Means v. Alabama Brief for Appellant

    BRIEF AND APPENDIX FOR APPELLANTS

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15,044

Carlotta M ozelle Brewer and Demetria Y vonne 
Brewer, infants by O ner Brewer, their father and

next friend, et al., 

v. Appellants,

T he School Board O f T he City O f 
Norfolk, V irginia, et al.,

Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 
Eastern District of Virginia at Norfolk

H enry L. M arsh , III 
S. W. T ucker 

214 East Clay Street 
Richmond, Virginia 23219

V ictor J. A she 
Suite 702-Plaza One 
St. Paul’s Boulevard & Plume Street 
Norfolk, Virginia 23510

Louis R. L ucas 
525 Commerce Title Building 
Memphis, Tennessee 38103

Jack  Greenberg 
James M. N abrit, III 
N orman  J. Ch a c h k in

10 Columbus Circle, Suite 2030 
New York, New York 10019

Counsel for Appellants



Page

Issues Presented For R eview ....... .............. ..................................- 1

Statement O f T he Case .............—— ........................................ 2

Statement Of Facts ...... -.................. -...................... -.............. ........  6
High Schools ..................................................................................... 7
Junior High Schools ........................ -.......... -...................................  9
Elementary Schools .........-.....- ........-.............. -................. ............  10
All Schools ........................................................................-...............  12
Transportation ..............................................    13

A rgument  .................................... ....................................-..............  15

I. Norfolk’s Plan And Its Deliberate Failure To Vindicate 
Immediate And Urgent Constitutional Rights Constitute A  
Flagrant Violation Of This Court’s Orders In this Case.....  IS
A. The Board’s Actions Demonstrate An Overt Hostility

To The Mandate Of This C ourt..........................................  15
B. The Board Permitted Impermissible Considerations To

Affect Its Decisions.... .............................................. -........... 18

II. This Court Should Now Order Implementation Of The 
Alternative Plan In The Record Which All Parties Agree 
Is The Best Plan To Totally Desegregate The School 
System..... ................... - ................... -............................................  19

Conclusion ...... .......................-............................................................. 20

TA B LE  OF CASES

Brewer v. School Board of City of Norfolk, No. 14,544 (C.A. 4, 
June 22, 1970 ......... ................... -...........-.................... -...................  7

Brown v. Board of Education (Brown I ) , 347 U.S. 483 .............. 20

Hawthorne v. County School Board of Lunenburg County, 413 
F.2d 53 (4th Cir. 1969) .................................................................  18

TABLE OF CONTENTS



18

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg, .....  F.2d .....  (4th Cir., No.
14,517 and No. 14,518, May 26, 1970) .......................... 18, 19, 20

Walker v. County School Board of Brunswick County, 413 F.2d 
53 (4th Cir. 1969)

Monroe v. Board of Commissioners, 391 U.S. 450 (1968) ..........

18



United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15,044

Carlotta M ozelle Brewer and D emetria Y vonne 
Brewer, infants by O ner Brewer, their father and 

next friend, et al.,
Appellants,

v.

T he School Board O f T he City O f 
Norfolk, V irginia, et al.,

Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 
Eastern District of Virginia at Norfolk

BRIEF FO R  APPELLANTS

ISSUES PRESENTED FO R  R E V IE W

I
Whether Norfolk’s plan, which assigns 62 per cent of 

its black students and 52 per cent of its white students to 
racially segregated schools, satisfies the requirements of 
the Constitution and the mandate of this Court that the 
Norfolk School Board must operate a unitary school system.



2

II

Whether this Court should order implementation o f the 
alternative plan in the record which all parties agree is the 
best plan to totally desegregate the school system.

ST A T E M E N T  O F T H E  CASE

Following the June 22, 1970 decision by this Court in 
this case, the District Court entered an order on June 23 
requiring the defendants to submit a plan for unitary schools 
on or before July 27, 1970. In language identical to that in 
this Court’s opinion, the order further provided:

“ (2 ) The plan may be based on the suggestions made 
by the Government’s expert witness, Dr. Michael J. 
Stolee, or on any other method that may be expected 
to provide a unitary school system.
“ (3 ) The plan shall immediately desegregate all senior 
high schools.
“ (4 ) The defendants shall explore reasonable methods 
of desegregation of all elementary and junior high 
schools, including rezoning, pairing, grouping, school 
consolidation, and transportation. If it appears that 
black residential areas are so large that all schools 
cannot be integrated, the plan must assure that no pupil 
is excluded because o f his race from a desegregated 
school.”  [Appendix (hereinafter referred to as A .) 
p. 1 ); Record (hereinafter referred as to R .) pp. 
982-83]

The order of the District Court further stated:
“ In attempting to interpret the opinion of the appellate 
court, even though the Court of Appeals does not ex­
pressly so decide, this Court is of the view that the ap­
pellate court has effectively approved racial balancing 
for all schools with the possible exception o f the ele­
mentary schools in Berkley-Campostella area. To ac­



3

complish this end result extensive cross-bussing will 
be required. Although the appellate court says nothing 
as to the impossibility o f obtaining school buses for the 
school year beginning September 1970, it is obvious 
that such is impossible. The only solution, if it can be 
referred to in that manner, is for the School Board 
to contract with the Virginia Transit Company for 
as many buses as possible, and then stagger the opening 
and closing of all schools to meet the transportation 
problem, irrespective of inconveniences to pupils and 
faculty” (A . p. 3; R. p. 985).

Over the strenuous objection of the plaintiffs, and with 
the acquiescence of the defendants, the Court permitted 
certain white citizens to intervene as parties-defendant (Tr. 
Vol. X X X V I, pp. 13-28). These defendants indicated that 
they would assert:

(1 ) That the present operation of the Norfolk city 
schools does not violate the “ constitutional rights of 
the plaintiffs or of any other person,”

and
(2 ) “ That the relief prayed for by the plaintiffs in 
their recent appeal o f this action to the Court o f Ap­
peals, 4th Circuit, that all public schools in the city of 
Norfolk, Virginia, be racially balanced, will violate the 
constitutional rights of these intervenors and all others 
similarly situated.” (R. p. 1026)

On July 27, 1970, plaintiffs moved the Court for an 
order joining the Council of the City of Norfolk and the 
individual members thereof as parties-defendant. Plaintiffs 
urged that such joinder was necessary to insure that what­
ever orders the District Court might enter would be binding 
on all parties having responsibility for the operation of 
Norfolk public schools (R. p. 996). This motion was denied



4

by the District Court on July 29, 1970 (Tr. Vol. X X X V I, 
p. 39).

On July 27, 1970, the last day on which the board was 
permitted by the Court to file its plan, the board met and 
approved a plan which was on that day fded with the Court 
(R. p. 999).

The plan filed by the board contained schedules showing 
the estimated results anticipated in the racial mix o f the 
student bodies of each school. (See Appendix pages 4 
through 17, and School Board Exhibits 1-1 and 1-3 
[1970]; R. pp. 1000-18.) For a comparison of the ele­
mentary enrollment under the board’s 1970 plan with that 
o f the “ Long Range Plan” condemned in the June 22 
opinion, see Government’s Exhibit 3 [1970] (A . pp. 20-21).

The plan also contained a “ Revision of Stolee Plan A ” 
and a “ Revision of Stolee Plan C” and the estimated results 
under each plan. The Stolee A  revision consists of seven 
groupings or clusters of three schools each and indicates 
the board’s best judgment of the “ grouping required within 
the constraint of having contiguous zones.” (School Board 
Ex. 1-4 [1970] A. p. 6; R. p. 1017.)

The Stolee C revision indicates the board’s best judgment 
of the “ groupings necessary for the desegregation of all of 
the elementary schools north of the Eastern Branch of the 
Elizabeth River.”  This revision would cluster or pair all 
but thirteen of the fifty-four elementary schools and would 
result in a minimum racial mix of 20% in all but five of 
the elementary schools. (See A. pp. 16-17 and School Board 
Exhibit 1-5 [1970]; R. pp. 1013-14.)

The school board made it clear that it did not favor any 
of the plans which would provide any significantly addi­
tional racial mix. It pointed out that the revised Stolee plans 
were submitted “ [i]n order that the Court may compare



5

the disadvantages of any such plan(s)” (A . p. 6; R. p.
1002).

On August 4, 1970, the plaintiffs filed exceptions to the 
plan of the school board (A . pp. 18-19; R. pp. 1037-39). 
Plaintiffs objected to the assignment provisions for each 
level of education, the failure of the board to provide (free) 
transportation for all pupils, to the special facilities and 
program provision of the plan, and to failure of the plan 
to protect black administrators and teachers.

The United States filed exceptions on August 3, chal­
lenging the elementary assignment plan, the rising senior 
provision, the absence of free transportation for indigent 
students and for students exercising their rights under the 
majority to minority transfer provision, the failure of the 
board to protect black administrators and teachers, and the 
absence of reporting provisions (R. pp. 1033 and 1034).

On August 5, 1970, the United States filed a submission 
purporting to contain two alternative plans for the opera­
tion of the elementary schools (R. pp. 1040-42).

After two days o f hearings held on August 11 and 
August 12, 1970, the Court filed a Memorandum-Order on 
August 14. The Court overruled plaintiffs’ exceptions and 
approved the board’s plan, with certain modifications at the 
elementary level. (A . pp. 22-44; R. pp. 1060-87).

Plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal on August 18, 1970 
(R. p. 1093).

On August 17, plaintiffs moved for an injunction pend­
ing appeal to restrain the defendants from refusing to im­
plement for the 1970-71 school year, the Stolee plan or 
some other plan which would effectively desegregate each 
school operated by the school board (R. p. 1090). The mo­
tion was denied by the District Court (R. p. 1092).

On August 27, 1970, the court entered an order formally 
approving the board’s plan with certain modifications (R.



6

pp. 1100-1103). The order required the board to file on or 
before September 15, 1970, “ a schedule setting forth for 
the system as a whole and for schools at each level of the 
system” certain statistical data including the numbers and 
percentages of white and black students in each school. 
Portions o f this report, which was filed on September 22, 
1970, are reproduced herein (A . pp. 49-51).

Defendant-intervenors filed their Notice of Appeal on 
August 20, 1970. (R. p. 1097). That appeal, which is be­
ing considered together with this appeal, is designated No. 
15,045. The School Board of the City of Norfolk filed its 
Notice of Appeal on August 27, 1970. (R. p. 1106). That 
appeal, designated No. 15,046, is also being considered at 
this time.

ST A T E M E N T  OF FACTS

The pertinent facts concerning the Norfolk school system 
during the 1969-70 school year were as cited in this Court’s 
June 22, 1970 opinion, v iz :

“ Approximately 56,600 pupils, of whom 32,600 are 
white and 24,000 are black, attend the Norfolk schools. 
During the 1969-70 school year the board operated five 
senior high schools. One of these was all black, and 
more than half of Norfolk’s black high school pupils 
attended it. The other four had enrollments ranging 
from 9% to 53% black.
“ O f the eleven junior high schools, five enrolled about 
77% of the district’s black junior high pupils. Four of 
these schools were virtually all black and one was 91 % 
black. At the other extreme, three junior high schools 
were 92% to 97% white. The remaining three schools 
had black enrollments of 12%, 16%, and 54%.
“ The district had 55 elementary schools. Eighty-six 
per cent of the black pupils attended twenty-two schools



7

which were more than 92% black. In contrast, 81% 
of the white pupils attended twenty-five that were more 
than 92% white. The remaining- eight schools had 
student bodies from 10% to 75% black.
“ During the 1969-70 school year, most of the schools 
could be racially identified by the composition of their 
faculties. At only two o f the seventy-three schools 
did the assignment of faculty reflect the racial compo­
sition of the district’s teachers, which is approximately 
34% black and 66% white. Throughout the district 
only 16% of the teachers were assigned across racial 
lines.
“ The evidence clearly depicts a dual system of schools 
based on race.”  Brewer v. School Board o f City o f 
Norfolk, No. 14,544 (C.A. 4, June 22, 1970).

High Schools

At the time the board decided on its plan, black high 
school students constituted from 36% to 38% of the high 
school population. The board recognized that if a minority 
of white students was assigned to Booker-T, there was a 
danger that many white students would not show up and 
that resegregation would occur. Dr. McLaulin indicated 
that “ the best opportunities for stabilization” would be 
offered with 65% white and 35% black at Booker-T (Tr. 
Vol. X X X V II, page 141).

The high school plan approved below contained a rising- 
senior option. The board believed that most of the seniors 
would exercise their option and remain at the schools they 
attended in previous years (Tr. Vol. X X X V II, page 153). 
Clearly, it expected 75% to 80% white enrollment at Lake 
Taylor, Granby and Norview and 65% to 70% black at 
Booker-T (Tr. Vol X X X V II, p. 153). This expectation 
was realized in the September 16 enrollment data:



8

Total % White °fo Black

Granby High 2218 75 25
Lake Taylor High 2513 77 23
Norview High 2388 72 28
Washington High 1854 17 83
Maury High 2133 45 55

T otal Senior H igh 11,106 59 41

The high school assignment was made b j  adjusting- the 
boundary lines which were in effect last year. In some cases, 
non-contiguous geographical zones were utilized (See 
School Board Ex. 1-1 [1970]). Dr. McLaulin admitted 
that by using non-contiguous zones and by adjusting the 
zone lines, the five high schools could have been racially 
balanced as under the Long Range Plan which the board 
had proposed to achieve by 1972 (Tr. Vol. X X X V II, pp. 
134-d36). However, the board abandoned its plan to 
balance the high schools and rejected all options for further 
desegregation at the high school level because of the ap­
parent opposition of black and white children and their 
parents (Tr. Vol. X X X V II, pp. 134, 241, 291).

Dr. McLaulin, the principal architect of the school 
board’s plan, indicated that in view of the fact that over 
forty per cent of Norfolk’s pupils are black, he did not con­
sider a school containing a 10% racial minority of students 
a desegregated school. He indicated that his goal in prepar­
ing the plan was to achieve “ a critical mass of students in 
a school of a given race, whether they be black students or 
white students” and that as a general guide, in his judg­
ment, a school with a racial minority of 25 per cent or less 
would not have such critical mass (Tr. Vol. X X X V II, pp. 
146 and 151 [1970]).



9

Junior High Schools

The Enrollment Report shows that 55% of the junior 
high school pupils are white and 45% are black.

The feeder plan adopted by the board for the junior high 
assignment resulted in the following enrollment in the city’s 
ten junior high schools:

Total %  W h ite %  Black

Azalea Gardens Jr. 1441 9 9 1

Campostella Jr. 1134 1 99
Ruffner Jr. 1042 7 93

Northside Jr. 1377 90 10

Jacox Jr. 791 15 85

Norview Jr. 1204 65 35

Rosemont Jr. 891 62 38

Willard Jr. 1161 57 43

Lake Taylor Jr. 1224 56 44

Blair Jr. High 1454 60 40

T o t a l  J r . H ig h 11,719 55 45

The five schools first listed above, which enroll 49% of 
the junior high pupils, are clearly racially identifiable. None 
of the five possesses the “ critical mass” as defined by the 
board’s expert.

The following information, which was taken from the 
enrollment report (A . p. 49), shows the racial character of 
the junior high schools as they are currently operating under 
the court approved plan:



1 0

100% 100% Minority Minority less All
Black White 10% or less than 25% Schools

C l a ss if ic a t io n  of Ju n io r  H ig h  S ch ool  E n ro llm e n ts

Number of Schools 0
Students in Each Classification:

Total Students
Number 0
Percentage 0

Black Students
Number 0
Percentage 0

White Students
Number
Percentage . .

0 4 5 10

0 4994 5785 11,719
0 42% 49%

2244 2917 5296
- 42% 55%

0 2750 2868 6423
0 43% 45%

As is indicated above, 55% of the black junior high school 
students, 45% of the white junior high school students and 
49% of all junior high students attend schools that are 
racially identifiable.

Elementary Schools

The board described its elementary plan as “ an area- 
attendance plan under which children residing with an at­
tendance area will attend the school serving that area (A . 
p. 6, R. p. 1001). With the exception of several minor 
changes in the elementary lines which were effected prior 
to this Court’s June 22 decision, the elementary plan is 
virtually the same plan which was condemned by this Court 
in its previous decision. The plan anticipated that 16 schools 
would remain all black, 9 would be all white, 11 would en­
roll 10% or less black students. Only 5 of the 54 schools 
would enroll racial minorities of at least 25%. The overall 
percentage at the elementary level is 56% white and 44% 
black.



11

When compared with the Long Range elementary plan, 
27 of the 54 schools in the proposed plan had the identical 
percentage of black and white students and 42 of these 
schools had percentages within 5 percentage points of that 
indicated in the rejected plan. A  comparison of the results 
expected under the two plans is contained on Government’s 
Ex. 3 (A . pp. 21-22).

The modifications ordered by the District Court amended 
the school board plan by grouping 15 elementary schools 
in five separate clusters of 3 schools each (A . p. 37; R. p. 
1079). These five clusters are among the seven indicated by 
the school board in the revision of Stolee A which was filed 
with the July 27, 1970 plan (A . p. 14; R. p. 1011). The 
racial percentages resulting from the modified plan are 
shown on the board’s enrollment report (A . pp. 49-51).

Under the modified plan, 21 of the 551 elementary schools 
enrolled pupils of only one race, 32 o f the 55 schools enrolled 
racial minorities of 10% or less, and 36 o f the 55 schools 
enrolled racial minorities of less than 25% (A . pp. 49-51).

The following information, which was taken from the 
enrollment report (A . pp. 49-51), shows the racial character 
of the elementary schools as they are currently operating 
under the court approved plan:

1 Only 54 schools are shown on Gov. Ex. 3 [1970] (A. pp. 20-21). 
Norview Elementary is divided into Norview Elementary and Nor- 
view Annex to add an additional school in the Enrollment Report 
(A . p. 50).



12

100% 100% Minority Minority less All
Black White 10% or less than 25% Schools

C l a ssif ic a t io n  of E l e m e n t a r y  S ch ool  E n r o llm e n ts

Number of Schools 14 7
Students in Each

Classification:
Total Students 

Number 
Percentage

7595
24%

3865
12%

Black Students 
Number 
Percentage

7595
52%

White Students 
Number 
Percentage

3865
22%

32 36 55

17,736 20,793 31,8222
56% 65%

9604 10,164 14,639
66% 69%.

8132 10,629 17,183
47% 62%

Sixty-nine per cent of the black elementary pupils, 62% 
of the white elementary pupils and 65% of all elementary 
pupils attend racially segregated schools under the plan 
approved by the District Court.

All Schools

The enrollment report submitted by the school board 
reveals the extent to which desegregation has occurred in 
the City of Norfolk under the modified plan. The informa­
tion printed below shows that 62% of all black students, 
52% of all white students, and 57% of all students are still 
attending racially segregated schools.

2 The Enrollment Report shows a total elementary enrollment of 
31,632. Addition of the individual school enrollments, however, gives 
a total enrollment of 31,822.



13

C l a ssif ic a t io n  of A ll  S ch ool  E n ro llm e n ts

100%
Black

100%
White

Minority 
10% or less

Minority less 
than 25%

All
Schools

Number of Schools 14 7 36 43 70
Students in Each

Classification: 
Total Students 
Number 
Percentage

7595
14%

3865
7%

22,730
42%

30,945
57%

54,647

Black Students 
Number 
Percentage

7595
31%

11,848
48%

15,198
62%

24,436

White Students 
Number 
Percentage

3865
13%

10,882
36%

15,747
52%

30,211

T  ranspor t ation

The number of students estimated to be transported for 
1970-71 was determined by counting last year’s (1969-70) 
trip requirements and adding to that number an estimate of 
the trips needed for 1970. The number of 1970 trips was 
determined by counting the total number of pupils to be 
transferred away from each school as indicated by the par­
ticular plan under consideration and dividing by 60. For 
example, the transportation requirements for the revision 
of Stolee A  were ascertained by counting by school the 
total number of pupils assigned to a different school. The 
number for each school was then divided by 60 to determine 
the number of trips required. To this number was added 
the number of trips needed by schools not changed by the 
plan. See Plaintiff’s Ex. 3 [1970] and Tr. Vol. X X X V III 
pp. 379, 384.)

The estimate of the elementary requirements under the 
school board’s plan was based on the full 37 trips made in 
1969 plus 23 new trips which were determined by counting 
the total number of pupils transferred to a different school



14

and dividing by 60. The same procedure was followed in 
making the estimates at all three levels of education (Tr. 
Vol. X X X IX  pp. 403-4).

The estimated requirements for the Revised Stolee C 
were determined in the same manner. For each school, the 
number of pupils transferred to a different school was 
divided by 60 to determine the number of trips. The total 
number o f trips was then added to the trips for schools 
not grouped. Each trip was counted as one bus in deter­
mining the number of buses required (Tr. Vol. X X X V III 
pp. 355, 360, 381-85 and Plaintiff’s Ex. 4 [1970]). In 
determining the number of trips, where there were less 
than sixty pupils they would be counted as one trip and 
assigned one bus (Tr. Vol. X X X V III p. 357).

In all areas where the bus company had no prior exper­
ience in transporting pupils, they assumed that 100% of the 
students transferred to a different school would ride on a 
special bus (Tr. Vol. X X X V III pp. 344-45, 359), regard­
less o f the existence of regular line service (Tr. Vol. 
X X X V III  pp. 345-46), regardless of the proximity of the 
pupils to the school (Tr. Vol. X X X V III pp. 360-61, Tr. 
Vol. X X X IX  pp. 436-38), even in cases where the pupils 
lived next door to the school (Tr. Vol. X X X IX  pp. 436-38). 
The company did not take into consideration the pupils who 
are transported by their parents or in car pools, pupils who 
drive or ride with others, or pupils who walk to school (Tr. 
Vol. X X X V III pp. 359-361).

The company assumed that each trip would require 45 
minutes regardless of the distance of the trip and even 
though many trips would only require 6 to 8 minutes (Tr. 
Vol. X X X IX  pp. 427-30, 432-34 and 439-43). Although 
in previous years many trips have been combined on one 
run, no such effort had been made in arriving at the 1970 
estimates (Tr. Vol. X X X IX  pp. 403-404). Moreover, trips 
for each school are listed independently, although two



15

schools are located in the same area (Tr. Vol. X X X V III 
pp. 393-96).

An analysis of the 1969-70 special bus schedule route 
indicates that the average trip is in the range of 20-25 
minutes rather than 45 minutes (Sch. Bd. Ex. 3 p. 5 and PX  
2). However, the company allocated 45 minutes for each 
trip. The bus company official conceded that he could 
shorten many trips by picking up pupils at a central place 
rather than winding through each neighborhood to pick up 
children. He stated that he had considered but had not imple­
mented a policy of one stop in a central area (Tr. Vol. 
X X X IX  p. 435).

The company official indicated that only 75 or 77 buses 
were available for special school routes during the peak 
morning hours. However, in view of his admission that 
buses from the morning peak period became available as 
early as 8:30 A.M., it is obvious that a different staggering 
of openings would make more vehicles available for special 
routes.

Mr. Little admitted that no allowance had been made 
for special runs which were discontinued or unnecessary 
after the 1969-70 school year (Tr. Vol. X X X IX  pp. 412- 
18).

A R G U M E N T

I .

Norfolk’s Plan And Its Deliberate Failure T o  Vindicate Immediate 
And Urgent Constitutional Rights Constitute A  Flagrant Vio­
lation O f This Court’s Orders In This Case.

A

The Board’s Actions Demonstrate An Overt Hostility 
To The Mandate O f This Court

Notwithstanding 14 years of litigation seeking to end 
racially segregated education in the city’s public schools,



16

more than one-half of the Norfolk’s public school children 
are assigned by the school board to racially segregated 
schools. Notwithstanding the mandate of this Court follow­
ing its June 22, 1970 opinion, the Norfolk School Board 
filed and the Court below approved a plan which assigned 
most of Norfolk’s children to racially segregated schools.

The order entered on this Court’s mandate directed the 
board to submit a plan for unitary schools for the 1970-71 
school year. The board responded by adopting a plan which 
at the elementary level was patterned on an area-based or 
neighborhood-school concept and which was nearly identical 
to the plan rejected by this Court in the previous appeal, 
and at the junior and senior high level the plan assigned 
approximately one-half of the children to racially segre­
gated schools.

In the preamble of its plan the board stated:

“ In accomplishing all of the mixing of races of pupils 
that can be reasonably attained, the School Board has 
attempted to preserve an educationally sound school 
system, but in certain instances, the requirements of 
the Courts for racial mix are contrary to the best judg­
ment of the School Board.” (A . p. 4; R. p. 1000).

In spite of the consensus by all parties to this litigation 
that extensive transportation of students will be necessary 
to effect meaningful integration the plan states:

“ The School Board has never in the past and does not 
now consider the operation by it o f a bus system for 
the transportation of pupils between home and school 
to be either necessary or educationally desirable. It has 
not construed the court decisions and orders in this case 
to require the inauguration of such a system.
“ The implementation of any Stolee-type plan is limited 
by the capacity of the public bus transportation system



17

as it may be rearranged to provide maximum effi­
ciency.” (A . pp. 6, 7; R. p. 1000).

As expressed by the Superintendent, the attitude of the 
board has been:

“A. * * * This was not a matter of choosing what 
we wanted. We had what we wanted in the other plan.

Q. You are referring to the long range plan?
A. That’s right. W e had what we wanted in the 

other plan.” (Tr. Vol. X X X V II, p. 287)

This defiant attitude by the defendants, -which has been 
demonstrated over the years, has been apparent since the 
June 22 decision of this Court.

Although the order on the mandate was entered on June 
23, the board did not decide on its plan until July 27, the 
last day for its filing with the Court. The plan it finally 
submitted practically disregarded the requirements of this 
Court. In fact, no other plan considered by the board pro­
vided for less desegregation than the one it selected (Tr. 
Vol. X X X V II, pp. 166-7).

The board acknowledged that additional transportation 
was required to substantially increase the desegregation 
provided by its plan. Yet, it failed to give the transporta­
tion requirements of its plans to the transit officials until 
July 30 or later (Tr, Vol. X X X V III, p. 342). Moreover, 
the information finally given the transit company was 
grossly inflated and patently unrealistic.

The plaintiffs offered to show that an ample supply of 
used buses was available to the Virginia Transit Com­
pany, but that the board had made no inquiry of the com­
pany concerning additional transportation facilities (Offer 
of Proof of Plaintiffs, Tr. Vol. X X X V II, p. 231-3).



18

The board’s action in welcoming the Interveners into 
the case to fight for freedom of choice and neighborhood 
schools while opposing the joinder of the City Council 
which could appropriate funds needed for implementing de­
segregation orders is further evidence of the board’s atti­
tude.

B

The Board Permitted Impermissible Considerations To 
To Affect Its Decisions

It is clear that the board’s decision to limit desegregation 
of the high schools and of the other levels of education has 
been based in part on the consideration of the opposition of 
white and black parents and children (Tr. X X X V II, pp. 
134, 241, 291). The fear of resegregation has been cited 
as a reason for limiting the amount of desegregation in 
many areas of the board’s activity.

The public’s unwillingness to accept certain amounts of 
bussing to accomplish desegregated schools has been cited 
by the defendants and the Court on several occasions.

This Circuit has laid to rest all notions that community 
opposition can defeat the equal protection rights of black 
children to receive an integrated education. Walker v. 
County School Board o f Brunswick County, 413 F.2d 53 
(4th Cir. 1969) (per curiam ); Hawthorne v. County 
School Board of Lunenburg County, 413 F.2d 53 (4th Cir.
1969); Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg,___F .2d___ (4th
Cir., No. 14,517 and 14,518, May 26, 1970). See also 
Monroe v. Board o f Commissioners, 391 U.S. 450 (1968).

Notwithstanding this Court’s opinion in this case and 
Swann, supra, the board continues to rely on the area 
based or neighborhood school concept to justify its elemen­
tary plan. As this Court stated in Swann :



1 9

“ The district court properly disapproved the school 
board’s elementary school proposal because it left about 
one-half of both the black and white elementary pupils 
in schools that were nearly completely segregated.”

II.

This Court Should Now Order Implementation O f The Alternative 
Plan In The Record Which All Parties Agree Is The Best Plan 
T o Totally Desegregate The School System.

In the June 22 opinion in this case, this Court issued the 
following instructions:

“ The district court shall direct the school board to sub­
mit a plan for unitary schools on or before July 27, 
1970. The plan may be based on suggestions made by 
the government’s expert witness, Dr. Michael J. Stolee, 
or on any other method that may be expected to pro­
vide a unitary school system.”

Dr. McLaulin, who prepared the board’s plan, frankly 
admitted that, given Dr. Stolee’s purposes ( desegregating 
all of the schools without regard to an area based limita­
tion), the Stolee plan was as good as could be drawn (28 
Tr. 97-98).

In its current plan, the board states:

“ As shown by the previous evidence in this case, any 
plan for this City effecting substantially more racial 
mix at the elementary level than herein provided for 
must inevitably be developed along the lines proposed 
by Dr. Stolee.” (A . p. 6; R. p. 1002)

Although the District Court and all parties below recog­
nize that the Stolee C series is the only plan to totally de­
segregate the Norfolk school system, it is now apparent 
that if such plan is to be ordered, it must be ordered by this 
Court.



2 0

“Alexander v. Holmes County Bd. of Ed., 396 U.S. 19 
(1969), and Carter v. West Feliciana School Bd., 396 
U.S. 290 (1970), emphasize that school boards must 
forthwith convert from dual to unitary systems. In 
Nesbit v. Statesville City Bd. of Ed., 418 F.2d 1040 
(4th Cir. 1969), and Whittenberg v. School Dist. of
Greenville County, ----  F.2d ...... (4th Cir. 1970), we
reiterated that immediate reform is imperative.”

(Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., supra)

C O N C L U SIO N

The picture presented by this appeal is only slightly 
different from that in the previous appeal. The school sys­
tem is slightly less segregated than it was last May. The 
white citizens opposing the Brown decision have now for­
mally entered the case and are fighting at the side of— and 
with the cooperation of— the school board to defeat the 
rights of the black plaintiffs. The United States of America 
in the lower court took a position nearly identical with that 
of the school board and has declined to join in the appeal to 
this Court. Moreover, the District Judge still proclaims that 
he will not order substantial relief for the black plaintiff 
class.

Since 1956, when this litigation was commenced, only 
the black plaintiffs have remained constant. The record re­
veals some signs that the frustration of 15 years of segrega­
tion and defeat is beginning to take its toll. An increasing 
number of blacks are now openly demanding separation. 
Because of the inordinate delays in effecting relief for the 
plaintiff class, the rule of law is now facing a growing chal­
lenge which promises to increase with the passage of time.

For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the Dis­
trict Court should be reversed and the defendants should



21

be required to implement the plan prepared by Dr. Michael 
J. Stolee (referred to as the Stolee C series) or some other 
plan which will create a unitary system at the earliest prac­
tical date.

Respectfully submitted,

H enry L. Marsh, III 
O f Counsel for Appellants

H enry L. M arsh , III
S- W. T ucker 

214 East Clay Street 
Richmond, Virginia 23219

V ictor J. A she  
Suite 702-Plaza One 
St. Paul’s Boulevard & Plume Street 
Norfolk, Virginia 23S10

Louis R. L ucas 
525 Commerce Title Building 
Memphis, Tennessee 38103

Jack  Greenberg
James M. N abrit, III
N orman  J. Ch a c h k in

10 Columbus Circle, Suite 2030 
New York, New York 10019

Counsel for Appellants



A P P E N D I X



A P P E N D I X

TABLE OF C O N TEN TS
App. Page

Order of United States District Court—filed June 23, 1970 .........  1

Plan of School Board, 1970-71— filed July 27, 1970 ....................  4
Exhibit 1-A— Senior High Enrollment .................................... 9
Exhibit 2—Junior High School Feeder Plan............... ............  10
Exhibit 3-A— Elementary School Enrollment...... ....................  12
Exhibit 4-A— Revision of Stolee Plan “A ” ............................. - 14
Exhibit S-A— Revision of Stolee Plan “ C” ----------------- -------- 16

Plaintiff’s Exceptions to Plan— filed August 4, 1970 ....................  18

Comparison of Long Range Plan With 1970 Plan [Government 
Exhibit No. 3]— filed August 12, 1970 ...................... .............  20

Memorandum of United States District Court-—filed August 
14, 1970 ................................ ............................................. -.......  22

Order of United States District Court—filed August 27, 1970 .......  45

School Enrollment— September 16, 1970 ......................... -.......... - 49



ORDER

Filed June 23, 1970

The Court having received a copy of the opinion of the 
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 
filed June 22, 1970, and in anticipation that the mandate 
shall be received forthwith, and

In obedience to the opinion of said United States Court 
o f Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the Court, acting sua 
sponte, doth

Order that—

(1) The defendants shall submit a plan for unitary 
schools on or before July 27, 1970.

(2 ) The plan may be based on the suggestions made 
by the Government’s expert witness, Dr. Michael J. Stolee, 
or on any other method that may be expected to provide a 
unitary school system.

(3 ) The plan shall immediately desegregate all senior 
high schools.

(4 ) The defendants shall explore reasonable methods of 
desegregation of all elementary and junior high schools, 
including rezoning, pairing, grouping, school consolidation, 
and transportation. If it appears that black residential areas 
are so large that all schools cannot be integrated, the plan 
must assure that no pupil is excluded because of his race 
from a desegregated school.

(5 ) In any school remaining predominantly black, the 
plan must make available to such black pupils, on an inte­
grated basis, such special classes, functions and programs 
as will afford such black children an introduction to inte­
gration. Any plan must provide for the assignment of black 
pupils attending predominantly black schools to integrated 
schools for a substantial portion of their school careers.



App.2

(6 ) The plan shall freely allow majority to minority 
transfers and shall provide transportation by bus or com­
mon carrier to any pupil desiring to exercise the majority 
to minority transfer right. No percentage limitation shall be 
imposed upon such transfer right other than the fact that 
it be a majority to minority transfer.

(7 ) The plan must provide for the assignment o f facul­
ties, subject to exceptions for specialized faculty positions, 
so that in each school the racial ratio shall be approximately 
the same as the ratio throughout the system, same to be 
effective with the school year beginning September 1970.

The foregoing is substantially verbatim with the require­
ments of the United States Court o f Appeals for the Fourth 
Circuit. The entry o f this order does not in any manner 
indicate agreement with the findings or procedure.

The plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenors shall file, on or 
before August 3, 1970, any exceptions to said plan.

Assuming that exceptions will be filed, a hearing on 
same will be conducted on August 11, 1970, beginning at 
9:30 a.m. No requests for a continuance will be considered 
as the time schedule fixed by the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is such that it is impos­
sible to grant any continuance.

Any plan approved by this Court must be effective in 
September 1970, and it should be noted that the district 
court has no authority or power to stay the execution of 
any order approving such plan. Any stay order must be 
granted by the United States Court of Appeals for the 
Fourth Circuit or the United States Supreme Court.

Once again, the appellate court has declined the invita­
tion to define an “ integrated” school, a “ desegregated” 
school, or a “unitary” school system. An appropriate guide­
line would assuredly assist the school boards and lower 
courts. While it appears from the opinion that all schools



App. 3

need not be “ integrated” if the size of the black residential 
areas are so large that it is impossible to do so, no suggestion 
is made as to where these areas may be located, although 
this factual information was available in the record. In 
attempting to interpret the opinion of the appellate court, 
even though the Court of Appeals does not expressly so 
decide, this Court is of the view that the appellate court 
has effectively approved racial balancing for all schools 
with the possible exception of the elementary schools in 
Berkley-Campostella area. To accomplish this end result 
extensive cross-bussing will be required. Although the ap­
pellate court says nothing as to the impossibility o f obtain­
ing school buses for the school year beginning September 
1970, it is obvious that such is impossible. The only solution, 
if it can be referred to in that manner, is for the School 
Board to contract with the Virginia Transit Company for 
as many buses as possible, and then stagger the opening and 
closing of all schools to meet the transportation problem, 
irrespective of inconveniences to pupils and faculty.

The Court does not construe the opinion as requiring free 
transportation to anyone, although the opinion does require 
that transportation by bus or common carrier shall be pro­
vided for pupils exercising the majority to minority transfer 
provision. Whether, as to these pupils, free transportation 
must be provided is an open question. As to Booker T. 
Washington High School, “desegregation” must be effected 
by September 1970. To accomplish this purpose massive 
bussing of white children to the school, to replace black 
children who must be moved to another school, is required.

The Clerk will forward certified copies of this order to 
all counsel o f record.

/ s /  W alter E. H offman
United States District Judge

At Norfolk, Virginia 
June 23,1970



App. 4

T H E  SC H O O L  B O AR D  O F T H E  C IT Y  O F N O R F O L K  PLAN  
F O R  U N IT A R Y  SC H O O LS FO R  T H E  1970-71 Y E A R

Filed July 27, 1970

I.
P urpose.

The Plan is designed to effectuate a constitutionally ap­
propriate unitary school system in compliance with the 
requirements of the Decision of the United States Court 
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, entered on June 22, 
1970, and the Order of the United States District Court for 
the Eastern District of Virginia entered pursuant thereto 
on June 23, 1970. In accomplishing all of the mixing of 
races of pupils that can be reasonably attained, the School 
Board has attempted to preserve an educationally sound 
school system, but in certain instances, the requirements of 
the Courts for racial mix are contrary to the best judgment 
of the School Board.

II.

Faculty.

Teachers will be assgined in the best interests o f the 
school system to the end that faculties o f the schools will 
reflect the ratio of available white and Negro teachers in 
the system for the Plan year.

Instructional and supervisory teaching personnel, not 
assigned to a specific school, will approximately reflect the 
ratio of white and Negro teachers in the system.

The system has approximately two-thirds white and one- 
third Negro teachers. Ratios and numbers are subject to 
reasonable variances and to administrative necessities under 
the limitations of teacher qualifications and program re­
quirements, but no adjustments will be made to avoid racial 
balance of faculties.



App.5

III.

School Organization.

A. Senior High Schools.

The City is divided into five (5 ) senior high school at­
tendance areas, with each area served by a single school 
and designated by the name of such school. Subject to 
provision for the rising-senior option hereinafter set forth, 
children residing within an attendance area will attend the 
school serving that area. The boundaries of the senior high 
school attendance areas for the Plan year are shown on the 
map identified as “ Map— Senior High Schools,” attached 
hereto as Exh ibit  1 and the estimated results thereof in 
terms of racial mix of pupils are as shown on Exh ibit  1-A.

Work toward constructing a new high school on Tide­
water Drive at the head of Mason Creek was suspended 
upon disapproval of the Long Range Plan in connection 
with which that site was determined. The construction o f a 
new high school at a site near the present Washington High 
School is proposed, subject to effective implementation of 
this overall Plan.

B. Junior High Schools.

Children are assigned to junior high schools through a 
feeder system under which the graduates of each elementary 
school are assigned to a particular junior high school. The 
elementary schools selected to feed each of the junior high 
schools and the results in terms of racial mix o f each school 
are set forth on Exh ibit  2.

C. Elementary Schools.

The Board has explored reasonable methods of desegre­
gation, including rezoning, pairing, grouping, school con-



App. 6

solidation, and transportation. The Plan proposed by the 
Board is an area-attendance plan, under which children 
residing within an attendance area will attend the school 
serving that area. The boundary lines o f each attendance 
area are shown on the map identified as “ Map— Elementary 
Schools,”  attached hereto as E x h ib it  3, and the estimated 
results thereof in terms of racial mix o f pupils in each 
school are as shown on the schedule attached hereto as 
E xh ib it  3-A.

The School Board recognizes that its judgment as to the 
reasonableness of the Plan will be reviewed by the Courts. 
As shown by the previous evidence in this case, any plan 
for this City effecting substantially more racial mix at the 
elementary level than herein provided for must inevitably 
be developed along the lines proposed by Dr. Stolee. In 
order that the Court may compare the disadvantages of any 
such plan, the grouping required within the constraint of 
having contiguous zones is shown on the map identified as 
“ Revision of Stolee Plan A ,”  attached hereto as Exh ibit  
4, and the estimated results thereof in terms of racial mix 
are as shown on Exh ib it  4-A. The disadvantages en­
countered with groupings necessary for the desegregation 
o f all o f the elementary schools north of the Eastern Branch 
of the Elizabeth River are shown on a map identified as 
“ Revision of Stolee Plan C,” attached hereto as Exh ib it  5, 
and the estimated results thereof in terms o f racial mix are 
as shown on E xh ib it  5-A.

D. Transportation o f Pupils.

The School Board has never in the past and does not 
now consider the operation by it of a bus system for the 
transportation of pupils between home and school to be 
either necessary or educationally desirable. It has not con-



App. 7

strued the court decisions and orders in this case to require 
the inauguration o f such a system.

The implementation of any Stolee-type plan is limited by 
the capacity of the public bus transportation system as it 
may be rearranged to provide maximum efficiency.

IV.

T ransfer  P rovisions .

Any pupil will be permitted to transfer from the school 
to which he is assigned where his race is in the majority to 
a school which has a minority of his race and has available 
space in grade. Rules of uniform application designed to 
encourage desegregation will be established by the School 
Board. The administrative procedure for such transfers 
shall be readily available to each child. At such time as the 
transportation requirements can be determined, the best 
available transportation will be arranged for transferring 
students at the expense of the student.

V.

S p e c ia l  F a c il it ie s  and  P rograms.

There are to be a number of special schools and programs 
which are not specifically provided for above.

Norfolk Vocational Technical Center, situate on the 
Military Highway, established in September, 1968, pro­
vides for daily instruction on a half-day basis to children 
from all of the City’s high schools. The racial composition 
of the Center approximately reflects the racial composition 
of the high school student body. The Center is operating 
successfully and its programs will be maintained.
; Several programs are conducted under provisions of Title 
I o f the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. By 
their terms, the programs are designed for the benefit of the



App. 8

disadvantaged children. They are operated by the School 
Board on a desegregated basis, but involve primarily Negro 
children because of the high correlation between Negro 
children and the disadvantaged.

The School Administration will develop compensatory 
educational methods for use in any school which remains 
predominantly Negro. Compensatory programs will include 
such elements as reduced teacher-pupil ratio, revised ad­
ministrative organization for instruction, individualized in­
struction, supplementary pupil services, and augmented cul­
tural and recreational activities.

All pupils will be assigned to integrated schools for a 
substantial portion of their school careers, most for at 
least half o f it. Special classes, functions, and programs 
such as those set forth above will be available to pupils in 
predominantly Negro schools on an integrated basis.

VI.

A d m in  i stration  .

The School Administration will make such administrative 
transfers of classes of children or individual children as are 
desirable for the orderly operation of the public schools of 
the City, such transfers being necessary from time to time 
for various reasons which include but are not limited to 
the following: to prevent overcrowding of a school building, 
to comfortably fill a school building, or to adjust for dam­
age to or destruction of a school building, provided that such 
transfers will not be made to perpetuate segregation.

The School Administration will also make such adminis­
trative transfers of classes of children or individual children 
as are desirable to provide for the needs of children for 
special subjects, to provide for the needs of mentally or 
physically disabled children, or to relieve hardships on chil-



App. 9

dren or their parents or guardians, provided that such trans­
fers will not be made to perpetuate segregation.

In the event a child’s residence is moved from one at­
tendance area to another during a school year, the child may, 
at the option of his parent or guardian, complete such 
school year at the school which he is attending at the time 
his residence is moved.

In the event the residence of a child who has begun the 
eleventh grade is moved from one attendance area to 
another, the child may, at the option of his parent or 
guardian, remain through graduation in the school in which 
he began the eleventh grade.

A  rising senior who is assigned under this Plan to a 
different high school from that attended in the preceding 
year may, at the option of the parent or guardian, remain 
through graduation at the school to which he was assigned 
for the preceding year.

E X H IB IT  1-A

Sen io r  H igh  S chools 
Estimated Enrollment and 

Racial Distribution

School
Estimated, 

E nrollm ent*
P ercentage

W h ite
P ercen tage

N egro

Granby 2250 75% 25%
Lake Taylor 2300 65% 35%
Maury 1900 50% 50%
Norview 2300 70% 30%
Washington 2300 48% 52%

* Includes approximately 700 ninth grade pupils.
N o te : Estimated enrollment and percentages of white and Negro 

pupils does not take into account the option of seniors to re­
main in the same school where they completed the 11th grade.



App. 10

E X H IB IT  2

Ju n io r  H ig h  S chool F eeder P lan

Estimated Enrollment and 
Racial Distribution 

1970-71
Junior H igh  

S chools
F eed er  E lem entary  

Schools
Estim ated

Enrollm ent
P ercen tage

W h ite
P ercen tage

N eg ro

Azalea Gardens Bay View 
Tarrallton
Little Creek Elementary 1300 100% 0%

Blair
Larchmont
Stuart
Taylor
Sewells Point
Camp Allen
Meadowbrook
Madison
Monroe ( West of 

Colonial Avenue) 1250 64% 36%

Campostella
Gatewood 
St. Helena 
Lincoln 
Tucker 
Diggs Park
Campostella Elementary 1000 0% 100%

Jacox
Coleman Place 
West
Roberts Park 
Bowling Park 1025 35% 65%

Lake Taylor
Carey 
Fairlawn 
Easton 
Poplar Halls 
Lee
Chesterfield 
Liberty Park 1200 60% 40%



App. 11

Junior H igh  
S chools

F eed er  E lem entary
S chools

Estimated
E nrollm ent

P ercentage
W h ite

P ercentage
N egro

Northside
Willoughby 
Ocean View 
Calcott 
Oceanair
Granby Elementary 
Suburban Park 1200 88% 12%

Norview
Norview Elementary 
Lindenwood 
Sherwood Forest 
Lansdale 1250 65% 35%

Rosemont (Upon 
the completion 
of additions)

Oakwood
Crossroads
Larrymore 850 70% 30%

Ruffner
Goode 
Ingleside 
Young Park 
Titus
Tidewater Park 
Pineridge 1360 25% 75%

Willard
Lakewood 
Lafayette 
Ballentine 
Marshall 
Monroe (East of 

Colonial Avenue) 1225 60% 40%

* Pretty Lake Primary, East Ocean View Primary and Little Creek Primary will 
feed into Little Creek Elementary School.



App. 12

E X H IB IT  3-A

E l e m e n ta r y  S chools

Estimated Enrollment and 
Racial Distribution 

1970-71

Elementary
Schools Grades

Estimated
Enrollment

Percentage
White

Percentage
Negro

Ballentine 1-6 285 98% 2%
Bay View 1-6 815 100% 0%
Bowling Park 1-6 775 0% 100%
Calcott 1-7 840 100% 0%
Camp Allen 1-6 900 80% 20%
Campostella 1-6 200 25% 75%
Carey 1-6 400 0% 100%
Chesterfield 1-7 600 13% 87%
Coleman Place 1-7 950 100% 0%
Crossroads 1-6 975 90% 10%
Diggs Park 1-6 615 0% 100%
Easton 1-7 475 94% 6%
East Ocean View 1-4 190 0% 100%
Fairlawn 1-6 460 98% 2%
Gatewood 1-6 400 0% 100%
Goode 1-6 475 0% 100%
Granby 1-7 700 84% 16%
Ingleside 1-6 475 96% 4%
Lafayette 1-6 300 50% 50%
Lakewood >■, 1-6 780 83% 17%
Lansdale 1-6 700 95% 5% .
Larchmpnt 1-6 625 72% 28%
Larrymore 1-6 1075 . 77% 23%
Lee kn: 1-6 600 17% 83%



App. 13

Elementary
Schools (Grades

Estimated
Enrollment

Percentage
White

Percentage
Negro

Liberty Park 1-7 625 0% 100%
Lincoln 1-6 320 0% 100%
Lindenwood 1-6 650 23% 77%
Little Creek Elementary 4-6 730 100% 0%
Little Creek Primary 1-4 615 100% 0%
Madison 1-7 800 0% 100%
Marshall 1-7 600 0% 100%
Meadowbrook 1-6 540 80% 20%

Monroe 1-6 950 17% 83%
Norview 1-6 725 72% 28%
Oakwood 1-6 490 30% 70%
Oceanair 1-6 795 100% 0%

Ocean View 1-7 850 94% 6%

Pineridge 1-6 370 93% 7%

Poplar Halls 1-6 550 94% 6%
Pretty Lake 1-4 105 100% 0%
Roberts Park 1-6 545 0% 100%
St. Helena 1-6 400 0% 100%
Sewells Point Elementary 

and Annex 1-6 720 80% 20%
Sherwood Forest 1-6 725 100% 0%
Stuart 1-6 850 17% 83%
Suburban Park 1-6 500 85% 15%
Tarrallton 1-5 725 98% 2%
T aylor 1-6 275 82% 18%
Tidewater Park 1-6 500 0% 100%)
Titus 1-6 610 0% 100%
Tucker 1-6 450 0% 100%
West 1-6 500 0% 100%
Willoughby 1-6 650 90% 10%
Young Park 1-6 650 0% 100%



App. 14

E X H IB IT  4-A

R evision  of Stolee 
P la n  A

Elementary Estimated Percentage
Group Schools Grades Enrollment White

1 Calcott 5-6 650
Crossroads 1-4 900
Oakwood 1-4 550

2100 75%

2 Granby 1-4 820
Suburban Park 1-4 620
Stuart 5-6 610

2050 57%

3 Larchmont 1-4 675
Madison 5-6 525
Taylor 1-4 435

1635 50%

4 Lakewood 1-4 825
Lafayette 1-4 365
Lindenwood 5-6 500

1690 60%

5 Coleman Place 1-4 825
Ballentine 1-4 250
Roberts Park 5-6 575

1640 70%

6 Lansdale 5-7 700
Pineridge 1-4 425
Bowling Park 1-4 925

2050 55%

7 Liberty Park 5-6 570
Ingleside 1-4 430
Poplar Halls 1-4 550

1550 65%

Percentage
Negro

25%

43%

50%

40%

30%

45%

35%



App. 15

Elementary
Group Schools Grad

S chools N o t G rouped

Bay View 1-6
Camp Allen 1-6
Campostella 1-6
Carey 1-6
Chesterfield 1 -7
Diggs Park 1-6
Easton 1-7
East Ocean View 1-4 
Fairlawn 1-6
Gatewood 1 -6
Goode 1-6
Larry more 1-6
Lee 1-6
Lincoln 1-6
Little Creek 

Elementary 4-6
Little Creek

Primary 1-4
Marshall 1-7
Meadowbrook 1-6
Monroe 1-6
Norview 1-6
Oceanair 1-6
Ocean View 1-7
Pretty Lake 1-4
St. Helena 1-6
Sewells Point 

Elementary and 
Annex 1-6

Sherwood Forest 1-4 
T arrallton 1 -5
Tidewater Park 1-6
Titus 1-6
T ucker 1-6
West 1-6
Willoughby 1-6
Young Park 1-6

Estimated Percentage Percentage
Enrollment White Negro

815 100% 0%
900 80% 20%
200 25% 75%
400 0% 100%
600 13% 87%
615 0% 100%
475 94% 6%
190 0% 100%
460 98% 2%
400 0% 100%
475 0% 100%

1075 77% 23%
500 0% 100%
320 0% 100%

730 100% 0%

615 100% 0%
600 0% 100%
540 80% 20%
950 17% 83%
725 72% 28%
795 100% 0%
850 94% 6%
105 100% 0%
400 0% 100%

720 80% 20%
725 100% 0%
725 98% 2%
500 0% 100%
610 0% 100%
450 0% 100%
500 0% 100%
650 90% 10%
650 0% 100%



App. 16

E X H IB IT  5-A

R e v i s i o n  o f  S t o l e e  

P l a n  C

Elementary Estimated Percentage
Group Schools Grades Enrollment White

A Willoughby 5-6 555
Ocean View 1-4 835
Young Park 1-4 600

1990 70%
B Oceanair 1-4 800

Titus 5-6 375
1175 55%

C Bayview 1-4 820
Goode 5-6 450

1270 65%
D Pretty Lake 1-4 140

East Ocean View 1-4 100
Carey 5-6 240

480 50%
E Tarrallton 1-4 930

Lee 5-6 420
1350 65%

F Little Creek
Elementary & 
Primary 1-4 1450

Monroe 5-6 945
2395 50%

G Granby 1-4 570
Suburban Park 5-6 540
Marshall 1-4 450

1550 55%
H Sherwood Forest 1-4 825

West 5-6 350
1175 70%

I Fairlawn 1-4 510
Easton 1-4 475
Tidewater Park 5-6 490

1475 60%

Percentage
Negro

30%

45%

35%

50%

35%

50%

45%

30%

40%



App. 17

Elementary Estimated Percentage Percentage
Group Schools Grades Enrollment White Negro

J Calcott 5-6 650
Crossroads 1-4 900
Oakwood 1-4 550

2100 75% 25% .
K Larchmont 1-4 675

Madison 5-6 525
Taylor 1-4 435

1635 50% 50%
L Lakewood 1-4 825

Lafayette 1-4 365
Lindenwood 5-6 500

1690 60% 40%
M' Coleman Place 1-4 825

Ballentine 1-4 250
Roberts Park 5-6 575

1640 70% 30%
N Lansdale 5-7 700

Pineridge 1-4 425
Bowling Park 1-4 925

2050 55% 45%
O Liberty Park 5-6 570

Ingleside 1-4 430
Poplar Halls 1-4 550

1550 65% 35%
Schools Not Grouped

Larrymore 1-6 1075 77% 23%
*Norview 1-6 725 72% 28%

Stuart 1-7 750 50% 50%
Meadowbrook 1-6 540 80% 20%
Camp Allen 1-6 900 80% 20%

*Sewells Point 1-6 720 80% 20%
Chesterfield 1-7 600 13% 87% :
Campostella 1-6 200 25% 75%
T ucker 1-6 450 0% 100%
Diggs Park 1-6 615 0% 100%
Gatewood 1-6 400 0% 100%
St. Helena 1-6 400 0% 100%
Lincoln 1-6 320 0% 100%

* Includes A nnex



E XC E PT IO N S T O  T H E  PLAN  

Filed August 4, 1970

1. The assignment of black and white students on a 
50%-50% basis to Maury and on a 52%-48% basis to 
Washington fails to erase the racial identifiability of those 
schools when their racial composition is compared with 
that of other high schools; and such failure carries the 
potential of future increases in the percentage o f black 
students at Maury and Washington Schools.

2. The rising senior provision of the plan will result 
in a substantial maladjustment in the number of black and 
white students attending each school as nearly all of the 
seniors will elect to remain in the schools which they, re­
spectively, attended in 1969-70 and thus to contribute to the 
maintenance of the racial identifiability which such school 
then had.

3. At the junior high and elementary school levels the 
plan proposes obviously white schools and obviously black 
schools contrary to the admonition of the Supreme Court 
in Green v. County School Board of New Kent County.

4. The plan fails to provide for the transportation of 
pupils to the schools to which they are assigned. Having 
established and nurtured the dual system, the board may 
not transfer to the victims o f that system the financial 
burdens incident to its disestablishment.

5. The special facilities and program section of the plan 
proposes a substitution of shadow for substance. Brown 
dealt with the right of black children to racially non-dis- 
criminatory school assignments. This suit was brought to 
obtain for black children racially non-discriminatory school 
assignments. The rejection o f this suit’s object and the

App. 18



App. 19

substitution of special classes function and programs is a 
gross denial o f due process of law.

6. The eleventh grade option provision of the plan is 
totally without justification and will delay the elimination 
o f the segregated character of the high schools.

7. The plan should provide that the assignment of prin­
cipals, assistant principals and other administrative per­
sonnel will result in at least as many black administrators 
in each o f the above mentioned categories as are presently 
employed in the school system.

8. The plan should provide that the board, in its re­
cruitment and hiring practices, will not reduce the per­
centage of black teachers employed by the Norfolk school 
system below the level presently employed by the system.

W herefore , plaintiffs pray that the plan o f the school 
board be rejected and that the Court will order the imple­
mentation of the plan presented to the Court by Government 
Expert, Dr. Michael J. Stolee and referred to as the “ C” 
series.

/s /  H e n r y  L. M arsh , III 
Of Counsel for Plaintiffs



App. 20

G O V E R N M E N T  E X H IB IT  N O . 3 
Filed August 12,1970

P r o j e c t e d  E l e m e n t a r y  S c h o o l  E n r o l l m e n t  A n d  

P e r c e n t a g e  N e g r o  U n d e r  T h e  S c h o o l  B o a r d ' s  L o n g  

R a n g e  P l a n  F i l e d  6/21 /69  A n d  T h e  P l a n  F i l e d

7/27/70

Total Enrollment Percentage Negro

School
7/27170
Plant

Ballentine 285
Bay View 815
Bowling Park 775
Calcott 840
Camp Allen 900
Campostella 200
Carey 400
Chesterfield 600
Coleman Place 950
Crossroads 975
Diggs Park 615
East Ocean View 190
Easton 475
Fairlawn 460
Gatewood 400
Goode 475
Granby 700
Ingleside 475
Lafayette 300 .
Lakewood 780
Lansdale 700
Larchmont 625
Larrymore 1,075
Lee 600
Liberty Park 625
Lincoln 320

Long Range 
Plan2

7/27/70 
Plan1

Long Range 
Plan2

675s 2 25s
850 0 0
850 100 100
850 0 0
735 20 25
225 75 75
500 100 100
725 87 85
875 0 0
970 10 35
600 100 100
150 0 0
475 6 10
540 2 0
500 100 100
425 100 100
800 16 15
420 4 10

3 50 3

750 17 15
700 5 10
675 28 25

1,000 23 20
575 83 100
625 100 100
450 100 100



App. 21

School

Total Enrollment Percentage Negro
7127170 
Plant-

Long Range 
Plan2

7/27/70
Plant

Long Range 
Plan2

Lindenwood 650 550 77 100
Little Creek Elementary 730 675 0 0
Little Creek Primary 615 575 0 0
Madison 800 750 100 100
Marshall 600 675 100 100
Meadowbrook 540 575 20 20
Monroe 950 1,000 83 100
Norview 725 700 28 30
Oakwood 490 70
Oceanair 795 750 0 0
Ocean View 850 875 6 10
Pineridge 370 425 7 10
Popular Halls 550 525 6 10
Pretty Lake 105 150 0 0
Roberts Park 545 525 100 100
St. Helena 400 325 100 100
Sewells Point 720 600 20 25
Sherwood Forest 725 725 0 2
Stuart 850 550 83 40
Suburban Park 500 625 15 12
Tarrallton 725 825 2 0
Taylor 275 400 18 15
Tidewater Park 500 425 100 100
Titus 610 550 100 100
Tucker 450 500 100 100
West 500 400 100 100
Willoughby 650 600 10 10
Young Park 650 575 100 100

1 A s stated in Exhibit 3 -A , School B oard Plan filed July 28, 1970.
2 A s stated in Defendant’s Exhibit N o. IS, dated O ctober 8, 1969.
3 L ong Range Plan provided fo r  pairing o f Ballentine and Lafayette for 

1971-1972.



App. 22

M E M O R A N D U M  

Filed August 14, 1970

Remanded to this court on June 22, 1970, with directions, 
to prepare and file a new plan by July 27, 1970, we are again 
met with an opinion which presents no guidelines to assist 
the School Board and the court. Despite efforts by the 
district court to obtain appropriate definitions of “ dual 
system,” “ unitary system,” “ segregated,” “ integrated,” 
“ racially unidentifiable,” no appellate ruling is forthcoming. 
Issues such as “ racial balancing” and massive compulsory 
“ cross-bussing” were avoided by the majority opinion.

Many express findings of fact were made in the district 
court opinions.1 It does not appear that the appellate court 
is in disagreement with any particular finding; the dif­
ferences lie in the legal conclusions to be drawn from such 
findings.2 Indeed, it would appear that the fact-finding 
process by the district court is of little or no significance in 
school desegregation cases, irrespective of the weight stated 
to be given to district court’s findings in the implementing 
decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 
75 S.Ct. 753, 99 L.Ed. 1083 (1955).

It is apparent from the majority opinion, and the special 
concurring opinions of Judges Sobeloff and Winter, that 
desegregation or integration is now paramount to sound

1 Beckett v. School Bd. of the City of Norfolk, 302 F. Supp. 18, 
and 308 F. Supp. 1274 (E.D. Va. 1969).

2 No significance is attached to the fact that certiorari was denied 
(Mr. Justice Black dissenting) on June 29, 1970. The opinion of the 
United States Court of Appeals was filed on June 22, 19701. The 
petition for a writ of certiorari was delivered to the Clerk of the 
United States Supreme Court on Friday, June 26, at noon. The 
Supreme Court, faced with a long-established precedent of disposing 
of all pending cases by the last Monday in June, denied the petition 
on Monday, June 29, 1970. Time did not permit an intelligent analysis 
of the problems presented in this case.



App. 23

education principles. Only the special concurring opinion of 
Judge Bryan mentions the word “ education.” The seven­
teen (17) cardinal principles established by the School 
Board are abolished, with Judges Sobeloff and Winter 
characterizing them as “ spurious.”

The rejection of these principles and the innovation seek­
ing to implement them, wherein children, white or black, 
will do better in schools which are predominantly white, is 
grounded upon the first Brown decision, Green v. County 
School Bd. of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430 (1968), and 
Alexander v. Holmes County Ed. o f Ed., 396 U.S. 19 
(1969). With deference to the superior wisdom of the ap­
pellate court, it is difficult to read into the cited cases any 
prohibition against such principles and the plan implement­
ing them. True, race is a factor considered, but in any school 
desegregation plan submitted throughout the nation the 
issue of race remains of utmost importance. In the Fourth 
Circuit we are already required to assign the faculty on a 
principle of racial balancing without regard to the qualifica­
tions of the particular teacher. W e are forced to assign 
black children into predominantly white schools and white 
children into predominantly black schools to an extent which 
is at least beyond token desegregation.

Not a single word in any of the three opinions filed 
by the Court of Appeals mentions the testimony of Dr. 
Thomas F. Pettigrew, the recognized expert in school inte­
gration cases upon whom the School Board relied in formu­
lating and presenting its optimal plan which has now been 
rejected. Nevertheless, in the separate concurring and dis­
senting opinion of Judge Craven, with Chief Judge Hayns- 
worth and Judge Bryan joining therein, in Brunson v. Bd. 
o f Trustees o f School District No. 1 of Clarendon County,
South Carolina, ......F. (2d) ....... , argued on the same day
as the Norfolk case, D'r. Pettigrew’s testimony in the Nor­



App. 24

folk case is substantially accepted by these three judges 
even though the witness did not testify in the South Caro­
lina case. Judge Craven’s opinion in the South Carolina 
case states that “ judges, in fashioning remedies, cannot 
ignore reality.”

Shortly thereafter, Judges Sobeloff and Winter saw fit 
to file a separate concurring opinion in the South Carolina 
case, severely criticizing Judges Craven, Haynsworth and 
Bryan for accepting the Pettigrew philosophy, and dis­
counting the testimony of Dr. Pettigrew given in the Nor­
folk case.

It is frustrating to think that the appellate court, ap­
parently in disagreement as to the legal effect and conclu­
sions drawn by the most experienced man in the nation who 
admits to being an integrationist, has discussed Dr. Petti­
grew’s testimony in a case in which he never testified and, 
at the same time, failed to mention him in a case in which 
he did testify. One can readily imagine that what would be 
forthcoming if a district court in Virginia relied upon testi­
mony in a South Carolina case in arriving at its conclusons.

While the Pettigrew philosophy is, for the moment, dead, 
anyone experienced in the field will predict that it must, in 
due time, be restored if integration is to be successful. 
Especially is this true when the legal effect o f appellate 
court rulings is applied with equal force throughout the 
fifty states. Unfortunately, Dr. Pettigrew and the Norfolk 
City School Board are three to five years ahead o f the times.

In addition to the fact that the benefits of sound educa­
tion have now been clearly subordinated to the requirement 
that racial bodies be mixed, the majority opinion of the 
Court of Appeals pointedly states that—

(1 ) Booker T. Washington senior high school must 
be “ desegregated” for the school year beginning Sep­
tember 1970.



App. 25

(2 ) Faculties in each and every school must be 
racially balanced, effective with the school year begin­
ning September 1970 in the approximate ratio of white 
to black faculty members prevailing in the several 
branches o f the school system; to-wit, senior high 
schools, junior high schools, and elementary schools.

(3 ) Junior high schools must be “ desegregated” for 
the school year beginning September 1970.

(4 ) Elementary schools, to the extent reasonably 
possible, must be “desegregated”  for the school year 
beginnnig September 1970.

There is no ambiguity with reference to the mandate 
relating to faculty assignments and it requires no discus­
sion. While faculty assignments had previously been made 
in anticipation of the approval of the plan now rejected by 
the Court of Appeals, it is apparent that there will have to 
be some further shuffling of these assignments in order to 
comply with the ruling of the higher court. However, the 
School Board had substantially accomplished the racial bal­
ancing of faculties prior to June 22, 1970. The now pro­
posed plan will complete this undertaking.

As to the assignment of pupils, the district court made 
an express finding that a “ racially unidentifiable” school or 
a “ desegregated” school was one in which 10 percent of 
the pupils were of a different race than the remaining 90 
percent.3 The Court of Appeals did not disapprove of this 
finding. W e have no guidance as to what amounts to “ token 
desegregation” and where to draw the line between a “ de­
segregated” school and “ token desegregation.” Since only 
Judges Sobeloff and Winter have openly advocated the

3 Beckett v. School Board of City of Norfolk, 308 F. Supp. 1274, 
1291.



App. 26

adoption of the Stolee plan,4 and since the appellate court 
has expressly avoided the use of the term “ racial balanc­
ing,”  which is exactly what the Stolee plan “ C”  provides 
and which was admitted by all counsel at the hearings in 
the district court, it must be assumed that some plan, short 
of racial balancing, may possibly meet with favor on the 
appellate level. Convinced that the total Stolee plan would 
bring about a complete disruption of the school system and 
in the absence of a clear mandate from the Court of Ap­
peals, the Stolee plan “ C”  cannot be directed by the district 
court.

There is a reference in the majority opinion indicating 
what should be done “ if it appears that black residential 
areas are so large that not all schools can be integrated.” 
This is in line with the majority opinion in the Charlotte 
case, Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Educa­
tion, ...... F. (2d)    (4 Cir., May 26, 1970), certiorari
granted (June 29, 1970), where it was stated “ that not 
every school in a unitary school system need be integrated.” 
W e must assume that the use of the word “ integrated”  is 
synonymous with the word “ desegregated,” as most as­
suredly that does not correspond with the use of these 
words by Dr. Pettigrew which are quoted with approval by 
Judge Craven in Brunson, supra.

The principal difficulty with engrafting any exception 
to the edict of the Court of Appeals requiring all schools to 
be desegregated is the absence of any guideline as to what 
would pass muster on the appellate level. The district court, 
in rejecting massive compulsory cross-bussing called for 
by the Stolee plan “ C,”  has emphatically stated that the

4 The majority opinion written by Judge Butzner does state: “ The 
plan may be based on suggestions made by the government’s expert 
witness, Dr. Michael J. Stolee, or on any other method that may be 
expected to provide a unitary school system.”



App. 27

Stolee plan is “ impossible” and “ beyond comprehension.” 
It could readily be pointed out— and is already in the 
record from prior hearings— that there are black residential 
areas which are so large that not all schools can be desegre­
gated by using “ reasonable means,”  but this may be tanta­
mount to an avoidance of the evil day if the N AACP or 
the Civil Rights Division should see fit to appeal.

Faced with this dilemma, we look to other alternatives. 
Judge Butzner’s opinion in the Charlotte case does suggest 
that, in determining who should be bussed and where they 
should be bussed, it is appropriate to consider the age o f the 
pupils, the distance and time required for transportation, 
the effect on traffic, and the cost in relation to the Board’s 
resources. If age and time factors are important, it stands 
to reason that there perhaps should be less bussing with 
the younger child. However, the neighborhood school con­
cept was effectively discarded in the Charlotte case and 
judges Sobeloff and Winter, in the separate concurring 
opinion in the Norfolk case, refer to the neighborhood 
school concept as a “ shibboleth.” Thus, according to the 
higher court, the neighborhood school attended by so many 
of the young children is a judicial outcast except to the ex­
tent that the particular school serves an appreciable per­
centage of both races.

S e n i o r  H i g h  S c h o o l s

The new plan as filed by the School Board on July 27, 
1970—all as directed and scheduled by the Court of Appeals 
— clearly meets any standard required by the appellate 
court on the senior high school level. The senior high schools 
will be, in fact and law, racially desegregated to the fullest 
extent possible. With approximately 1,104 white children 
being assigned to Booker T. Washington located in the hard 
core of the central city— all of whom will be required to



App. 28

use public transportation— it follows that an approximately 
equal number of black pupils must resort to public transpor­
tation to attend Lake Taylor, Norview and Granby. Since 
Maury is already the victim of resegregation, it is not pos­
sible to permit any black children from the former Wash­
ington area to attend that school. Presumably many of the 
black children will be drawn from the Berkley-Campostella 
area which is on the southern end of Norfolk separated from 
the balance of Norfolk by the Eastern Branch of the Eliza­
beth River. As many of these children have previously used 
the bus to reach Booker T. Washington, it is unlikely that 
the longer bus ride (about 8 miles) to Lake Taylor will 
seriously disrupt the prevailing system.

The N AACP and Civil Rights Division object to the 
senior high school plan even though it provides for 52% 
black and 48% white in Booker T. Washington, heretofore 
substantially all black, and 50-50 at Maury. The grounds 
for this objection are that “ rising seniors” in each high 
school are being given the option of remaining in the high 
school which they attended this past year. It is true that 
this will reduce the percentage of white pupils at Booker T. 
Washington to approximately 35% for the 1970-71 school 
year but, even so, it remains a heavily desegregated school. 
The figure would adjust itself for the 1971-72 school year.

The “ rising senior”  option has been in effect for many 
years. It merely gives to the boy or girl, completing the 
eleventh grade, the privilege of remaining in that par­
ticular school in order that the student may graduate with 
his or her class. The “ rising senior” proviso is contained in 
many desegregation plans throughout the country and, 
indeed, in former hearings was approved by experts testi­
fying at the instance of the N AACP and Civil Rights Divi­
sion. It is not, as noted above, being used to avoid desegre­
gation. While the “ rising senior” proviso is applicable to



App. 29

all senior high schools, its effect upon the racial composi­
tion of the student body will only be noticed at Booker T. 
Washington where there are probably 500 to 600 seniors. 
The option to remain in Washington senior high school is 
not automatic. The senior student must affirmatively elect 
to remain there; otherwise he will attend the senior high 
school to which he would be assigned according to his 
residence.

There is a further provision called an eleventh grade 
election which could not possibly affect any substantial 
number of students. For many years there has been a rule 
that if a student, once having started in the eleventh grade, 
moves from the school areas to another school area within 
the city, he is given the right to complete the eleventh grade 
and, if he passes, he then becomes entitled to the ‘‘rising 
senior” option in order to graduate with his class. The 
evidence discloses that this rule could not affect more than 
a handful of pupils in the system.

As to Maury High School, the “ rising senior” option 
will have little or no racial effect as the percentage of whites 
and blacks has been substantially identical for the past year.

It is not clear as to exactly what the NAACP wants with 
respect to senior high schools. They urge racial balancing 
which, on the senior high level, would be approximately 
60-40, perhaps a bit more than 60% white. On the other 
hand, assuming that the blacks at Booker T. Washington 
exercise their “ rising senior” options, the racial balance for 
1970-71 will be approximately 65-35 black. They argue, 
along with the Civil Rights Division, that the “ rising 
senior” option should be abolished, thus creating a 52-48 
ratio for the 1970-71 session at Washington. This, if con­
sidered from the racial balance standpoint, would mean 
that at least 12% more whites should be added. However, 
the N AACP urges that the blacks should remain the pre­



App.30

dominant number at Washington as it is a school located in 
the hard core of the central city and the blacks are proud 
of their school.

In any event, the objections of the N AACP and Civil 
Rights Division to the senior high school phase of the plan 
are, in the words of Judges Sobeloff and Winter, “ spu­
rious.”  They are, accordingly, overruled.

J u n i o r  H i g h  S c h o o l s

There are ten (10) junior high schools. In accordance 
with the mandate of the Court of Appeals, seven will be de­
segregated to the extent of 30% of one race attending each 
school. As to the remaining three schools, Northside con­
templates 88% white and 12% black; Azalea Gardens, 
located at the extreme northeastern corner o f the city is 
listed as 100% white, although there are a few blacks in 
attendance; Campostella, located in the southern area of 
the city and separated from the main portion of Norfolk by 
the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River, will have less 
than 10% white in attendance.

While Campostella and Azalea Gardens present an un­
usual problem in that they are widely separated (approxi­
mately 9 miles), the direction o f the appellate court is 
interpreted to mean that every reasonable effort must be 
made to desegregate any existing black school. A t the 
request of the N A A C P  at the hearing, since it appeared 
from the paper record that Norview junior high school 
would not be filled to capacity, the court directed the bussing 
of approximately 150 black children from Campostella to 
Norview or, at the option of the School Board, to Azalea 
Gardens or Northside, or a combination of the three schools. 
Counsel for the N AACP was given the opportunity to elect 
which school or schools these Campostella children would 
attend, but he declined to exercise this option.



App. 31

There had been no evidence introduced as to the physical 
ability of Norview junior high school to accommodate the 
additional ISO pupils. Action was taken solely upon the ex­
hibit filed by the School Board which demonstrated that 
this school had a standard operating capacity of 1,509 and 
an estimated enrollment for 1970-71 of 1,250, thus leaving 
apparent space for 259 students.

On the following day the School Board’s counsel met 
with the court and N AACP counsel. The attorney for the 
Civil Rights Division had left the city but, as to the junior 
high school plan, the Civil Rights Division had not filed any 
objection. The attorney for the defendant-intervenors was 
likewise not present but, with respect to the narrow consti­
tutional issue raised by these intervenors, the result of this 
limited hearing could not adversely affect them. A stipula­
tion was dictated into the record to the effect that, by 
reason of the present physical condition or Norview junior 
high school, the true pupil capacity was 1,250 and not 1,509. 
The assignments to this school had intentionally been re­
duced to 1,250 because of the physical condition of a por­
tion of the school. Accordingly, the court revoked that por­
tion of its prior verbal pronouncement with respect to the 
bussing of 150 black children from Campostella to Nor­
view.5 As Azalea Gardens and Northside, nearly 100% 
white and 88% white respectively, are already filled to 
capacity, there is no other available space.

It may be argued that Azalea Gardens and Campostella 
should have been paired. The answer to this argument is 
threefold. First, pairing on the junior and senior high school

5 Counsel for the NAACP did not except to this particular action 
by the court, but reserved the right to contend that the court should 
have paired Campostella and Azalea Gardens, or should have other­
wise ordered a large block of Campostella pupils to be assigned to 
some junior high school, with a reverse assignment of whites to 
Campostella. This the court declined to do.



App. 32

level is vastly different on an educational standpoint from 
pairing on the elementary level. Secondly, there is obviously 
an insufficient number of buses available to accomplish this 
movement and every bus used on the junior high level will 
diminish the prospects of desegregation on the elementary 
level which is now the critical problem. Thirdly, the dis­
tance and time involved is too great to justify such drastic 
action. One could argue that the opening of Azalea Gardens 
and Campostella could be staggered but, according to trans­
portation facilities available for 1970-71, all schools will 
have to be staggered on the respective levels o f education, 
with the senior high schools (except Norview) anticipating 
an opening at approximately 7:45 a.m.; the junior high 
schools (except Norview) opening at 8:30 a.m.; and the 
elementary schools, together with Norview senior and junior 
high schools, opening at 9:15 or 9:30 a.m. The reason that 
the two Norview schools were selected for delayed opening 
is that these schools are centrally located and are sur­
rounded by many elementary trips. The buses converging on 
that area may be more efficiently dispatched from that 
point.

The Court o f Appeals directed the immediate desegrega­
tion of all high schools. However, the appellate court fol­
lowed by saying, “ With respect to elementary and junior 
high schools, the board should explore reasonable methods 
of desegregation” and, “ If it appears that black residential 
areas are so large that not all schools can be integrated, the 
school board must take further steps to assure that no pupil 
is excluded because of his race from a desegregated school.” 
Subject to the presentation of more specific plans, as ordered 
by the appellate court, as to functions and programs on an 
integrated basis, the specificity of which cannot be formu­
lated until the School Board knows the problem confronting' 
it, the junior high school plan as presented by the School



App, 33

Board is approved, and the objections of the NAACP are 
overruled. It is noted that Campostella children will attend 
Lake Taylor senior high school, with a contemplated 65-35 
ratio, for at least three years and, of course, the Campostella 
junior high pupils may exercise the majority-minority trans­
fer privilege which has now been amended to comply with 
the edict of the Court of Appeals.

E l e m e n t a r y  S c h o o l s

Removing the transfer of 150 children from Campostella 
enabled a few more buses to become available for use on 
the elementary level.

The plan as submitted by the School Board, while deemed 
to be reasonable to the district court under the circum­
stances, did not meet the test of forced desegregation irre­
spective of costs and convenience as commanded by the 
Court o f Appeals.

The short answer to the problem of thoroughly desegre­
gating the elementary schools lies in the nonavailability of 
buses. Immediately after the Court of Appeals opinion on 
June 22, 1970, the School Board conferred with the City 
Council and was advised that no additional funds were 
available, or could be made available, for bussing children 
to and from schools. The School Board budget is committed 
to the maximum, with no funds available from that source.

For years, Norfolk has used the local transit company 
for transportation of school children, the details of which 
are fully set forth in the prior opinions of this court. School 
tickets are sold at reduced rates, but must be purchased by 
the children. While the issue of expense of transportation 
was previously before the Court of Appeals in this case, the 
higher court said nothing about the expense except to touch 
upon the question as related to majority to minority trans­
fers. With the exception of the latter point, the district



App. 34

court now holds that the expense o f transportation must 
be paid by the children or their parents or guardians. The 
N AA CP argues that the court should order that the cost 
of transportation, especially as to the low-income group, 
be paid by the School Board or the City of Norfolk. This 
court knows of no constitutional right to enter such an 
order as this is a matter for the legislative body to deter­
mine; and, as noted above, the School Board has no excess 
funds and has no power to levy and collect taxes. The cost 
o f providing free transportation to all pupils, according to 
the School Board plan as submitted, is approximately $600,- 
000 per annum. This figure will be increased to an unknown 
amount by reason o f the grouping of elementary schools as 
ordered herein.

Experience demonstrates that very few pupils on any 
level of education avail themselves of the majority to minor­
ity option. This is cogent evidence of the fact that the chil­
dren and their parents, white and black, prefer the neigh­
borhood school which they are now being substantially 
required to forego. It is acknowledged that the majority to 
minority provision cannot be made effective if transporta­
tion expense is involved. W e hazard the guess that there 
would be no material change if transportation for these 
pupils is provided at the expense of the School Board. 
Nevertheless, the special concurring opinion of Judge Bryan 
specifies that pupils exercising the majority to minority 
option must be provided free transportation. Judge Butz- 
ner’s majority opinion merely states that this select group 
of pupils must be provided “ transportation by bus or com­
mon carrier.” W e interpret the intent of the Court of Ap­
peals as requiring free transportation by bus or common 
carrier for this particular group, from a point at or near the 
school from which the majority school is located to a point 
at or near the minority school to which the pupil elects to



App. 35

attend. W e reject the notion that taxicabs or station wagons 
must render door-to-door service. While the court is aware 
of the fact that the School Board has nothing in its budget 
to provide for this item of expense, and the court is of the 
opinion that it is exceeding its authority in ordering the 
same, there remains the cold fact that the Court o f Appeals 
has ordered it paid. There is no alternative available to the 
district court. Administratively the children can be pro­
vided bus tickets by the school administration.

The expert from the Virginia Transit Company was the 
only witness as to the available buses. Based upon the School 
Board’s plan, the required number of trips per morning 
was 238 with only 73 buses available.8 Thus, it is estimated 
that 91 trips will be required on the senior high level; 87 
trips on the junior high level; and 60 trips on the elementary 
level— a total of 238 as contrasted with 115 for the 1969-70 
school year.

For the afternoon, the total number of trips will increase 
to 285 based upon past experience. However, it may not 
increase by approximately 20% as per previous records be­
cause the grouping, now required by the court at the direc­
tion of the Court of Appeals, will undoubtedly overtax the 
morning facilities and tend to reduce the afternoon increase, 
due largely to the fact that fewer parents will be delivering 
their children to the school in the morning.

It is argued that many of these trips for 1969-70 were 
occasioned by the freedom of choice assignment plan which 
will no longer be in effect. The record does not reflect that 
the school system operated on any wholesale freedom of 
choice plan for 1969-70, and there is no evidence that any 6

6 It will be noted that each bus will be required to make an average 
of 3.2 trips per bus. Some will make less than the average and some 
more, dependent upon the length of the trip and traffic conditions 
prevailing.



App. 36

large number of children used public transportation under 
any freedom of choice setup.

A  comparison of some of the 1969-70 route trips will 
reveal a slightly less need for buses if the same school plan 
was made effective for 1970-71. For example— and the 
principal relief afforded— it was necessary to transport 
children in the Camp Allen area to Willoughby during 1969- 
70 because the new Camp Allen elementary school was not 
completed. It is ready for occupancy as of September 1970, 
and bus service to this new school will be minimized. There 
are other instances, especially in the new areas allocated by 
the School Board plan, where there may be an overload of 
service for pupils residing in the immediate vicinity of a 
school, and who would probably walk b> school.

On the other hand, the required grouping of 15 elemen­
tary schools will substantially tax the facilities, as these 
groupings eliminate any possibility of walking to school 
for at least four out of six years for most children. More­
over, the relief afforded by parents providing private trans­
portation in the morning hours will be seriously diminished 
because of (1 ) the staggering of the opening o f schools, and 
(2 ) the greater distance involved for the parent.

The N AACP and Civil Rights Division would have this 
court arbitrarily act without regard to the facts. If the 
transcript is ever reviewed,7 the record will demonstrate 
that this court, in an effort to squeeze the last drop of 
blood as ordered by the Court of Appeals, has placed a 
terrific burden upon the Virginia Transit Company and the 
School Board, in further amending the School Board plan 
by grouping 15 schools in five separate clusters.

7 The transcripts and exhibits at the time of the last appeal in this 
case were neatly packed in large boxes, taped, and taken to the Court 
of Appeals. Later they were taken to the Supreme Court. The boxes 
were returned with the same taping in the identical places and were 
never opened by either appellate court.



App. 37

Accordingly, the elementary school plan as presented hy
the School Board will be approved as amended in the fol
lowing particulars:

Schools Grades
Estimated Bus 

T rips

Group I
Lansdale 5-7 )
Pineridge 1-4 ) 15
Bowling Park 1-4 )

Group II
Granby 1-4 )
Suburban Park 1-4 ) 14
Stuart 5-6 )

Group III
Oakwood 1-4 )
Crossroads 1-4 ) 18
Calcott 5-6 )

Group IV
Lakewood 1-4 )
Lafayette 1-4 ) 14
Lindenwood 5-6 )

Group V
Larchmont 1-4 )
Madison 5-6 ) 16
Taylor 1-4 )

The right is reserved to modify the foregoing by elim­
inating groups in the inverse order if the School Board, 
after a more thorough study, can establish that it is impos­
sible to make the transportation facilities available through 
the Virginia Transit Company.



App. 38

The overall effect of this grouping from the “ numbers 
game” standpoint, all of which is apparently foremost in 
the minds o f certain judges, is as follows:

Schools

Number of pupils 
transferred away from 

each school

Group I
Lansdale 570
Pineridge 105
Bowling Park 200

T otal 875

Group II
Granby 230
Suburban Park 150
Stuart 440

Total 823

Group III
Calcott 450
Crossroads 410
Oakwood 160

Total 1,020

Group IV
Lakewood 270
Lafayette 80
Lindenwood 480

Total 830

Group V
Larchmont 200
Madison 600
Taylor 130

Total 930



App. 39

The feeder plan system under which the elementary pupils 
have been heretofore assigned to certain junior high schools 
will have to be amended to provide that wherever children 
are required or elect to attend an elementary school outside 
of the elementary school zone in which they reside during 
their last year in elementary school, they shall be assigned 
to the junior high school which would receive pupils from 
the area in which the students reside.

As to the elementary schools remaining all black, the 
court having found that it is impossible to desegregate them 
for the 1970-71 session, the School Board must, in ac­
cordance with the directions of the Court of Appeals, ‘ ‘make 
available to pupils in the black schools special classes, func­
tions, and programs on an integrated basis.” As to all ele­
mentary schools except those located south of the Eastern 
Branch of the Elizabeth River, the pupils are assured of 
a substantially desegregated education during their junior 
and senior high school level o f education.

T h e  P o s i t i o n  o f  D e f e n d a n t s - I n t e r v e n o r s

Certain children and parents of children were granted 
leave to intervene. They objected to the School Board plan 
as submitted, and their objection continues to all suggested 
plans, as well as the final action of the district court.

The position of these intervenors may be briefly stated 
in suggested findings of fact which the court readily agrees 
should be made. They are as follows:

1. The court finds as a fact that the School Board plan 
as submitted and as now supplemented by the court, as well 
as all of the Stolee plans and the Civil Rights Division plan 
as submitted at this hearing, all require children to attend a 
school other than the school closest to their homes solely 
becrnse o f their color.



App. 40

2. The court finds that, under the aforesaid plans, the 
children are precluded from going to the school closest to 
their homes, where they could otherwise be accommodated, 
solely because of their color.

3. The court finds that, under the aforesaid plans, many 
children who would ordinarily walk to school will now be 
required to ride buses to school at considerable expense 
solely because of the insistence o f the appellate court that 
racial bodies be mixed.

With these irrefutable findings of fact, the intervenors 
rest their case. As an original proposition, without the aid 
of judicial decisions over the past fifteen years, this court 
would have little hesitancy in ruling with the intervenors 
in concluding that their constitutional rights have been in­
vaded. The difficulty is that the Constitution has been ju­
dicially rewritten over the years in question, and it is now 
apparent, from these judicial decisions which are binding 
upon this trial court, that such findings as here made do not 
constitute impermissible action and, indeed, are now re­
quired by appellate decisions. The court must, therefore, 
reject the legal conclusions asserted by these intervenors 
irrespective of the findings of fact as stated herein.

O t h e r  O b j e c t i o n s

The remaining objections by the N AA CP and Civil 
Rights Division were either not pressed, not substantiated 
by the evidence, or otherwise too frivolous to require dis­
cussion.

P r i m a r y  R e a s o n  f o r  A p p r o v i n g  t h e  P l a n  a s  

S u p p l e m e n t e d  b y  t h e  C o u r t

It should be crystal clear that the action of the district 
court now taken does not constitute a finding or conclusion



App. 41

that the final plan, or any other plan submitted at this hear­
ing, is (1 ) educationally sound, (2 ) reasonable, or (3 ) 
in the best interest o f the children irrespective of race. We 
are no longer concerned with anything except “ numbers” 
and “ body mixing.” The action taken is because it is ap­
parent that the Court o f Appeals is demanding forced 
desegregation without regard to the principles aforesaid, 
and irrespective of the inconvenience, cost and public ac­
ceptance. But the very foundation o f our judicial system 
is such that lower courts must obey what the higher courts 
order in any given case. To that extent this district court 
has reluctantly complied to the maximum permitted by the 
circumstances. In short, the district judge would like to 
object and except to his own actions herein.

The Supreme Court may, in time, reach many of the 
problems presented. Whatever may be said by the highest 
court in the land is binding upon courts of appeals and 
district courts. It is impossible to predict what may be forth­
coming but, when and if the Supreme Court speaks with any 
reasonable clarity, the district court is then open for further 
relief at the request of either party in interest.

T h e  S c h o o l  B o a r d

The special concurring opinion of Judge Bryan praised 
the School Board in its efforts to better the offerings of 
public education. Several weeks later Judges Sobeloff and 
Winter wrote a special concurring opinion in which they 
said:

“ Finally, we must disassociate ourselves from the un­
deserved blessing conferred on the Board by our 
brother Bryan. This litigation has been frustratingly 
interminable, not because of insuperable difficulties of 
implementation but because of the unpardonable re­



App. 42

calcitrance of the defendants. The new, and spurious, 
‘principles’ devised by the Board and endorsed by the 
Judge as justification for the failure to desegregate fly 
in the face of Brown v. Board o f Education, 347 U.S. 
483 (1954), and are simply new rationalizations for 
perpetuating illegal segregation.”

Times have brought about a change, either with respect 
to the Constitution or the personalities of the judges. Ten 
years ago in Hill v. School Board of City o f Norfolk, Vir­
ginia, 282 F. (2d) 473 (1960), the then Chief Judge Sobel- 
off, together with Judges Haynsworth and Boreman, had 
this to say:

“ W e are mindful of the valiant and consistent efforts 
Judge Hoffman has made in the past in marshalling 
community support for the law and in encouraging 
obedience by those charged with official responsibility. 
W e give weight also to the past conduct of the School 
Board and the history it has established, and to the 
District Court’s finding that it is the Board’s purpose 
to proceed in good faith and with reasonable speed in 
compliance with the direction of the Supreme Court.”

When Hill was decided, the extent o f desegregation was 
minimal. Under the guidance of the School Board great 
progress has been achieved. Certainly it ill behooves two 
judges, who could not have read the record in the case, to 
attempt to undermine the School Board of this community. 
The School Board members are powerless to refute these 
biased charges, and at least Judge Sobeloff knows that the 
facts will not substantiate these ill-chosen words. I have 
heard many school desegregation cases, and I have yet to 
find a more cooperative School Board and its attorneys. 
I cannot sit idly in the background and see the Board criti­



App. 43

cized in the manner exhibited by the special concurring 
opinion of these judges, and I have no apology to offer in 
responding.

It is quite true that this litigation has been “ frustratingly 
interminable”  and the reason is obvious. The Court of Ap­
peals refuses to establish any guidelines which may serve 
as a direction to any School Board. If the Board is to accept 
all directions of the Civil Rights Division8 or any other 
body, the Court of Appeals need only say so. It must be 
remembered that the School Board plan, now rejected by 
the Court of Appeals, was heartily approved by Dr. Thomas 
F. Pettigrew, the most outstanding educator in the field 
and an admitted integrationist. Dr. Pettigrew, along with 
many others, feels that the quality educational system is 
gradually being diluted to the point that it will soon become 
polluted. When that situation develops, what happens to 
the children ?

It is amazing to contrast the present words of Judge 
Sobeloff with his language in Bradley v. School Board of 
City of Richmond, Virginia, 345 F .(2d) 310, 323 (1965), 
where he and Judge J. Spencer Bell said:

“ This is far from suggesting that children are to be 
uprooted arbitrarily and bussed against their will to 
distant. places merely to place them with children of 
the other race.”

8 At this hearing the Civil Rights Division presented and recom­
mended a revision of the groupings as suggested by the School Board. 
The Civil Rights Division presented this revision through a Pro­
gram Officer of HEW. It was a pitiful picture to see this young man 
subjected to cross-examination by counsel, with even the NAACP 
attorney objecting to the Civil Rights Division’s recommendation. 
Without regard to the capacity of the schools, the numbers were 
juggled. If the court adopted the Government’s suggested plan, there 
would be hundreds of children receiving their education on thê  school 
grounds and not in the buildings. What a sorry exhibition this was, 
and it assuredly demonstrates the fact that the Government is not 
always right in these matters.



App. 44

Since there has been no controlling decision from the 
Supreme Court on the subject of bussing since that date, 
is there any wonder that the School Board cannot keep up 
with the inner-workings of a judge’s mind ?

As we look back at the prior history of Norfolk’s school 
case, we know that there must be many parents who will 
recall the school-closing days of September 1958 to Feb­
ruary 1959, when the children were without any education. 
W e assume that some of these children are now parents of 
youngsters entering school. Whatever may be said about 
the inconvenience and expense in connection with forced 
desegregation and the abandonment of the neighborhood 
school concept, I am confident that the citizens of Norfolk 
as a whole would far prefer that public education continue 
under the direction of the School Board even though this 
body has been confronted with vague and evasive directives 
from the appellate court.

Since the undersigned district judge will not be available 
for one week, this memorandum may be considered as an 
order for appellate purposes. If no immediate appeal is to 
be taken, counsel may present a more formal order during 
the week beginning August 24,1970.

/ s / W a l t e r  E. H o f f m a n  

United States District Judge

At Norfolk, Virginia
August 14, 1970



App. 45

ORDER

Filed August 27, 1970

This cause came on again to be heard upon the P l a n  f o r  

U n i t a r y  S c h o o l s  f o r  t h e  1970-71 Y e a r , filed by The 
School Board of the City of Norfolk on July 27, 1970, and 
the objections thereto of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff-inter- 
venor, United States of America, and the defendant-inter - 
venors; upon the evidence introduced at the hearings held 
during the week of August 10, 1970, and the stipulations of 
counsel; upon the balance of the entire Record in this cause, 
including all prior proceedings and all Memoranda Opinions, 
Reports and papers filed; and upon the arguments of coun­
sel.

Upon consideration whereof and for the reasons set forth 
in the Memorandum of the Court filed August 14, 1970, 
which shall be considered as findings of fact and conclusions 
of law for the purposes of Rule 52, F.R.Civ.P., it is

A d j u d g e d , O r d e r e d  and D e c r e e d  :

1. That the P l a n  f o r  U n i t a r y  S c h o o l s  f o r  t h e  

1970-71 Y e a r  is hereby approved; subject, however, to the 
following modifications:

(a ) That the provisions of said Plan for the assignment 
of pupils to elementary schools is amended so that pupils are 
assigned to elementary schools according to the area-attend­
ance plan delineated on the map entitled “ Elementary School 
Boundary Lines For 1970-71,” prepared by the School 
Board and filed herewith as “ Exhibit A ,”  which map in­
dicates the boundaries of single school attendance areas and 
also indicates the exterior boundaries of the attendance area 
of five (5 ) groups of three (3 ) elementary schools clustered 
as follows:



App. 46

Schools Grades

Group I
Lansdale 5-7
Pineridge 1-4
Bowling Park 1-4

Group II
Granby 1-4
Suburban Park 1-4
Stuart 5-6

Group III
Oakwood 1-4
Crossroads 1-4
Calcott 5-6

Group IV
Lakewood 1-4
Lafayette 1-4
Lindenwood 5-6

Group V
Larchmont 1-4
Madison 5-6
Taylor 1-4

In the event the School Board, after a thorough study, 
establishes that it is impossible to make transportation fa­
cilities available through the Virginia Transit Company 
to accommodate all of the foregoing school clusters, it may 
request modification o f the foregoing provision.

(b ) That the provisions of said Plan for the assignment 
of pupils to junior high schools on the basis o f a feeder 
system are adjusted to accommodate the grouping o f certain 
elementary schools above required, so that pupils are as­
signed to junior high schools according to an area-attend­



App. 47

ance plan, as described on the map entitled “Junior High 
School Boundary Lines 1970-71,” prepared by the School 
Board and filed herewith as “ Exhibit B,” which map con­
tains certain additional consequential adjustments required 
by school capacities, transportation convenience, etc., not 
substantially affecting desegregation.

(c ) Section IV  of said Plan is amended to provide that 
transportation required for students transferring under the 
majority-minority transfer provision shall be at the expense 
of the School Board, which may discharge such obligation 
by furnishing bus tickets or by other means as it deems 
desirable.

2. That the authority of the School Board under Sec­
tion V I of the Plan to make administrative transfers of 
classes and groups of children shall extend to and include 
the rearrangement of the grade structure of schools, such 
as by retaining the seventh grade class at the elementary 
level, transferring it to the junior high school level, or by 
retaining the ninth grade class at the junior high level or 
transferring it to the senior high level. The following ad­
ministrative transfers made subsequent to the preparation 
of Exhibit B and prior to the entry hereof, involving 100 
or more junior high school pupils, are hereby approved:

(a) Pupils from Titustown, North Titustown and 
Carney Park to Northside from Blair.

(b ) 9th grade pupils from north of Little Creek Road 
in the Rosemont area to Granby Senior High from Rose- 
mont.

(c ) 9th grade pupils from east of Military Highway in 
the Rosemont area and from south of Little Creek Road in 
Azalea Gardens to Lake Taylor Senior High from Azalea.



(d ) Pupils from the Carey elementary school attendance 
area to Willard from Lake Taylor.

3. That the objections o f the plaintiffs, the plaintiff- 
intervenors and the defendant-intervenors, except as they 
are incorporated in the foregoing modifications to said 
Plan, are overruled.

4. That the School Board shall file with this Court on 
or before September 15, 1970, a schedule setting forth for 
the system as a whole and for schools at each level o f 
the system

(a) the number and percent of black and white pupils;

(b ) the number and percent of black pupils assigned to 
schools more than 90% black and assigned to other schools ;

(c ) the number and percent of white pupils assigned to 
schools more than 90% white and assigned to other schools; 
and

(d ) the number of schools with more than 90% black 
pupils assigned, the number with more than 90% white 
pupils assigned, and the number with 10% or more of both 
such races assigned.

5. Notices of appeal filed herein prior or subsequent to 
the entry of this order shall be deemed to constitute notices 
of appeal from this order as well as from the memorandum/ 
order entered on August 14,1970.

6. That this cause shall continue on the docket of this 
Court.

/s /  W a l t e r  E. H o f f m a n  

United States District Judge
At Norfolk, Virginia
August 27,1970



App. 49

Filed September 22, 1970

S c h o o l  E n r o l l m e n t  a n d  R a c i a l  D i s t r i b u t i o n  

September 16, 1970
Total % White % Black

Granby High 2218 75 25
Lake Taylor High 2513 77 23
Maury High 2133 45 55
Norview High 2388 72 28
Washington High1 1854 17 83
Total Senior High 11,106 59 41
Azalea Gardens Jr. 1441 99 1
Blair Jr. High 1454 60 40
Campostella Jr. 1134 1 99
Jacox Jr.2 791 15 85
Lake Taylor Jr. 1224 56 44
Northside Jr. 1377 90 10
Norview Jr. 1204 65 35
Rosemont Jr. 891 62 38
Ruffner Jr.3 1042 7 93
Willard Jr. 1161 57 43
Total Jr. High 11,719 55 45
Ballentine 258 92 8
Bay View 902 100
Bowling Park 781 43 57
Calcott 653 75 25
Camp Allen 1024 75 25 ,

1 Whereas 756 White pupils were assigned to Washington High 
School, only 318 were in membership on September 16, 1970.

2 Whereas 250 White pupils were assigned to Jacox Jr. High 
School, only 116 were in membership by September 16, 1970.

3 Whereas 205 White pupils were assigned to Ruffner Jr. High 
School, only 77 were in membership by September 16, 1970.



App. 50

Campostella
Carey
Chesterfield 
Coleman Place 
Crossroads 
Diggs Park 
Easton
East Ocean View 
Fairlawn 
Gatewood 
Goode
Granby Elem.
Ingleside
Lafayette
Lakewood
Lansdale
Larchmont
Larrymore
Lee
Liberty Park
Lincoln
Lindenwood
Little Creek Elem.
Little Creek Prim.
Madison
Marshall
Meadowbrook
Monroe
Norview Elem.
Norview Annex
Oakwood
Oceanair
Ocean View

%  W h ite %  Black

32 6 8
100

7 93
100

83 17
100

9 0 10
100
100

100
100

6 6 34
9 4 6
62 38
61 39
54 4 6
41 59
8 0 2 0

100
2 98

100
59 41

100
100

4 6 54
1 9 9

7 6 2 4
100

62 38
62 38
50 50
9 8 2
8 6 14

Total

147
3 4 4
591
961
6 9 6
6 5 6
4 6 8
197
4 4 6
385
4 0 4
6 5 7
4 0 0
2 8 8
686
7 4 6
661
9 7 6
521
6 9 8
3 0 9
475
7 0 8
5 5 6
6 6 9
562
535

1173
5 8 6
2 1 7
461
6 8 2
8 5 0



App. 51

Pineridge 
Poplar Halls 
Pretty Lake 
Roberts Park 
St. Helena 
Sewells Pt. Elem. 
Sherwood Forest 
Stuart
Suburban Park
Tarrallton
Taylor
Tidewater Park 
Titus 
Tucker 
West
Willoughby 
Young Park 
Total Elementary 
T o t a l  A l l  S c h o o l s

°/o W hite %  Black

56 4 4
9 0 10

100
100
100

66 34
9 9 1
62 3 8
73 27
9 7 3
52 4 8

100
100
100
100

95 5
100

54 4 6
56 4 4

Total

3 7 7
558

95
5 7 0
4 2 8
805
7 9 9
782
6 5 8
692
3 5 6
5 7 6
536
527
575
5 6 8
591

3 1 ,6 3 2
54 .4 5 7