Riddick v The School Board of the City of Norfolk Appellants Motion for an Injunction Pending a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
Public Court Documents
April 16, 1986
95 pages
Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Riddick v The School Board of the City of Norfolk Appellants Motion for an Injunction Pending a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, 1986. 4a4d196e-c29a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/7a02cbf6-e559-4b9c-9c48-287481a4dd9e/riddick-v-the-school-board-of-the-city-of-norfolk-appellants-motion-for-an-injunction-pending-a-petition-for-a-writ-of-certiorari. Accessed June 03, 2025.
Copied!
IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
PAUL R. RIDDICK, et al.,
Appellants
v
THE SCHOOL BOARD OF THE
CITY OF NORFOLK, et al. ,
Appellees
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
NORFOLK DIVISION
APPELLANTS' MOTION FOR AN INJUNCTION PENDING
THE FILING OF A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned hereby moves for an
injunction enjoining appellees from assigning elementary students
to schools on a neighborhood basis and terminating the busing of
elementary children for the purpose of desegregation.
Respectfully submitted
HENRY L.' MARSH III
HILL, TUCKER & MARSH
509 North Third Street
P.O. Box 27363
Richmond, Virginia 23261
(804) 643-9073
Attorneys for Appellants
April 16Date: 1986
IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
PAUL R. RIDDICK, et al.,
Appellants,
v
THE SCHOOL BOARD OF THE
CITY OF NORFOLK, et al. ,
Appellees.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
NORFOLK DIVISION
APPELLANTS' MOTION FOR AN INJUNCTION PENDING
THE FILING OF A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
Now come the appellants and move the Court for an injunction
enjoining the appellees from the following: (1) assigning
elementary children attending the public schools of Norfolk to
schools on a neighborhood basis; (2) assigning such elementary
children to racially isolated and racially identifiable schools;
(3) terminating the busing of elementary children for the purpose
of desegregation; and (4) otherwise disturbing the status quo in
assigning elementary children to segregated schools. The reasons
for the injunction are as follows:
1. Appellants are preparing a petition for a writ of
certiorari to the United States Supreme Court to review the
judgment of this Court in the instant action.
2. For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum
of Law, appellants submit that the Supreme Court will grant the
aforesaid petition for a writ of certiorari.
3. If pending the filing of the petition for a writ of
certiorari the appellees were to implement the proposed neigh
borhood school pupil assignment plan approved by this Court and
to terminate the busing of elementary school children for
desegregation,, appellants would be irreparably harmed in their
education, psychological well being, and in obtaining equal
educational opportunities.
4. Moreover, if appellees were to implement said neigh
borhood school pupil assignment plan and to terminate the busing
of elementary children for desegregation pending the filing of
the petition for a writ of certiorari, appellants' constitutional
rights will be irretrievably damaged and denied.
5. For the reasons set forth herein, appellees will not be
damaged by the granting of such an injunction pending the filing
of a petition for review by the Supreme Court since the reasons
for which appellees instituted the said neighborhood school pupil
assignment plan would not be applicable.
2
6. Appellees allegedly instituted the neighborhood school
pupil assignment plan to reduce white flight from the schools,to
arrest a decline in achievement test scores, and to prevent a
decrease of parental involvement in the schools.
7. For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memo
randum of Law, there is at present no evidence of white flight
from the schools or any evidence of a decline of student achieve
ment test scores. Nor is there any evidence that parental
involvement would decline during the period in which the in
junction is in effect.
8. Moreover, the hardships which would occur to appellants
if the injunction pending Supreme Court review were denied
clearly outweigh the harm, if any, that would be caused to the
school system or to appellees if the injunction were granted.
9. Finally, appellants satisfy the criteria set forth by
this Court for granting an injunction pending Supreme Court
rev iew.
WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth herein and in the
attached Memorandum of Law, appellants respectfully request the
Court to grant them an injunction requiring appellees to maintain
the status quo and not to assign elementary public school
children to school on a neighborhood basis or otherwise to assign
elementary pupils to racially isolated or racially identifiable
3
schools pending the filing by appellants of a petition for writ of
certiorari to the Supreme Court to review this Court's judgment.
Respectfully submitted,
HILL, TUCKER & MARSH
509 North Third Street
P.0. Box 27363
Richmond, Virginia 23261
(804) 643-9073
Attorney for Appellants
HENRY L. MARSH III
Date: April 16, 1986
4
IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
PAUL R. RIDDICK, et al.,
Appellants,
v .
THE SCHOOL BOARD OF THE CITY OF
NORFOLK, et al.,
Appellees.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
NORFOLK DIVISION
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF AN INJUNCTION
PENDING THE FILING OF A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT
GWENDOLYN JONES JACKSON
DELK, JAMES & JACKSON
305 Greater Norfolk Plaza
555 Frenchurch Street
Norfolk, VA 23510-2883
(804) 622-9031
JULIUS LeVONNE CHAMBERS
JAMES M. NABRIT III
NAPOLEON B. WILLIAMS, JR.
99 Hudson Street
16th Floor
New York, New York 10013
(212) 219-1900
HENRY L. MARSH, III
S. W. TUCKER
RANDALL G. JOHNSON
HILL, TUCKER & MARSH
509 North Third Street
P.O. Box 27363
Richmond, VA 23261
(804) 648-9073
ELIZABETH TURLEY
LITTLE, PARSLEY &
CLUVERIUS, P.C.
1300 Federal Reserve
Bank Building
P.O. Box 555
Richmond, VA 23204
(804) 644-4100
Dated: April 1986 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
STATEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS .......................... 1
STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................... 2
A. Enrollment Statistics ...................... 2
B. The School Board's Plan .................... 3
C. The Board's Justification for the Plan ..... 5
1. White Flight ........................... 5
2. Academic Achievement .................. 7
3. Parental Involvement .................. 9
D. Alternative Pupil Assignment Plan .......... 10
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................. 11
ARGUMENT ............................................. 12
I. THIS COURT HAS AUTHORITY TO ISSUE AN
INJUNCTION ENJOINING APPELLEES FROM
ASSIGNING ELEMENTARY PUPILS TO SCHOOLS ON A
NEIGHBORHOOD BASIS PENDING THE FILING BY
APPELLANTS OF A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI .................................. 12
II. THE SUPREME COURT IS LIKELY TO GRANT A WRIT
OF CERTIORARI IN THE PRESENT ACTION .......... 14
A. Criteria for Granting a Writ of Cer
tiorari ................................... 14
3. Issues Which Should Be Decided by Supreme
Court ....................................... 15
C. Conflicts With Supreme Court Decisions ..... 18
D. Conflicts With Decisions of Other Courts
of Appeals ................................. 22
i
Page
III. BLACK SCHOOL CHILDREN WILL BE IRREPARABLY
INJURED IF AN INJUNCTION PENDING A PETITION
TO THE SUPREME COURT FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
IS DENIED ..................................... 23
A. Standards for Granting Injunction Pending
Appellate Review ........................... 23
B. Irreparable Harm Caused to Black Elementary
Schoolchildren .............................. 24
IV. THE BALANCE OF HARDSHIPS BETWEEN THE PARTIES
FAVORS APPELLANTS ............................ 27
V. THE ISSUES PRESENTED HERE ARE SERIOUS AND THE
GRANTING OF AN INJUNCTION WILL SERVE THE PUBLIC
INTEREST ..................................... 28
CONCLUSION ............................................ 30
IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
PAUL R. RIDDICK, et al.,
Appellants,
v .
THE SCHOOL BOARD OF THE CITY OF
NORFOLK, et al.,
Appellees.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNTED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
NORFOLK DIVISION
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF AN INJUNCTION
PENDING THE FILING OF A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT
STATEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS
The appellants, black schoolchildren enrolled in the public
schools in Norfolk, Virginia, commenced this action on May 5,
1 983 to obtain a declaratory judgment that a proposed neighbor
hood pupil assignment plan adopted by the appellee school board
of the City of Norfolk was unconstitutional and an injunction
enjoining the school board from implementing the plan. Appellants
also sought an order setting aside a consent order entered by the
District Court on February 14, 1975 in a related action entitled
Beckett v. School Board of the City of Norfolk, 148 F. Supp. 430
(E.D. Va.) aff'd. 246 F.2d 325 (4th Cir.), cert. denied 355 U.S.
855 (1957), later styled Brewer v. School Board of the City of
Norfolk, see 349 F.2d 414 (4th Cir. 1965).
In an order dated July 9, 1984, the District Court denied
the relief requested by appellants and entered a judgment de
claring the neighborhood pupil assignment plan constitutional.
Appellants appealed the District Court's judgment on August 8,
1984. On February 6, 1985, a three-judge panel of this Court
affirmed the judgment of the District Court. Appellants' peti
tion for rehearing, with a suggestion for rehearing en banc, and
a motion to supplement the record with exhibits showing school
enrollment statistics for 1984 and 1985, were denied by the Court
on March 19, 1986.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. Enrollment Statistics
Elementary schools in Norfolk are currently desegregated
pursuant to a 1971 desegregation plan requiring the busing of
pupils ordered by this Court and the District Court. See, Brewer
v. School Board of the City of Norfolk, sub nom. Adams v. School
District No. 5, Orangeburg Co., S.C., 444 F.2d 99 (4th Cir.),
cert. denied 404 U.S. 912 (1971); Brewer v . School Board of the
City of Norfolk, 456 F.2d 943 (4th Cir.), cert. denied 406 U.S.
933 (1972). This plan is still in effect.
White enrollment and black enrollment in the public school
system at the time of trial, in 1983, were 14,611 pupils (42%)
and 20,191 pupils (58%) respectively. Two years earlier, in
1981, white and black enrollment had been 14,427 pupils (40.8%)
2
and 20,892 pupils (59.2%). The latest available enrollment sta
tistics, for 1985, show white and black enrollment in the school
district at 14,635 pupils (41.4%) and 20,703 pupils (58.6%)
respectively. See enrollment statistics attached herein as Exhi
bit A. Overall student enrollment in the public school system
increased from 34,802 pupils in 1983 to 35,338 pupils in 1985.
B. The School Board's Plan
On February 2, 1983, the Norfolk school board approved a
plan to terminate busing children for desegregation in grades K-6
and adopted a pupil assignment plan under which students are
assigned, for purpose of attendance, to neighborhood schools. The
school board's neighborhood school pupil assignment plan places
40% of the black elementary students in ten of the 36 elementary
schools. The ten schools have, under the board's neighborhood
assignment policy, a black enrollment of 97-100%.
One-half of the white elementary students are assigned under
the plan to eleven of the 36 elementary schools. The eleven
schools will all be majority white schools. Ten of the schools
will have white enrollment of 64-85% while the overall white
enrollment in the school district will remain at 41-42%. The ten
elementary schools which will become 97—100% black are the
schools which were maintained as traditional black schools in
Norfolk before busing was instituted in 1971.
Each of the ten schools was built at the time when its lo
cation and use were determined by racial criteria applied by
3
school and housing officials. (Ex. 149, A. 2305, 2310; Ex. 151,
A. 2313; Ex. 153, A. 2317). Under the board's plan, the distri
bution of white students in Norfolk's elementary schools will be
as follows:
1
CHART A
Number of Schools
1 1
3
1 1
10
1
See Ex. 1-D, App. at 2010.
Percent White
100 %-60%
59%-50%
49 %-4 %
3%-0 %
(This school is to be "raci
ally balanced" when opened)
Ten schools which are now racially desegregated, with racial
percentages between 47% and 81% black, would have, under the
neighborhood school plan, racial percentages of 97% to 100% black
enrollment. The ten schools, with their present and prospective
racial percentages are as follows:
Nine of the schools which are 97-100% black under the plan are
located near public housing projects which were built in accor
dance with the requirements of local law requiring racially se
gregated neighborhoods, see Pollard's Code Biennial (Va.) 1912,
c. 157; Va. Code of 1942 Cities and Towns General Provisions §
3046; Norfolk's Code of 1920 , c.7, Ex. 343, or are schools which
were themselves located in black neighborhoods during the time
when the school system was officially racially segregated, see
Ex. 164F, and when public housing authorities colluded with the
school board to maintain racially segregated schools and housing.
See Ex. 218(c), p.8; Ex. 218(d), p. 8; ex. 218(e), p. 8; Ex.
218(h) pp. 11-12; Ex. 218(i), p. 6; Ex. 218(k), 1st page; Ex.
213(v), p. 1.
4
CHART B
Schools Percent Black Enrollment
1983
Prospective
Board'
Enrollment
s Plan
Under
Bowling Park
Chesterfield
Diggs Park
Jacox
Monroe
Roberts Park
St. Helena
Tidewater Park
Tucker
Young Park
(A. 2261-4, A. 2290-92,
81 100%
70 99%
67 97%
65 98%
63 99%
77 98%
58 99%
69 100%
47 98%
57 100%
A. 2298-2302).
The percentage black enrollment of these schools will not
creased by application of the majority-minority transfer
sion.
be de-
provi-
C. The Board's Justification for the Plan
1. White Flight
On February 2, 1983, the Norfolk school board approved a
plan to terminate busing of schoolchildren in the elementary
grades K-6. The school board said that it needed to terminate
busing for desegregation because it believed that continued
2
busing would resegregate the schools by inducing "white flight."
9 The school board assigned the following additional reasons as
justifications for terminating the busing plan and adopting a
neighborhood school assignment plan: (1) to improve student
achievement; and (2) to increase parental involvement. The dis
trict court made no findings on whether the school board's pro-
5
If busing continued, the board predicted white enrollment would
decline 8% annually from the 1981 enrollment figures and by 1987,
white enrollment would drop to 8,000 pupils on 25% of total en
rollment. Ex. 43, App. at 2166.
Actual enrollment statistics for white pupils in the school
system have been contrary to the predictions upon which the
school board based the neighborhood school plan. White enroll
ment in the school system for the 1981-1935 period increased
rather than decreased. Based upon the school board's seventh day
enrollment tabulations, the enrollment figures are as follows for
the 1981-1985 period.
CHART C
Board's Predicted
Decline of White
Enrollment Based
% of Black Number of Number of Upon Assumed 8
Year Enrollment Black Pupils White Pupils Percent Decline
1981 59.2% 20,892 14,427
1 982 53.8% 20,735 14,521 13,273
1 983 53.0% 20,191 14,611 12,211
1 984 53.5% 20,635 14,701 11,234
1 985 58.6 20,703 14,635 10,335
(Exhibit A attached)
posed clan would improve student academic achievements. Similar
ly, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit made no decision
on the impact of the school board's proposed plan on academic
achievement.
The board decided on April 14, 1986 to implement the neigh
borhood school nlan for September, 1986 with slight modifications
in the Dlan by "striving to reduce" the number of all-black schools
from 10 to 8 by combining several of said schools (if the parents
of the children in the two schools to be closed agree) and by
moving 6th grade elementary students to middle schools.
6
For 1985, white enrollment in the school system was greater than
in 1981. Black enrollment, however, decreased from 1981 to 1985.
In addition to basing its neighborhood school assignment
program on a projected enrollment of 8000 white pupils by 1987,
the board also assumed that by 1987, "Norfolk will be nearly 75
percent minority and resegregated according to most definitions
of segregation." App. 2166. These predictions and assumptions
have been proven false.
In 1985, white enrollment was 14,635 pupils, an increase of
108 pupils since 1981, and 6,635 more pupils than the board's
expected enrollment of 8,000 by 1 987 . The percentage of white
enrollment in 1985 was 41.4%, a percentage which not only has not
substantially changed since 1981, but a percentage which is far
greater than the 25% white enrollment which the school board
assumed would exist in 1987.
2. Academic Achievement
The school board further assumed that academic performance,
as measured by student achievement test scores, would decline if
the busing of elementary children for desegregation were not
terminated.
Achievement test scores, however, have not declined. From
1975 to 1980, the average achievement scores for Norfolk elemen
tary students, measured in terms of national percentiles, were as
follows:
7
CHART D
Average Achievement Test Scores
School Grade 2 Grade 4 Grade 6
Year White Black White Black White Black
1975-76 41 19 37 1 7 43 17
1976-77 45 22 43 1 9 39 17
1977-78 40 22 43 21
1978-79 46 30 45 24 47 24
1979-80 53 32 52 32
1980-81 62 46 59 40 57 39
See Ex. 43, App. at 2142. Also, App. at 21 39.
Moreover, a detailed September 10, 1981 study by the school
administration on the effects of busing on achievement, prepared
by the school district's assistant superintendent for management
information and pupil support services and the director of the
department of research, testing and statistics, concluded that
3"(b) using does not affect the overall achievement of students"
Ex. 38, App. at 2053. For additional evidence in the record
̂ The report, while finding that there was no significant dif
ference in the overall gain between schools which were involved
in busing and those which were not, found that the schools for
which students were bused "gained 3 points more" than the schools
which did not participate in busing. Ex. 38, App. at 2055.
Moreover, the Armor study commissioned by the school board
which purported to find an adverse effect on achievement caused
by busing" was one in which the "effects of busing on achievement
scores cannot be separated from the effects of the changing com
position of students in the fourth grade." Ex. 154, App. 2318,
2324. Unlike the September 10, 1981 report by the assistant su
perintendent, the Armor study did not compare "bused and non-
bused students or those in predominantly segregated schools and
predominantly desegregated schools in the same time period." Id .
8
below that busing did not harm student performance on academic
achievement tests, see Ex. 23, App. 2036 , 2040 ; Ex. 38, App.
2053-2055; Ex. 141, App. 2251; Ex. 154, App. 2318-19, 2323-2327.
Finally, achievement test scores for black elementary stu
dents increased under busing from an average of 22 percentile
points nationally before busing began to 32 percentile points
nationally in 1983. Ex. 43, App. 2110, 2139, 2142. In 1980-81,
achievement test scores reached 40 percentile points. Id. The
gap in percentile points between black and white students went
from 41 percentile points in 1962-63 to 19 percentile points in
4
1980-81. Ex. 133, App. 2238.
3. Parental Involvement
In addition to reducing alleged white flight and low
achievement test scores, the school board claimed that busing
should be terminated to improve parental involvement in the
schools, citing low PTA participation as evidence of the need to
improve parental involvement.
Former superintendent Alfred Ayars testified at trial, how
ever, that Norfolk had the highest percentage of parent "volun
teers that I know of any school system in the country per capi
ta." Record, Vol. IIB, pp. 283-85. He also testified that he had
obtained, through constructive efforts instituted after 1972 fol-
In 1962-63, fourth grade white students in Norfolk scored 56 per
centile points and black fourth graders scored 15 percentile
points. In 1980-81, white students scored 59 percentile points
and black students scored 40 percentile points. Ex. 138, App.
2238.
9
lowing implementation of busing for desegregation, as many as
"11,000 volunteers working in our schools." Id.
The causes for decline in PTA participation were obscure.
The extent to which factors other than busing, such as increased
employment opportunties for women, adversely affected PTA parti
cipation was not investigated by the school board or administra
tion .
No evidence was offered at trial that parental involvement
was continuing to decline after 1981 or that, if it were, such a
decline could be attributed to busing.
Alternative means to enhance parental involvement have not
been tried by the school administration. For example, school
officials have not scheduled either PTA meetings or parental in
volvement meetings in neighborhood schools from which students
are bused, thus providing easy access to the meetings for par
ents. App. 1653-54. Rather, the meetings have been held in
schools to which the students are bused. Id.
The school board has, for unexplained reasons, refused to
implement a parental involvement plan adopted in February, 1983.
App. 1 555. School administrator Shirley Wilson testified that the
plan was designed to be implemented irrespective of whether the
school board's neighborhood school plan was put into effect.
App. 1549-51.
D. Alternative Pupil Assignment Plan
At the time of adoption of the neighborhood school plan, the
school board rejected an alternative plan which would have
10
reduced busing without resegregating the schools. The alterna
tive plan was rejected by the board not because it wouldn't have
the desired effect on white flight, achievement test scores, or
parental involvement but rather on the ground that insufficient
public support existed for the plan. Ex. 146, App. 2297; App.
331 , 451 .
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The criteria set by this Court for granting injunctive re
lief pending the filing of a petition to the Supreme Court for a
writ of certiorari are met in the instant action. The case is
one in which the Supreme Court is likely to grant a writ of cer
tiorari. The case also involves serious issues for litigation in
which the balance of hardship favors appellants and in which the
granting of an injunction enjoining appellees from assigning ele
mentary pupils on a neighborhood basis to racially isolated and
racially identifiable neighborhood schools will serve the public
interest.
The Supreme Court rules provide that the Court may grant a
writ of certiorari to review the judgment of a Court of Appeal if
the Court oE Appeals decided important issues which have not
been, but which should be, settled by the Supreme Court, or if
the Court of Appeals decided the issues in a way that conflicts
with decisions of the Supreme Court or decisions of other Courts
of Appeals, or if the Court of Appeals departed from the accepted
11
and usual course of judicial proceedings in its decisions.
These criteria are met in the instant action.
Appellants and other black elementary school children re
quire preliminary injunctive relief pending the filing of their
petition for a writ of certiorari to prevent them from being ir
reparably harmed by appellees' plan assigning them to racially
segregated neighborhood schools. No harm, however, will occur to
appellees if a preliminary injunction is granted preserving the
status quo.
ARGUMENT
I.
THIS COURT HAS AUTHORITY TO ISSUE AN
INJUNCTION ENJOINING APPELLEES FROM
ASSIGNING ELEMENTARY PUPILS TO
SCHOOLS ON A NEIGHBORHOOD BASIS
PENDING THE FILING BY APPELLANTS OF
A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
The criteria for granting an injunction pending the filing
of a petition for a writ of certiorari are governed by 28 U.S.C.
§1651, 28 U.S.C. §2101(f) and Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure. See, also Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure.
The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. §1651, empowers judges of the
United States Courts of Appeals and Justices of the Supreme
Court, in aid of their appellate jurisdiction, to "issue all
writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their jurisdiction."
12
See, Virginia R. Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 648, 673-674
(1926); Scripps-Howard Radio v. Federal Communications Commis
sion, 316 U.S. 4, 10 (1942).
In subsequent cases, the Supreme Court held that the statute
gives federal appellate courts authority "to preserve ... (their)
jurisdiction or maintain the status quo by injunction pending
review." Federal Trade Commission v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S.
597, 604 ( 1 966 ); Scr ipps-Howard Radio v. Federal Communications
Commission, supra, 316 U.S. at 15. See also, Susquehanna Valley
Alliance v. Three Mile Island Nuclear Reactor, 619 F.2d 231, 237
(3rd Cir. 1980), cert, denied 449 U.S. 1096 (1982).
While the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. §1651, establishes power
in the Court of Appeals to issue injunctions pending appeal or
review in the Supreme Court on a writ of certiorari, 28 U.S.C.
§2101(f), provides a similar power in the Court of Appeals to
stay execution and enforcement of final judgments by the Court of
Appeals pending the filing of a petition for review upon a writ
of certiorari.
The Supreme Court, in granting stays under 28 U.S.C.
§2101(f), has applied criteria similar to those applied under 28
U.S.C. §1651 for granting stays and injunctions pending appellate
review. See, Twentienth Century Airline, Inc, v. Ryan, 74 S.Ct.
8, 98 L.Ed. 1143 (1953) (Opinion in Chamber).
Rule 8 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure provides explicit
authorization for a Court of Appeals to grant a stay or an in
junction pending appeal. Rule 8 is based upon the All Writs Act,
13
28 U.S.C. §1651, as well as the federal court's inherent power.
See Notes of Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules and In re
McKenzie, 180 U.S. 536, 551 (1901); Scripp-Howard Radio v. Fed
eral Communications Commission, supra, 316 U.S. at 9-10.
Rule 8 applies essentially the same standards for granting
an injunction pending appeal as 28 U.S.C. §1651. See Eastern
Greyhound Lines v. Fasco, 310 F.2d 632, 634 (6th Cir. 1962);
Walker v. Lockhart, 678 F.2d 68, 70 (8th Cir. 1982).
The above statutory enactments and Rule 8 are sufficient
authority to empower this Court to "preserve the status quo by
injunction pending review." Federal Trade Commission v. Dean
Foods Co., supra, 384 U.S. at 604.
II
THE SUPREME COURT IS LIKELY TO GRANT
A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN THE PRESENT
ACTION
A. Criteria for Granting a Writ of Certiorari
A writ of certiorari is likely to be granted by the Supreme
Court to review this Court's judgment in the instant action.
Under Rule 17 of the Supreme Court Rules, the Supreme Court can
grant a petition for a writ of certiorari if any one of the
following conditions is present: (1) the court of appeals has
decided an important question of federal law which has not been,
but should be, settled by the Supreme Court; (2) the court of
appeals has decided a federal question in a way which conflicts
with applicable decisions of the Supreme Court; (3) the court of
14
appeals has sanctioned a departure from the accepted and usual
course of judicial proceeding; or (4) the court of appeals has
rendered a decision in conflict with the decision of another
court of appeals. These conditions are met in the instant peti
tion for an injunction pending review.
B. Issues Which Should Be Decided By Supreme Court
The question of whether a formerly djs j ure school district
which has been adjudged unitary can abandon an effective busing
desegregation remedy, and implement instead a neighborhood school
pupil assignment plan resegregating the school system and other
wise perpetuating the effects of the former de j ure school sys
tem, is an important question which should be addressed by the
Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg
3oard of Education, 402 U.S. 1 (1971) that "the burden on a
school board today is to come forward with a plan that promises
realistically to work ... until it is clear that state-imposed
segregation has been completely removed," I_d. 402 U.S. at 13
(quoting Green v. County School Board, 391 U.S. 430, 439 (1968)),
and that "(t)he objective today remains to eliminate from the
public schools all vestiges of state-imposed segregation."
Swann, supra, 402 U.S. at 15.
The Supreme Court also held in Swann that school authorities
must demonstrate that the racial composition of essentially one-
race school "is not the result of present or past discriminatory
action on their part," Swann, supra, 402 U.S. at 26. The use of
15
racially neutral assignment plans to determine the enrollment
composition of the schools of a formerly d_e j ure school system is
therefore constitutionally inadequate if the one-race character
of the school is a result of past discriminatory action by school
authorities or if "such plans ... fail to counteract the continu
ing effects of past school segregation resulting from discrimina-
5
tory location of school sites." I_d. 402 U.S. at 28.
Both this Court and the district court below ignored the
continued existence of vestiges in the school system from the
school board's prior operation of a racially de j ure school dis
trict. This Court also ignored the school board's obligation to
maintain a unitary school system, as described in Green v . County
School Board, supra, as a means to neutralize any continuing ef
fects of the board's prior discrimination. By ignoring the ef
fects which the board's past racial discrimination had in the
creation of segregated schools under a neighborhood school
assignment policy, this Court and the district court effectively
restricted application of the Supreme Court's holding in Swann v.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, supra, by making it
inapplicable to cases in which a school district has been declared
unitary despite its failure to eliminate vestiges of the school
system's past racial discrimination.
The record in this action contains numerous documents written by
school authorities describing their efforts to keep the schools
and neighborhoods segregated. See exhibits listed in footnote 1
herein.
16
Whether the holding in Swann can be thus restricted is an
issue which has not been addressed by the Supreme Court in the
specific detail presented here. Cases such as Columbus Board of
Education v. Penick, 443 U.S. 449 (1979); Dayton v. Board of Edu
cation v. Brinkman, 443 U.S. 526 (1979); Pasadena City Board of
Education v. Spangler, 427 U.S. 424 (1 976), as well as the lan
guage of the Court in Swann, suggest rather strongly, however,
that the holding in Swann cannot be so limited. Whether busing
can be eliminated under circumstances which violate the principles
set forth in Swann is obviously an issue which the Supreme Court
should address.
The Supreme Court should address another issue raised here,
namely, whether, in the context of school desegregation cases,
collateral estoppel can be applied, in a class action, to the
judgment of an earlier school desegregation case to bar litiga
tion, in a second desegregation case, of whether the school dis
trict is unitary or has eliminated all vestiges of prior discri
mination when no notice was given to class members of the pro
ceedings in the earlier action and no finding was made in the
prior action that the vestiges of past discrimination had been
eliminated. The Supreme Court's opinions in Blonder-Tongue Labs
v. University of Illinois Foundation, 402 U.S. 313 (1971), and
Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32 (1940), show that this is an impor
tant and fundamental issue of due process. It should therefore
be determined by the Supreme Court.
17
This Court, and the district court below, held that a school
district can resegregate its schools merely in order to decrease
white flight by appeasing white parents who will not enroll their
children in schools where the black enrollment exceeds 50%. This
question, in the specific context presented here, has not been
decided by the Supreme Court. It is, however, also an important
issue which should be heard and determined by the Supreme Court.
See, United States v. Scotland Neck City School Board, 407 U. S.
484 (1972); Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S.1 (1958).
C. Conflicts With Supreme Court Decisions
The Court's decision in the instant action also conflicts
with applicable decisions by the Supreme Court. In its decision,
this Court held that once a school system is adjudged unitary,
then (1) the burden of proving discrimination shifts from defen
dants to plaintiffs and (2) the standard for proving liability
shifts from an effects standard to an intent standard in which
plaintiffs must prove the existence of discriminatory intent by
school authorities.
Both the shift in the burden of proof and the shift in the
standard of proof for liability are contrary to decisions of the
Supreme Court. See, Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Edu
cation , 402 U.S. 1 (1971); Green v. County School Board of New
Kent County, 391 U.S. 430 (1 968); Pasadena City Board of Educa
tion v. Spangler, 427 U.S. 424 (1976); Dayton v. Board of Educa
tion v. Brinkman (Dayton II), 443 U.S. 526 (1979); Columbus Board
18
of Education v. Penick, 443 U.S. 449 (1979); Millken v. Bradley,
433 U.S. 267 (1977).
In Dayton v. Board of Education v. Brinkman, supra, the
Supreme Court expressly stated that a school district which
operated "intentionally segregated schools in 1954 ... was
thereafter under a continuing duty to eradicate the effects of
that system." Dayton, supra, 44 3 U.S. at 537 . It also held that
"the measure of the post-3rown I conduct of a school board under
an unsatisfied duty to liquidate a dual system is the effective
ness, not the purpose, of the actions in decreasing or increasing
the segregation caused by the dual system." Id. 443 U.S. at 538.
Since the Court held in Dayton II, supra, that a school
board which operated a formerly dual system has an "affirmative
duty ... not to ... impede the process of disestablishing the
dual system and its effects," id. 443 U.S. at 538, it clearly
meant that if a school board has not liquidated the "dual sys
tem" and its effects, then the effectiveness of its actions in
decreasing or increasing segregation caused by the dual system,
rather than its purpose, is the measure of its fulfillment of its
constitutional duty.
Thus Dayton II and Swann contradict the holding of this
Court that a judicial declaration of unitariness shifts the
burden of proof to the plaintiffs and changes the standard of
liability from an effects standard to an intent standard.
This Court's decision conflicts with applicable Supreme
Court decisions in another way. Dayton II and Columbus Board of
19
Education v. Penick, supra, impose two fundamental affirmative
obligations upon formerly dual schools systems which this Court
has nullified.
First, as previously mentioned, a school district has the
affirmative "obligation not to take any action that would impede
the process of disestablishing the dual system and its effects,"
Dayton II, 443 U.S. at 538, or "serve to perpetuate or re-estab
lish the dual school system" Columbus, supra, 443 U.S. at 460.
Second, the school district has an affirmative "continuing duty
to eradicate the effects of that system." Dayton II, 443 U.S. at
537; Columbus, supra, 443 U.S. at 458.
A school district can satisfy these twin obligations by eli
minating "all vestiges of state-imposed segregation," see Swann,
supra, 402 U.S. at 1, or, if it is not yet able to eliminate all
vestiges of prior racial discrimination caused by its actions, it
can neutralize the extant effects of prior discrimination by
adopting a desegregation remedy such as busing and using it to
discharge the board's affirmative duty to ... convert to a uni
tary system in which racial discrimination would be eliminated
root and branch." Columbus Board of Education v. Penick, 443
U.S. at 458-459 (quoting Green v. County School Board of New Kent
County, supra, 391 U.S. at 437-438). (See Green, supra, 391 U.S.
at 435 , where six criteria are given for determining when a
school district is operating as a unitary school district.)
If, however, the school district abandons the desegregation
remedy and therefore ceases to be unitary within the meaning of
20
the sixth criteria of Green, supra, with the consequence that the
vestiges of the prior de_ i ure school system are no longer neutra
lized by the prior court-ordered desegregation remedy, then it is
essential for the board to eliminate the effects of past racial
segregation before taking action which will restore or perpetuate
the effects that exist from the prior dual system. As long as
such effects exist, then the school district must eliminate them
or neutralize them with a desegregation remedy, such as busing,
that will maintain the district as a unitary school district.
This Court, and the District Court below, allowed the Nor
folk school board to abandon its desegregation remedy, namely
busing. The effects of the school board's prior state-imposed
segregation, which are one—race scnools, segregated
neighborhoods, and educational deprivations, were however then
neither neutralized nor eliminated. Since the board's proposed
plan increases segregation in the schools and perpetuates, or
restores, the one—race schools of the past, this Court's decision
violated Swann , supra; Green , supra; Dayton II; and Columbus
Board of Education supra.
In short, this Court, under the guise of giving effect to a
prior decree, permitted the school district to use its "pupil
assignment policies ... to perpetuate or re-establish the dual
system." Dayton, supra, 443 U.S. at 538; Columbus Board of Educa
tion v. Penick, supra, 443 U.S. 460. The Court thereby not only
decided a federal question in way which conflicts with applicable
21
decisions of the Supreme Court but it also, in affirming the
judgment of the district court below, sanctioned a departure from
the accepted and usual course of judicial proceeding.
D. Conflicts With Decisions of Other Courts of Appeals
Finally, this Court rendered a judgment which conflicts with
the decision of the Fifth Circuit in cases such as Ross v. Hous
ton Independent School District, 699 F.2d 218, 225 (5th Cir.
1983); United States v. Texas Education Agency, 647 F.2d 504, 508
(5th Cir. 1981), holding that "A school system is not, of course,
automatically desegregated when a constitutionally accepted plan
is adopted and implemented, for the remnants of discrimination
are not readily eradicated." See, also Graves v. Walton County
Board of Education, 686 F.2d 1 1 35, 1 1 43 ( 5th Cir. 1982); Lee v .
Macon County Board of Education, 616 F.2d 805, 810 (5th Cir.
1980) .
For the reasons stated above, appellants submit that the
Supreme Court is likely to grant a writ of certiorari in the pre
sent case, and that therefore an injunction pending review should
be granted.
22
III.
BLACK SCHOOLCHILDREN WILL BE
IRREPARABLY INJURED IF AN INJUNCTION
PENDING A PETITION TO THE SUPREME
COURT FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS
DENIED
A. Standards for Granting Injunction Pending Appellate Review
The general judicial rule is that stays and injunctions
pending appeal are governed by the same criteria as those govern
ing preliminary injunctions. See, Walter v. Lockhart, supra, 678
F.2d at 70; Rui z v . Estelle, 650 F.2d 555, 565 ( 5th Cir. 1981),
cert. denied 460 U.S. 1042 (1983).
The standards for granting preliminary injunctive relief,
and therefore the standards for granting an injunction pending
further appellate review, were described at length by this Court
in Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 756 F.2d 1048
(4th Cir. 1985), where the Court said:
(T )he district court must first compare the
likelihood of irreparable harm to the plain
tiff with the potential harm the defendant
will experience from the grant of preliminary
injunctive relief. If the balance of hardship
tips decidedly in the plaintiff's favor, then
the district court may grant a preliminary
injunction if it determines that the dispute
presents a serious issue for litigation and
that the injunction will serve the public
interest. Id. 756 F.2d at 1054-1055.
See, also Dan River, Inc, v. Icahn, 701 F. 2d 278 , 283 (4th Cir.
1983); Elvest, Inc, v. Bradshaw, 618 F.2d 1029, 1032 (4th Cir.
1980); Johnson v. Bergland, 586 F.2d 993, 995 (4th Cir. 1978);
23
Blackwelder Furniture Co. v. Sailig Manufacturing Co. , 550 F.2d
189, 193-198 (4th Cir. 1977).
Appellant's request for an injunction pending the filing of
a petition for a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court to
review the judgment of this Court satisfies the standards for
granting a preliminary injunction. The harm that black school-
children will suffer if forced to attend racially segregated
schools in September 1986 outweighs any conceivable harm arising
from the school board's continued compliance with the current
desegregation plan.
The denial of a desegregated education will cause irrepar
able injury to black schoolchildren in Norfolk. Moreover, whether
a formerly d_e j ure school district can abandon desegregation re
medies neutralizing the unlawful effects of the school board's
prior intentional segregative acts is a serious issue for deci
sion by the Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, granting
an injunction pending application for a writ of certiorari serves
the public interest.
B. Irreparable Harm Caused to Black Elementary Schoolchildren
Norfolk's public schools have been desegregated since 1972.
Putting black elementary children into racially segregated
classes for the first time in their lives will cause them
irreparable harm. Expert testimony at trial by an educational
psychologist established that placing black elementary children
placed in racially segregated schools through implementation of
the school board's neighborhood school plan, would have a nega-
24
tive impact upon their education, self-image, aspirations in
later life, and careers. App. 552-56, 565-66.
Evidence in the record further showed that the board's plan,
which is applicable only to elementary children, will cause
psychological harm to young black children, ages 5-12, precisely
at the time when they are most vulnerable to injury and when
they have the greatest capacity for learning. Experts testified
that placing black schoolchildren in schools apart from their
white peers will harm racial attitudes and establish
psychological distance between black and white schoolchildren.
Ex. 167. App. 2389-90 ; App. 551 -72 , 577-78 , 581 , 589-98;
App. 617. Record 1058.
Several studies have shown the adverse effects of racial
segregation and isolation in public schools upon black children.
The studies show that such children are more likely, as adults,
when compared to children who obtained a desegregated education,
to have more trouble with law-enforcement agencies, to have
greater difficulty working at jobs with white supervisors, to
have inferior jobs, and to live in segregated conditions. See
Crain, R. ; Hawes, J.; Scott, R. ; Peichert, J.; The Long Term
Effects of an Educational Intervention: Initial Results From a
Study of Desegregation (April, 1983), published by Center for
Social Organization of Schools, John Hopkins University.
The Supreme Court found in Milliken v. Bradley (Milliken
II), 433 U.S. 267 (1977), that black school:
25
"children who have been thus
turally set apart from the
inevitably acquire habits of
attitudes reflecting their
Milliken II, 433 U.S. at 287.
educationally and cul-
larger community will
speech, conduct, and
cultural isolation."
The Supreme Court noted that black schoolchildren placed in
all black schools are "likely to acquire speech habits ... which
vary from the environment in which they must ultimately function
6
and compete." Milliken II, 433 U.S. at 287 . The Court warned
that "speech habits acquired in a segregated system do not vanish
simply by moving the child to a desegregated school." Id. 433
U.S. at 288.
Finally, appellants note that academic gains achieved by
blackelementary school children under busing, in raising their
achievement test scores from 15 percentile points in 1962-63, Ex.
138, A. 2238, to 40 percentile points in 1980-81, _id., and in
reducing the gap between black students and white students from
41 percentile points in 1962-63 to 19 percentile points in 1930-
SI, _id. , would be placed in jeopardy if an injunction is granted.
The Court noted that the "built-in inadequacies of a segregated
educational system," Milliken II, 433 U.S. at 284, causes black
children to have " significant deficiencies in communications
skills-read ing and speaking." Id. 433 U.S. at 290 .
26
IV
THE BALANCE OF HARDSHIPS BETWEEN THE
PARTIES FAVORS APPELLANTS
Appellees will suffer little inconvenience if an injunction
is granted, and hardly any hardship.
The school board purports to have adopted its neighborhood
school plan in order to curtail white flight, to reduce declining
achievement test scores, and to stop declining parental partici
pation in schools. None of the threatened harms, however, has
materialized or can reasonbly be expected to materialize if an
injunction is granted pending the filing of a petition for writ
of certiorari.
First, as mentioned previously in the Statement of Facts,
white enrollment in the schools has not only stabilized since the
school board made its last study of white flight but has
virtually increased continuously each year since 1981. In 1981,
white enrollment was 1 4,427 pupils, in 1982 , it was 14,521; in
1983 it was 14,611; in 1984 it was 14,701, and in 1985 white en-
rollent was 14,635. Moreover, the percentage of white students
in the school system has not significantly changed from 1981 to
1985.
Similarly, achievement test scores have remained high for
both white and black students. No testimony was offered by ap
pellees at trial to show that achievement test scores were fal
ling in 1983 and 1984. Chart D, herein, shows a steady increase
of percentile points on achievement tests by both whites and
27
blacks. There is no reason to believe therefore that an injunc
tion preserving the status quo will endanger achievement test
scores.
With respect to parental involvement, no evidence was pre
sented at trial to show a decline of parental involvement since
1931. Moreover, no evidence was offered disputing the testimony
of former superintendent Ayars that Norfolk had the highest per
centage of parent "volunteers that I know of any school system in
the country per capita." Record Vol. II B. pp. 283-85, or school
administrator Shirley Wilson that the school board has
deliberately refrained since 1 983 from implementing approved mea
sures to improve parental participation. Hence, the school board
will not be harmed by the granting of an injunction pending
review in the Supreme Court.
V.
THE ISSUES PRESENTED HERE ARE
SERIOUS AND THE GRANTING OF AN IN
JUNCTION WILL SERVE THE PUBLIC
INTEREST
Appellants have previously identified herein the basic
issues raised by this Court's judgment which should be decided by
the Supreme Court. The overall issue, of course, is the question
of whether a formerly d_e j ure school district can abandon a prior
court-ordered busing remedy for desegregating the schools, and
adopt instead a neighborhood school plan which resegregates the
school system. This is clearly a serious issue. Granting an in-
28
junction pending possible Supreme Court review will clearly serve
the public interest the issues presented here must eventually be
decided in every school desegregation case.
Ultimately, this case raises the question of whether
the hopes and aspirations of black children to live and grow in a
school environment free of the vestiges of the dual system will
ever be realized. Their hopes and aspirations will be crushed if
formerly de j ure school systems are allowed to resegregate their
schools by superimposing school assignments upon racially segre
gated residential patterns that are vestiges of the school board's
prior de j ure dual school system.
The foregoing shows that black schoolchildren are likely to
experience irreparable harm if an injunction enjoining appellees
from terminating busing and assigning students to racially segre
gated neighborhood schools, pending the filing of a petition for
a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, is not granted.
In comparison to appellees, the balance of hardship is
decidedly in appellants' favor. Moreover, the issues in dispute
are serious and the granting of an injunction serves the public
interest. Therefore, the injunction pending Supreme Court review
should issue. See, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.,
supra, 756 F.2d at 1054-1055.
29
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, this Court should grant an
injunction preserving the status quo by enjoining appellees, pending
Supreme Court review, from terminating the busing of elementary chil
dren for desegregation, and from implementing their neighborhood school
pupil assignment plan assigning black elementary children to racially
isolated black elementary schools.
Respectfully submitted
GWENDOLYN JONES JACKSON
DELK, JAMES & JACKSON
305 Greater Norfolk Plaza
555 Frenchurch Street
Norfolk, VA 23510-2333
(304) 622-9031
S. W. TUCKER
RANDALL G. JOHNSON
HILL, TUCKER & MARSH
509 North Third Street
P.O. Box 27363
Richmond, VA 23261
(304) 643-9073
JULIUS LeVONNE CHAMBERS
JAMES M. NABRIT III
NAPOLEON B. WILLIAMS, JR.
ELIZABETH TURLEY
LITTLE, PARSLEY &
CLUVERIUS, P.C.
99 Hudson Street
16th Floor
New York, New York 10013
(212) 219-1900
1300 Federal Reserve
Bank Building
P.O. Box 555
Richmond, VA 23204
(804) 644-4100
Dated: April 16, 1986 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS
30
»
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Memorandum
of Law in Support of an injunction pending review in the Supreme
Court were served April 16 , 1986, on counsel described below
by United States mail, postage prepaid, as follows:
Jack E. Greer, Esq.
Williams, Worrell, Kelly & Greer, P.C.
600 United Virginia Bank Building
Five Main Plaza East
Post Office Box 3416
Norfolk, Virginia 23514
Wm. Bradford Reynolds
Charles J. Cooper
Machel Carvin
Department of Justice
10th & Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Conrad K. Harper
William L. Robinson
Norman J. Chachkin
Lawyers Committee for
Civil Rights Under Law
1400 'Eye' Street
Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20005
Cuuiiticuj i.- vjrv c u n iit i i r c rtjm jJjLA N TS
Dated: April 16, 1986.
# 31
SCHOOL BOARD OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK, VIRGINIA
ENROLLMENT AND MEMBERSHIP REPORT
7 Ll» DAY ENROLLMENT
September 12, 1984
Secondary Schools Membership on Roll 7 th Day
GRADE
7 8 9 10 11 12
Granby High
Lake Taylor High
Maury High
Norview High
Washington High
714 342
836 361
582 .672
903 407
858 352
209
201
274
212
143
188
355
325
347
339
TOTAL SENIOR HIGH 3,893 2,134 1,039 1,554
Azalea Middle Sch.
Blair Middle Sch.
Campostella Middle Sch.
Lake Taylor Middle Sch.
Northslde Middle Sch.
Norview Middle Sch.
Rosemont Middle Sch.
Ruffner Middle Sch,____
TOTAL MIDDLE SCHOOL
323 238
352 274
237 201
317 247
402 290
509 280
412 275
396 173
2,948 1,978
Total Total
Member- Meinber-
SpeHal ship ship Increase/
Ed urni1 on 1984-85 1983-84 Decrease —
1,453 1,492 - 39
1,753 1,795 - 42
1,853 1,775 + 78
1,869 1,908 - 39
1,692 ____ L.700 - 8
8,620 8,670 “ 50
91 652 645 + 7
68 694 708 - 14
100 538 564 - 26
SO 614 638 - 24
84 776 - 689 + 87
105 894 893 + 1
.. 687 663 + 24
8 7 656 619 3- 37
585 5,511 5,419 + 92
TOTAL SECONDARY____________2,948 1,978 3,893 2,134
TOTAL THIS MONTH
LAST YEAR ___________ 2,94 4 2,057 4,372 1,688
INCREASE/DECREASE_________± 4 - 79 - 47 9 + 446
1,039
930
-I 109
1,354
1̂ 680
- 126
585 14,131 14.089 + 42
418 14.089
-1167 1 42
Elementary Schools ____________Membership on Roll 7th Day_
GRA DE____________
K 1 2 3' 4______ 5
Bay View
Bowling Park
Calcott
Camp Allen
Ches terfield
Coleman Place
Crossroads
Diggs Park
East Ocean View
Easton
Falrlawn
Ghent
Granby
Ingleside
Jacox
Lakewood Ed. Center
I.archmont
Larrymore
Lindenwood
Little Creek Elem.
Little Creek Primary
Meadowbrook
Monroe
Norvlew
Oakwood
Ocean View
Oceanalr
Poplar Halls
Roberts Park
St. Hel>na
131 150 127
134 162 155
200 239 204
98 117 . 110
193 180 165
192 195 146
118 119 76
127 128 64
84 85 73
54 51 53
152 152 151
127 120 111
93 93 101
133 144 119
74 87 67
181 150 121
73 121 78
140 138 123
189 205 155
166 173 139
31 48 24
102 95 97
112
98
192
91
127 30 36
153
101
63
40 66 59
118 80 108
119
116 89 91
196 167
84 86 82
100 83 85
78 66 67
102 117 104
66 47 48
143 131
118 84 53
123 92
129
114
36 67 53
97 84
123 111
.Spec 1 a 1
EdncntIon
Total
Member-
nlilp
1984-85
Total
Member
ship
1983-84
Increase/
Decrease6
102 40 436 471 .. 35
54 574 570 + 4
18 567 463 3 104
10 845 812 3 33
2 1 437 445 - 8
2 9 7 767 764 3- 3
2 688 638 3- 50
10 424 363 + 61
319 279 3- 40
1 8 323 294 3 29
50 373 358 + 15
139 49 494 498 “ 4
31 605 493 + 112
81 735 702 3- 33
. 167 1 55 685 680 3- 5
8 5 85 91 - 6
74 12 625 622 3- 3
67 34 765 797 - 32
6 3 18 520 518 3- 2
103 38 464 525 61
452 458 - 6
38 15 486 542 - 56
120 2 1 415 444 - 2 9
56 12 724 690 3- 34
124 2 7 366 363 3- 3
8 686 717 - 31
1 3 605 657 - 52
60 26 345 341 3- 4
82 35 2 98 278 3- 20
120 34 388 381 3- 7
V
Elementary Schools
K
Membership on Roll 7 ill
GRADE
1 2 3 4
Day
5 6
Spec 1 a l
Editca tion
Total
Member
ship
1984-85
Total
Member
ship
1983-84
Increase/
Decrease
St. Mary's Infant Home 11 11 9 3 2Sewells Point 128 112 119 . 89 81 82 : 76 5 692 582 + 110Sherwood Forest 138 124 114 95 49 45 60 1 1 636 634 + 2Stuart 110 99 88 14 311 367 - 56Suburban Park 95 106 93 77 88 69 76 10 614 594 3 20Tarrallton 87 135 115 27 364 350 3- 14
Taylor 68 77 54 44 56 46 63 13 421 385 3- 36Tidewater Park 128 100 103 42 373 320 *t* 53Tucker 81 68 84 18 251 271 _ 20Willard 117 133 119 119 94 105 86 55 828 751 3- 77Willoughby 87 109 83 64 69 61 52 525 524 + 1Young Park 103 119 90 40 352 347 3- 5TOTAL ELEMENTARY 3.426 3,637 3.034 2,747 2,435 2,278 2,278 1 ,039 20.874 20,388 3 486TOTAL THIS MONTH
LAST YEAR 3.146 3.575 2,876 2,663 2 2,479 2,305 936 20,388
INCREASE/DECREASE + 280 3- 62 1 158 3 84 1 27 - 201 - 27 1 103 1- 486
SPECIAL SCHOOLS
Coronado
Madison
N.T.V.C. (Post Graduates^
Private school students ONLY)
TOTAL SPECIAL SCHOOLS
105 86 3- 19
173 192 - 19
88 94 6
366 372 6
(
. * * summary * *
Total Secondary
Total Elementary
Total Special Schools
Total All Schools
Total
Member
ship
1984-05
To ta 1
Member
ship
1983-84
Increase/
Decrease
14,131 14,089 + 42
20,874 20,388 + 486
366 372 - 6
35,371 34,849 + 522
NORFOLK PUBLIC SCHOOLS
PRE-K REPORT *
September 12, 1984
7th Day Enrollment
ECIA SPECIAL
SCHOOL CHAPTER I EDUCATION TOTAL
Bowling Park 56 - 56
Calcott - 7 7
Chesterfield Heights 48 13 61
Granby Elem. 13 13
Lakewood Education Center - 31 31
Larchmont 6 6
Monroe 30 . 30
Ocean View 60 • 60
Oceanair 6 6
St. Mary's Infant Home 4 4
S tuar t 42 42
Tidewater Park 44 44
Youne Park 40 ' 10 50
GRAND TOTAL 320 90 410
* These students are not included in the monthly membership report.
sr.'inn) p p A n pf 1 r i r v rip N P F H 1 I K , VIROINI*-
CMPI)| I VFMT AMO ME M RCP SH l p report
s r p T rM1cp 1985
—
Mr Mt\p SL?in_"M
1115111
e n u
_ g i 53E
L A S l - D f i t -
: : : : i 5 : : :
? ?n
r P MOM Til C.riN t . PNPPU- ’tFM0ER - f*F M17FP - VEN1 SHIP SHIP 123 5-Q6 1235-26-1234-35.
TRr^rx^F7'
DECREASE T OF
\ R?
-------T 7 — P J*
SPEC . .-E2UL...
A 7
.l a s i m a . _A21CE_
SECOND A E^ _SCUCCL- : _____
r.Q a !̂° y r ] o 7 2 0 57 l , 6 A 0 1 . 615 1 , 5 5 ? » 63 1, 565 92
i &k c t ' .vi nn 789 323 ! ° l 383 90 1, 79? 1 , 773 1, 837 - 6A l , 7 A 5 91
VAUC Y R6 7 n o ?7T 37 A 79 1 , 9AP 1 , 918 1, 872 « A A 1, 096 9?
M()P V 1 rrl o/»R 4 0<t 191 ?4 0 1 52 1, 87? 1.RA5 1 , 909 - 6A 1,8 10 91
1 70 316 66 . 1^162 lxl4I_ 1x142 .. _ 1 5 __ . 1x214 __22____
T P T A L SENIOR HI GH A , 168 l . 79? o/»7 1 , 60? 58 3 3A 9 , 0 1A R , 896 0 , 912 - 1 6 8, 738 92
A7M r<\ 3 M *>S4
-
67 692 682 661 ♦ 21 672 9 A
PLAIR 3 A 1 318 A3 709 702 707 -5 696 96
?75 1 53 A 6 A7A 5 ’ 9 - 6 5 A 66 93
CAMnnSTRl t A '
1 a k r T a y l n p ? 7 9 19n A6 530 523 613 - 9 0 5 19 96
NOP THR I HE 387 i n A? 7A6 725 778 - 53 718 9 A
MORV!r W r. 28 A6 881 872 90A -32 858 95
3 61 2q? ?6 6A5 639 602 - A 7 63 A 96
PPSEMPNT __ 24____53 693- 692 612 .__ -21 532
TPTAL ’Mp n i c GTHPnL 2 , 8 8 A 1,961 3 7 A 5,291 5 , 219 5 , 557 - 3 3 8 5,1 50 95
------------------------- - ~
_lx261._-.4x160.
-2xQ2£.
1 - 7 0 7 n'±2 « n̂ n i 14x295 14x115 14x462-— =254— 13x330 23 —
T OT H . ^ f n , n Ar v
T r m l : - T n T 5 ~ nn n T n ~ ‘
_2xB34_.
____ 2x225_ __lx222— n r 2_._ L jl626_ ___ 62_ _l.x222_ 1 4 . 6 7 1 1 4 . 4 6 0 14x222 ___23 —L2SI 2 5 i r _______________ _Z ±fl l 2_ __23____- 1 'to «■ 7 1 ? - 1 R7 f *5S - A -11 -312 -366 __ -354________ __________ „_=335-
JLlaLt-L l i l L ------------------------ ------------- --------------- ------------------- — -- --------------------
e onpT OP A DMA T r 5
srupni ppafp pt i n r r !TY pr npff p i k . V i r g i n i a
Ftjpnil.VFAJT '.MO MCM̂ FOSHIP REPORT
SFPTrMPER 1905
--------- u t ------------- r --------- - r . S k b E— ^
l AST DAY P F MONTH
- - q ------------ 6
C O M T .
S P F C .
TOUT .
F N F P L l -
MFMT
1 2 a r’ - P f c
m f M 8 T R -
S ' H P
. 1 2 3 5 - 8 6
■ T H T A C ' " '
ME M8 FP -
S H I P
. 1 2 3 6 - 2 5
- T N n ? m E 7
D r C P F ASE
T H I S MO.
_ L 4 S I _ 1 E M _
A . D . ” .
T OF
A T T E N D -
_fi U C E _ „ .
PAY V I F U 10P 1 1 8 9 6 9 ? 4 7 4 8 0 4 4 0 * 4 3 4 7 4 9 6
POWt 1N", PAFK 1 l A 1 6 0 1 2 7 1 2 2 7 0 f .P4 5 9 8 5 84 ♦ 14 5 8 5 9 7
PALP P T T ! ? 1 0 6 } 44 n o 7 6 5 9 7 5 4 4 5 6 5 - 2 1 5 2 9 9 7
C A Mn A L I E N 2 5 4 7 6 7 7 1 7 2 0 2 10 9 6 0 9 5 0 8 6 5 ♦ 8 5 9 01 9 7
r H F S T c P r l F l P H E I G H T S 1 0 1 l ^ Q 11 o 95 17 4 4 ? 4 ? ? 4 0 8 - 6 4 3 0 9 7
r n i F M V ! n L ALF 2 0 3 ? i i 1 7 0 1 79 OF 0 4 2 9 6 87 9 8 5 0 7 7 0 ♦ 7 5 8 4 4 9 7
c r o s s r o a d s 2 0 1 1 9 0 1 6 9 1 4 4 6 7 2 8 7 0 9 7 0 0 ♦ 9 7 0 7 9 7
n i n r - s P APK 1 7 7 ’ 7 6 n n 70 ' 18 4 5 7 4 4 9 4 0 5 ♦ 14 4 3 7 9 6
CAST PC F A N V I P K 1 0 4 9 R . 4 9 7 6 9 2 51 3 3 6 - 8 5 2 3 8 9 5
F A S T P N Q! HQ 7 6 4 7 2 6 3 0 4 3 2 9 3 2 7 ♦ 2 3 2 4 9 7
FA I P 1 AWN 3 ° 6 0 4 6 4 7 9 7 9 9 3 7 2 8 0 7 9 3 7 3 3 7 6 - 3 3 7 4 9 0
C. I IFHT 1 2 0 1 0 9 1 1 4 78 0 9 9 0 0 /,QQ 4 9 7 - 7 4 0 4 9 5
PR AMPY 1 5 5 1 7 9 1 7 q t o p 02 6 54 6 ? 9 6 0 8 * 3 1 6 2 8 9 7
l N P C F S J P E 1 16 1 0 6 1 0 9 94 1 1 0 n f 8 4 10 7 61 74 4 7 41 ♦ 3 7 4 0 9 7
J AC PX ’ 6 9 1 9 7 1 6 4 1 4 5 6 0 7 6 01 6 06 - 5 5 6 1 6 9 6
t A K r w p n O F O ' I C A T I P M C.FNT 9 3 9 3 9 3 9 0 * 3 9 0 88
C ATT HMPMT Q 7 1 o p <79 1 0 2 71 P 7 7 0 6 6 6 6 5 4 6 2 7 + 2 7 6 4 R 9 7
L AR F V ' ' P P F l 9 4 l « Q 1 9 0 91 9 9 f l4 8 8 09 91 9 0 9 3 7 7 2 ♦ 1 3 1 0 8 6 9 6
L I PDF MW PPM 9 9 9 0 0 P 9 9 72 7 0 9 2 74 5 5 4 54 4 5 1 6 ♦ 2 8 . 5 4 2 9 0
l l T T | r C R F r F 1 0 0 1 1 7 1 1 0 8 2 09 4 4 8 4 4 4 4 7 2 - 2 8 4 4 1 9 7
L I T T l F r .CFCK PF | v A R Y 1 1 9 1 9 7 0 9 19 0 9 7 0 1 0 4 44 - 5 4 3 8 1 9 6
MF AD OK0 P CIPK 1 0 4 1 0 7 l OR 6 1 6 6 ? n 4 0 0 54 0 52 8 4 9 4 + 3 4 5 19 9 7
Sr n r n n p AFP nf Tt>c r. I TV PF N n r r O I K , V I R G IN I A
FNF PL L Mc*'T AND MF‘'PCPSMIP R F P PR T
S F P T rM” FP 1985
ELE!iE!JI.3GY_SCL!G9LS______
>.'r]pppr
NOP VI FW
TAK WPPO
rr.can vicw
PC. CANA I F
ppp| ,*,r HAl L S
PORrB TS PAFf
Sr Wr L 1 S " P I N T
SHFPWPPP r n r FST
F T . HF L c NA
st. v\pvs infant hpmf
STH\° T
SURIIPPAM n APK
T A P P A l l T P N
TAYI OP
T I FIFWAT CP PARK
TUT KF r
WU L A F P
vi i . LDu r. UpY
YOUfJG-GflE^.
« r MP^R SL' IE-QM _ Q F _ “ C£JIb
166
— 6
SEEF ”
CONT .
SPPC.
EDUCx-
FNPP1 1 -
m e n t
. 1 9 8 5 - 0 6 .
T H T I C - - -
M f y OF R -
SHIP
1935-66.
___K.G__ __i ____ -------— •
128 117 31 A A 7 AA?
1 A3 138 118 1 2 l 57 A 7 90 1 2 690 606
’ Al 09 n o 36 , 388 386
16° . 1 1 n 2A 7?n 717
7 9 H 7->P
1 19 1 A 6 ’ 7 61 3
I 6 ? ! qo 1 2 0
352
3 A 36 Al 32 ^P 6 9 A 6 36 368
6 6 6 6 71 31 .26 1 233
’ AO 127 i n v 1 01 70 7 6 _ 71 n 720 70 A
l A6 ! 3 7 i p? 12A A" S ? A 7 25 685 6 P'3
l 1 9 126 1 08 27 ’ OP 380
38 38 38
132 1 2 2 0 5 A3 390 382
1 2 1 1 2 0 10A PA 6 " 79 7 A 8 663 655
136 1 1 1 n o 38 l 613 A03
76 87 72 62 A 7 5 9 A 2 36 A 76 A 7 1
1 l 0 116 95 3*7 366 360
77 9 1 7 A 31 283 272
136 138 132 1 17 I 11 7 6 83 30 8 3 A 818
no
l l A 66 ss r'6 A? 21 SO 9 501
241. _ _ 32Z
T PT AL ELEMF'JTAGY________IflTfil THIS ''OTI'I
L A E I - Y E A P ----------------------------------
I U E G E 5 S E - Z — ECGEBSE------------
. . 2x 66 1— 2 x 3 2 2 — - 1 0 2 2 — JL.BZ1— - 2 0 ? i L _ 2 i 2 B t -
_2x621— 2x631— 2x024— 2x136— 2x461— 2*264-
♦ __ilZ5__±103___ ±31-- ±-32-- ±5 2-
_JU>30-
. 2 x 2 3 2 -
0 x 2 2 6 __Z l i . Q Z E - - 2 1 i . f i b t -
, 1 x 2 1 3 — 21x 44 1— 21x082.
__tB3____ ±426____ taaa
TPTzrMF.MRFP -
SHIP.I2a4rca.
A 20
723
36 9
683
616
3 A 3
297
699
6A0
390
38
320
6 2 A
360
A 2 0
372
266
031
621
______ 35B
__21x952
TKirpmf7
PFCREASE n „ * 5 ” L
T H I S MO. A . D . M . A T T FN O-
. U S I - l E A S . --------------------- AtiCE_— .
♦ 22 A 39 96
- 3 7 6 8 A 97
♦17 386 97
♦ 3 A 700 96
- 2 602 97
♦9 350 98
- 6 6 ?3A 98
♦S 696 97
♦AO 660 97
- 1 0 380 98
♦ 0 37 98
♦6 ? 381 07
♦ 31 6 A 9 97
♦ AO A 0 A 97
♦A3 A66 98
- 1 2 356 96
♦18 276 96
- 1 3 79A 97
- 2 0 A 9A 97
______ =21_________ 32 2_____ 95 —
____ ±2 33______ 21x162----------2 1 —
________________ 2 0 x Z 2 I -----------91—
____________ ±365_____ ±o__
Tn T Al TOTAL IMCRFASF/
FNIPPLL - MCM REP - MFMBFR- PFCPFASF % OF
ME NT Sll I p SHIP THIS MO. a . n . m. ATTEND
I P O E r E t __ 12E2rE5_ __12a4rS5_. LASI £EAE._. _ AMCE_
T O T A L c. r r riMD \ . 1/, t v ? e! 1 6 , 6 6 9 - 3 5 6 ! 3 * R R 0 9 3
T n T A l r L r f, r N T A P Y ? l t p 7 1 ? ! , 4 A 7 2 1 * 9 0 ? < - 3 0 9 2 1 * 1 6 ? 9 7
121A1_A LI_SCHOOLS_________26x116____22x512____25x921_____ i26_____ 25xQE3----- 25_
OEECEOI_OE_AIIEIJQAMCE September .
PEG I ON I ____ 95__
r ^ q n * ) M ______9 5 _ _
pfgiom in ___25__
SYSTEM T O T A L ___ 99__
Ar-G3 r0 ATf DAYS ATTENDANCE _536xl9I
AGGr E G AT F PAYS MEMBERSHIP _655x96I
CtP'iJI fl T | VF nP|r, |M/\|. ENTCV, rr-TNTFY. WITHDF4WAL CfDr)OT
______ L c j m n s - _RE-£!I .IEIE5
--------- RT -------R2~
u i r um> a u ai <:
sr cr i N0 ' p y sr.Hrni<-
r l
THT
p •9
r ? FT
TOT
F T “ ~F5~ R V
_
R T
TOT
RE- --------- R7 — ~ Bn— ------ R T ----------
Gn 4 “'8 Y 1 , 6 ? 3
1,6 ? 3
0 9 17
24
9 9 0 15 9 9 ?
34
0 0 0 0
L4KF M V i r ' f 1 , 7 7 P
1, T 8?
A 4 7
♦
9
59
1 1 4 5 7 2 6 3
6 7
0 9 2 7
m a u f Y 1 . 97ft
! f m T 1 on i i
4 9
0 o 07 11 9 7 10
79
0 9 1 4
NDPvt rK 1 , 0 ^ 1
1 , 554
10 67 15
07
0 7 67 12 1 5 1
» 6
0 3 9 10
W ASH I Mr TPM 1 , 7 4 5 4 45 11 7 9 40 0 9 5 0 9 9 2 2
T n r a i . s p n i h d h i g h 0 , 9 2 3
0 , 9 4 5
27 2 36 40
278
4 0 197 50 3 02 19
327
0 0 5 i o
47 41 FA f « T
409
7 1? 0
1 6
9 1 ' 12 0 n 7 1
23
9 0 0 9
HLA IP 7 04
794
1 9 9
0
9 9 3 9 0 3
7
0 9 9 1
GAMPP^TPLl 4 4 70
4 74
1 ft 4
1 1
9 Cl 5 4 0 2 0
l 1
0 0 0 0
LAKr T 4 Y i n o ft? P
s *> n
n 4 ?
0
9 n ft 2 0 7 7
1 3
0 0 9 0
Nnr IMS! OF 74? 9 s 4
9
9 9 5 11
it
0 4 6
26
0 9 0 9
N OFVi r w 8 7 0
574
7 51 6
57
n 9 51 ft n 0 1
60
0 9 9 0
c n s r MP'-T 4 09
4 0°
0 -I 1 C
4 9
7 9 70 * n 2 9
39
0 O 9 0
r 11F F M F P ' *>1 1 7 4 9 9 7 5 9 1 0 0 3 9 9
TOTAL M TOOL1" SCHOOL r>f ?fto
ft f 7 V .
6 19 ?7
159
i 1 19 42 Cl 1 7 13
192
0 3 0 1
T 0T4L Sc r O O r'4F v > 4 , ! 7 0_____l&tZAI ■’ ll v ’ <; oft 9 4 016 °5 2 49 3? •9 9 5 1 o
n n iM A -M vr o r i g i n *! F^t t y , F F-F NT r y » h I T h d p «W,M cfpopt
jtorcM^Fr 1o n 5
r y T C l L 5 ______
n r p
T PT
P ' s
p T " p? p
TPT
_ _ _ _ P L S ______
RAY V l r W A?n
W n
1 s t
A
R7KI INF P 4 0"»
4^1
1 > 3 9
9
r » u r m T *^44
S44
0 0 u 7
13
r AMP A 1 l rN 1 M
P M
0 n 7
R
C MF ST r r F I FL n HF ir.MTS A37
A TO
1 q 1 3
A
FPI- r M AN Pt A F.F n^n
3 rT^
1 9 9 l
1 P
r c PSSPn 'F)F 1 7 '
1 21
0 9 a 1
7
PI GTS PARK 4 3 “*
n 4 7
A
PAST P r r A N V I F V' 76 7
? A 7
n n 9 9
4
PASTPM 111
332
1 *) *>t 7
7
r A I r lAWM 7 71
3 76
1 0 7 \
9
GHENT 5n R i 9 •> 0
?
CPAf.’PY 4 4*
4 49
1 9 4 0
Q
IMGlF S I n F 717
717
0 9 4 9
S
JAPPX A 79
679
7 9 9 9
R
LAKEWPnD c r>MC AT ir<M r.PNT cn
n 0 0
0
l AF F HMP NT 4 4 ?
4 4 R
0 1 9
]
PA
H1IUQP AUfiLS-------------—
WA HI W6
TPT
_H' S __________
------w7— WB W9
7 0 1 0 7 1
9
0 7 3 0
0 9 3 0 7 1
A
7 7 0 0
7 0 3 7 1 3
l 3
0 7 0 7
1 0 7 3 5 6
17
0 0 0 1
0 9 4 1 1 A
1 7
0 7 7 0
0 7 n 1 1 3
16
0 3 0 0
9 9 n 3 A 7
13
7 9 2 0
n 0 T 0 l A
n
7 7 7 0
1 0 1 9 3 A
IS
0 7 3 0
7 3 0 1 l S
0 0 0 7
7 7 4 9
L
7 0
4
0 7 3 0
7 0 7 l 5 1
1 R
0 7 7 0
3 9 R l A 5
1R
0 7 7 0
1 3 4 ? n 3 1 R 0 0 0 7
n 0 3 9 1 7
6
7 7 n 7
9 7 p 7 7 0
9
0 3 7 7
9 9 9 1 2 0
12
9 7 0 7
AT IV? n P l M M M P I T F V , D C - f N l P V . WITHDRAWAL REPORT
sr P TE « n. rR i d r s
P ^ K T R S t
F M T Q 1 P s PC-ttJTElES _H11HQEAHAL5_
TPT
*7“---- PT- ““ R2 1
T P T
n _ P6 or ' 0? w3 W9
TPT
W6 W 7 WB
{ ,\pc VMPPF n->6
996
2 n n
1 3
s 0 3 A 7 s A
16
0 0 0 1
LTNDENwrnn SAD
SAD
n 0 9
9
o 0 0 Q n l 0
13
f) 3 0 0
l TTTt r rRrF<' 66 0
6 6 9
2 i 3
A
0 n i i p i 2
9
3 3 0 3
L ITTl R rr fFK PR I'-'APY ’DA
3DA
0 9 1
1
0 3 0 3 n 2 2
7
0 0 3 0
HR ApnvmPR'OK A n 3
S3A
3 -> 0
6
i 0 0 P 0 3 A
12
0 0 3 9
MDNrnc A A 6
A AT
o . 0 l
2
3 1 n A n 3 1
6
0 0 n 1
MppviRW ADA
ADR
n 0 l
A
3 3 o 13 i 3 1
1?
0 n 0 1
PAKWPP3 •>RT
097
0 1
1
3 0 • 3 n 0 2 0
2
0 3 3 9
Of F AT| virw TIP
TIP
1 0 7
n
7 3 3 s 0 S 1
1 1
0 3 3 0
rCFAMAIR ATT
62 P
1 1 o
! 0
0 1 0 IS n A A
2 S
r» 0 3 0
PDPIAR PAILS ■>SA
3 S S
1 3 0
0
«0 3 0 3 i 2 0
6
0 0 3 0
RPPRPTS PAR"' P ’P
23P
0 3 3
3
7 3 3 2 i l A
n
0 3 3 0
SEV,rl 1 S PPI'iT 7 1 S
Tin
■7 n P
7 3 3 3 1 3 3 12
16
0 3 0 9
ijHFRk'RPR F PR E S T 67i
6 76
0 9
1 !
3 3 3 7 0 2 1
5
0 9 0 9
ST. H rl CNA 1 90
OB 9
p 0 2
3
1 9 0 A o 2 3
9
0 3 0 3
ST. w ApYS »'|F,*.MT HP3r ? p
00
n 3 0
0
7 0 3 0 3 0 3
0
0 3 3 9
STIIAF T 3RT
3 3 7
0 7
7
.0 3 3 2 1 A
p
0 3 o 1
• •
r.UMIII AT r VF np|r,lMU EMTF.Y, PF -F MX l'Y, WITUPPAWH. PEPnrT
S E P T E MP E P loup
' r F T n T P 3 l
_________ E|IE .1E5_
TOT
P F - r N T P 1 os _ H l IU Q Ei 4UALS______
PI pwc VT APY < ; f M m s
E7 — p T F 2
T T T
D 1 "PE RT R7 S3 V'E HE
TP T
Vi 6 W7 HR w<5
SUPUPPAV PAr K 661
661
n n
7
? 0 3 6 1 0 l
P
0 0 0 0
T A F P S l l T OM EP9
APT
o n e
'♦
0 0 0 5 0 3 E
13
0 0 0 0
T4YLHP E 6P
E6P
.3 3 n
n
o 1 0 3 n 2 1
6
0 0 0 0
TIDFW4TPP PERK 367
363
0 3 3
3
n 3 3 2 3 3 1
6
0 0 0 0
TUE.KPP •>79
?79
0 3. 4
6
n n n 3 3 E 2
13
0 0 1 0
W IF 1. A c 3 P 1 r>
PI E
n n IP
l o
i n o 0 i E 1
16
0 0 3 0
V I L I O I P - i i py *rv» o “l
r»
n 0 n 1 n 0 7
P
0 9 n 0
YPU'IO P4pK 37E n 3 7 o 9 E 0 n 2 0 3 0 3
tpiTAl r L F MrPT AF Y 7 1 , 6 3 2
2 1 ,6 6 1
70 1 1 P3
273
33 o 1 101 73 92 10E
E 1 9
0 0 6 E
TnTXi . H U C R f u T S F y ? T 7 C 3 7 “
? ' , 6 f31
70
223
3 0
-------_ 419.
6
T O T A C ' ^ P ^ r f ' E PT71P ---------- n , q ? i
u t B . 9 4 5
7 7 ------ ~ 7 * r r 73'
_ 2 I B -
■ T. " ” " 3 " 1*57
I T o
T 7
T 7
T9
___n _ 2 2 I .
— 122.
*5 T8
TpTSi . M! n m r s r H o p i
’ ’ S f 2 *? 6
6 1 10 i l 7 I 4? 0 0 0
tot3C »u S ^ l r r l s
___ 3 5 i Q 6 2 -
"e ? 376 7 76 ■*n To ?T 7
93Q.
0 0 I T ? u
S F D T p v n r R 1 9 8 5
CUMULATIVE ORIGINAL F N T T Y, RF-ENTPY, AND W ITHDP AW At SUMMARY
SPPTWSF--- CAST---- *DflTPUV---
T O T A L T O T A L T O T A L 1 9 8 8 M O N T H ' S I N C R E A S E /
S E C O N D A R Y S C U 2 2 L S E ' S P ' S _ t t * S _. t l L U [ l E D S M l E . _ £ E a a E R S t ! l & _ . D E C R E A S E
G R A N N Y l » , 6 ? 3 2 6 3 A 1 , 6 1 5 0
L \ k r T A Y I o ”
(X
CO
N- »
r—̂
8 8 6 7 1 , 7 7 3 9
MAI I F Y 1 , » ? 7 A 9 7 9 1 , 9 1 6 0
N O P V I E W I , R 5 A 8 7 9 6 l , 8 A 5 0
W A S H I N G T O N 1 . 7 A 9 5 8 6 9 1 . 7 A 7 n
T O I M S E N T OP H I O H 8 , ° A 5 2 7 8 3 2 7 8 , 8 9 6 0
A 7 A L r A 6 8 9 1 6 2 3 6 8 ? 9
PL.A I P 7 0 6 3 7 7 9 ? 0
C A ^ P O S T H 1 A A 7 A 1 1 1 l A 7 A 0
1 A K F T A Y I OP 6 2 8 8 1 3 , 5 2 3 o
M O P T M S I n r 7 A ? 9 ? 6 7 2 5 0
N n P V K W 8 7 6 5 7 6 0 8 7 ? 0
P O S E M H N T 6 7 8 A 9 3 9 6 ^ 9 0
r i j f f m c d ________ 6 2 4 1 1 . f , r > 9
T O T A L M I D D L r s r H O O L 6 , 2 6 7, 1 5 5 1 9 ? 5 , 7 1 9 0
I2IAI_SECDlJQ4RY 14x221______ 422______ 51S___ 14x115. Q.
CUMULATIVE ClPTHIMAl ENTRY, p e - e n t r y , AMD w i t h d r a w a l SUMMARY
SrPTf-MREP l°flr)
ELFME'JI49Y_sCH0nLS_______
TOTAL
______ E i S ____
TOTAL
____ E! S_
PAY V f c W A 79 6
BOWL INC, "ARK 601 3
C MCOTT 9 A A 13
CAMP ALLFN "61 8
CHE STEP F i n n HEIGHTS A3 0 A
r r'l PMAN PLACE 85" 10
f-prsSRO Ans 7? 1 7
DIGGS PARK A53 A
r A S T OC r AN VIEW 262 A
r- AST°N 3?2 7
P A t c| AWN 376 3
GHPNT 506 2
r.p A \'9Y 6 A 9 8
INCLPSi nr 757 5
JAE r y 679 8
LAKrwnno FOUCAT 1 ON CENT 97 0
L Ar CUMONT 66 9 1
L Ac F Y’lPRc 996 13
LINPr NW°OD 5 A 9 6
L T T Ti r r p prK A A 5 A
L I T T L r CPEEK PRIMARY 7 96 1
ME ADnW00PPK 576 A
VOMF OR AA6 ->
n tip v i c w 696 A
--------- SEPTrw p--- r7H;T---- nrwrnuy
TOTAL 1905 MONTH'S INCREASE/__HIS__ MEMBER SdlE_UE!daEEStdlP__QEQP ££££__
7 AO 3 9
6 698 0
1 ? 5AA 9
19 950 0
19 A3? 0
16 857 0
1 9 709 9
0 A A9 0
15 251 0
5 329 0
6 373 0
1 8 A 9 0 0
18 63 9 0
18 7AA 0
6 * 631 0
0 93 n
12 65 A 9
16 90 3 9
19 5 A A 9
5 AAA 0
7 399 0
1 2 528 9
6 A A 7 0
t 3 686 0
CIJMKL AT IVF PPI GI NAt RNTPY, p c - f ^ T C Y , AND WITHDRAWAL SUMMARY
$F pj rMncp lQ0S
E LC HE tJ IA LI -SC UQQLS______
TPTAL TPTAL TOTAL 1985
.ME53QEZ5U1E-
CZ5T
MnN TH ’ S
.MEMaERStllE.
MONTHLY
INCREASE/
„ D E E E O E £ ____
p a k wron n 7 l 2 306 0
nf FAN V I r V' T I N 9 1 1 71 7 0
nr c a v a i p 628 10 25 613 0
POP LAC HALLS 355 3 6 352 0
FPpFPTS PARK p 3 P 3 P 233 0
SFWPLLS PPINT 7 1 P 2 16 704 0
s w F w n n n r nRFST 67 4 11 5 600 0
S T . H^l EM A '■ 38 5 3 P 380 0
S T . MARYS I NFANT PPMF 38 0 n 38 0
STUART ->87 3 8 382 0
S'JPU°8 AN PARK f~fy 1 ? R 655 0
T ART ALLTnN 409 4 1 0 i 403 0
T AY LnR 46 8 9 6 471 0
TIDEWATER R AF K 363 3 6 360 0
TURK r P •>7R 4 10 273 0
WILL A R n PI 6 19 16 818 0
V I L LOUGH0 '' CO 4 5 8 501 0
V> C 8 6 a n
TRt AL RLr MFNTARY 71, 661 ?20 419 21, 46? 0
t n o j r ~ r r F ^ ^ n T 5 P v "
T Q i i t l S l D I p E l t o l ! ______
I C l l L _ i ! l Q D C L _ 5 C U D 2 L _ _ _
I C T AL-A.L!__SCUDCLS_______
------------z i i e e i : : : : : : : z z a : : : : z z z m z
— 2 2 2 _
___ 152_
9^ 8
------ 2 I I 5 5 Z
8j.f}9£i Q________Qjl2 4 5—c; ± ? s £
2 7 8 1 _
— Vr s — --------- 8 f ? t 9
______ 25 *562— 653 25 a 5 Z I _
HT- FPL K PUBLIC SCHnnLS
npE-K MONTHLY REPORT *
SFptEMPcR, 19P5
SCUCDI________*-------------------
nOV»LTv 5 PAPK FLFMFNTAPY
r M. r pT T f l f m f n t a p y
CHESTER.FT FI 0 HFir.MTS
FASTON FI rMFHT AP.v
l AKFWnnO F O U C M I P N CFNTFP
L APFHMONT f l f m f m t a f y
mohfof ELEMENTARY „
OCEAN V!FW ELEMENTARY
S T . MAPYS INFANT HOMF
STUART Fl^MFMTAP.V
T I OF WATF17 PARK EL EMENT APv
YOUNG n APk e l e m e n t a r y
GRAND TOTAL
* THESc STUDENTS APE NOT INCLUDCD
UJAEIES 1- EbucAiiaN— _ICIAL
55 55
17 17
50 16 6 6
5 5
36 36
11 1 1
TO 30
67 67
7 7
5 4 56
5 7 57
57 7k 66
770 97 467
IN THE MONTHLY MEMBERSHIP REPOPT.
NORFOLK PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ADULT EDUCATION ENROLLMENT REPORT
Location/Service
New Students
Enrolled in
SEPTEMBER, 1985
ADULT LEARNING CENTER
Male
54
Female
106
Total
160
Male
54
Female
106
Total
160
ABE c 6 11 5 6 11
ABE Special Classes n 16 16 5 82 87
Arts & Crafts 0 24 24 0 24 24
CHV 25 26 51 25 26 51
Dance 33 7 40 33 7 40
DMV 1 25 26 1 25 26
ESL 13 19 32 13 19 32
GED o 40 40 0 40 40
GNA 64* 48 112 64 48 112
USDPaintinlg/Papec E, Carpet E, Tile 5
o
1
11
6
11
5
0
1
11
6
11
Sewing 5 28 33 5 28 33
Typing I o 5 5 0 5 5
Typing II 9 13 22 9 13 22
Upholstery n 1 1 14 3 17
Woodworking
BERKLEY NEIGHBORHOON CENTER 8 28 36 8 28 36
ABE
BOTANICAL GARDENS
Skills Development Training 0 2 2 3 5 8
GRANBY HIGH SCHOOL 1 0 20 30 10 20 30
ABE 2 13 11 2 13
Amateur Radio School 11 15 2 13 15
Charter Colonial Institute Seminar 2
16
1 J
39 55 16 39 55
ESL 4 8 12 4 8 12
GED 45 38 83 45 38 83
USD 26 33 59 26 33 59
Special Interest 2 J ) 9 2 11
Virginia Safe Boating Course 7
Total Students
Attending in
SEPTEMBER, 1985
Cumulative Enrollment
July 1, 1985 through
SEPTEMBER 30, 1985
Male
93
5
7
0
25
109
21
20
0
124
5
0
14
2
17
11
10
11
2
16
4
45
26
9
Female
182
6
89
24
26
28
54
31
40
75
1
11
46
15
25
7
28
20
2
13
39
8
38
33
2
Total
275
11
96
24
51
137
75
51
40
199
6
11
60
17
42
18
36
11
30
13
15
55
12
83
59
11
NORFOLK PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ADULT EDUCATION ENROLLMENT REPORT
Location/Service
New Students
Enrolled in
SEPTEMBER, 1985
Total Students
Attending in
SEPTEMBER, 1905
Cumulative Enrollment
July 1, 1985 through
SEPTEMBER 30, 1905
Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female TotalHUNTERSVILLE MULTI-PURPOSE CENTER
ABE 9 32 41 9 32 41 9 32 41
LITTLE CREEK MULTI-PURPOSE CENTER
ABE 4 22 26 4 22 26 4 22 26
NORFOLK TECHNICAL VOCATIONAL CENTER
Apprenticeship 750 45 795 750 45 795 750 45 795Business Education 33 151 104 33 151 104 45 227 272Distributive Education 1' 15 16 1 15 16 1 15 16Health Occupations 0 37 37 1 74 75 1 109 110Home Economics 1 16 17 1 16 17 1 25 26Special Interest 12 16 20 12 16 20 12 33 45Trade & Industrial 152 50 202 152 50 202 220 55 275
SKILLS CENTER - LINDSAY AVENUE
Clerk Typist 0 21 21 0 31 31 0 39 39Skills Development Training 13 2 15 44 3 47 65 0 73
WASHINGTON HIGH SCHOOL
ABE 11 22 33 11 22 33 11 22 33Ballroom Dancing 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12USD 64 44 100 64 44 100 64 44 108
TOTAL 1,401 1,040 2,441 1,455 1,159 2,614 1,777 1,532 3 ,309
Total Cumulative Enrollment September 1, 1904 - September 30
GED Test Administered July 1, 1904 - September 30, 1904
GED Test Administered July 1, 1905 - September 30, 1905
i
1904 3,379
189
151
k
*
ENROLLMENT REPORT AS OF September 30, 1985
School Grade Level Retd.
Name 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total (W's) to school TOTAL1
Granby 5 2 5 2 14 14 :
j
Maury 9 1 ' 3 4 17 17
Norview 6 5 5 7- 23 23
1
I B.T. Washington 10 5 3 9 27 27
I
| Lake Taylor
1
11 8 6 9 34 34
l
i Azalea 2 1 3 3 '
i
Blair 0 0 :
, Camposle 11 a 2 2 2 :
Lake Taylor 1 1 1
! Northside 0 0
• Norview 0 0 1
1
1 Rosemont
1
1 1 1
1
j Ruffner 2 4 6 6
i
1
i
5 8 41 21 22 31 128 128
CO RO NADO SCHO O L. 1025 W IDG EO N R O A D : NO RFO LK V IR G IN '* 23513
I
I
1
MADISON SECONDARY SCHOOL
1091 W. 37th STREET
NO RFO LK. V IR G IN IA 23508-2695
Total Members Enrolled (261) as of September 30, 19S5
7th 8th
001
002
003004
005007 2
009 7011 1012 1
013 2
014 6
016 2
Totals 21
9 th 10th 11th
27 2
38 7
41 9
25 3
60 6
191 25
12th 13th Totals
3 1 333 48
1 51
4 0 O
10 762
711
2
6
2
21 1 261
Total Enrollment through September 30, 1935 (264)
Returned to assigned school (3)
8th
0C1
003
007 I
Totals 1
9th
1 - 1
Totals
111
Total Total
Elementary Schools ____________Membership on Roll 7th Day___________ Member- Member-
GRADE______________________ Special ship ship Increase/
K 1 2 3 4 5 6 Education 1985-86 1984-85 Decrease
Bay View 127 117 93 •' 92 46 475 436 + 39
Bowling Park 109 157 123 122 70 581 574 + 7
Calcott 127 137 141 108 23 536 567 - 31
Camp Allen 236 266 217 201 9 929 845 + 84
Chesterfield 96 107 113 93 18 427 437 - 10
Coleman Place 194 199 168 175 33 34 30 17 850 767 + 83
Crossroads 191 197 166 144 6 704 688 + 16
Diggs Park 121 124 102 82 8 437 424 + 13
East Ocean View 83 99 56 238 319 - 81
Easton 89 87 78 48 21 323 323 0
Fair lawn 40 62 47 48 59 62 44 15 377 373 + 4
Ghent 127 128 118 76 40 489 494 - 5
Granby Elem. 149 174 135 140 32 630 605 + 25
Ingleside 112 137 110 97 115 89 87 747 735 + 12
Jacox 165 146 167 136 614 685 - 71
Lakewood Ed. Center 89 89 85 + 4
Larchmont 96 109 102 103 73 90 69 14 656 625 + 31
Larrymore 184 196 144 104 79 72 79 33 891 765 "f* 126
Lindenwood 89 94 80 56 68 73 55 25 540 520 + 20
Little Creek Elem. 102 115 110 82 36 445 464 - 19
Little Creek Primary 108 158 99 6 371 452 - 81
Meadowbrook 100 103 106 61 66 40 40 8 524 486 + 38
Monroe 166 125 120 30 441 415 + 26
Norview 141 143 118 122 55 46 50 10 685 724 - 39
Oakwood 140 97 108 36 381 366 + 15
Ocean View 201 205 167 126 7 706 686 + 20
Oceanair 153 193 132 126 8 612 605 + 7
Poplar Halls 33 38 40 30 59 68 49 34 351 345 + 6
Roberts Park 66 68 72 30 236 298 - 62
St. Helena 121 127 105 26 379 388 - 9
Total Total
Elementary Schools ____________Membership on Roll 7th Day ________ Member- Member-
GRADE Special
Education
ship
1985-86
ship
1984-85
Increase/
DpcrpnnpK 1 2 3 4 5 6
St. Mary's Infant Home 37 37 11 + 26Sewells Point 137 128 103 100 71 76' 68 15 698 692 + 6Sherwood Forest 139 136 98 120 49 51 47 22 662 636 + 26Stuart 136 132 93 25 386 311 + 75
Suburban Park 121 116 108 83 71 76 75 8 658 614 + 44
Tarrallton 137 118 123 37 415 364 + 51
Taylor 70 92 72 52 47 60 46 31 470 421 + 49Tidewater Park 107 116 93 40 356 373 - 17Tucker 78 89 75 33 275 251 + 24Wi 1lard 132 133 132 114 98 78 85 26 798 828 - 30Willoughby 63 113 82 62 64 65 46 495 525 - 30Young Park 95 107 97 33 332 352 - 20TOTAL ELEMENTARY 3,409 3,810 3,136 ;’,873 2,483 2,319 :’,076 1,140 21,246 20,874 + 372
TOTAL THIS MONTH
LAST YEAR 3,426 3,637 3,034 ;’,747 2,435 2,278 :’,278 1,039 20,874
INCREASE/DECREASE - 17 + 173 + 102 + 126 + oo + 41 -• 202 + 101 + 372
SPECIAL SCHOOLS il
Coronado
i
1,1 116 105 + 11Madison
N.T.V.C. (Post Graduates &
217 173 + 44
Private school students ONLY) 76 88 - 12
TOTAL SPECIAL SCHOOLS 409 366 + 43
* * SUMMARY * *
Total Secondary
Total Elementary
Total Special Schools
Total All Schools
Total
Member
ship
1985-86
Total
Member
ship
1984-85
Increase/
Decrease
13,720 14,131 - 411
21,246 20,874 + 372
409 366 + 43
35,375 35,371 + 4
NORFOLK PUBLIC SCHOOLS
PRE-K REPORT *
September 11, 1985
7th Day Enrollment
SCHOOL TOTAL
Bowling Park 48
Calcott 14
Ches terfield 15
Easton 4
Lakewood Ed. Center 37
Larchmont 11
Ocean View 60
St. Mary's Infant Home 7
Young Park 12
Grand Total 208
These students are not included in the monthly
membership report.
SCHOOL BOARD OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK, VIRGINIA
ENROLLMENT AND MEMBERSHIP REPORT
7th DAY ENROLLMENT
September 11, 1985
Secondary Schools Membership on Roll
GRADE.
7 8 9 10
7 th Day
11 12
Special
Education
Total
Member
ship
1985-86
Total
Member
ship
1984-85
Increase/
Decrease
Granby High 690 366 235 188 1,479 1,453 + 26Lake Taylor High 765 341 208 368 1,682 1,753 71Maury High 539 497 472 359 1,867 1,853 + 14Norview High 930 334 222 349 1,835 1,869 34Washington High 858 355 192 317 1.722 1,692 + 30TOTAL SENIOR HIGH 3,782 1L ,893 1,329 1,581 8,585 8,620 - 35
Azalea Middle 422 224 24 670 652 + 18Blair Middle 337 292 64 693 694 _ 1Campostella Middle 226 149 84 459 538 79Lake Taylor Middle 284 189 50, 523 614 _ 91Northside Middle 363 270 79 712 776 _ 64Norview Middle 485 332 45 862 894 32Rosemont Middle 320 311 - 631 687 _ 56Ruffner Middle 333 165 87 585 656 _ 71TOTAL MIDDLE SCHOOL 2,770 1,932 433 5,135 5,511 - 376
TOTAL SECONDARY 2.770 1.932 3,782 1,893 1,329 1,531 433 13,720 14,131 - 411TOTAL THIS MONTH
LAST YEAR 2.948 1,978 3,893 2,134 1,039 1,554 585 14,131
1NCREASE/DECREASE - 178 - 46 - Ill - 241 + 290 + 27 -152 - 411
1
9
SCHOOL BOARD o r I HE C I I Y OH NORFOLK, V I R G I N I A
ENHOLI HENT AND HEMOLRSIHP REPORT
SEPTEMBER 1984
JSfCnjIA BT-SCiJIXLi-------------------- U
£ £ B £ £ B 5 t _ L E _ C h _ B Q L L , i J 5 1 -OAT - DE- -MUWIU
r- ‘T 1 .
■3EUF" -T FTTAr
- - m e h b Er -
nzzzz
"TOTJC-----TRFPmEr
MEMBER- DECREASE
SHIP T H I S HO.
GRAKOV 755 2SU 115 240 66
LAKE TAYLOR 046 326 194 353 1
KAOPY 567 6 29 257 325
KCR V 1 Eh 891 401 105 35 1 1
859 _ 32 7.. • L r i .
T C I A l SENI OR HIGH 3 , 9 2 8 1, 981 809 1 , 592 68
C O M . ENROLL
3EE*__ll}0CI_13fllzfl5_13fl4=fl5_i9fl3zB4_iAil_jl£iB_
- S B
J OF
A . O . H . ATTENO-
__________ A6££____
81
1 IT
1, 597
1 , 855
1. 563
1 , 839
l ,661
1 , 927 -ae
1 , 5 2 8
1 , 795
92
92
A2ALEA 337 247
CLAI R 355 297
CAHPCSTELLA 243 218
LAKE TAYLOR 305 265
KCRTI I SI CE 4 18 300
NCRV1 Eh 512 291
RCSI HCNI 365 265
Rl F F KF R , ____511 . ____ 186
1CI AL H10CLE SCHCOL 2 , 9 5 0 2 , 0 6 9
l f l l l S FfCNGARY 2, 950. . 2*069___3*32£— i ,
T C I A L n IS H O ME
|AST YEAR 3*001 _ 2 * 130__5 * 5 4 6 — 1*
16Cfi£AJSi 2 _ C B £ 8£AS£_ . II Lp 1 - 6 1 . . . - 5 1 B
92
92
nn
1 , 084
1, 942
1*750
1 .
1 .
1 ,
870
921
111
1 ,831
1 , 902
1 * BQI
>39
- 6 1
— =Jfl
1 , 0 3 2
1 , 891
1*6 9 5
94
93
___ 92.
472 9 , 0 3 6 8 , 930 9 , 2 0 8 - 2 7 8 8 , 7 4 1 93
77 6 76 661 659 >2 649 94
55 716 70 7 721 - 1 4 697 96
70 555 539 576 - 3 7 537 93
43 619 613 649 - 3 6 609 96
60 798 778 689 >89 767 94
104 913 907 095 > 1 2 886 95
40 700 682 682 >0 689 96
J J _ fcfll 614 _ 643 __ i 3 1 ___ _______6 5 6 _____ 94
542 5 , 6 5 0 5,,561 5 , 514 >47 5 , 4 8 9 95
__fll3.._1.712___ 58--------- 835_
__ U 6___riUU___ ±10__ ±119.
_=231. .15*230___ 93_____
.15,008_15*122_________
_ 3̂94__ -211______
__ 14*3Bfl___ 92.
_____=158___ ±1.
©
SCIICCL Oil41(0 l)F I F E C 1 I Y (JF NORFOLK. V I R G I N I A
EKRLLI MENT ANO MEHBER SH I P REPCRI
SEP IEHUER 1904
J E l f B E U ARY SEHf.ni S____
_ _ M E £ E B S U £ _ X h _ Mb L l h l . U & Y - U f - t i O M I l J ____ —
j jFLT
CONT .
SPEC .
I U U C j
c T p n a r m a r — m u F i s F r ^
ENROL L - MEMBER- MEMBER- OECPEASE
MINT SHI P SHIP T H I S MO.
1 9 0 4 - 0 5 i * c i v e i n A . D . H .
X OF
A T T E N D -1 _ 2__ ^ j : ; _ _ i _ 5 5
BAY V IE k 1C 3 96 9 9 1 0 1 41 44 7 440 474 - 3 4 434 9T
EC Wl I KG PARK 127 152 130 1 12 53 592 584 577 ♦ 7 575 97
CALCC1T 129 160 151 95 15 577 564 402 ♦ 82 556 97
CAMF ALLEN 2 1 0 244 208 153 10 881 065 046 ♦ 19 845 97 .
C h E S T E R F I E L C F L I GH T S 99 113 114 51 21 445 438 453 - 1 5 434 98
CCLEMAN PLACE 199 181 165 130 32 36 20 7 782 778 764 ♦ 14 766 97
CRCSSRCACS 2CC 196 147 1 54 3 705 700 648 ♦ 52 693 98
P1GGS PARK l i t 115 74 5 7 23 430 435 382 ♦53 ... 424 97
EAST CLEAN VIEW 12 E 130 68 342 336 292 ♦ 44 320 96
EASIOK 90 86 73 64 15 331 320 3 02 ♦ 26 3 19 98
f AI RLAUN 55 49 51 40 63 55 45 18 370 376 359 ♦ 17 373 98
C F E M 120 123 99 1 1 0 43 513 495 508 - 1 3 486 96
GRANBY 156 150 140 129 29 614 604 511 ♦ 93 595 97
I NGLES ICE 123 1 2 1 1 1 1 114 87 06 79 10 749 741 703 ♦ 38 732 98
i JACGX 190 170 170 147 695 685 690 - 5 602 96
LAKE WOOL EOUCATI GN CENT 90 91 90 91 - 1 87 93
j I ARCHMCM 96 95 95 02 82 79 71 25 631 625 625 ♦ 0 620 98
LARRYHORE. 142 149 1 2 2 99 82 01 72 25 001 772 008 - 3 6 770 97
] L 1NCE7.WCC0 77 81 68 71 66 66 63 21 523 515 534 - 1 9 5 10 90
U T I L E CREEK 102 1 2 0 96 106 47 400 471 526 - 5 5 463 97
U T I L E CREEK PRIMARY iec 145 1 1 1 10 461 446 458 - 1 2 442 97
MEACCkBRCGK 77 124 79 <6 46 48 39 15 504 494 545 - 5 1 485 96
I
SCOCCl I1C AH 0 OF I HE C I T Y OF NORFOLK, V I R G I N I A
ENHl . l l MLNI AND RE HUE R Sll I P REPCRI
SEPI EHOER I 98 A
"
RE RE E R S t l P Oh POLL L i S l DAY . Of R U M 11
S E I F
C O M . ENROLL-
~TDT 3L
MEMBER-
" l o u r —
MEMBER-
TRn5fT5Er
DECREASE 1 OF
A I T E N O - .ARCE____n EKENTAPY SCFLPLS
GBpE . SPEC.
I D O L . .
M E N 1
1 2 U4 - U5
SHI P
M 9 a i - f l 5 .
so ip
_19f l 3- Q4
T H I S MO. A . D . M .
LA5I _2( £AR_KG. 1 u ; 3 5,. L
FCNRCE 140 137 1 16 20 418 413 460 - 4 7 404 97
NCRVIEW 139 H O 123 1 1 5 84 55 60 9 741 725 691 *34 721 98
tAKkGCD 123 92 125 29 370 369 367 ♦ 2 364 97
CCEAN VIEW 16 6 204 153 127 12 69 7 684 740 - 5 6 672 96
CCEANAI F l i e 175 134 1 15 18 624 612 678 - 6 6 597 97
PCPLAR FALLS 3 C 47 24 35 66 51 63 25 340 341 340 *1 340 99
K B E R T S PARK 98 85 B2 34 303 299 278 ♦ 2 1 297 98
S E k E l l S P C I h l 13C 113 123 69 83 02 73 6 705 699 591 ♦ 108 689 97
SHERkCCG FCPESI 142 125 113 9 5 50 45 59 1 1 64 7 640 653 - 1 3 630 97
S I . HELENA 125 1 1 1 1 2 0 34 393 390 392 -2 388 97
S T . HARYS I NFANT FORE 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 ♦ 2 1 1 100
S I L A RI 1 1 1 92 02 35 324 320 3 83 - 6 3 313 98
SUBURBAN PARK 1C1 107 92 76 88 7 3 lb 1 1 631 624 608 ♦ 16 611 98
I ARRALLTCN 86 132 111 29 371 364 361 ♦ 3 365 90
TAYLOR 7 C 78 55 48 53 44 62 18 432 428 385 ♦ 43 422 98
TI DEWATER PARK 129 99 100 44 • 378 372 317 ♦ 55 369 97
TUCKER 0 1 70 85 19 256 255 280 - 2 5 252 98
WILLARD 1 2 0 134 120 117 • 91 105 06 58 856 831 751 -• 80 821 97
WIL LCUGFBY B 7 109 ec 59 62 57 44 22 542 520 537 - 1 7 522 97
YEUNG PARK I CS _106 Ifl4 3Q 363 _35I 343 f 14 ... 349 96
ICIAl__E I E R E M A B Y _3j54C . 3 . 6 2 9 __ 3.Q28_2 .2311__ 2 . 4 6 7 __2 . 245_ _ 2 . 2 3 6 __ i . ! 5 1 _ _ 2 1 . 3 9 Q _ _ 2 1 . 0 3 6 _ _ 2 Q . I 4 2 _ — ♦294___ . 2 0 . 2 4 f l ___91ICIAl TFIS ROME
LASJ_T£AA________________ 3.33f_3.5j6Q_2.jm_2.iEl.._2.392__2.412-_2.35A_-l.il4_21.255__20.J42____________________ 2D.36I____ 21
12C2___ 169_________________ i75___z!67__-122___ 161___ *135____1294____________________ 13E1____IQ____IhCBUSi-lSELBUSL
SUUUAB1
/
TOTAL SECONDARY
TOTAL ELEMENTARY
I b l A L - A L i _ 5 CI Q L L 5
r TOTAL
ENROLL- HE H DER
WENT SHIR
Liiu/i-as___ 1966;: 65
TOTAL MEMBER- SH IR
------- 19fl3-U4__
7 '* * 6 9 4 14,491 14,722
21, 390 21,036 20,742
------ 36 iDUii--------35_,529_____ 35j 46A
INCREASE/
DECREASE
THIS MO. A
-L A S J L Y E A B ____
0. M.
-231 14,230
+294 20,740
------------ L63------------ 3Aa32Q
% OF
ATTEND
A MCE__
93
97
96
£ £ B E E N I _ E r ; _ A I I f NDANCE SEPTEMBER
REGION 1 ____96___
REGION I I _____95___
REGION I I I ___ 56__
SYSTEM TOTAL ___ 9 6__
AGGREGATE DAYS ATTENDANCE
i>
_635a692__
AGGREGATE CAYS MEMBERSHIP _A6A_,5flI__
C U H U A T I V E ORI GI NAL EN1KY, R E - E N I R Y ,
SEPTEMBER 1984
CRJGTTTE ft f- r m in i p <
£££1lCA£1 iOJUXS____
■ JR1F <
TC 1
E*5
TTT
TOT. ft • <;
RANEY 1 , 5 £ 2
1, 584
1
'" i '
5 9
10
4' c
AKE I AYLCR 1 , 8 2 7
1. 84C
3 1 0 1 1
25
4 0
AERY 1 . 8 6 5
1, 871
2 17 1 1
32
2 2
ORVIEW 1 , 5 2 4
I . 9 3 C
6 9 8
2 1
4 0
A S M KG ICN 1 , 7 4 6
- 1 . 7 4 #
0 10 9
?3
3‘ 1
CTAL S E M C R E1GH 8 , 9 5 5
£ . 571
1 2 51 48
119 17 3
2ALEA 665
671
2 2 5
7
C 0
LA 18 712
712
0 3 4
7
0 0
AKPOSTELLA 551
552
1 6 2
1 1
1 0
AKE TAYLOR 614
614
0 16 4
2 1
l 0
SRT HSI CE 7e3
784
1 2 1 1
16
3 0
C.RV1EW 5C2
904
2 7 9
16
0 0
: sehcni 656
65 E
0 3 1
5
1 0
KEENER 666
b l C
2 5 9
1 f> 2 0
; i A L MI COLE SCMHJL 5 , 5 5 7
5 , 6 0 5
8 46 45
99 8 0
' . l i L SECCNCARY 14Y556 20 57 S3--------■----------- L4,526-------------21U 25 3
©
WITHDRAWAL REPORT
TOT W 5
61 62 63 67 -----6B~~ w9
5 12 1 6 9 0 39 0 6 0
10 5 0 5 4 0 26 0 2 0
18 5 1 2 2 0 33 0 1 0
9 12 1 2 3 0
30 0 3 0
10 11 1 6 3 0
32_____
0 l 0
52 49 4 21 21 0 160 0 13 0
2 11 0 4 0 0
17 0 0 0
3 5 1
i
‘ 0
1 2 0
12 0 0 0
8 11 3 2 0 24 0 0 0
16 2 0 3 1 0
22 0 0 0
2 11 0 3 6 0
22 0 0 0
7 3 0 3 0 0
13 0 0 0
3 11 1 1 5 0
21 0 . 0 0
5 3 l 0 3 0 1 2 0 0 0
46 57 3 18 19 0 143 0 0 0
98 1 06 7 39 40 0
------ 303 0 13 0
I
© ©
CUKLl AT I VE CR I G 1 NAL ENTRY, RE - E N T RY . WITHDRAWAL REPORT
SEPI EPOER l *9 8S
"IrICIOI’
-— -------------------------- -----------_________
- £ H
B l £ i _ ------- UE- £N1B1£S y I Tunn a ua i <;
f l l T LEhl Af l Y SChCCTS
1 1
T CI
_£•<
E2 R 1
T OI
_______a i s ________
RX 0 1 ■ i r 03------ OX ‘
I OT
W 5
08------- 07 ' 0 9
BAY VIEW 438
435
i . c 4
9 '
4 1 0 1 l 3 3
8
0 0 0 0
8 G U 1 N G PARK 5SC
5SC
0 c 2
2
C 0 0 5 2 1 0
8
0 0 0 0
C A L C C I I 57C
57C
0 0 6
7
1 0 0 8 2 2 0
13
0 0 1 p
CARP ALI EN 864
871
2 1 8
1 1
2 0 1 6 0 3 7
1 7
0 0 0 0
CHES7ERF I EL 0 F E I C H I S 442
442
0 c 1
3 •
2 0 0 4 2 1 0
7
0 0 0 0
CCLEMAN PLACE 775
775
0 0 7
7
0 0 0 2 0 1 1
4
0 0 • 0 0
CPE $SPOADS 648
6 SE
0 c 6
7
1 0 0 2 0 2 0
5
0 0 • 1 0
CI GGS PARK 43C
43C
0 0 7
8
1 0 0 0 0 0 3
3
0 0 0 0
EASE CCEAK VIEW 326
337
1 0 3
5
2 0 0 1 0 2 3
6
0 0 0 0
EAS1CN 327
i 2 1
0 c 3
4
1 0 0 1 0 2 0
3 0 0 0 0
FAIRLAMN 372
372
0 c 4
6
2 0 0 0 2 0 0
2
0 0 0 0
G H E M 5C8
5GE
0 1 2
6
3 0 1 8 0 5 5
19
0 0 0 0
ORAKBY 6 C6
6C7
1 c 6
7
1 0 0 7 0 1 2
1 0
0 0 0 0
I RGI ES ICE 742
742
0 c 7
7
0 0 0 3 0 2 3
8
0 0 0 0
JACCX 668
685
1 c 5
6
1 0 0 5 0 2 3
1 0
0 0 0 0
LAKEhGOC EDIICA1ION CENF S I
51
0 0 0
0
0 0 0 0 0 1 0
1
0 0 0 0
LARCHRGM 63C
43C
0 1 1
2
0 0 1 2 0 4 0
7
0 0 0 0
C U R L L A I 1VE ORI GI NAL ENI RV , RE - ENT RY ,
SEPI EHBER 198A
IRICIUC-------- --------------
£tlBiiS-n----- n -J,faS!"UESin-----
ft EKEhl ARY SCHCOLS
I C I
E • 5
101
fi !5 /
LARRYROHE 7S2
7SI
3 C 5
6
1 0
L INCENkCCD 5 1 A
51?
3 0 3
6
3 0
M U L E CREEK ACE
A67
1 G 11
13
2 0
M U L E CREEK PRIMARY A5f
Ase
0 C 3
3
0 0
REACCLBRCOK 5C0
5GC
0 C 3
A
1 0
RCNRCE A 1A
AI S
1 0 3
3
0 0
NCRVI E6 738
738
0 C 3
3
0 0
( AKkCCO 368
368
0 C 1
2
1 0
CCEAN V I E b 6S3
65A
1 5 2
8
1 0
CCEANAIR 616
6 16
0 C 5
8
3 0
PCRLAR RALLS 3A5
3A«
0 0 3
3
0 0
FCBERI S PARK 2SE
30C
2 c 3
3
0 0
SEkELLS PC 1M 6S5
70C
1 0 3
5
2 0
SHE RUCGC FCRESI 6 A I
6 A 1
0 1 6
B
0 1
S I . HELENA 390
3SC
0 1 3
A
0 0
S I . HARYS I NFANT HOME 1 1
I I
0 0 0
0
0 0
SI LAR1 3I A
317
3 0 6
7
1 0
WITHDRAWAL REPORT
_ 6J J ^ R A b A | . ^
61 62 61
TOT
H* 9
65 " 67 60 61
0 17 0 3 9
29
0 0 0 0
_ 0 A 0 3 1
8
0 0 0 0
0 A 2 1 2
9
0 0 0 0
0 7 2 1 5
15
0 0 0 0
0 5 1 2 1
10
0 0 • 1 0
0 2 0 1 2
5
0 0 0 0
0 1A 0 1 0
16
0 0 1 0
0 0 0 1 0
1
0 0 0 0
5 1 1 0 2 0
18
0 0 0 0
0 6 0 2 3
1 2
0 0 1 0
0 A 0 0 3
7
0 0 0 0
0 3 0 1 0
A
0 0 0 0
0 3 0 1 2
6
0 0 0 0
1 A 1 1 2
9
0 0 0 0
1 2 0 l 0
A
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0
0 0 0 0
0 2 0 0 2
A
0 0 0 0
l
CUMLEATI VE OBI GI NAL E NT RY , RE - E NT RY ,
SEPTEMBER 1904
XLt JtLfc J A£JL_S£ilC£Li_
i l iELREAN PARK
I ARPAIL 1CN
I AYI CR
1I CEVATER PARK
TI CKER
A I L I ARO
klLLG O G EB Y
K I N G PARK
~ m c m i ----------------------------------------------
- - £SlB i i : - t J -------- KT— B£=e?,B,EifiT—
TC I
tit
b i t
3 t e
3TG
427
421
3 7 5
311
254
254
641
847
53:
536
360
__3£C.
C
2
0
2
0
0
3
0
TCT /_B5S__
C
0
0
C
0
0
1
c
3
0
5
1
2
8
2
3
3
1
5
1
2
9
7
_3_
0
1
0
0.
0
1
4
0
'fTT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 C I A I ELEMENT ARY 2 1 , 1 6 1
2 1, 185
26 11 159 62
216
2
• CI AL E L E H E M A R y “ 2 T T T F 1
--------- z r i U X A S -
"28 11 " “ 133 32------
?1 6
~ r
I t 1 AL SEN i uR t i l on 8 , 3 5 5
___, „ £ « 3 J J .
12 51 30 “ 17
1 1 9
3
I GJAL M l L u L t SChCGL ^ , 3 s 7
_ 6iL2_
8 56 33 ~ 0 —
99 ' 8
I G I A L A l l S Ul GCl S s y ; 7 i l
2
3 6 " ' ' ro8 232— ~ l l ------
____1____ 432
3
WITHDRAWAL PEPCRT
SI--- « --- --------------- K--- -----i5---
TOTu ■ r
0 4 0 2 1
7
0 0 0 0
0 3 0 2 2
7
0 0 0 0
0 1 1 1 1
4
0 0 0 0
0 3 0 0 3
6
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1
1
0 0 0 0
0 14 0 7. 4
25
0 0 0 0
1 2 3 5 1 1
23
0 0 0 l
0 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
1 1 174 19 70 07
367
0 0 5 1
ii m 13---7c
52 39 4 21
41 37 3------------18
“ T03 230" 78-- 103
CUMULATIVE GRIGINAL ENTRY, RE-ENTRY, AND WITHDRAWAL SUMMARY
SEPTEMBER 1904
,S££IflD4B4_i£tiCCLS .
TOTAL
E ' S
TOTAL
R* S
TO IAL
U 'S
'SEPTEWBinr
1904
_M£Mfl£BSUl£_
1,563
m V W1NT PO---------
MONTH'S INCREASE/
.M£MU£amLE__0f£B£ASf____
0
/
GRANEY 1,584 16 39
LAKE TAYLCR 1,640 25 26 1,839 0
MAURY 1,071 32 33 1 ,870 0
NCR VIEW 1,930 2 1 30 1,921 0
fcASONGJffl _______ , , ___1 * J 4 6 _ . ___ 23 1.737 fl
TOTAL SEMCR HIGH 0,971 119 160 0,930 0
AZALEA 671 7 17 661 0
BLAIR 712 7 1 2 707 0
CAHPCSTELLA 552 1 1 24 539 0
LAKE TAYLCR 614 2 1 2 2 613 0
NORTHS IDE 704 16 2 2 770 0
NCR V IEW 904 16
k
13 907 0
RCSEHONT 690 5 2 1 602 0
fiUffNEB__ . . _____ f J 0__ ifi 12 674 fl
TOTAL NICOLE SCHOOL 5,605 99 143 5,561 0
JflJA L -ifX fiiflA B Jf________ _14*4J4 2 1 3 3 Q i_ ___ 14*421____ Q
\
i
CUMULATIVE CRIGINAL ENTRY, R^^ENTRY, AND WITHDRAWAL SUMMARY
SEPTEMBER 1984
o
TOTAL
_ E • S
TOTAL
R • S
w t f h s f i t ------ FAST----------- f l O f i T F O ---------
EIERENI AFY S C H m S , TOTAL
W » 9 1904 MONTH'S
-iJ E M E E E U IE -
INCREASE/
-D ECR EASE___
EAY VIEW 439 5 e 440 0
BCWLING PARK
/ 590 2 e 584 0
CALCCTT 570 7 13 564 0
CAMP ALL EM
t
071 1 1 17 065 0
CHESTERFIELD EEIGHTS 442 3 7 430 0
CCLEMAN PLACE 775 7 4 770 0
CRCSSRCACS 690 7 5 700 0
DIGGS PARK 430 0 3 435 0
EAST OCEAN VIEW 337 5 6 336 0
EASTCN 327 4 3 328 0
FAIRLAWN 372 6 2 376 0
GHENT 508 6 19 495 0
GRANEY 607 7 1 0 604 0
INGLESIDE 742 7 0 741 0
JACC> 609 6 10 685 0
LAKEWOOD EDUCATION CENT 91 0 1 90 o
LARCFMGM 630 2 7 625 0
LARRYMCRE 795 6 29 772 0
LINCENWCCD 517 6 0 515 0
L I T T L E CREEK 467 13. 9 471 0
L I T T L E CREEK PRIMARY 450 3 15 446 o
MEACCWBRCOK 500 4 10 494 0
HONPCE 415 3 C 413 0
NORVIEW 730 3 16 725 0
DEFINITIONS
ORIGINAL ENTRIES:
El - Any pupil who has not previously, during tills school year, entered any public school in this or
other State.
E2 - Any pupil from another State who has not previously, during this school year, entered any public
school in this St^te but who has during the year, been entered in a public school in the State
from which he came (this includes any school operated by the Federal Government).
RE-ENTRIES:
Rl - Pupil received from another room in the same school.
R2 - Pupil received from another public school in the same county or city.
R3 - Pupil received from a public school in the State but outside the county or city.
R4 - Pupil re-entering the same school after withdrawal or discharge.
WITHDRAWALS:
W1 - Pupil promoted or transferred to another room in the same school. •• -
W2 - Pupil promoted or transferred to a public school in the same county or city.
W3 - Pupil transferred to a non-public school or a school in a foreign country which is not operated
by our own government.
W4 - Pupil transferred to a public school in another county or city within the State or to a State-
operated institution or hospital within, the State.
W5 - Pupil transferred to a public school in another State. (This includes any school operated by
the Federal Government.)
W6 - Pupil withdrawn because of death. 1
W7 - Pupil graduated.
W8 - Pupil withdrawn for other reasons and not entering another school. ‘
W9 - Pupils withdrawn after being absent fifteen (15) consecutive days who are expected to re-enter
school. At the end of the school year, a W9 pupil who has not returned to school should be
coded and counted as a W8.
SOURCE Virginia Teacher's Register
NORFOLK PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ADULT EDUCATION ENROLLMENT REPORT
’ r »
Location/Service *
New Students
Enrolled in
SEPTEMBER, 1904
Total Students
Attending in
SEPTEMBER, 1904
Cumulative Enrollment
July l, 1984 through
SEPTEMBER 30, 1984
Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total
HUNTERSVILLE MULTI-PURPOSE CENTER •" '
ABE 7 48 55 7 48 55 7 48 55
LITTLE CREEK MULTI-PURPOSE CENTER
ABE 2 19 21 2 19 21 2 19 21
NORFOLK TECHNICAL
VOCATIONAL CENTER
Apprenticeship 596 61 657 596 61 657 596 61 657
Business Education 17 195 212 17 195 212 30 289 319
Distributive Education 0 15 15 0 15 15 0 15 15
Health Occupations 4 114 110 4 114 118 4 216 220
Home Economics 1 13 14 1 13 14 1 13 14
Special Interest 2 29 31 2 29 31 25 68 93
Trade t Industrial 141 46 187 141 46 187 102 50 232
PARK PLACE MULTI-PURPOSE CENTER
ABE 2 20 22 2 20 22 2 20 22
SKILLS CENTER - LINDSAY AVENUE
Clerk Typist 0 15 15 0 27 27 0 30 30
Skills Development Training 12 8 20 59 24 83 89 28 117
WASHINGTON HIGH SCHOOL
ABE 3 11 14 3 11 14 3 11 14USD 57 60 117 57 60 117 57 60 117
TOTAL ' 1208 1196 2404 1338 1344 2682 1582 1797 3379
NORFOLK PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ADULT EDUCATION ENROLLMENT RETORT
Locatlon/Service
/
New Students
Enrolled in
SEPTEMBER, 1984
Total Students
Attending in
SEPTEMBER, 1904
Cumulative Enrollment
July 1,1984 through
SEPTEMBER 30, 1984
* Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total
ADULT LEARNING CENTER
ABE 34 65 99 53 122 175 97 200 297
ABE Special Claeses 14 5 19 14 5 19 14 5 19
At t 1 2 3 2 20 22 3 26 29
Certified Homemaking 1 21 22 1 21 22 1 21 22
Crafts 0 10 10 1 30 31 1 37 38
Dancing 38 42 80 38 42 80 49 56 105
DMV 35 9 44 72 15 87 72 15 87
ESL 11 19 30 18 24 42 25 62 87
GED 11 32 43 11 32 43 15 45 60
BSD 67 32 99 67 32 99 121 46 167
Painting t Paperhanding
Carpet t Tile 4 0 4 4 0 4 4 0 4
Sewing 0 12 12 0 12 12 0 12 12
Typing I 5 34 39 5 34 39 21 56 77
Typing II 1 5 6 1 5 6 1 5 6
Upholstery 4 17 21 4 17 21 6 30 36
Woodwork 2 0 2 19 9 28 16 7 23
BERKLEY NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER
ABE 4 22 26 4 22 26 4 22 26
BOTANICAL GARDENS
Skills Development Training 0 4 4 1 9 10 2 13 15
--- GRANBY HIGH SCHOOL
ABE 11 13 24 11 13 24 11 13 24
Charter Colonial Institute Seminar 20 45 65 20 45 65 20 45 65
ESL- 16 29 45 16 29 45 16 29 45
GED 6 12 18 6 12 18 6 12 18
USD 33 35 68 33 35 68 33 35 68
Special Interest 46 77 123 46 77 123 46 77
i
123
#
• rV.-f-
NORFOLK PUBLIC SCHOOLS
PRE-K MONTHLY HI (’CRT *
SEPTEMBER, 19 0A
.S'CliCOL_
rr.iA
L U A P I E R I
"mcTar*_mj£Miuu____I U I jAL
58BCWLING PARK ELEPENTARY ■3 8
CALCOTT ELEHEMAPY 12 12
CHEST ERF IELO EEIGETS 5 7 l A 71
EASTON ELEMENTARY A A
GRANBY ELEMENTARY 13 13
LAKEWOOD EOUCAIICN CENTER 3A 3 A
LARCHMGNT ELEPENTARY 7 7
MCNROE ELEMENTARY JO 30
OCEAN VIEW ELEPENTARY 6 2 62
OCEANAIR ELEMENTARY 6 6
S I . MARYS INFANT LOME A A
STLART ELEMENTARY .'3 6 5 A
TICEWATER PARK ELEMENTARY 5 0 50
YOLNG PARK ELEPENTARY A 1 11 58
GRAND TCTAL 058 105 A6 3
* THESE STODENTS NOT INCLUDED IN III! MONTHLY MEMBERSHIP REPORT.
NORFOLK PUBLIC SCHOOLS
f t '
ADULT EDUCATION ENROLLMENT REPORT
Location/Service
New Students
Enrolled In
SEPTEMBER, 1984
Total SLudentB
Attending in
SEPTEMBER, 1904
Cumulative Enrollment
July 1,1984 through
SEPTEMBER 30, 1984
* Ma le Female To t a 1 Ma le Female Total Male Female Total
ADULT LEARNING CENTER
ABE 34 65 99 53 122 175 97 200 297
ABE Special Classes 14 5 19 14 5 19 14 5 19
Art 1 2 3 2 20 22 3 26 29
Certified Homemaking 1 21 22 1 21 22 1 21 22
Crafts 0 10 10 1 30 31 1 37 38
Dancing 30 42 00 30 42 80 49 56 105
DMV 35 9 44 72 15 87 72 15 87
ESL 11 19 30 10 24 42 25 ‘ 62 87
GED 11 32 4 3 11 32 43 15 45 60
USD 67 32 99 67 32 99 121 46 167
Painting & Paperhanding
Carpet & Tile 4 0 4 4 0 4 4 0 4
Sewing 0 12 12 0 12 12 0 12 12
Typing I 5 34 39 5 34 39 21 56 77
Typing II 1 5 6 1 5 6 1 5 6
Upholstery 4 17 21 4 17 21 6 30 36
Woodwork 2 0 2 19 9 28 16 7 23
BERKLEY NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER
ABE 4 22 26 4 22 26 4 22 26
DOTANICAL GARDENS
Skills Development Training 0 4 4 1 9 10 2 13 15
GRANBY HIGH SCHOOL
ABE 11 13 24 11 13 24 11 13 24
Charter Colonial Institute Seminar 20 45 cr> 20 45 65 20 45 65
ESL 16 29 45 16 29 45 16 29 45
GED 6 12 10 6 12 18 6 12 18
USD 33 35 60 33 35 60 33 35 68
Special Interest 46 77 123 46 77 123 46 77 123
NORFOLK rUULIC .SCHOOLS
ADULT EDUCATION ENROLI.MENT REPORT
Location/Service ^
New Students
Enrolled In
SEPTEMBER, 1904
Total Students
Attend 1 UK in
SEPTEMHER, 1904
Cumulative Enrollment
duly 1,1904 through
SEPTEMBER 30, 1984
Male Female To t a 1 Male Female Total Male Female Total
HUNTERSVILLE MULTI-PURPOSE CENTER
ABE 7 40 55 7 40 55 7 48 55
LITTLE CREEK MULTI-PURPOSE CENTER
ADE 2 19 21 2 19 21 2 19 21
NORFOLK TECHNICAL
VOCATIONAL CENTER
Apprenticeship 596 61 657 596 61 657 596 61 657
Dusiness Education 17 195 212 17 1 95 212 30 289 319
Distributive Education 0 15 15 0 15 15 0 15 15
Health Occupations 4 114 110 4 1 14 118 4 216 220
lloine Economics 1 13 14 1 13 14 1 13 14
Special Interest 2 29 31 2 29 31 25 60 93
Trade & Industrial 141 46 107 141 46 107 I 02 50 232
PARK PLACE MULTI-PURPOSE CENTER
ADE 2 20 22 2 20 22 2 20 22
SKILLS CENTER - LINDSAY AVENUE
Clerk Typist 0 15 15 0 27 27 0 30 30
Skills Development Training 12 0 20 59 24 03 09 28 117
WASHINGTON HIGH SCHOOL
ADE 3 11 14 3 11 14 3 11 14
USD 57 60 117 57 60 117 57 60 117
TOTAL 1208 1196 2404 1330 1 344 2602 1502 1797 3379
Page 3
Total Cumulative Enrollment July 1, 1983 - September 30, 1983
GED Test Administered July 1, 1983 - September 30, 1983
GED Test Administered Jt̂ ly 1, 1984 - September 30, 1984
3.327
212
109
Schoo 1
Name 0
Grade Level
7 8 9 10 11 12 Total
Retd.
(W'l) to school TOTAL
Granby 4 4 4 2 14 14
Maury 2 7 4 3 IS IS
Nrrvieu :: 5 - --
i.t. Washing:on 2 2 2 5 23 11 j
Lake Taylor
J & _______________
10 1 3 9 23 22
i
Azalea 2 2 2
olair 1 1 1 1
Canposcella - 1 i
Lake Taylor 0 0
Northside 1 l 1
Norview 0 0
Roseaont 1 1 1
Ruffner 1 1 1
s.
3 4 35 27 20 24 113 ■ 113
NORFOLK PUBLIC SCHOOLS
MADISON SECONDARY SCHOOL
1081 W. 37TH S TR E E T
N O R F O LK , VIRGINIA 23508
Total Students Enrolled (247) as of September 28, 1984
7th 8th 9th 10th
001
002
003004
005006 007
009 011
012
013
014
016
21 316 640 735 354 5
14
3
2
11th
q Total Enrollment (251) rrcm August through September 28, 1954
Haturned to assigned school 3
Withdrawn W - 4 i
001003005
Enrollment by schools
Q
Granby . 32 Maury 2 6 Norview Sr. 54
Washington 43 L. Taylor Sr. 73 Azalea Middle 2 Blair Middle r
Campostella Middle 4 Northside Middle 2 Norview Middle 0 Rosenont Middle 5 Rnffner Middle 3 L. Taylor Middle 2
9th
211
10th Hth
12th
14
12th
I
00 1— in
I
High School Students
10, 11, 12th Grades
NORFOLK TECHNICAL VOCATIONAL CENTER
MONTHLY MEMBERSHIP REPORT
SEPTEMBER, 1984
Male - 552 Female - 452 Total - 1,004
Mominz & Afternoon M 7 Total M Total
Business Education 22 22 22 22
Health Occupations 73 73
TOTAL DAY ADULTS 22 22 95 95
GRAND TOTAL DAY 22 22 552 547 1,099
Eveninz
Apprenticeship 596 61 657 596 61 657
Business Education 17 173 190 17 173 190
Distributive Education 15 15 15 15
Health Occupations 4 41 45 4 41 45
Home Economics 1 13 14 1 13 14
Special Interest 2 29 31 2 29 31
Trade & Industrial 141 46 187 141 46 187
TOTAL EVENING STUDENTS 761 ' 378 ‘ 1,139 761 378 1,139
ADULT GRAND TOTAL 761- 387 1.148 __ 761 473 1,234
NOTE: Membership in adult school, both day and evening, will vary due to short
term programs which will terminate and begin at irregular intervals,
\
^ (.Apfc.ia.tw)
7“*- .5>V\
i7SW-?5 TEbVcA.
t'/
C lith i.o> cWal 1723-?*
J/iW
^.P)Aw
a6 6
" lx....
it
ĈUwn.<U:
-f y. '
Granbv High 6l* 774 67 i,77: 1772- - 37 53
Lake Taylor High 6/6 l,oo<5 13* 1,753 l,77C - 7a 57
Maury Hlph 2i* 77? 63 1,273 i ;i7r i- 72 63
Norview High 7*6 |,o r. a 7/ 1,2 67 l,7og - 37 57
Washington high 7aa ipso 5° 167a 1 l o o - 8 7a
_̂ £ 1U0T, 3, m <5,031 373 ?, 2.67o - So 52
*•
Azalea Gdn, Mid. Sch. m m 2 3S 67,0. 6‘/< V 7 6//
Blair Mid. Sch. 3 I L 377 27 67 <1 7o? - 17 50
CoaipooteUa Mid. Sch. 137 3?6 13 537 567 - *6 7*-
. Lake Taylor Mid. Sch. nt, 7-11 17 614 632 - *>f 6?
Norchside Mid, Sch. 333 373 2o 776 627 + 77 77
Norview Mid. Sch. <asr 567 77 <rf77 873 b 1
1
63
Rosemont Mid. Sch. IW 763 3S 627 -V* 67
Ruffner Mid. Sch. *73 33,2 IS 6c 6 617 + 37 56
tQ&toJL P1uIa.Cc, 1,7*6 3,3/0 37 £ 5,5/1 6,717 /"Tx J/ 6*0
Bay View **2 17a 16 7 36 77/ - 35 77
Bowling Park 9 o *7 66 12 57 4 67o H 4 2/
Calcott 12 c, 360 33 574 763 + HI 63
Camp Allen 5*o 63 S7< 7/2.- i- 32 6a-
*
Chesterfield IW 327 13. 7 Co 777 /- 1 72-
—
Coleman Place *73 777 " Co 767 76/' i- 3 52
*
Crossroads 3 a t 3 b'<5 U 6ft 632 /• 5o 5.0-
Diggs Park las <*25 n 72-| 363 b 6/ 67
*• —
East Ocean View 3.0 a Ip H 13 3/7 *77 b i 33
. Easton ) \ n 177 7 3*3 *77 I- *7 6/
-----
Fairtawn lie . SCI 6 373 35*2 -/• /S' 67
*
Ghent *16 SC 8 2o 777 - 7 s.x
Granby Elem. 5 < i 37 a 7 6s5 77.3 ■b II*. 56
I n p leaide 31.3 7(.C 7 735 7o. + 33 ’ 63
■ lacox Elem. **7 Mas 36 62 s' j 62o b .5" | (p^L,
- ..nk-.wood Ed. Center | Sr,' ■37 .7 " 1 7! • 6 ! 67
L. r. h’r.,;nt j 7C< S3 / 37 6*S' |6aa ■t 3 77
Larrymore *70 ^ (o <5 37 765 717
1
- 3/2. 6* -- —-
Lindenwood I3.D 3 2 a 2 £jta £73 73
U !! (■„ 317 0.5; ■
—
.
—
■ - -|98>4.-?C (U/ujl PhtoA.
7
n*.'-Ss7
SW*****/
7. (B4*< I-I .
BROUGHT FORWARD 3.77.3. 0 , 1 I Ctf 3?7 10, a?5 I.
Little Creek Elern. ns 33a . n 4-64 Sac - 61 47 ‘ »
■ Little Creek Pri. |69 m o /4- n-c.fi. 4C? - (c> 0
Meadawbrook . Ao4 aos 17 4?0 54 a - 56 S< * 1
Monroe M3 a.d.7 32 4(C 414 - 57 r
Norview Elera, ns 47a 37 7aq (o'lO •+ 34 ( 0%
Oakwood 1*41 <a°7 16 366 363 + 3 &7
Ocean View 003. 377 as 6? 6 i n 43! ? 8
Oceanair as? A77 A4 611 657 * 46 47 t 4
Poplar Ilalla .MS Polo lo 34£ 34 / t 4 64
1 i 1 :
■ i!
1• !• i
Roberta Park 7? f in la ai? a7? t 4a 71
St. Helena 143 aa? aa 32? 39,1 it 7 57
St, Mary's Cp S - II 7 ->• a 4 ?
Sewells Point 40? 17a. 11 a 67 a. S?a j t no ! a?
Sherwood Forest M 3 3i? a? G*3 k 634 | t a 50
Stuart 130 171 5 311 367 | - C6 57
Suburban Park 194 37? a? 6l>+ S74 ! + Ao 64
Tarrallton 137 aa 6. 11 364 3 So j + 14 6 a. j
•
Taylor ac7 K a 10 441 3*< j + 36 36
- ,
Tidewater Park lap. A4? 6 373 3a0 , bC3 i 6 6 !
• !\-
t'
|
j;
|
i
■ 1
i
Tucker 7? IA? as <a?i a n - An SI
Willard Elem. 177 61? 11 ?a<? 7r4 1 77 7C
Willoughby 331 137 57 sac 5 a 3, •'• A A Co
Young Park 133 aw i 9 3 s a. 347 > s 60
S b U L jf e i^ . (k-c.) 7,742 15,0a? 7a4 Od, *7oo ao v y 1 SO'J/ 5?
( T./a") 5,114 ?,34? 66? 14,13| I4,1?7 1- 4 A 57
313 1 366 33i 1 3>; ,V6
Q>fa.L ( k - l £ ) 13,114 5o,61a 1,573 35,377 34.3H ■f 5?6 .5?
— ■ ■ <
3 4 r/i
- ± - ‘4 - i M .
i
i i
; | j
-2 faitiii- Qcfuxd/i- 1 ! i
- 1
_ ■ 4
G yur^n-O o ! II 74 ! - :JO?
173
26 t 17 70 1 ■ j
AwiX-j/T
7 166 ' _ 1 |7a - 17 : 76 j . : i
34 53; 1 I M 1 C V + AC 6a 1
fl A ' -1---!------ ...-- __*
fi^U^cS AcA<xr$S 53. 3 1 3 1 366 33/ i- 3? ,9 6
'
•
. ■
)
{ h b u i l Q ± u « Q h > t a J i
GktlxcC
7 - * ^ ;
I4N-8S’ oQiCOXCM
/
*lo dtui fin. k
Granby Hieh - 6 4 2 958 74 1,479 1,453 + 2 6 51
Lake Tavlor Hieh Li 2. 751 II4 1,682 1,753 - 7 1 5 7
M aury High ?3I ‘)74 Cel I,? 6.' 1,853 + 14 S i
Norview High 690 1,056 89 i, 835 1869 - 34 S S
Washington High 4i1 l,33<- 6.7 i,73 a 1692 t 3o 9 2
OsifdA «S&*vcoT-» 3,144 9,975 4I4. 2,52s 9,620 - 3 s 58
Azalea Gdn. Mid. Sch. a m 433 23 67o 653 + /« C*>5*
Blair Mid. Sch. 3oi 3 5 9 38 693 6.44 - i S I
CamDOatella.’Mid. Sch. III 335" (3 459 S32 - 7 4 73
Lake Taylor Mid. Sch. I7Q 339 14 533 6 .1+ -41 6 +
Northside Mid. Sch. 3<-7 2.91 54 7 l 2 776 - 6 + 4(
Norview Mid. Sch. 27V 541 47 8 6 2 994 -33- 6.3’
Rosemont Mid. Sch. 179 4 3 3 29 6.31 687 - 5 6 6 7
Ruffner Mid. Sch. 2 3 . 1 346. I 2 S2S" Cx>£* - 7 < 5+
Ckfafi K d d l L j c L . 1,9 39 3,062 3 7 6 5,135 5,Sil -37fc 6 o
J 7 ----------------------- —
N J
Bay View 37 1 129 IS 4-75 436 + 34 * 40 1
C Bowling Parkj? ! /I w w 4 S i S 3 C ^ O (574) + 7 ^ 7 ? ~ ) +?
Calcotc 183 33o S 3 5 3 6 S 6 7 - 31 6 2 i+
Camp Allen £91 5 8 5 53 929 ?+C + 8 + 63
^ ’chesterfield "'"'̂ 5 1 1 3 - 3o2 7 C ^ ^437 - l o ( + 2 ^ ) 15
Coleman Place 374. Sag 44. 250- 767 t 8 3 6 2
Crossroads 3 o9 377 I 2 7 o + 624 + 16 5 4
w Diggs P a r k * * ^ (So 3oo n ^ 7 , 434 + 13 64
East Ocean View m o 9 2 L , 3 3 2 3i9 - 2 1 34
Eas ton 13-4 129, lo 32 3 393 0 +4 H -
Fairlawn IOC. 2 6 3 8 3 7 7 373 + + 70
Ghent 2i4 248 J a 484 494 - 5 51
Granby Elem. 273- 327 I0 0 3 o 6 o 5 + 25 5 2.
Ingleside - 370- 466 9 74-7 7 3 + + / 2
CL Jacox E l e ? 7 ^ 19 4 H O I (9 61 + 625" -71
^=77-^
6 5
Lakewood Ed. Center 2 + 61 3 24 2s + + 64 3 7
I.archmont ! g<rif 2 5 o 5 2 656 6.3i; -t-31 ; 3 8 u
Larrymore 3 5 5 507 24 24/ 7 6 + + li(o ,/'S?
_ Lindenwood"^\^
I I 0 4*4 6 54o 53c + 310 /
if? <9 C.A1 3 I ’ / t - •OS33 • a at*f
V . /
1 s / / ( s ) - f v Y ~ ( p
-----
CWu&J
/ / ' [ * * ■ & J r
-S6 Mr-Ala C f j A c l t . 3 o t * L
7 ^ c & 4 * : 9 - ~ W
|1?4 •$<> |oC^u*-<4 *1. dbi*Jc k
b r o u g h t f o r w a r d 38s4 6292 3 7 6 10,9,33
Little Creelc Eletn. 173 2 T 8 14 44 5"
I
M 6 M j 19 SS
Little Creek Pri. ITT 193 3 3 371 M S I - 8 1 53-
Meadowbrook 22o a m 17 62M M ? 6 + 3 & j £ S j _ ’ 1
C M o n r o e ^ lai 33 7 23 MM 1 MlS" + 1 6 67
^ S S S — '
Norview Elem, 5.10 4 4 3 32 6,85 7i9 - 3 9 | 6 ?
Oakwood 149 aai II 3 8 1 + 1? 5 8
Ocean View s*n 39 2 1 706 68 6 + 1 0 5 6 <̂ o
Oceanair 37 H- 3oC 33. 6 1 2 6 0 S + 7 5 0
Poplar Hall8 . i n 331 8 3TI 3 4 5 -f c* ( " u ]
^ R o b e r t s Park*)3 13- I5S" 1 3 3 6 2 4 8 - 6 1 ( o ( o
n < s ~ 2 3 9 |0 379 3 8 8 - 4 6 1
St. Mary's 32 1 9 - 37 II + 2 6 3 8 7
Sewells Point M3.I 193 89 6 4 8 6 4 1 *+ (tf r ^ i
L2*6k
Sherwood Forest 277 3 9 6 I4 6 3 6 + 1 6 5 1
Stuart 162 200 4- 3 8 6 31 1 + 7 5 57
Suburban Park (MS 4 3 3 3o 65-g 0 1 4 + 44 t 6 £
Tarrallton 113 3 0 7 IG 4 K 3 6 4 + 5/ 6 4
Taylor .. <£.6>9 129 I2 470
1
j ^ Li'l
j S L
(
^ ' T i d e w a t e r Paric^^ l os- 2 4 3 |0 3 T 6 3 7 3 | - n 6 2
C Tucker 97 I S O 3 2 2 7 5 35i | + aq 6 7
Willard E l e m / ^ I9<T 5 4 2 II 798 8a8 - 3 0
Willoughby 316 120 53 M 9 5 525 - 2 o < S S
—
Young Park 103 2 a C 9 3 3 2 3s a - c2.0 68 il
QaJaJL 2,o?f 12,333 238 21,246 <20,274- + 3 7 1 5 8 2 o 8
£ y t J . J # > . (7-I3-) 5,031 8,037 0 5 2 13,730 14,13/ - Mil 59
Q o t a A . 79 357 3 407 + 93, 87
J b !•-<} (k-ia.) 13,IDT 30,717 1,943 35,375 35,371 + 4 59
J h l & c t a J L J 2 c J u x > P s !
fl
" 1 ■
C y \ a * * * x . < Q o ! ^ 103 1 | 116 105 + .1 81
203 i 2 1 7 173 + 44 94
r ■ ■— ■■1
11 T
----N • 1 ■ V. £■•( fa.î lah, vl
O h VJ -Icw-tajD .fcXcerf.S
\ ^ 3 51 a.
r~
76 88 * / l 67
1
44 3 5 7 3 404 3^6? + 4 3 87
-
SCHOOL BOARD OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK, VIRGINIA
ENROLLMENT AND MEMBERSHIP REPORT
7 tli DAY ENROLLMENT
September 11, 1985
Secondary Schools
7
Membership
8 9
on Roll
(TRADE.
10
7 tli Day
11 12
Special
Education
Total
Member
ship
1985-86
Total
Member
ship
1984-85
Increase/
Decrease
Granby High 690 366 235 188 1,47 9 1 ,453 + 26Lake Taylor High 765 341 208 368 1,682 1,753 71Maury High 539 497 472 359 1,867 1 j 853 + 14Norvlew High 930 334 222 349 1,835 1,869 34Washington High . 858 355 192 317 1.722 1.692 + 30TOTAL SENIOR HIGH 3,782 1,893 1,329 1,581 8,585 8,620 35
Azalea Middle 422 224 24 670 652 + 18Blair Middle 337 2 92 64 693 694 1Campostella Middle 226 149 84 459 538 _ 79Lake Taylor Middle 284 189 50 523 614 91Northside Middle 363 270 79 712 776 64Norvlew Middle 485 332 45 862 894 32Rosemont Middle 320 311 - 631 687 56Ruffner Middle 333 165 87 585 656 _ 71TOTAL MIDDLE SCHOOL 2,770 1,932 433 5,135 5,511 - 376
TOTAL SECONDARY 2.770 1,932 3.782 1,893 1,329 1.58L 433 13.720 14.131 - 4 nTOTAL THIS MONTH
IAST YEAR 00OnCN 1.978 3.893 2,134 1.039 1.554 585 14.131INCREASE/DECREASE - 178 - 46 - Ill - 241 + 2 90 + 27 -152 - 411
Elementary Schools Membership on Roll 7th Day
GRADE
K 1 2 3 4 5 6
Bay View 127 117 93' 92
Bowling Park 109 157 123 122
Calcott 127 137 141 108
Camp Allen 236 266 217 201
Chesterfield 96 107 113 93
Coleman Place 194 199 168 175 33 34 30
Crossroads 191 197 166 144
Diggs Park 121 124 102 82
East Ocean View 83 99 56
Easton 89 87 78 48
Fair lawn 40 62 47 48 59 62 44
Ghent 127 128 118 76
Granby Elem. 149 174 135 140
Ingleside 112 137 110 97 115 89 87
Jacox 165 146 167
Lakewood Ed. Center
Larchmont 96 109 102 103 73 90 69
Larrymore 184 196 144 104 79 72 79
Llndenwood 89 94 80 56 68 73 55
Little Creek Elem. 102 115 110 82
Little Creek Primary 108 158 99
Meadowbrook 100 103 106 61 66 40 40
Monroe 166 125 120
Norview 141 143 118 . 122 55 46 50
Oakwood 140 97 108
Ocean View 201 205 167 126
Oceanair 153 193 132 126
Poplar Halls 33 38 40 30 59 68 49
Roberts Park 66 68 72
St. Helena 121 127 105
Total Total
Member- Member-
Special ship ship Increase/
Education_____ 1985-86______ 1984-85______ Decrease
46 475 436 + 39
70 581 574 + 7
23 536 567 - 31
9 929 845 + 84
18 427 437 - 10
17 850 767 + 83
6 704 688 + 16
8 437 424 + 13
238 319 - 81
21 323 323 0
15 377 373 + 4
40 489 494 - 5
32 630 605 + 25
747 735 + 12
136 614 685 - 71
89 89 85 + 4
14 656 625 + 31
33 891 765 + 126
25 540 520 + 20
36 445 464 - 19
6 371 452 - 81
8 524 486 + 38
30 441 415 + 26
10 685 724 - 39
36 381 366 + 15
7 706 686 + 20
8 612 605 + 7
34 351 345 + 6
30 236 298 - 62
26 379 388 - 9
Elementary Schools Member ship on Roll 7 th Day
GRADE
Total
Member-
Total
Member-
K l 2 3 6 5 6 Education 1985-86 1986-85 Denreane
St. Mary's Infant Home 37 37 11 + 26Sewells Point 137 128 103 100 71 76' 68 15 698 692 + 6Sherwood Forest 139 136 98 120 69 51 67 22 662 636 + 26Stuart 136 132 93 25 386 311 + 75Suburban Park 121 116 108 83 71 76 75 8 658 616 + 66Tarrallton 137 118 123 37 615 366 + 51
Taylor 70 92 72 52 67 60 66 31 670 621 + 69Tidewater Park 107 116 93 60 356 373 - 17Tucker 78 89 75 33 275 251 + 26Willard 132 133 132 116 98 78 85 26 798 828 _ 30Willoughby 63 113 82 62 66 65 66 695 525 30Young Park 95 107 97 33 332 352 - 20TOTAL ELEMENTARY 3,609 3,810 3,136 2,873 2,683 2,319 2,076 1,160 21,266 20.876 + 372TOTAL THIS MONTH
LAST YEAR 3,626 3,637 3,036 2,767 2,635 2,278 2,278 1,039 20,876
INCREASE/DECREASE 17 + 173 + 102 + 126 + 68 + 61 - 202 + 101 372
________________ »SPECIAL SCHOOLS <
Coronado i 116
217
105 + 11Madison
N.T.V.C. (Post Graduates &
173 + 66
Private school students ONLY) 76 88 - 12
TOTAL SPECIAL SCHOOLS 609 366 + 63
NORFOLK PUBLIC SCHOOLS
PRE-K REPORT *
September 11, 1985
7th Day Enrollment
SCHOOL TOTAL
Bowling Park 48
Calcott 14
Chesterfield 15
Easton 4
Lakewood Ed. Center 37
Larchmont 11
Ocean View 60
St. Mary's Infant Home 7
Youne Park 12
Grand Total 208
These students are not included in the monthly
membership report.
** SUMMARY **
Total Secondary
Total Elementary
Total Special Schools
Total All Schools
Total
Member
ship
1985-86
Total
Member
ship
1986-85
Increase/
Decrease
13,720 16,131 - 611
21,266 20,876 + 372
609 366 + 63
35,375 35,371 + 6
+