result of such transfers
is to restore or increase the degree of segregation in either
the transferor or the transferee school.
12. That if transfers are sought on grounds of “hard
ship,” race will not be a valid basis upon which to demon
strate “hardship.”
13. That the Board adopt and implement a continuing
program, computerized or otherwise, of assigning pupils
and teachers during the school year as well as at the start
of each year for the conscious purpose of maintaining each
school and each faculty in a condition of desegregation.
14. That the defendants report to the court weekly be
tween now and May 15, 1970, reporting progress made in
compliance with this order; and that they report thereafter
on July 15, August 15, September 15 and November 1,
1970, and on February 1 and May 1, 1971.
15. That the internal operation of each school, and the
assignment and management of school employees, of course
be conducted on a non-racial, non-discriminatory basis.
16. The duty imposed by the law and by this order is
the desegregation of schools and the maintenance of that
condition. The plans discussed in this order, whether pre
pared by Board and staff- or by outside consultants, such as
computer expert, Mr. John W. Weil, or Dr. John A. Finger,
Order dated February 5, 1970
825a
Jr., are illustrations of means or partial means to that end.* 1
The defendants are encouraged to use their full “know
how” and resources to attain the results above described,
and thus to achieve the constitutional end by any means
at their disposal. The test is not the method or plan, but
the results.
17. The choice or approval or partial approval of any
proposed desegregation plan is subject to all the require
ments and restrictions of the preceding sixteen paragraphs,
as well as to any later requirements or restrictions set out
in this order.
18. Subject to the above, the Board’s pupil assignment
plan for senior high school pupils is approved, with one
1. The following are exhibits to this order:
A. The Board’s map of proposed senior high school atten
dance zones.
B. The Board’s list of proposed senior high school populations.
C. The Board’s map of proposed junior high school atten
dance zones.
D. The Board’s list of proposed junior high school popula
tions.
E. Dr. Finger’s map of proposed junior high school atten
dance zones.
F. Dr. Finger’s list of proposed junior high school popula
tions.
G. The Board’s map of proposed elementary school atten
dance zones.
H. The Board’s list of proposed elementary school popula
tions.
I. Dr. Finger’s map of proposed elementary school atten
dance zones.
J. Dr. Finger’s list of proposed elementary school popula
tions.
K. Dr. Finger’s list of pairing and grouping of elementary
schools and grades.
Order dated February 5, 1970
826a
exception. This exception is that black students, some 300
in number, should be assigned from map grids 294D, 295C,
295D, and 318A, to attend Independence High School.
19. Although the Board junior high school plan is
inferior in design and results to Dr. Finger’s plan, it is a
purely “home grown” product and the court would like
to approve it, if it can be brought into compliance with law
by desegregating Piedmont Junior High School, and by
adding transportation as above indicated, and by increas
ing the black attendance at several outlying schools. The
Board may if it wishes consider (1) re-zoning; (2) two-way
transporting of pupils between outlying schools and Pied
mont; (3) closing Piedriiont and assigning the pupils to
Albemarle Road, Carmel, McClintock and Quail Hollow.
Unless the court has been notified in writing by noon of
February 6, 1970, of an affirmative decision adopting one
of these choices by formal Board action, the junior high
schools are directed to be desegregated according to Dr.
Finger’s plan, as illustrated by exhibits E and F.
20. The Board’s plan for elementary schools, illustrated
by exhibits G and H, cannot be approved because (1) it
retains nine schools 83% to 100% black, serving over half
the black elementary pupils, and (2) it leaves approxi
mately half the 31,500 white elementary students attending
schools that are 86% to 100% white; and (3) it promises
to provide little or no transportation in aid of desegrega
tion, even though the plan’s zones in some cases are ap
parently five or six miles long. The Board plan for ele-
mentaries openly rejects the duty to eliminate all the
black schools.
The Finger plan uses many of the same basic attendance
lines as the Board plan; however, it does not stop short of
Order dated February 5, 1970
827a
ERRATA
Order dated February 5, 1970
the constitutional requirements, and by pairing and cluster
ing groups of schools it achieves full desegregation of the
elementary schools. The school staff worked out the de
tails of this plan and are familiar with it. Its attendance
zones are illustrated on the map, exhibit I; its elementary
school populations are listed in exhibit J ; and the pairing
and grouping of the outlying and inner-city schools, grade
by grade, are shown in detail on exhibit K. Subject to the
qualifications previously stated, the Board is directed to
follow the Finger plan with reference to elementary schools.
21. The Time Table: Deadlines to complete various
phases of the program required in this order are as follows:
Senior High Schools.—Seniors may remain in their
present schools until the end of the school year; the
Board may make any decision they deem wise about
allowing seniors to transfer before graduation to
schools where their race will be in the minority. Elev
enth and tenth graders will be transferred to their new
schools not later than the 4th day of May, 1970.
Junior High Schools (Grades 7, 8, 9).—Complete
desegregation shall be accomplished not later than the
1st day of April, 1970.
Elementary Schools (Grades 1-6).—Complete de
segregation shall be accomplished not later than the
1st day of April, 1970.
F a c u l t y .— Complete desegregation of the various
faculties shall be accomplished by the various times
set out above for desegregation of the student bodies.
828a
22. M odifications.—The intention of this order is to put
on the Board the full duty to bring the schools into compli
ance with the Constitution as above outlined, but to leave
maximum discretion in the Board to choose methods that
will accomplish the required result. However, it is directed
that leave of court be obtained before making any material
departure from any specific requirement set out herein.
The court will undertake to rule promptly on any such
requests for deviation from prescribed methods.
23. A ppeal.— The court claims no infallibility and does
not seek to prevent appeal from all or any part of this
order, and will allow the making of any record needed to
present on appeal any contention the parties desire to
make, and will do what this court can to expedite such
appeal. However, in accordance with Whittenberg v. Green
ville, supra, this order will not be stayed pending appeal,
and immediate steps to begin compliance are directed.
24. All evidence in the cause and all findings and con
clusions in previous orders which support or tend to sup
port this order are relied upon in support of this order.
25. Jurisdiction of this cause is retained for further
orders.
This the 5th day of February, 1970.
Order dated February 5, 1970
James B. McMillan
United States District Judge
R e s ea r ch Report
J a n u a r y 31, 1970
The C h a r l o t t e - M e c k l e n b u r g S c h o o l s
DESEGREGATION PLAN f o r 1970-71 E x h i b i t B
S e n i o r H igh S c h o o l s
S ch oo l 1970-71
C a p a c 1ty
Ba se + 2 0 % B
1 9 6 9 -7 0
w T B
B oa rd P lan
W T %B
E a s t M e c k le n b u r g 1 700 2040 215 ' 1925 2140 10% 360 17 16 2076 17%
Gar i n ger 1 874 2249 492 2148 2640 18% 721 1914 2635 27%
H a r d in g 1202 1442 612 720 1332 45% 395 692 1087 36%
1ndependence 1047 1256 101 1111 1212 9% 23 1241 1264 2%
M ye rs Pa rk 1679 2015 224 1767 1991 12% 426 1883 2309 18%
North M e c k le n b u rg 1158 1390 446 1185 1631 2 8% 440 998 1438 31%
0 1 ymp i c 807 968 351 512 863 4 1 % 201 687 888 23%
S ou th M e c k le n b u r g 1523 1828 90 2024 2114 5% 482 1846 2 3 28 2 1%
West C h a r l o t t e 1593 1912 1641 0 1641 10 0% 597 1045 1642 36%
West M e c k le n b u r g 1374 1649 141 1444 1585 9% 494 998 1492 33%
T o ta l 13 ,957 1 6 ,7 4 9 4 , 3 1 3 1 2 ,836 1 7 ,1 4 9 4 , 1 3 9 3 , 0 2 0 1 7 ,1 5 9
829a
Research Report
January 31, 1970
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
DESEGREGATION PLAN for 1970-71
E x h ib it D
J u n io r H ig h S c h o o l s
S c h o o l
1970 -71
C a p a c it y
B a se + 2 0 % B
1 9 6 9 -7 0
W T %B B
B o a rd P la n
W T %B
A lb e m a r le Road 91*6 1138 63 995 1058 5% 19 753 772 2%
A le x a n d e r 8 7 ^ 10l*9 328 761 1089 30% 303 698 1001 30%
C o ch ra n e 1190 11*28 72 I S M 1616 5% 571 1150 1721 33%
C ou lw ood 702+ 81*5 101 770 871 12% 313 551 861* 36%
E a stw ay 1093 1312 61 1356 11*17 h% 375 971 131*6 28%
A le x a n d e r Graham 996 1191* 101 1028 1129 8% 261 888 I1 A 9 23%
H aw thorne 850 910 550 1*72 1022 5i*% 276 701* 980 28%
Kennedy 801 961 802 9 811 99% 325 510 835 39%
M c C l1n to c k 923 1100 84 1288 1372 6 % 25 101*8 1073 2 %
N o rth w e st 1068 1282 1032 1 1033 296 675 971 30%
PIedm ont 631 757 1*08 55 1*63 89% 758 81* 842 90%
Q u a il H o llo w 1238 11*86 129 11*21 1550 9% 138 111*1* 1282 11%
R an d o lp h 972 1170 279 710 989 28% 307 683 990 31%
R an son 851 1021 21*6 51*8 791* 31% 295 558 853 35%
S e d g e f ie ld 777 930 167 809 976 17% 231* 612 81*6 28%
Smi th 1093 1312 51 11*36 IA 87 k% 330 957 1287 26%
Spaugh 826 1091 262 839 1101 2U% 31*6 752 1098 32%
W i l l i ams 801 967 1081 0 1081 100% 336 722 1058 32%
W i1 son 10V * 1253 60 111+5 1205 5% 31*6 795 111*1 30%
Carmel % 558 670 2 555 557 0%
J. H. Gunn (Wi I g r o v i ) 558 670 1*9 1*70 519 9%
T o t a l 1 8 ,7 9 6 2 2 ,5A6 5 .8 7 7 1 5 . ! 8 7 21 ,061* 5 .9 0 5 1 5 . 2 8 0 2 1 ,1 8 5
830a
DESEGREGATION PLAN for CharlOtte-Mecklenburg Schools
Junior High S c h o o ls
E x h ib i t F
S c h o o l
1 9 7 0 - 7 1
C a p a c i t y
B ase +20% B
1969
W
- 7 0
T %B
Court C o n s u lt a n t
Plan
B W T %3
A lb e m a r le Road 948 1133 63 995 1058 5 A 292 696 988 30%
A le x a n d e r 874 104 S 328 761 1089 30% 335 690 1025 3 3%
Cochrane 119 0 1423 72 1544 1616 5% 370 964 1354 27%
Coulwood 704 64 5 101 770 871 12% 245 56S S13 30%
Eastw ay 1093 1312 61 1356 1417 4% 351 839 1190 30%
A le x a n d e r Graham 996 1194 101 1028 1129 8% 359 938 1297 28%
Hawthorne 8 5 0 9 10 550 472 1022 54% 290 677 967 30%
Kennedy 801 961 002 9 311 99% 184 606 790 23%
M c C lin to c k 923 1100 04 1288 1372 6% 386 925 1 311 30%
N orth w est 1068 1282 1032 1 1033 336 736 1072 31%
Piedmont 631 757 403 55 4 6 3 89% 243 538 781 32%
Q u a i l H o llow 1238 1486 129 1421 1550 9% 339 1050 1 3S9 2 5%
Randolph 972 117 0 279 710 989 28% 4 02 S 32 1234 33%
Ranson 851 1021 246 543 794 31% 264 583 847 31%
S e d g e f i e l d 777 930 167 809 976 17% 171 641 8 12 21%
Smith 1093 1312 51 1436 1487 4% 350 929 127 9 27%
Spaugh 8 26 1091 262 339 1101 24% 324 807 1131 29%
W i l l i a m s 801 967 1081 0 1081 100% 308 727 1035 30%
W ils o n 1044 1253 60 1145 1205 5% 230 570 eoo 29%
Carmel 5 58 670 142 444 586 24%
J . H. Gunn 558 670 49 475 524 9%
T o t a l 1 8 , 7 9 6 2 2 , 5 4 6 5 , S77 1 5 , 1 8 7 2 1 , 0 6 4 5 , 9 7 0 1 5 , 2 5 5 21 , 2 2 5
Research Report
January 31, 1970
The Charlotte-Hecklenburg School*
DESEGREGATION PLAN for 1970-71
E x h ib it H, page 1
E le m e n ta ry S c h o o l *
S c h o o l
B a se
1970-71
C a p a c i t y
♦ 1 2 % B
1 9 6 9 -7 0 *
W T %B B
B o a rd
W
P la n
T %B
A lb e m a r le Rd. 1*32 1*81* 1* 510 514 1% 4 4 6 9 473 1%
A l le n b r o o k 51*0 605 61 452 513 12% 59 496 555 11% ‘
A s h le y P a rk 621 696 27 574 601 4% 155 421 576 27%
B a in 702 786 33 735 768 4% 25 706 731 3 %
B a r r in g e r 1*86 51*1* 843 16 859 98% 203 320 523 39 %
B e r r y h i 11 836 936 98 6 3 9 737 13% 247 574 821 30%
B e v e r ly Woods 51*0 605 68 6 8 4 752 5% 8 648 656 1%
B i l l i n s g v i 1 le 591* 665 596 0 596 100% 113 325 438 26%
Br i arw ood 51*0 605 6 680 6 8 6 1% 2 663 665 0%
B ru n s Ave. 675 756 759 10 769 99% 6 2 4 73 697 90%
C hant i l l y 1*32 i*8i* 0 472 472 0% 142 303 445 32%
C le a r C re e k 321* 363 1*8 229 277 17% 43 266 309 14%
C o l l i nswood 621 696 111 443 554 20% 224 448 672 3 3 %
C o r n e l i us 1*59 511* 181 235 416 44 % 182 265 447 41%
C o tsw o ld 51*0 605 23 537 560 4% 128 4 4 9 577 24%
Dav i d son 324 363 101* 186 290 36% 102 174 276 32%
M a r ie D a v is 756 847 662 0 662 100% 666 82 748 88°/
D e r i ta 783 877 ISO 678 828 18% 152 595 747 20%
D evon sh i re 61*6 726 0 903 903 0% 0 925 925 0%
D i 1 w orth 61*8 726 90 317 407 22% 241 376 617 39%
D ou b le O aks 675 756 836 0 836 100% 825 3 828 100%
D r u id H i l l s 1*86 544 472 3 475 99% 465 20 485 96%
E a s t o v e r 6A8 726 42 559 601 7% 157 478 635 25%
E 1 i zab e th 1*05 A5A 314 125 439 72% 112 294 406 28%
E n d e r l y P a rk 513 575 3 371 374 1% 119 238 357 33%
★ N in c l u d in g S p e c ia l Educa t io n in s e l f - c o n ta ned c l a s s e *
832a
The Char 1o t t e - M e c k l e n b u r g S c h o o l s
DESEGREGATION PLAN f o r 1970-71
E x h ib i t H, page 2.
E le m e n ta r y S c h o o l s 1
S ch oo l
1 9 7 0 - 7 1
C ap ac i t y
Ba se + 1 2 % B
1 9 6 9 -7 0
W T %B B
Boa rd
W
PI an
T %B
F i r s t Ward -7.02 78 6 805 0 805 100% 7 7 0 7 1 1 1 99%
H i c k o r y G rove 4 5 9 -514 70 533 603 12% 74 556 63 0 12%
H i dden V a l l e y 648 726 0 1100 1100 0% 1 1077 1078 0%
H i g h 1 and 297 . 333 69 305 3 7 4 18% 76 237 3 1 3 2 4 % '
H o s k i ns 297 333 , 13 2 1 2 225 6% 124 219 343 36%
H u n t e r s v i 1 le 675 756 145 531 676 21% 130 554 684 19%
H u n t in g to w n e Farms 594 665 7 60 3 610 1% 3 614 617 0%
1d l e w i 1d 567 635 47 581 628 7% 59 549 60 8 10%
1rw in Ave. 292 0 292 100% *
A/nay James 378 423 462 3 465 99% 90 169 259 35%
L a k e v i ew 3 7 8 423 346 89 435 80% 119 285 404 29%
Lansdowne 756 847 75 802 877 9% 79 719 798 10%
L i n c o ln He i g h t s 6 4 8 726 711 0 711 100% 903 6 909 99%
Long C re ek 70 2 78 6 267 468 735 3 6 % 259 523 782 33%
Matthews 945 1058 86 802 888 10% 81 837 91 8 9%
M e r r y Oaks 486 544 0 442 442 0% 0 557 557 0%
M i dwood 4 5 9 514 9 437 446 2% 116 401 517 23%
M c n t c l a i re 675 756 0 718 718 0% 1 781 782 0%
M ye rs P a rk 432 484 22 444 466 5% 150 314 464 3 2%
N a t i o n s Ford 621 696 43 6 6 9 712 6% 177 548 725 24%
Newel 1 594 66 5 74 438 512 14% 64 436 500 13%
O akd a1e 540 605 69 517 586 12% 202 460 662 31%
O a k h u r s t 594 66 5 5 616 621 1% 92 504 596 15%
Oak? awn 594 665 584 0 584 100% 597 3 600 99%
0 1 de P r o v id e n c e 540 605 80 5 1 2 592 14% 83 461 544 15%
♦ d i s t r i b u t e d to s u r r o u n d i n g s c h c o t s
833a
The Cherlotte-Mecklenburg School*
DESEGREGATION PLAN for 1970-71
E x h ib it H, page 3
E le m e n ta ry S c h o o l *
S c h o o l
197 0 -7 1
C a p a c it y
B a s« + 1 2 % B
1 9 6 9 -7 0
W T %B B
B o a rd
W
P la n
T %B
P a rk Road 51*0 605 1*1* 51*8 592 7% 41 571 612 7%
Paw C re e k 594 665 27 609 636 4 % 83 6 0 2 685 12%
Paw C re e k A nnex 270 302 30 271 301 10%
P i n e v i 1 le A 86 544 136 356 1*92 28% 123 3 7 9 502 25 %
P inew ood 61*8 726 0 671* 6 7 4 0% 0 900 900 0%
P la z a Road 1*59 511* 80 31*0 4 2 0 19% 181 350 531 3 4 %
Rama Road 61*8 726 1 815 816 0% 3 744 747 0%
S e d g e f ie ld 51*0 605 3 51*8 551 1% 223 3 6 4 587 3 8 %
S e lw yn 1*86 51*1* 31 6 1 7 6 4 8 5% 32 4 5 9 491 7%
Sham rock G a rd e n s 1*86 51*1* 0 515 515 0% 8 4 496 580 15%
S h a ro n 1*59 511* 72 361 433 17% 91 421 512 18%
S ta rm o u n t 61*8 726 25 712 737 3% 67 833 900 7%
S t a t e s v i l l e Road 61*8 726 333 522 855 39% 160 553 713 23%
S t e e le C re e k 378 1*23 5 5 0 9 514 1% 195 475 670 29%
Thom asboro 729 816 0 690 690 0% 135 777 912 15%
T ry o n H i l l s 1*86 51*1* 309 161* 473 65 % 200 342 542 3 7 %
T u ck a se e g e e 540 605 58 578 636 9% 57 510 567 10%
U n i v e r s i t y P a rk 61*8 726 825 1 826 100% 735 132 867 85%
V i l l a H e ig h t s 810 907 902 83 985 92% 877 170 101*7 83%
W e s t e r l y H i l l s 1*05 1*51* 1*6 539 585 8% 144 332 476 30%
WJ lrro re 378 1*23 222 210 1*32 51% 153 250 1*03 3 8 %
W in d so r P a rk 61*8 726 1 71*8 749 0% 1 782 783 0%
W in t e r f i e ld 61*8 726 1*8 6 8 8 736 7% 52 653 705 7%
T o ta l W .3 9 1 1*5.239
IE
13,010 31 .2 7 8 1*1*,288 1 2 ,8 8 5 3 1 ,5 2 3 i*i*, 1*08
834a
E x h i b i t J , page 1 .
DESEGREGATION PLAN f o r C h a r l o t t e - M e c \ l e n b u r g S c h o o ls
E le m e n ta ry S c h o o ls
S c h o o l
1 9 7 0 - 7 1
C a p a c i t y
B a ss + 20% B
1 9 6 9 - 7 0
W T %B
C ou rt C o n s u lt a n t
Plan
B W T %3
A lb e m a r le Rd. 432 4 34 4 510 514 1% 162 3 38 5 0 0 32%
A lle n b r o o k 54 0 6 0 5 61 452 513 12 % 135 341 4 7 6 23%
A s h le y P ark 621 696 27 574 601 4% 175 426 601 25%
B ain 702 786 33 735 763 4 A 25 706 731 3%
B a r r in g e r 4S6 544 843 16 859 98% 203 320 523 39%
B e r r y h ill 836 936 93 639 737 13% 247 574 821 30%
B e v e r ly W o o d s 540 6 05 68 684 752 9% 136 446 632 29%
B il l in g s v il le 594 665 596 0 596 100% 113 325 4 38 26%
B r ia r w o o d 540 605 6 6eo 686 1% 256 479 735 35%
B ru n s A v en u e 675 756 759 10 769 39% 252 540 792 32%
C h a n tilly 4 3 2 4 8 4 0 4 7 2 4 72 0% 142 333 4 7 5 30%
C le a r C r e e k 324 363 48 229 277 17% 43 266 309 14%
C o llin sw o o d 621 696 111 4 43 554 20% 224 406 630 36%
C o rn e liu s 455 514 181 235 4 16 44% 182 26 5 4 4 7 41%
C o tsw o ld 54 0 605 23 537 560 4% 128 4 04 532 24%.
D a vid son 324 363 104 136 290 36% 102 174 276 32%
M a r ie D a v is
D e rita
D e v o n sh ire
D ilw o rth
756 8 47 662 0 662 100% 193 532 725 27%,
783 8 7 7 150 673 S28 18% 167 625 792 21%,
643 726 0 903 903 0% 333 624 957 35%.
643 7 26 90 317 4 0 7 22% 241 376 617 3SX.
D o u b le O aks 6 7 5 756 836 0 836 100% 234 496 7 30 32%
D ru id H ills 4 8 6 544 4 7 2 3 4 7 5 99% 158 303 4 6 1 34%
E a s to v e r
E liza b e th
E n d e rly P ark
648 726 42 559 601 7% 157 445 602 26%,
4 0 5 4 54 314 125 4 3 9 72% 132 304 436 30%.
513 575 3 371 374 1% 150 270 4 2 0 36%
DESEGREGATION PLAN for Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
Elementary Schools
S c h o o l
1 9 7 0 - 7 1
C a p a c i t y
B a se + 20% B
196 9
W
- 7 0
T %B
C o u rt C o n s u lt a n t
P lan
B W T %B
F i r s t Ward 702 7 36 805 0 805 100,4 265 6S6 951 2 8 *
h i c k o r y Grove 4 5 9 514 70 533 603 1 2 * 272 4 3 9 711 38%
Hidden V a l l e y 643 726 0 110 0 1 1 0 0 0 * 310 679 9B9 31%
H igh lan d 297 333 69 305 374 18% 76 237 313 74%
H o s k in s 297 333 13 212 225 6% 139 244 333 36%
H u n t e r s v i l l e 675 756 145 531 676 21% 130 554 634 19%
H u n t ingtow ne Farms 5 94 6 6 5 7 603 610 l ; ; 205 414 613 33%
Id le -w ild 5S7 635 47 531 6 2 3 7% 1 90 . 4 1 0 600 32%
Irw in Avenue 2S2 0 292 100% *
Amay James 373 4 2 3 4 6 2 3 4 6 5 9S% 105 194 299 3 5 *
Lakeview 378 4 23 346 39 4 3 5 80% 139 2 30 4 1 9 33%
Lansdowne 7 56 347 75 S02 877 9% 207 496 7 03 2 9 *
L i n c o l n H e i g h t s 648 726 711 0 711 100% 241 4 5 6 697 25%
Long C reek 7 02 785 267 4 6 3 735 36% 239 523 782 33%
Matthews 945 1056 36 302 8 80 10% 31 837 513 9%
Merry Oaks 4 86 544 0 442 4 4 2 0% 106 236 34 2 31%
Midwood 4 5 5 514 9 437 4 46 2% 116 44 G 562 21%
M c n t c l a i r e 675 756 0 7 1 8 718 0% 2 30 504 764 36%
Myers Park 4 3 2 484 22 444 4 6 6 5% 150 44 5 595 25%
N a t i o n s Ford 621 6 96 4 3 6 6 9 712 6% 177 532 7 59 23%
N e w ell 594 6 65 74 4 38 512 14% 74 546 6 2 0 12%
O akd ale 5 40 6 05 69 517 536 12% 250 4 6 0 710 35%
O akhu rst 594 6 6 5 5 616 621 1% 197 5 34 731 27*
Oaklawn 5 94 6 65 584 0 584 100% 226 594 8 2 0 28?,
O ld e P r o v id e n c e 540 6 0 5 SO 512 592 14% 145 351 4 9 6 29°,
* Assigned from area to increase desegregation
Oakhurst 105B
Shamrock Gardens 901$
Thomasboro 95.-B
836a
School
197071
Capacity
Base +2074
Park Road 540 605Paw Creek 594 665
Paw Creek Annex 270 302
Pineville 486 544
Pinewood 648 726
Plaza Road 459 514
Rama Road 648 726
Sedgefield 540 605
Selwyn 486 544
Shamrock Gardena 486 544
Sharon 459 514
Starmount 648 726
Statesville Road 648 726
Steele Creek 378 423
Thomasboro 729 816
Tryon Hill* 486 544
Tuckaeeege# 540 605
University Park 648 726
Villa Heights 810 907
Westerly Hills 405 454
Wilmore 378 423
Windsor Park 648 726
Winterfield 648 726
Total 40,391
45 .239
DESEGREGATION PLAN (Cont'd)
E le m e n ta ry S c h o o l*
E x h ib it J , page 3.
B
1969-
W
70
T %B B W T %B
44 548 592 7% 148 359 507 29%
27 609 636 4% 160 395 555 29%
30 271 301 10% 83 209 292 28%
136 356 492 28% 123 379 502 25%
0 674 674 0% 283 697 980 29%
80 340 420 19% 181 350 531 34%
1 815 816 0% 273 493 766 36%
3 548 551 1% 223 364 587 38%31 617 648 5% 150 309 459 33%
0 515 515 0% 174 511 685 25%
72 361 433 17% 123 245 368 33%,
25 712 737 3% 217 441 658 33%,
333 522 855 39% 160 553 713 23%,
5 509 514 1% 195 475 670 29%,
0 690 690 0% 230 770 1000 23%,
309 164 473 65% 107 262 369 29%,
58 578 636 9% 119 300 419 28%.,
825 1 826 100% 260 461 721 36%,
902 83 985 92% 265 668 933 28%,
46 539 585 8% 144 332 476 30%
222 210 432 51% 153 250 403 38%.
1 748 749 0% 272 561 833 33%,
48 688 736 7% 261 537 798 33%c
010 44,288 1.2,964 44,370
31,278 31,386
837a
838a
Exhibit K. page 1.
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS TO BE PAIREO
P r e s e n t S c h o o l
.0 C oun t
1 -
B
u
W
5
B
- 6
w
T o t a l
Pup i 1s
A lb e m a r le Road 2 3 3 8 2 1 7<* 5 1 6
A l le n b ro o k 0 3 9 1 0 1 5 6 <*97
B e v e r l y W oods 1 <*<46 1 2<*9 6 9 7
B r ia rw o o d 1* <♦ 77 2 2 2 0 70 3
B ru n s A ve n u e 526 0 2<*6 0 7 7 2
M a r ie D a v i s <01 59 1 9 3 2 6 7 0 9
O e v o n sh i re 0 62 <* 0 2 7 6 9 0 0
D o u b le O aks 585 2 2 3 2 0 8 1 9
D r u id H i l l s 310 2 1 5 8 1 <♦71
F i r s t W ard 533 0 2 6 2 U 79 5
H ic k o r y G ro v e 5<* 3 2 9 1 6 2 0 8 6 0 7
H id d e n V a l l e y 0 6 7 7 0 v 3 0 2 9 7 9
H u n t in g to w n e Farms 0 <*l<* 0 1 9 5 6 0 9
I d l e w i I d 0 <♦ 10 0 1 6 3 5 7 3
Lan sd ow n e 2 <*96 1 291 7 9 0
L i n c o l n H e ig h t s <♦ 56 0 2 3 9 0 6 9 5
M e rry Oaks 0 2 3 6 0 1 1 9 3 5 5
M o n t c la i re 0 50<* 0 217 721
O aklaw n <♦ 05 0 1 9 3 0 5 9 8
O ld * P ro v id e n c e 2 3 5 1 1 l<*6 5 0 0
P a rk Hoad 0 300 0 160 6 6 0
Paw C re e k 16 3 9 5 11 2 1 <* 6 3 6
Paw C re e k Annex 27 209 3 5 3 2 9 2
Pinewood 0 6 9 7 0 3<*6 10 6 3
Kam a Hoad 3 <*93 0 2<*<* 76 0
Se lw yn 0 28<* 0 188 6 7 2
Sh a ro n 0 2<*5 0 117 3 6 2
S ta rm o u n t 19 <*2*1 6 2 7 8 6 9 6
T ryo n H i l l s 218 no 91 5<* 6 7 3
T uckase e ge e <♦ 9 300 19 171 5 3 9
U n i v e r s i t y P a rk 550 0 260 0 8 1 0
V i l l a H e ig h t s 683 n<* 26<* *♦ 8 1 1 0 9
W in d so r P a rk 0 515 1 233
W ln t e r f i e l d 0 <*9<* 0 1 9 9 6 9 3
T o t a l <♦ ,876 1 0 ,3 0 3 2 , 2 0 1 <*.998 22,378
839a
The C h n r lo tte -M e c k le n b u rg S ch oo ls
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS PAIRED
Exhibit K.
Grade 1 -4 Grade 5 -6
Schools
B w T %
S c hools
B W T %
Huntingtowne Farms
Sharon
Starmount
545 1100 164 5 33
Bruns Aven u e 252 540 792 31
Park Road
Pinewood
431 1056 1437 29
Marie D avis 193 532 725 27
Briarwood
Devonshire
589 1103 1692 35
Double Oaks 234 496 730 32
Hidden V a l l e y
310 679 989 31
D r u i d H i l l s 158 303 461 34
Beverly Woods
Lansdowne
Olde Providence
538 1293 1831 29
F i r s t Ward 265 606 951 28
Albemarle Road
Idlewild
Merry Oaks
458 984 1442 32
L i n c o l n H e i g h t s 241 456 697 35
Allenbrook
Paw Creek
Paw Creek A nnex
Tuckaseegee
497 1245 1742 29
Oaklawn 226 594 820 28
Hickory Grove
272 439 711 38
T r y o n H i l l s 107 262 369 29
Montclaire
Rama Road
553 997 1550 36
U n i v e r s i t y Park 260 461 721 36
Selwyn
Windsor Park
Winterfield
683 1407 2090 33
V i l l a He i g h t s 265 668 933 28
Total 4 ,876 15,179 2 ,201 7 , 199
10,303 4 , 9 9 0
840a
(Filed February 13, 1970)
On February 5, 1970, this Court entered an order di
recting the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education and
the individual members of the Board to proceed immedi
ately to desegregate the public schools of Charlotte-Meck
lenburg County. The Court directed that students be as
signed to the various schools under plans presented and
adopted by the Board and a plan prepared by the Court’s
consultant, Dr. John A. Finger. The order provided for
changing attendance zones of some schools, pairing of
some schools, and transportation of students living beyond
“walking distance” from the schools to which assigned.
The order further directed that the plan be implemented
for elementary schools no later than April 1, 1970 and for
secondary schools no later than May 4, 1970. The School
Board was specifically directed to begin immediately with
steps to implement the plan.
Prior to the filing of the order on February 5, 1970, Tom
B. Harris, G. Don Roberson, A. Breece Breland, James M.
Postell, William E. Rorie, Jr., Chalmers R. Carr, and Rob
ert T. Wilson, on their behalf and on the behalf of the
Concerned Parents Association, an unincorporated asso
ciation, brought a proceeding in the Superior Court of
Mecklenburg County, by their attorney, William H. Booe,
to obstruct and prevent the School Board from implement
ing the orders directed by this Court. They obtained from
the Superior Court of Mecklenburg County an e x parte
order specifically enjoining the Superintendent from im
plementing the order of this Court directing the Board to
pay the expenses and fees of the Court consultant.
M otion to A dd A dditional Parties D efendant
and fo r Further R e lie f
841a
Following the order of February 5, 1970, Tom B. Harris,
G. Don Roberson and others of the Concerned Parents
Association have sought and are seeking by various means
to obstruct and prevent implementation of the Court’s
orders. On February 12, 1970, they obtained from the Hon
orable William K. McLean, Judge Presiding in the Superior
Court of Mecklenburg County, an order enjoining the
School Board from spending any funds to purchase and
operate school buses as directed by this Court.
The Honorable Robert H. Scott, Governor of the State
of North Carolina, on February 11 and 12, 1970, objected
to the Court’s order and directed that no public funds, state
or local, be expended for the purpose of implementing the
order. The Honorable Dr. A. Craig Phillips, State Super
intendent of Public Instruction, and the North Carolina
State Board of Education, defendants herein, joined with
the Governor in objecting to the Court’s order and in di
recting that no public funds be used for the purpose of
implementing the order.
On February 6, 1970, Honorable James Carson, a mem
ber of the Mecklenburg Delegation to the North Carolina
House of Representatives, threatened to and is preparing
to file similar proceedings in the State Court of North
Carolina to obstruct and thwart the enforcement of the
Court’s orders.
These parties, along with divers others, are seeking to
obstruct and prevent implementation of the Court’s orders
directing compliance by the school authorities with their
constitutional obligations.
Despite the Court’s directive to the School Board to pro
ceed forthwith with all necessary steps to implement the
order, the School Board, the State Superintendent and the
Motion to Add Additional Parties Defendant and
For Further Relief
842a
State Board o f Education have failed to do so. Plaintiffs
are advised that no efforts have been made to secure the
necessary buses for transporting students as directed by
the Court. Plaintiffs are also advised that such buses as
may be necessary can be ordered and manufactured by the
time directed by the Court for implementation of the plan.
The failure o f the School Board to act now in securing the
necessary facilities for transportation may prevent deseg
regation of the schools in the time directed.
Plaintiffs are advised, believe and so allege that the ac
tivities and conduct of the defendants and each of them are
pursuant to a design to thwart, impede and prevent deseg
regation o f the public schools of Charlotte-Meeklenburg
County and that the acts, activities and conduct of the
defendants were calculated and intended to incite disobedi
ence o f the law and the overthrow of law and order and to
coerce, intimidate, and compel school officials from per
formance o f their constitutional responsibilities to deseg
regate the public schools o f this system
In order to insure full implementation o f the Court’s
order within the time directed, plaintiffs, by their under
signed counsel, respectfully move the Court that the fol
lowing parties re auded as parties-defendant in this pro
ceeding
Hone rime rccert 3L Scott. Governor o f the State o f
North Carolina:
" • ra ne A. C. ?a ? 's . Controller i f the Stare Cecarr-
ntenc of Public instruction ,
r.ooorubie William A Xeuean, ftnop* it die Sumsrcrr
ClW t ¥ \ecsioobucx C&uncy'
— r.s.'~s> -. Ctnt C rersq*. ^ rre*saE isL
iasefv v "x. ■- • v -..i am j. lorn-, rr. ihsm e-rs-^ Tin—
Motion to Add Additional Parties Defendant and
For Further Relief
843a
Robert T. Wilson, and the Concerned Parents Association,
an nnincorporated association in the Mecklenburg County;
James Carson and William H. Booe.
Plaintiffs further pray the Court for a temporary and
permanent injunction dissolving the injunctive orders of
the Superior Court of Mecklenburg County entered in the
proceeding of Tom B. Harris, et al. v. William C. Self, et
al., 70 CVS 1097, and temporarily and permanently restrain
any further proceedings in the action.
Plaintiffs further pray the Court for a temporary and
permanent injunction against all defendants and all other
parties having notice of the Court’s order enjoining all
parties in this action and all parties having notice of the
orders of this Court from initiating or proceeding with
any action in any State Court which has the purpose or
effect of interfering with outstanding orders in this cause.
Plaintiffs further pray that the Court enter a temporary
and permanent injunction restraining the Governor, the
State Board of Education, the Controller of the State De
partment of Public Instruction, and the State Superinten
dent of Public Instruction from denying State funds or
taking any other steps which would prevent or tend to
prevent the implementation of the orders of this Court.
Plaintiffs further pray the Court for a temporary and
permanent injunction directing the local Board of Educa
tion, its members individually, the Governor of the State,
the State Board of Education, the State Superintendent of
Public Instruction and all other persons having an au
thority or responsibility in the administration of the public
schools in Charlotte-Mecklenburg County to proceed forth
with with all necessary steps to implement the orders of
Motion to Add Additional Parties Defendant and
For Further Relief
844a
this Court, including the provisions requiring transporta
tion of students living more than “walking distance” from
the schools to which they are assigned. Plaintiffs further
pray the court for a temporary and permanent injunction
restraining all defendants from taking any steps or action
which would inhibit or prevent or tend to prevent compli
ance with the order of this Court.
Plaintiffs further pray the court that they be allowed
their costs in this proceeding and reasonable counsel fees.
Plaintiffs further pray that the court direct the United
States Marshal to personally serve a copy of the complaint,
the amended complaint, and all orders, including the in
junctive order prayed for herein, upon all defendants
named herein.
Motion to Add Additional Parties Defendant and
For Further Relief
Respectfully submitted,
Conrad 0 . Pearson
203% East Chapel Hill Street
Durham, North Carolina
Chambers, Stein, F erguson &
L anning
216 West 10th Street
Charlotte, North Carolina
Jack Greenberg
James M. Nabrit, III
Norman J. Chachkin
10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019
845a
(Filed February 20, 1970)
Several orders, starting April 23, 1969, have been en
tered by this court dealing with pending motions for de
segregation of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools. The
orders of December 1 and December 2, 1969, and February
5, 1970, are attached as Exhibits A, B and C to this motion.
The December 2, 1969 order appointed Dr. John A.
Finger, Jr. to assist the court in the preparation of a plan
for the desegregation of the schools. The February 5,
1970 order directs the schools to be desegregated according
to various principles described or referred to in the order,
including the requirement erroneously advertised as “ in
voluntary bussing to achieve racial balance” which reads as
follows:
“ That transportation be offered on a uniform non-
racial basis to all children whose attendance in any
school is necessary to bring about the reduction of
segregation, and who live farther from the school to
which they are assigned than the Board determines to
be walking distance.”
A suit has been filed in the General Court of Justice,
Superior Court Division, Mecklenburg County, North Caro
lina, No. 70-CVS-1097, entitled “Tom B. Harris, G. Don
Roberson, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. W illiam C. Self, Superin
tendent of Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, and Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Board of Education, Defendants,” and pur
suant to allegations made in that action, Judge W. K.
McLean, of the Superior Court of North Carolina, has
entered an order temporarily restraining the School Board
Notification and Request for Designation of
Three-Judge Court
846a
and the Superintendent from paying Dr. Finger’s bills
until they have been approved by the Board of Education,
and ordering that “ the defendant Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Board of Education and its agents, servants and employees
be and they hereby are enjoined and restrained from ex
pending any money from tax or other public funds for the
purpose of purchasing or renting any motor vehicles, or
operating or maintaining such, for the purpose of involun
tarily transporting students in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg
School System from one school to another and from one
district to another district.”
The complaint, the amended complaint and the two orders
of Judge McLean dated February 12, 1970, are attached
hereto as Exhibit D.
The Governor of North Carolina has made a public state
ment, Exhibit E, and has written a letter to the Department
of Administration, Exhibit F.
The State Superintendent of Public Instruction, a party
to this case, has made a public statement, Exhibit G.
Reports received from the School Board on February 12,
1970 and February 19, 1970 fail to mention Judge McLean’s
order, and fail to indicate that the Board have appealed
or intend to appeal Judge McLean’s order; and these re
ports also reveal no action by the Board or school staff
addressed to the transportation problem. It appears that
whether the action of Judge McLean and the other state
officials do or do not directly conflict with this court’s
orders, the practical effect of those actions is or may be
to delay or defeat compliance with the orders of this
United States Court.
The plaintiffs have filed a motion to make additional par
ties, and have requested this court to enter orders dis-
Notification and Request for Designation of
Three-Judge Court
847a
solving Judge McLean’s restraining orders and directing
the Governor, the State Department of Instruction and the
“ Concerned Parents Association” and their attorneys and
others not to interfere further with the compliance of the
School Board with the orders of this court.
Some of the issues raised by this situation may involve
the constitutionality of a state statute and others may be
matters cognizable by a single judge.
It appearing to the court that pursuant to Title 28,
U.S.C.A., this matter should be heard and determined by a
district court of three judges.
Now, th erefore , it is respectfully requested that the
Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit designate two other judges, at least one
of whom shall be a circuit judge, to serve with the under
signed district judge as members of the court to hear and
determine the action.
This the 19th day of February, 1970.
/ s / James B. McM illan
James B. McMillan
United States District Judge
Notification and Request for Designation of
Three-Judge Court
848a
Tender of Evidence N u n c P r o T u n c and Objections
(Filed February 24, 1970)
Defendants, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Educa
tion, and the individual members of the Board of Educa
tion, pursuant to the oral statements of the Court during
the hearing on February 5, 1970, and pursuant to the order
of the Court dated February 5, 1970, hereby tender, nunc
pro tunc, evidence which would have been offered by the
defendants for the consideration of the Court which was
excluded by reason of the time limitations imposed by the
Court or by formal rejection of the evidence hereby ten
dered by rulings of the Court. The evidence tendered is
disclosed in the following affidavits:
1. Affidavit of Dr. William C. Self, Superintendent of
the Charlotte-Mecklenburg public schools.
2. Affidavit of Mr. J. D. Morgan, Assistant Superinten
dent of business services of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg pub
lic schools.
3. Affidavit of Mr. Louis W. Alexander, Assistant Di
rector of the Division of Transportation of the North Caro
lina Board of Education.
4. Affidavit of Mr. Herman J. House, Director of Traffic
Engineering of the City of Charlotte, North Carolina.
5. Affidavit of Mr. Robert L. Deaton, Assistant General
Manager of Charlotte City Coach Lines, Inc.
In addition to the foregoing, the defendants tender per
tinent portions of the report and recommendations of the
Court appointed consultant. Dr. John A. Finger, which re-
vommendatio-> ; .......avyear o: -ecerd at this
849a
Tender of Evidence Nunc Pro Tunc and Objections
time. Accordingly, these defendants deem it appropriate
to tender same as a portion of the record in this cause.
The defendants renew their objection to the refusal of
the Court to permit full evidentiary hearings with respect
to the two plans presented to the Court and offered into
evidence on February 2, 1970, and further object to the
refusal of the Court to consider all evidence prior to entry
of its order on February 5, 1970.
Respectfully submitted this 24th day of February, 1970.
/ s / W illiam J. W aggoner
W illiam J. W aggoner
W einstein, W aggoner, Sturges,
Odom and Bigger
1100 Barringer Office Tower
Charlotte, North Carolina
/ s / B e n j . S. H orace
B e n j . S. H orace
E rvin , H orace a n d M cCartha
806 East Trade Street
Charlotte, North Carolina
/ s / B roce B arkley
B roce B areley
Law Building
Charlotte, North Carolina
850a
(Referred to in Foregoing Tender of Evidence)
William C. Self, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1. I am the Superintendent of the Charlotte-Mecklen
burg public schools and am responsible for the administra
tion and operation of the school system.
2. At the hearing conducted on February 5, 1970, I
would have testified as follows in the event the Court had
permitted more time or had permitted answers to certain
questions posed by the School Board attorney. Such testi
mony would have been as follows.
3. The administrative staff explored the possibility of
pairing one or more of the predominantly black schools
with neighboring predominantly white schools. This alter
native was rejected since such a move would have caused
the paired schools to become predominantly black in a short
period of time. Pairing of a predominantly black school
with an adjoining desegregated school would produce a
predominantly black school body in both schools. Many
schools in the system have quickly changed from white to
black. Since 1954-55 school term, eleven (11) schools have
experienced such a turnover. Schools which have changed
from all white to predominantly black during this period
are Barringer. Bethune, Elizabeth. First Ward. Lakeview,
Seversville. Zeb Vance. Villa Heights, Wesley Heights,
Hawthorne and Piedmont. These schools or their suc
cessors experienced a more rapid shift to predominantly
black once their racial ratio reached approximately 35 to
hi per cent hiacs. Any pairing arrangement between eon-
xguottss 'Choc is v-nm: exceed tins tierce a tasK.
Affidavit of William C. Self, Superintendent of
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Schools
851a
4. The Board of Education plan for further desegrega
tion represents utilization of racially gerrymandered lines
to the greatest extent possible in seeking maximum racial
balance and at the same time preserve a bare semblance
of the neighborhood school concept.
5. Further desegregation of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg
public schools should take into account the educational
advantages to be gained. As an educator, I cannot justify
an abrupt mid-year desegregation move on educational
grounds for the amount of disruption, inconvenience, and
hardship to the educational processes would nullify such
advantages for the vast majority of black and white stu
dents. A better procedure would be to schedule the moves
near the end of the regular school term. This would allow
the school administration to bring one school year to a
close and to plan the new operation as if it were the begin
ning of another school term. Such a move would allow for
general orientation of students and teachers to their new
surroundings and would also have the effect of relieving
uncertainty about next year’s school assignment. Such
change should not take place earlier than the last two weeks
of school which is ample time to complete orientation.
6. As a professional educator, I am quite aware of the
fact that opinions of children, parents and the community
with reference to an educational program often offer posi
tive or negative contributions to such programs. Their
opinions may so affect the educational system that the
benefits to be derived from a particular program will be
submerged and thereby impaired to the point that the pro
gram offers a negative value because of the absence of
Affidavit of William C. Self, Superintendent of
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Schools
852a
Affidavit of William C. Self, Superintendent of
Charlotte-MecJclenburg Public Schools
popular support or acceptance. This would apply with
equal force to the opinions of parents, students and the
community to further desegration or to the time for imple
mentation thereof. In any event, substantial efforts will
be made to gain community acceptance of any action which
must be taken.
This the 24th day of February, 1970.
William C. Self
(Sworn to February 24, 1970)
853a
Affidavit of J. D. Morgan, Assistant Superintendent for
Business Services of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Public Schools
(Referred to in Foregoing Tender of Evidence)
J. D. M organ, being dnly sworn, deposes and says that:
1. I am Assistant Superintendent for Business Services
of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Schools, and am re
sponsible for the administration and operation of the school
bus transportation system of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Schools.
2. All statistical data and information attached hereto
or referred to herein were prepared by me or under my
direct control and supervision, are incorporated as a part
of this Affidavit and correctly set forth the facts and esti
mates to which they refer.
3. I am thoroughly familiar with the bus transportation
system for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools as it is
presently being operated and with the Board Plan and the
Finger Plan for desegregation which were in evidence at
the February 5, 1970 hearing and referred to in the Court’s
Order of the same date. I have made a careful, detailed
analysis of both of those Plans and alternate proposals,
particularly with reference to their effect upon transporta
tion of students, bus routes and schedules, transportation
costs, availability of facilities and related matters.
4. Under North Carolina law and applicable regulations
as they apply to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School System
any school child is entitled to free transportation to and
from the school he attends if he resides more than 1% miles
854a
from his school and (a) if he resides in the part of Meck
lenburg County located outside the Charlotte city limits as
they existed immediately prior to the 1957 annexation or
(h) if he resides in the City and attends a school located
within that portion of the County. Based on December 1,
1969, records, 22,545 children were being transported pur
suant to the State law by a fleet of 267 school buses. In
addition, the System is presently furnishing with local
funds 13 buses to transport the 738 black students who ac
cepted assignments to outlying white schools when certain
inner city schools were closed last year. In the aggregate,
the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools has a fleet of 280 buses
which now transport daily 23,283 students.
5. The Board Plan proposed to provide transportation
for those children who are eligible under the present State
law. The Finger Plan proposes to provide transportation
for all students not within walking distance of their school,
regardless of the location of their residence or the schools
they attend. The Board has accepted the State standard
for walking distance as being less than 1% miles. Either
of the proposed plans for desegregation will require buses
and expenditures in addition to the 280 buses presently be
ing used to transport 23,283 students. A summary of perti
nent data, including the additional children, buses and costs
which would be required under each desegregation pro
posal is as follows:
Affidavit of J. D. Morgan, Assistant Superintendent for
Business Services of the Charlotte-Meclclenburg
Public Schools
855a
Affidavit of J. D. Morgan, Assistant Superintendent for
Business Services of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Public Schools
No. of Children Bussed
No. of Buses
No. of Trips Daily
Aver. No. Trips Daily
Aver. No. Pupils Per Trip
Aver. No. Miles Daily
Total Mileage Daily
Aver. Per Pupil Cost Annually
Cost of Buses
Cost of Parking Lots, Etc.
Cost of Operating
Cost of Personnel
B oard Plan
4,935
104
104
1
47
30
3,120
$ 29.29
$589,889.56
56.200.00
175,627.92
42.960.00
F in g er Plan
23,384
526
526
1
44
30
15,780
$ 31.26
$2,947,048.94
337.400.00
888,271.98
177.120.00
Total Cost $864,677.48 $4,349,840.92
From the foregoing it will he observed that, compared with
existing transportation, the Finger Plan adopted by the
Court will double the number of children bussed (an in
crease from 23,283 to a total of 46,667) and almost triple
the number of buses required (an increase from 280 to
806). Supporting details for this summary are shown on
attached Schedules Nos. 1 and 2. In each instance the addi
tional requirements tabulated above are based upon the
System’s experience regarding the number of students
who actually use such transportation—rather than the
much larger number who are eligible therefor.
6. For the most part, the school buses are driven by high
school students recruited by the high school principals and
are paid the $1.60 per hour minimum wage prescribed by
856a
State law for student drivers. Student drivers are pres
ently in very short supply as are also the extra substitute
relief drivers which we must have in case of the illness or
absence of regular drivers. A student driver parks his bus
at his home overnight. In order to minimize unnecessary
mileage, wherever possible a student driver is assigned a
bus route that begins near his home. On the morning of
each school day he starts his student pick ups near his home
and continues on his route until he deposits the children
at the school served by the route. All buses, by State law,
must he routed within a mile of a student’s home. In most
instances, it is necessary for a bus to be routed off main
streets and roads to pick up points less than a mile for two
reasons: First, to insure safety in loading and unloading
students and secondly, to provide for better traffic safety
and flow for the general public. If a bus route is not too
long, the driver will be assigned a second route or trip.
This trip begins after unloading at the first school so that
he can pick up a second load of children for another school.
At present, the daily trips per bus providing State trans
portation average 1.8, reflecting the double use of about
four fifths of the buses. If the route distance is too long
or requires a long time because of congested or city traffic,
a bus may be able to make only one trip. At the end of his
morning run the student driver will park his bus and pro
ceed to his high school. After school, the process is re
peated in reverse. At present each bus averages about 40.8
miles per day, which includes both the morning and after
noons runs. In order to complete their runs most student
drivers miss one instruction period.
Affidavit of J. D. Morgan, Assistant Superintendent for
Business Services of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Public Schools
857a
7. J3us routes are arranged to make maximum use of the
capacity of the buses. However, in spite of our best efforts,
sometimes the children on a route destined for a particular
school are insufficient in number to utilize the full capacity
of a bus. State regulations allow the rated seating capacity
of a bus to he exceeded by not more than 25%. When the
full capacity of a bus is utilized on a particular route,
normally the children on the morning run who cannot get
a seat are those who board the bus last. This is normally
within a short distance of their school. On the afternoon
run at the close of school the same is true in reverse. For
the sake of the safety of our children, we try to minimize
the need for standing in the aisles—particularly by ele
mentary children. The risk of student injury is substan
tially increased when the children are required to stand
up for long periods or in heavily congested traffic.
8. Due to senior high schedules, length of time required
on some routes and point of bus route termination, we are
unable to use student drivers. Therefore, we employ some
adult drivers who are paid the prescribed minimum wage of
$1.95 per hour. Even greater difficulty is experienced in
finding and retaining competent and reliable adult drivers.
Because the system is responsible for the welfare of its
students (particularly young children and girl students)
great care must he exercised in screening candidates and
investigating their moral character and past records as
well as their driving abilities. Since adult employment is
not provided on a full workday basis (hut only for the few
hours in the morning and afternoon) and because of the
low pay, reliable adult drivers are hard to find and keep.
Affidavit of J. D. Morgan, Assistant Superintendent for
Business Services of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Public Schools
858a
Unlike student drivers who park their buses at school,
substantial additional bus mileage is incurred when at the
end of a morning or afternoon run adult drivers must
return empty buses to the central bus depot until they are
picked up for the next run.
9. Both student and adult drivers must obtain a special
school bus driver’s license. At least five days are required
to obtain such a license and to train the prospective drivers
for the operation of their buses, instruct them in safety
and operating rules and regulations and familiarize them
with their bus schedules and routes.
10. Safe, convenient parking areas must be provided for
the loading and unloading of bussed children and the park
ing of these buses during school hours in order that they
may be serviced with gas, oil and minor repairs. The Char-
lotte-Mecklenburg System is already hard pressed to pro
vide such areas. School buses load and unload through a
door at the right front of each bus. Safety of children is
the key consideration. Parking areas must be arranged so
children alighting from or boarding a school bus can do
so without being endangered by the movement of other
buses or traffic. Attached Schedule No. 3 explains the perti
nent considerations, layouts, traffic flow, areas and other
matters involved in providing these necessary bus parking
areas. Parked school buses are not permitted to block
dedicated or public streets and rights of way. Safe ingress
and egress must be provided for buses entering and leav
ing public streets and roads. Bus parking areas should pro
vide sufficient space to allow maintenance and service trucks
Affidavit of J. D. Morgan, Assistant Superintendent for
Business Services of the Charlotte-MecMenburg
Public Schools
859a
to gas and oil the parked buses during school hours. De
pending upon the length of the bus route, some buses re
quire servicing every day and some every other day.
Because of terrain, limited school sites and similar factors,
some schools cannot accommodate bus parking areas. In
such situations, parking areas must be purchased or leased
or the buses must be taken back to a central bus depot
until needed for the next run. Playgrounds cannot be used
for bus parking areas without curtailing the physical edu
cation program and without likely damage to the parked
buses. Attached Schedule No. 1 shows school by school
the students to be transported and the buses and parking
areas required to provide the additional State law trans
portation prescribed under the Board Plan and the attached
Schedule No. 2 shows the same information under the
Finger Plan. In each instance, these schedules show
whether the required parking area is presently non existent
(N), unsatisfactory (U) or satisfactory (S). Attached
Schedule No. 3 documents the costs involved in providing
bus parking. Apart from the cost of any needed land
acquisitions, a $56,200 capital outlay will be required to
provide additional bus parking under the Board Plan and
$337,400 additional under the Finger Plan for those schools
where bus parking areas are available. 11
11. Among the 23,384 additional students that must be
transported under the Finger Plan will be 5,150 white 5th
and 6th graders bussed into, and 5,150 black 1st, 2nd, 3rd
and 4th graders bussed out of, the center city to eliminate
the 9 predominantly black elementary schools which re
main under the Board Plan. Also included are the students
Affidavit of J. D. Morgan, Assistant Superintendent for
Business Services of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Public Schools
860a
which must be bussed under the Finger Plan to eliminate
Piedmont Junior High as a predominantly black school. A
careful evaluation has been made of the bus trips and routes
which would be required to achieve these objectives of the
Finger Plan or any alternate plan which has as its purpose
the elimination of these ten predominately black inner
city schools. This evaluation reveals that bus trips to and
from the center city schools will average 15 miles one way
(30 miles round trip) and many of them will require a
travel time of 1% hours one way (2y2 hours round trip).
A child involved in 2y2 hours daily bus travel will spend
452.5 hours in a school bus during his 181 day school year.
Prolonged travel is not only costly in terms of dollars and
cents, but in terms of the time expended by children, par
ents, teachers, principals and other school administrative
personnel, which will most definitely affect the instructional
programs and the on-going operation of the school system.
The tranportation of students into and out of the center city
will necessarily involve bus routes through the heavily con
gested parts of the inner city and perimeter areas. From
a safety standpoint this is undesirable. Under North Caro
lina law, traffic going both ways must come to a halt when
a school bus stops. The stop-and-go schedules of school
buses transporting 23,384 additional children will seriously
clog the already over burdened city and perimeter thorough
fares.
12. The average 15 mile trip (30 miles per day) into and
out of the center city to eliminate these predominantly black
schools under the Finger Plan wll preclude the use of stu
dent drivers, because the trips will be too long and too time-
consuming to permit them to operate the buses and main
Affidavit of J. D. Morgan, Assistant Superintendent for
Business Services of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Public Schools
861a
tain their own class schedules at the high schools they
attend. As a practical matter, adult drivers will have to
be employed to do the job. The estimated operating costs
documented in attached Schedules Nos. 1 and 2 are based
entirely on the use of student drivers. As indicated above,
reliable and competent adult drivers are already in short
supply and involve much more empty bus mileage than do
student drivers. Even if adult drivers could he found, it is
estimated that the operating costs of providing the trans
portation required by the Finger Plan would exceed the
amounts shown on those Schedules by 40% to 60%, mainly
because of the increased salaries and the additional mileage
that would he required.
13. School buses for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
(as well as those for the other North Carolna school sys
tems) are procured through the State Board of Education’s
Division of Transportation. Under State law, when an ad
ditional bus is purchased it must be paid for entirely with
local funds. At present the average cost of a school bus is
$5,387.64, but it is anticipated that there soon will be a
significant increase in this figure. Assuming student
drivers, the maximum life of a school bus is about 12 to 15
years. If adult drivers are used the life of a bus is much
less because of the increased mileage. The wear and tear
on a school bus is greater than that of most buses because
of the roads they travel, the stop-and-go driving involved
in student pickup routes and the hard usage occasioned by
the young children they transport. The State pays for re
placement buses. When school buses are retired they are
either junked or sold at public auction. There is very little,
Affidavit of J. D. Morgan, Assistant Superintendent for
Business Services of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Public Schools
862a
if any, use left in a bus that has been retired. The repair
and upkeep of such buses is prohibitive and usually they are
unfit and unsafe for the transportation of school children.
14. Contingent upon availability of funds, at the present
time only 75 additional new buses could be procured from
the State and of these, 27 are required as past-due replace
ments for our existing fleet. If the State has other new
buses on hand they have been allocated to some or all of
the 99 other North Carolina County school systems which
also need overdue replacements. March 27, 1970, is the
earliest date that State cotnracts can be let for the pur
chase of additional buses. As stated above, 104 additional
buses will be required under the Board Plan and 526 under
the Finger Plan. Spring and summer is a rush time for bus
manufacturers because this is when schools all over the
country customarily place their orders for new buses. Un
der normal conditions it takes about 120 days before the
first bus chassis is delivered to the body fabricator and
about 45 days thereafter before the completed bus is de
livered and ready for use. With the exception of the 75
buses referred to above, the first of the buses needed to pro
vide the transportation required by either of the Plans
would not be delivered to our system until the Fall of 1970
and it is expected that an order placed to satisfy the re
quirements of the Finger Plan would not be completed un
til the Spring of 1971. In the meantime, we will have a con
tinuing need for replacements.
15. Some suggestion has been made that, in order
to meet the proposed demands of the Finger Plan, the
Affidavit of J. D. Morgan, Assistant Superintendent for
Business Services of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Public Schools
863a
Gharlotte-Mecklenburg Schools could use some or all
of the several hundred retired obsolete buses that are
stored in various areas of the State pending the arrival
of new buses. These old buses are either junk or near junk.
On average, they have been used 12 to 15 years and are
unserviceable for school purposes or they would not have
been declared obsolete and scheduled for replacement in
the first place. With coaxing and care some of them can
be made to run, but they are totally unsuitable for use to
transport school children in a system as large and as
complex as ours. Their performance would be completely
unreliable—even with maximum attention to repairs and
maintenance. They would not hold up under the strain and
requirements of the long routes and urban congestion
involved in our system. Quite apart from the mechanical
unreliability of these resurrected replacements, many of
them are unsafe. We cannot afford to put our children
on buses which are discards and whose reliability and
safety are suspect.
16. We have investigated the possibility of working out
contract arrangements with Charlotte’s public transit
system, Charlotte City Coach lines, Inc., to provide some
of the transportation that will be required under the
desegregation proposals. City Coach Lines is willing to
help the schools in any way it can, but is able to provide
only 5 buses to assist any desegregation effort. These
buses can carry an average of 65 children each—making
a total of 325. This total could be increased to some degree
if the schools went on staggered schedules to make greater
use of the available equipment.
Affidavit of J. D. Morgan, Assistant Superintendent for
Business Services of the Gharlotte-Mecklenburg
Public Schools
864a
17. It is observed that 280 buses are now being used
to transport 23,283 school children but that 526 more buses
will be required for the additional 23,384 pupils who must
be transported under the Finger Plan. There are very
obvious reasons why this is so. The existing 280 bus fleet
now transports the 28,283 predominantly County children
on comparatively short runs, allowing many of the buses
to serve more than one school by making more than one
trip—the buses now averaging about 1.8 trips daily. By
way of contrast, the Finger Plan requires massive cross
bussing and satelite bussing to and from the center city
and outlying areas. Under the Finger Plan the average
one-way run will be about 15 miles (much of it in congested
city and suburban traffic) and some of the routes will
involve travel time of approximately I 14 hours—too far
and too long to permit the multiple use of buses to serve
several schools as is frequently possible under our existing
setup. The initial capital expenditure for buses required
to implement the Finger Plan could be reduced by 35%
to 50% if schedules for the opening and closing of the
various schools were staggered. However, as previously
noted, this would necessarily require the use of adult
drivers—which would increase operational costs by 40%
to 60%, due mainly to increased drivers’ salaries and addi
tional mileage. The extensive staggered school schedules
that would be necessary to minimize the number of buses
required under the Finger Plan give rise to many practical
problems—causing inconvenience and hardship for children
and parents and disruption of school activities. It is
anticipated that under any program of staggered school
openings and closings (that significantly reduce bus re
Affidavit of J. D. Morgan, Assistant Superintendent for
Business Services of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Public Schools
865a
quirements) some children would have to leave home as
early as 6:40 a.m., and others would not get hack home
until 5 :00 p.m.
18. As already observed, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg
School System is now operating a complex and costly
transportation system as required by State law for about
27% of its total 84,000 students. Under the Court’s Finger
Plan almost 55% of these students will be bussed daily.
This will serve only to compound drastically the burden,
expense, hardship, inconvenience, hazards, expenditure of
unproductive time and the added administrative problems
occasioned by any bussing program. The extra costs of
the Finger Plan will make serious inroads upon our ability
to finance and maintain quality facilities and instructional
programs for our youngsters.
19. The implementation of the Finger Plan presupposes
not only the availability of the buses, but also the avail
ability of the funds (either locally or from the State) with
which to finance the capital outlay and operational costs
occasioned by the additional transportation necessary to
effect the racial balances that the Plan seeks to achieve.
We have no indication that these funds will be forth
coming—either locally or from the State.
20. Neither the Finger Plan nor any other plan which
has as its objective the elimination of the predominately
black 9 elementary and 1 junior high schools in the center
city can be implemented without a massive bussing
program. It is unrealistic to assume that any such plan
Affidavit of J. D. Morgan, Assistant Superintendent for
Business Services of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Public Schools
866a
Affidavit of J. D. Morgan, Assistant Superintendent for
Business Services of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Public Schools
can be put into effect during this school year. We do not
have the buses and we cannot get them. Even if we had
the buses, we have no reasonable prospect of recruiting
and training the student and adult drivers to operate
them. Even if the buses and drivers were available, we
have no prospects of obtaining the necessary financing.
/ s / J. D. M organ
J. D. M organ
(Sworn to July 13, 1970.)
867a
BOARD C ? i;ITCATION PLAN
CHARLOTTC-.'ZC I'LAN BURG SCHOOLS
1 . C o s t o f B a s e s $ 5 8 9 ,8 8 3
2 . C o s t o f P a r k in g A r e a 5 6 ,2 0 0
3 . C o s t o f O p e r a t io n 1 7 5 ,6 2 7
9 . P e r s o n n e l 112,960
5 . T o t a l C o s t F i r s t Y e a r $ 8 6 9 ,6 7 7
868a
. $5,337.6-4 $ 161,623.20
750.CO
h i cbs
j c .<s - 2 5, cco :cj
eli /ery Tracks - 1 5,COO.CO
2. Co g : Operation
Dai 1 y Annua 1
1. Cri/ers1 Salaries
2A Gas, oil, crease, anti-freeze
3 J'.ac'-.ani cs 1 Salaries
fie pair Farts
*r3 Tires and Tubes
5153. SO
27.50
33.70
7.20
5 27,855.30
5,095.30
7,GCA.70
1,303.20
TOTAL 5230.7-0 • 5 91,702 .<-0
Depreciation .055 cer nils 99.50 8.959.50
G.VvN'j TOTAL 5273-50 5 50,661.50
5. Personnel
A. Lure', scry - 1 S 6,2 CO.OC
6,= 2C.CC
869a
BOARD CF 23 JCAT i ON FLAN
JUNIOR HIGn SCr.COL
1. Capital Cjtlay
A. 33 Bases C- $5,5S7.cA
c. £c_ i p.T.en i j
3 . Se r .■ ■ ce \h.', ic 1 eS
Service Truc<s - 1
3. Gasoline -eiivery Traces - 1
$177,7 j2 . i 2
c25 .CD
2,3CO.CO
Ccst cf Operation
J£.ii y p-r- J
1. ur i vers * Sg Ier i es
2A. Gas, oil, grease, anti-freeze
3. Mechanics Saiaries
AA F.epai r Farts
A3 Tires ar.d Tubes
^163.25
3 C . 65
A2.57
7.52
5 jO.Cil.ii5
5,55:..33
7,705.17
1,1*33.52
TOTAL
Depreciation^ .055 per (nile
$255.AA
5A.A5
* $-.5,672.64
S.-&55 .A5
GRAND TO TAL 53C7.£3 $55,723.05
Fersonne i
A. Supe rviscry - i
B. Clerical - 1
$ £,2co.c;
6, 12C.CC
870a
SCAP.D CF £J JCA7 i C.’i > LA.';
ELEf’.EiiTAr\Y SCHOOL
Capital Outlay
A. A) Buses 5- Sp,3-7
C. Ser/ice Vehicles
$220 d37.2-f
5CC.CO
Ser/lce Truc*s - 2
Gasoline Delivery Trucks - i
5 . 0 C C . C 0
5 , c : o . o o
Cost cf Operation
Daily Annual
. Drivers' Salaries 5210.33 3 3 8 , 0 6 3 . 7 3
2A Gas, cii, grease, e.nd anti-freeze 33.13 6 . 9 0 1 . 5 3
3 Mechanics1 Salaries p 2 .i s 3 . 5 7 3 . 0 3
AA.Repair Parts 9 • 1 , 7 3 i . 0 6
Tires and Tubes - ~
Total S3lA.cS $ 56.933-28
6 . Depreciation^ .05 5 p e r n i l e 67.65 12,266.65
GPA'.’D TOTAL 5362.53 5 69.267.93
Personnel
A. Super.i sor/ - 1 C 8, 200.CC
fc, 12C.C0
871a
BOARD OF EL'U CATION PLAN Cl' DESEGREGATION
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS
SCHOOL
NO. STUDENTS TO
EE TRANSPORTED
NO. BUSES
REQUITED
BUS
‘ P A R K IN G ARE. C O S T
E a st M ecklen burg 2 7 3 7 S
G a rir .g er 7 8 2 N $ 3 ,4 0 0 .
H ard in g N
In depen den ce S
M yers Park r n
N orth M ecklen burg s
O lym pic s
Second Ward
South M ecklen burg 6 0 0 15 u S 6 , 0 0 0 .
W est C h a r lo t t e 5 3 2 u S 8 0 0 .
U e stH e ck le n b u rg 1 9 8 5 u $ 2 , 0 0 0 .
C h a n q e i n A t t e n d a n c e / x e a s 10
I
T o t a l 1 2 0 2 4 1 $ 1 2 , 2 0 0
L ess r e d u c t io n t o p r e v e n t •X
d u p l i c a t e u se o f s c h o o l b u se s 1 1
N et number o f b u se s 30
872a
: vc a i i o : : I'LUN Cr DCS:
JUNIOR 1 !IC l SCHOOLS
NO. STUDENTS TO NO. DUSES J BUS C O ST
school BE TRANSPORTED REQUIRED PARKING
lb e m a r le Road
~ ~ ! S
Ii s
ochrar.e 534 10 u $4,000.
Sj o k c s S :! R a n d o lp h 59 1 s
Ic u lv e o d 220 4 s
E a s t v ay !____U_______
Y lexar.der Graham • U
Hawthorne • N
Irwon Avenue
ic C l in t o c k s
lo r L h v e s t N
Piedm ont N
> u a il H ollow S
Ranscn
' s
S e d ,e r i e l d
j
N
400 8 s
1 |
N
1 1 N
i 1 6 4 3 i u $1,200
Y o rk Road i i N
Change in Attendance Areas 12
T o t a l 1 3 8 8 38
L ess r e d u c t io n t o p r e v e n t
d u p l i c a t e u se o f s c h o o l b u s e s _______5
N et number o f b u s e s 33
$ 5 , 2 0 0 .
873a
ADDITIONAL TRANS tj- ' u z r .ID
BOARD OF EDUCATION ? uAN o f desf.gef. c a : i c : ;
ELEJ&STAa i SCHOOLS
SCHOOL
i KOo STUDENTS TO j
I BE TRANSPORTED
1 !
LO. BUSES
REQUIRED
1 B u g j~
P a r k i n g C O ST
A lb e n a r le Road i i s !
A lle n b ro o k !■■ | i
i S
A sh le y Park
!': i
N
Bain U
B a r r in g e r 1 9 7 4
■
N j $ 4 , 2 0 0 .
B e r r v h i l l 2 7 4 5 s
B ev e rly Woods | ;
D i
3 i l l i n g s v i l e 2 5 9 ? 5 N ! $ 4 .G O O .
3 r ia r v o o d i U 1
Bruns Avenue i
_____________________________ !______________
C h a n t i l ly j 77 !
C le a r Creek i u !
C o llin s v o o d
: I
2 3 3
----------------------- :----
5 s !
.C o rn e liu s ' ! i
17 |
C ocsv old 1 9 5 A „ - r $ 4 , 2 0 0 .
Davidson
N
D e r ita •
D evon sh ire
D ilw o rth
Double Oaks i
Druid H i l l s
----------------------------------- -- ---------_ i 1
|
E a sto v e r 6 2 j i i it j $ 3 , 0 0 0 .
E liz a b e th
1 1
!
Er.derly Park
i
F i r s t Hard
1
1
’ r
II
874*
EOAHD Or EJECAiICX FILL" Or E E S iC n S G ii'iC I
ELEKSJTAIS SCHOOLS
1:0 . s t u d E rr s to n o . BUSES ; • U u .! ' A ■)- . .C O S T --
SCHOOL BE TRANSPORTED REQUIRED - p a n t i n g
■iidden V e l ie v
-
/
!
j
;
4 7 i N $ 3 , 0 0 0 .
Ilarie. D avis
K e rry Oaks ..
3 5 i U $ 4 0 0 .
! 3 £
I
1 0 5 2 N $ 3 , 4 0 0 .
.
O ld s P ro
Peed
l-~7 Creak |
I i |
Vr.r.7.: Ik::--: : . ________ _____ ___ „ .
875a
A3D17 1 ONAL TRANSI 01 ' . T A T R L Q t 1 illD
EOAPJD OF EDUCATION PI AN OF DESEGREGATION'
‘ ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
SCHOOL
KO. STUDENTS TO
BE TRANSPORTED
KO. BUSES
REQUIRED
L u c
P a r k i n g CO ST
i
Ratr-H Road l
t
S e d g e f ie ld 1
; j 1
Selw yn : 1 i
Shamrock G ardens
1 i
Sharon •
Starxaount i
S t a t e s v i l l e Road
!
S t e e le Creek s
Th onasboro 3 5 3 7 W $ 5 , 4 0 0 .
Trvon H i l l s
T u ck a se eg ee 3 0 1 17 S 3 . 0 0 0 . '
U n iv e r s it y Park
V i l l a H e ig h ts ■
W e s te r ly H i l l s 1 5 6 3 N S 3 . 8 0 0 .
|
W iln o r e *
i
i
i
W in dsor Park 1 i
W in t e r f i e ld 1 4 0 3 N S 3 . 8 0 0 .
P in evood 1
T o t a l 2 3 4 5
i
4 8 $ 3 8 , 8 0 0 .
L e ss r e d u c t io n t o p r e v e n t
d u p lic a t e u se o f s c h o o l b u se s ______ 7
4 lN e t number o f b u se s
Sen2chile 2'
876a
DR. JO till rliCGER PLA;\
CiiARLOjlT E - i-Z C iX-ENi3URG SCHOOLS
X. Cost o f Buses $ 2,547,043.91!
2. Cost o f Perking Area 337,400 .00
3 . Cost Operation £55,271 .98
<4. Personnel 177 ,120 .00
5 . Total Cost F irs t Veer* $ 9 ,3 4 3 ,5 4 0 .9 2
877a
c..., i
S~ ilC ?. lii 'C i SC
0 v353?ocj
LL I l r i e r r r i i
. v\’.C:0 V c l i c l c s
L illvery
2. Core
D r iv e r j D c l - r r ic c G-reli:.Op oil, C-c^oP I'celrnicJ Ddcrioj
lir e 3 6 leir3
cr.ui-i recro
E l l e r ^ c G e c t
- o i l
Lot .„_rCO
12 i ; l l . I j
i'- — w'-'
i r i ly
Or- r >12 Crlr i O ->• -1
l i i . ■„ .r IS ;11?.62
-i-'j .30 ^ s -
2?. 3 J 1,932.31
. Ci33s0 . r
263.10 32.c:-5.1:
i»053.c; 3192,313,12
Co E re L i e r r i c i e r - 1 7 ,1 1 1 ,0 1
878a
12. i-li.V„A.'
Hati.! SC.iCCIS
l u c o o 0 $ 3 3 3 ? - i i i '2 . $ 0^1 1̂ 1 7 .1 6
LI 2 ,* ? p .C 0
C. L - : \ l c j V 'c i. ic lo □
i o o v i c o ‘i-.-v.ci:3 1 2 ^ 1 1 * 0 0
2 L o l i v e , y T rucks 1C _ 0_ 1 1 CO
COJl CLOlwciO.!
l - i ly
Lvivo70 i„_c:iee 61iX.,Lv?.07Ccs5 c__„ r.ccsoj tir.d-ircozo I1G.C7
Celeries 133.*1 27j7cr.llt.cizi:- Ir'c-.- yj 25.3>8 3,035.35Vires £; Vices
$Jii.52 $163,005.32tc-cej,: Ciits 193.3? 55.?;9.33
C:.o3 lOrAisS $1,110.27 $200,5?$.67
r e :
A r . e u a i
A . S u . O i - . i c o i v - 0 t $ 3 2 ,r C-j.C-j
L . C l c i - c C - 2 1 <? • 2 1: J : C .
C , ~ ~ . . . c r . ; . : - - 1' - 1 7 , £ 0 0 . C O
879a
i -----;2.i i'lAIJ
e i i a h y a ;.i s c .^ o n
1. Ca.ieal Caelay
-- -> 2 A j> i>35C3 0 ĵpao’/lCa ta, c * •' ■:'. .1
12 £ piaicc irarla
i> Eo..ive:y 2 mr.; j
2. Gear Gr e la t io n
E a ily
1= D ravcr? Sr.lc.ric3 c : , : i r , i , z i r . z : :
Gc3 ; c : 1 j ^ rcaao, a n a i-r ra o ra Z h : .L ? <-■ ' i - - -G - )
Fr: a u ric 3 G a ic i ic a 3 7 . . W C23i*..2«3“
E ca a ir Far-to 73.32 1 2 V < .ye
l i r e 3 £c T a lc3
$ 2 so 3 . 2 r
F i l e 3^3 .. i ••
c :i .:;d i g i a i C3•733,C5 c i : i , 7 * 7 . c ;
3. Farrr.a.oi
Aar.
Sar^rrlra: .- .. 3 t a . e e :
lo C_c:-:.ca.2 - 3 - - -■ r - c _:
V - j 113parraer -• 1 1 1 1 ,
Aral: rrai la 3 Hera A ara •■ 2 r *
v .a e .3 .\m t . :;m l >
id?.. j o :-:;; f t -m i p . - s f l a .-; o ? rz3zo F > :G ..r :o .;
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS
SCHOOL
NO. STUDENTS TO
RE TRANSPORTED
NO. RISES
REG!'IKED
BUS PARKING
1 AREA
E a s t M eck len bu rg 323 8 S
C -aringer , 862 22 N 1 1 ,4 0 0
H arding 420 11 U 7 ,1 1 0
In depen den ce 270 - S
M yers Park 776 20 N 1 0 ,6 0 .0
N orth M ecklen burg S ;
O lym pic !
! S
Second V.'ard
_ j _ _ _ _ !
Sou th Meck1 enb urg 4SS 12 0 7 .4 0 1
'v e st C h a r lo t t e 810 u i o . c m
U es tM eckler.burc - A u U
Changes ir. A tte n d a n c e Are as 10
TOTALS- H ig h S c h o o l k ,1 0 5 11 1 5 1 ,2 3 0
T O TA LS-Junior High 6 ,1 2 9 11 9 !
i
I 7 2 , O'M
TOTALS -E le r a r . i a r y 1 3 ,1 U 9 |
........................... ........... . i
2 1 3 : ! 21 M ,2 0 0
3 HAND TOTALS 2 3 ,3 6 1 : 526 : ! 33 7 , ' :0 0
S s t - ir a te d d a i l y r . i l c u g e i s f r c n l r t o 5>2 r i l e s p e r b u s . I t i s e s t im a te d th ar th e
a v e ra g e d a i l y i ; : l c s u c u ld c s a p p rcy i r a t e l y 30 r i l e s p a r b u s .
E s t ir .a ie d t r a v e l a v e r a g e s 12 r i l e s p e r h o u r . T h is w ou ld r e q u ir e a r e s i i r a t c d
a v e r a g e t r a v e l t i r e o f 2 - 1 / 2 h e a r s p e r day p e r b u s .
3 T L A ? . ’
881aJu>.; :-i
DUN'IOR I!If.Li SCHOOLS
SCHOOL
NO. STUDENTS TO
BE TRANSPORTED
NO. BUSES
REQUIRED
ELo PARLIAJ
AREA
-------------------- ----------------
'J.bemai'le Road 267 5 s
•.le xar.de r - s
icchrar.e . 270 5 u 4,600
.“ "a- :Lar.colon 90 2 s
ulvocc 126 3 s
i = = iv ay 6 0 3 12 u 7 ,M00
%] e:-:and;-r Graham 732 14 N 8,200
•avthorr.e 468 _ 9 N 6,200
j |
icClintock 325 6 ! u 5,000
.'orthvest 747 14 N ' 8 ,200
iecr.ont 424 8 N 5,800
uail Hallev ISO 4 U 4.200
'r.son !
S
ac20fie ld 252 5 N
:".i th 360 s
3 “ ’-ah 290 6 N S. 000
-H i a ms 630 12 N 7 ,M00
ilson S
ark Road 365 7 N 5,400
TOTALS 6,12 9 119 72,000
ELEMENTARY
LAN OF L BS
SCHOOLS
8 8 2 a
SCHOOL
KO. STL DENYS TO
BE TRAINS PORTED
NO. BUSES
REQUIRED
Elio PAIOaJU'.G
; \ AREA
A lb e m a rle Road 176 4 u M, 2 0 J
A lle n b r o o k 156 ! 3
<
s
A s h le y Park
—
197 4 N M ,2 0 0
B ain
/
• S
B a r r in g e r 292 6 N 5 , 0 0 0
B e r r y h i l l S
B e v e r ly '.,'oods 2 7 ? ; S
B i l l i n g s v i l e 259 5 N 4 ,6 0 0
B ria rv o o d 222 5 U 4 ,6 0 3
B runs Avenue 528 12 N 7 , MOO
C h a n t i l ly
-----------------------------------“ I
s
C le a r Creek \ s
C o llin s v o o d 16 8 3
".o r n e liu s
r
■ s
G otsw old 195 L N M ,2 0 0
D avid son S
D e r it a s
D evon sh ire 276 6 s
D ilw o rth 25 1 u 3 ,0 0 0
D ouble Oaks 5E7 12 N 7 ,4 3 0
Druid H i l l s 312 6 N 5 ,0 0 0
l a s t o v e r 23 7 i 5 N 4 ,6 0 0
E liz a b e th 9 5 ; 2 K 3 ,4 0 0
,
in d e r ly P ark !
! s
l i s t i'ard 5 33 t T .
H 7 .4 0 0
ic k o r y Grove s
883a
SJLmL
I NO. STih'HHTS TO
* TR.-wksri'.nTHh
i:o. dills
KHQDIULi)
D‘J3 P-HLHLILG
. _ .. .
Li idea Vn 12 ay 342 7 H 5 ,i;oo
Highland i
: s i
Hoskins : s
Huntersville S •
Hurtintttvne Karrs 220 5 N M ,600
Zy.evil d H-f « * 8 _ a U 4,200
.-“.ay Jar:as vS
I.akeviov S
lanadorna 354 7 N 5,400
Lincoln Heights . 456 9 N 6 , 2 0 0
Long Creek S
Marie Davis 473 1 C N 6,600
Hat the-.;5 s
Harry Cans 149 3 11 3,800
Hidvood 4 i N 3,000
Her. tcla i re 252 = K 4,600
Hyers Park IS 3 4 N M , 2 0 0
tier.s Lord E
Ho-rail S
Oak laic S
Jakhr.rst s
Iriilav-T, 405 ; 9 K 6 , 2 0 0
3“ S ?-:v-C r.iro 175 4 : U 4,200
:̂ -k ?.r-;.3 755 ! 5 » ; 4 , 5G0
Creak 2 72 5 u M ,600
-v illa S
Dead - •} s
-'Jr a:-a ad J 13 3,200
884a
dr. fihger’ s plrej or lees eg re gat to:;
i'. Li'..'-HT NT ART SCHOOLS
i:o stfor .::IS 70 MO. BUSES i bus pa r r ie s
SCHOOL BE TILTHS PORT ED REDPIKED 1 1 AREA
Racia Road 27 7 6 1 5 .0 G 0
Sadgefield 198 4 4 , 20 0
Selwyn 391 S N 5 ,8 0 0
Shamrock Gardens 213 L N 0 ,2 0 0
Sharon 230 b N 4 ,6 0 0
S Ha mount 256 6 N 5 ,0 0 0
S ta te s v ille Read S _ .. .
Steele Creek S
Ihonasboro ’ 258 5 N 4 ,6 0 0
Trvon H ills 95 !
o N 3 ,4 0 0
Tuckaseegee 265 i 6 N 5 ,0 0 0
U niversitv Park 562
:
12 ' N 7 , MOO
V i l l a Heights 728 i 15 N 8 ,6 0 0
W esterlv H ills 137 | 3 N 3 ,8 0 0
Wiln.ore 55 1 N 3 ,0 0 0
Windsor Park 304 7 U 5 , MOO
W interfield 35 S 7 Is1 5 , M00
5th & 6th grace students 140 3
uiCScC acnoois
Changes in Attendance Areas 17
TOTALS
- 3 .3 0 ! :? 2 9 3 2 1 4 ,2 0 0
cn r
>
885a
886a
Ba a I nr 'ah:g c t £ c k eela
lersrel dee or s d n t io m
1 . S a f e t y c f p u p H u sk e-a ld b a t h o p r si array c o n s a d o r a t io n i n l o c a t i n g v a h i c a l e r c l r o n l n -
t i s n c n t h o s c h o o l s i t o . C o n v e n i e n c e d i n a s t r e s s end o c o n s s y e r a s e c o n d a r y
s e n s i c e r s t i cris .
2 . f r o b en p a r k in g a re a sh oe .Id be d e s ig n e d in c c m c o t i c n in ith t h o u n lo a d in g end len d in g
sc-noo I t sh ea Id bo in d e p e n d e n t c f e t h e r d r iv s v a y s and s o d e s ig n e d t h a t b a ck in g c f
t h o b a s e s car. be a v o id e d *
3 . t h e ban p a r k in g a r e a sbc-a ld re sc- p la n n e d t h a t th e c o v e n a n t c f b a s e s cn t h o s c h o o l
s i t e w i l l b o k e p t t o a r l a i a a n .
4 . ‘rh o ba .3 p a r k in g a r e a s h u i ld b-o c f s u f f i c i e n t s i a o t o n ee c m s c a t 0 , a t cn o t i n o , a l l
b a s e s c o in r in g t h o c c h o o l* A d d i t i o n a l s p a c e , pea s i l l y n n d c v n lc p c d s p a c e , f o r antra
h a r a s e h s a id b o r e s e r v e d f a r f a t a r e g r earth«
5>. f r o h u e p a r k in g a r e a sh ea I d b o l o c a t e d n r e y f r e e p l r y g r c a a d a r e a s , en d s h e a ld he
s e p a r a t a f r e n e l l e t h e r v e h i c l e p a r k in g areas*,
6 . idae ca n p a r k in g a r e a a l e a Id bo c e ra t r e a t e d on c l e v e l l e t * I t eh s a id b o ire 11
dm . farad and e l l - n e a t h e r s a r i s e c d » D e s ig n a te d s p a c e s card c o n t r o l c i g : i 3 a r o c c s ir a o lo o
7 . T h o ban p e a k in g a r e a c Lea I d bo p la n n e d i n s a c k a Cannes’ t h a t
2 . Pap 11 s a n lc e d in g f r e e t h e bas d o e r a i l l m l k a v a y f r e e t h e b a s terra rd t :.o
s c h o elds c a s e e n t r a n c e s
bo F r a i l s w i l l n e t c r o s s a n y e r a v en a y cn e h l e a e t h e r v e h i c l e s m y bo r.cvsngo
Co B a s e s e ra -iv l a g cn th e l e t r i l l n e t c a t t h r e rg a t h o l i r e c f p a p i l s r a ld r la g t o tho
8 . I h n U ^ - y s
9 . D r l — - 7 •:
l a g r e d h a :
2 0 . O - , ,--- 1
h o h a s p a r k in g l e t sh r-a ld n e v e r c i r - e l o t h e s eh s e lls eras o «
7 t m error srh ich s c h o o l l a c e s r i l l t r a v e l eh s a i d h o l a i d c a t s o t h e '•'■.an-
887a
t t g a i o p ^ c £ c i z d l o t o r.zzzz
i i ig lon.clo it-g o I f : :e r o r e a d i l y t o I c e d It: 3 cr.d
u i t l l gCSC'liUO Cl.i lUGTing b-lGCG G it c f l l n 0 o
; p̂ pilo,
x io Uiicn th o t'UG — —COG 070 JlITJ G7.G t- L-V.3 CHCOC-iO t-CTG t o t ’.TOlvO buSOS ; tlJO COgUTCitO pG_'l£-
tTlg L1-QZ3 ICCCX-CC oG~i‘G 1 1071 C7.-3 o l '.c th o r VTl'Ch S O p u m to 62ltr£r.C3S w ould c o n s e r v e
t i n s in r e c e i v i n g and d i s m s s i r g b u ses end pruT er.o undue c o m u n io n in le n d in g r-.-i
c n l c e d i r g p u p i l s .
Surge5ted I-ngcuto
i.'GX) GCGCGGGG.j'-tti 0 - r.g_7UUG CGI t-OG x O llw ilG g S h o o t s i2.2jGGtrr.tO SUggCStl-CUS fc i* I c y -
in g t - u cid -V cu n gs en d xm ru in g e r n e s fen* L ig c g ,
xi:o s u g g e s te d m e n in v e n t tuny bo u s e d c m u l l y c e . u e l l f e r c lc iu n n tc r y ,
unf.cn5 p u n ie r h ig h c r e e r i e r h ig h c c h c o l s o
lggoo t n n t undo coccu u i t r i e s s h o u ld c o p u r le d in p o s i t i o n r.OOreGt th e p e r i l in g
m e n u n i t t o p m u d t i - c c d o n c f p u l l i n g c u t x r itV .u t n o t in g th ro u g h t h o l i n e s c f
pupils union ding cr lending.
un no r e cu L ess *cc- c o y t i n t w h ile purlin c.ro le n d in g c :
cu 'c c o v in g cn o r c f f t h o m e n , th e c r o r e t l o n r u n t bo
m eu gn n n e e l .e e l p e r s o n n e l t o in s u r e s u f c i y .
1 e n d in g ; c r I ' i H e bor e r
=v c l o s e e n r e e i i o n c f
JV
I I'A'UUlWiS■ t.or W'fluiKkS
/(Oi, ,a/. ak i-*''OTii o p //0'
i
i
SfMtOOl-
!_
i i ‘•vo' AM;V. i
!
I - i i
?R£ rE.R
^ sc .pap.Arc. ucivp .
f lo a n in g n:v' nuvj.ng
: uiT n c iic i ’ L RmundM f o r
PuMic hirjrny
, . - Trr JO'VliOO
T W fls^ srss
cuo-iu ;cd CWl KAV'l'-OAt-Ul
MEILEN PRESS INC. — N. Y. C. 219