Singleton v Jackson Municipal School District Appeal

    IN THE

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

N o . 2 9 2 2 6

DEREK JEROME SINGLETON, ET AL.,
Plain tiffs-Appellants,

versus

JACKSON MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL 
DISTRICT, ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 
Southern District of Mississippi

(May 5, 1970)

Before BROWN, Chief Judge, MORGAN and 
INGRAHAM, Circuit Judges.

BROWN, Chief Judge: This is an appeal from an 
order of the District Court entered pursuant to the 
remand from Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate 
School District (Singleton III),1 5 Cir., 1969, ____  F.2d

'This is one of a long series of cases involving the Jackson Municipal 
School District’s operation of a dual school system. Evers v. 
Jackson Municipal Separate School Dist., 5 Cir., 1964, 328 F.2d



2 SINGLETON v. JACKSON SCHOOL DISTRICT

____  (consolidated cases en banc) [No. 26285, Dec. 1,
1969], rev’d in part, sub nom., Carter v. West Feliciana
Parish School Bd., 1970,____ U.S______ , ____ S.Ct--------- ,
24 L.Ed.2d 477. Prior to this remand the district was 
operating under a Jefferson'* model freedom-of-choice 
plan. And after remand for the adoption of a unitary 
plan the District Court called for the school board to 
invoke the assistance of the Office of Education of the 
United States Department of Health, Education and 
Welfare in preparing new desegregation plans. HEW 
filed a plan with three alternative proposals for sec­
ondary schools. The school board proposed modifi­
cations (see note 8, injra) that reduced the amount of 
desegregation that would result and these modifica­
tions were, after an evidentiary hearing on January 
19, 1970, for the most part approved by the District 
Court. And this new plan was ordered implemented on 
February 1, 1970.

Our concern is whether the system approved by the 
District Court is unitary. We believe that, although 
faculty,2 staff, extra curricular activities, etc., see

408; Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School Dist., 
5 Cir., 1965, 348 F.2d 729 (Singleton I); Singleton v. Jackson 
Municipal Separate School Dist., 5 Cir., 1966, 355 F.2d 865 
(Singleton II).

lATJnited States v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 5 Cir., 
1966, 372 F.2d 836.

2We note that the District Court’s order providing for the reassign­
ment of faculty and staff obligated the school district to meet 
the Singleton III faculty-staff assignment ratio, which by its 
terms prescribed ratios for the 1969-70 school year, only for 
the 1969-70 school year. But it is plain that resegregation can 
occur as much from faculty assignments as from student as­
signments. And it is plain that any future substantial devia-



SINGLETON v. JACKSON SCHOOL DISTRICT 3

Green v. County School Bd. of New Kent County, 1968, 
391 U.S. 430, 88 S.Ct. 1689, 20 L.Ed.2d 716; Ellis v. Board
of Public Inst, of Orange Cty., 5 Cir., 1970,____ F.2d_____
[No. 29124, Feb. 17, 1970], appear so far to have become 
unitary, the existence of a substantial number of 
schools with segregated student bodies, the students of 
which will for a large part have a completely segre­
gated education, prevents the system from being a uni­
tary one when there is a reasonable alternative plan 
that will result in a more nearly unitary system. We 
thus remand this case.* 3 4

I .

The Proposals for Unitary System

At the commencement of the 1969-70 school year, 
Jackson had 10,527 Negro and 10,432 white elementary

tions from the Singleton III ratios will require a showing that 
there is a unitary system and that such deviations will not tend 
to reestablish a dual system. We emphasize this without any 
prejudgment of the merits because plaintiffs-appellants have 
suggested in the comments requested by the Court (see notes
3, 4, 5, and 6, infra) that there is a significant possibility that 
the school district will abandon these ratios for the 1970-71 
school year.

sUnder the stringent requirements of Alexander v. Holmes County 
Board of Education, supra, which this court has carried out in
United States v. Hinds County School Board, 5 Cir., 1969 ,---------
F .2d ---------[Nos. 28030, 28042, Nov. 7, 1969], this court has judi­
cially determined that the ordinary procedures for appellate re­
view in school segregation cases have to be suitably adapted to 
assure that each system whose case is before us “begin immedi­
ately to operate as unitary school systems.” Upon consideration 
of the record the court has proceeded to dispose of this case 
as an extraordinary matter. Rule 2, FRAP. The Court has, 
however, solicited supplemental briefs and data and has all 
necessary material for consideration on the merits. (See notes
4, 5, and 6 infra)



4 SINGLETON v. JACKSON SCHOOL DISTRICT

school students attending 38 elementary schools. Of 
those schools, 13 were all- or virtually all-Negro and 
20 were all- or nearly all-white. Of the 5 substantially 
integrated schools, 3 were predominantly Negro, 2 
predominantly white. And Jackson was operating 9 
junior high schools (grades 7-9), 2 junior-senior high 
schools (grades 7-12), and 6 senior high schools (grades 
10-12). There were 7,700 Negro and 10,380 white students 
enrolled. Of those students, 7,300 (93.5%) Negroes were 
enrolled in 6 all-Negro schools. All of the white stu­
dents attended 11 schools ranging from 86.5 to 100 per­
cent white.

A. The Basics of the HEW Plan

The plan suggested by HEW to remedy this is essen­
tially a zone plan. It was constructed on the assumption 
that other alternatives were foreclosed by state statu­
tory limitations on state-granted financial assistance 
to local school districts to provide intracity transporta­
tion.4 In addition, the HEW plan indicated that other 
limitations “to developing a plan resulting in total de­
segregation of all schools in the system were” (1) the 
size of the district, (2) natural and man-made barriers 
that constitute safety hazards and restrict mobility,3

4At the Court’s request counsel for plaintiffs-appellants and the 
school board supplied the Court with copies of the state statutes 
that restrict financial assistance to local districts for intracity 
bussing. Miss. Stat. Ann. §§ 6336-et seq. They were asked to 
comment on the constitutionality of the statutes and counsel 
agreed that the statutes of the state did not suffer from any 
constitutional defects since the school district has the power to 
provide transportation to pupils not eligible for state-aided 
bussing (Miss. Stat. Ann § 6336-01).



SINGLETON v. JACKSON SCHOOL DISTRICT 5

(3) demographic pattern of the district, (4) lack of a 
compulsory attendance law, (5) possibility of resegre­
gation and (6) the need to develop a “plan which would 
result in the least amount of disruption and which 
would be implemented immediately.”

B. The Results at the Elementary Level6

The HEW plan was a zoning plan within the frame­
work of the former 1-6 grade structure. The zoning * 1 2 3

sCounsel were also asked to comment on the extent to which these 
barriers were a limitation on the development of a unitary- 
school district. The following is part of the statement of Dr. 
H. Larry Winecoff, director of the team that prepared the HEW  
plan. The statement was submitted pursuant to the Court’s 
request:

“We did not consider that there were any natural or 
manmade barriers in Jackson to our Junior-Senior 
High School program. However, at the elementary 
level the following such barriers exist, and were con­
sidered:
1) Highway 80 located in South Jackson. This four 
lane highway prevented us from assigning black chil­
dren in grades 1-5 to Key and Lester and it prevented 
the assignment of white children to Isable. We con­
sidered 6th graders old enough to negotiate this bar­
rier.
2) There is an airport-industrial complex-golf 
course, located in the mid-western section of the Town.
This area limited our alternatives to some extent.
3) There is a railroad freight yard in the inner-city 
which limited our alternatives to some extent.”

sPlaintiffs-appellants’ original complaint was that the dual system 
had not been eliminated at the secondary level. Their com­
plaints regarding the elementary level were concerned only 
with situations where there was a very close relationship be­
tween the elementary and secondary level as in the Isable-Hill 
complex, which under the HEW plan would serve both as an 
elementary and 9-10 grade school. As we did in Singleton III, 
however, we look at the whole system. And plaintiffs-appel-



6 SINGLETON v. JACKSON SCHOOL DISTRICT

was designed to maximize desegregation and was 
supplemented by pairing of two schools and a cross­
zone assignment of two schools. It was projected that 
the plan would produce 5 all-white schools and 6 all­
black schools with 15 predominantly white schools and 
12 predominantly black schools.7

This was basically the plan adopted by the District 
Court.8 But not even these projected results have been 
achieved. As of March 26, 19709 there were seven ele­
mentary schools with all black student bodies and six 
more in which the student body is made up of at least 
ninety percent Negro students. In addition there are 
6 elementary schools out of a total of 38 that have

lants have, after letter inquiry from this Court (see notes 4 
and 5, supra), challeneged the modifications of the elementary 
plan approved by the District Court. But we do not limit our­
selves to these modifications. Instead, we concern ourselves 
with the overall workings of the system —  all aspects of the 
elementary and secondary levels.

zThe projected enrollment for each elementary school under this 
HEW plan is set out in Appendix A.

sThe board’s proposed modifications at the elementary level focus­
ed on 8 schools. The board requested that the number of Ne­
groes assigned to 4 predominantly white schools be reduced, 
that one school that was projected to be predominantly Negro 
be made predominantly white and that the enrollment of 3 all 
Negro schools be increased. The schools affected were Key, 
Lester, Watkins, Green, Duling, Isabelle, Walton and Morrison. 
See Appendix A. The District Court allowed the proposed 
modifications where it found that the capacity of the school 
would be exceeded under the HEW plan and where portable 
classrooms would have to be relocated.

sAt the Court’s request the school board supplied the Court with 
the latest enrollment data available as of March 26, 1970. This 
information is set out in Appendix B.



SINGLETON v. JACKSON SCHOOL DISTRICT 7

only white students attending them and two other 
schools with over ninety percent white student bodies.

C. Results at the Secondary Level

The direct challenge here is not, however, to the ele­
mentary system, but is to the school board’s modifica­
tions of the HEW plan — or more appropriately plans 
A, B, and C — at the secondary level. (See note 6, 
supra). The HEW plans were based on principles of 
pairing and zoning. All three plans resulted in break­
down of the grade structure — 6-3-3 — under which the 
district had previously been operating. Plan B, for 
which plaintiffs-appellants expressed a preference, 
proposes geographic zoning with junior high schools 
continuing to serve one or more of grades 7 through 9. 
Under Plan B, of the eleven junior high schools, one 
would serve grades 7-9, six would serve grades 7-8, and 
four would serve grade 9 only. Plan B calls for the 
same type of organization at the high school level — six 
high schools are to serve grades 10-12, two are to serve 
grades 11-12, and one grade 10 only.

The modifications proposed by the Board and adopt­
ed by the District Court were not really modifications 
at all. They were instead a completely different plan 
based on geographic zoning. The zoning was, however, 
based on the assumption of retaining the District’s 
6-3-3 grade structure.

After approximately six weeks operation under this 
plan there were 7537 white students and 8156 Negro



8 SINGLETON v. JACKSON SCHOOL DISTRICT

students in the District’s secondary schools. There 
were no all-Negro or all-white secondary schools. (See 
Appendix B). There are, however, at least four schools 
where the student body is overwhelmingly Negro.10 In 
contrast, the projected enrollment under any of the 
HEW plans would not have produced any virtually all- 
Negro schools. See Appendices C-E.

II.

Deficiencies in the Present Plan

It is not contended that the school board’s zoning 
plan was gerrymandered to produce little desegrega­
tion. But it is contended that the school board plan is 
not the best available alternative. Andrews v. City of
Monroe. 5 Cir., 1970,____ F.2d_____[No. 29358, April ,
1970]. And it is contended that the board has not carried 
“ its . . . heavy burden . . .  to explain its preference for 
an apparently less effective method.” Green v. County 
School Board of New Kent County, 1968, 391 U.S. 430,
439, 88 S.Ct. 1689, ____ , 20 L.Ed.2d 716, 724. It is also
claimed that the school board’s secondary plan zone 
lines were not drawn to promote desegregation as re­
quired by this Court. Valley v. Rapides Parish School
Bd., 5 Cir., 1970, ____  F.2d ____  [No. 29237, March 6,
1970]; United States v. Indianola Municipal Separate 
School Dist., 5 Cir., 1969, 410 F.2d 626; Davis v. Board of

i ©Blackburn Junior High has 593 Negroes and 34 whites, Rowan 
Junior High has 609 Negroes and 31 whites, Brinkley High 
School has 1076 Negroes and 2 whites, Lanier High School has 
713 Negroes and 7 whites. See Appendix B.



SINGLETON v. JACKSON SCHOOL DISTRICT 9

School Commissioners of Mobile County, 5 Cir., 1968, 
393 F.2d 690.

We are of the clear view that the plaintiff s’-appel- 
lants complaints are valid. Jackson Separate School 
District is not a unitary system. The deficiencies do 
not lie in the simple existence of some schools that are 
all or virtually all Negro or white. They lie instead in 
the fact that a substantial number of Negro students 
will receive their entire public school education in a 
segregated school environment,11 which is presumably 
largely the result of the State’s operation of a dual 
school system with schools located to serve that sys­
tem. And these deficiencies are critical in light of the 
existence of readily available means, which can be 
implemented without significant administrative, edu­
cational, economic, or transportation costs (see note 
14, infra), to avoid for substantially all the students of 
this district the school life-long segregated education. 
See Andrews v. City of Monroe, supra.

This Court realizes that the time for adoption and 
effectuation of a plan in this school district was short 
and that the physical and logistical problems involved 
were great. And it recognizes that significant progress 
has been achieved both as to the student body and the 
other Green factors as a result of the plan put into ef-

>’Although there is no formal feeder system up the ladder from  
grade 1 through 12 in the District, a comparison of attendance 
zone lines for elementary and secondary schools indicates that 
out of a total Negro student body of 10,558, about 3500 Negro 
elementary students attending all Negro elementary schools 
will attend virtually all Negro secondary schools.



10 SINGLETON v. JACKSON SCHOOL DISTRICT

feet pursuant to the District Court’s order. Although 
under the stringent mandate of Alexander v. Holmes
County Board of Education, 1969, 396 U.S. 19,____ S.Ct.
------ , ------ L.Ed.2d_____; Carter v. West Feliciana Par­
ish School Board, 1970,____ U .S._____ , ____ S.Ct._____ ,
24 L.Ed.2d 477, this was to be a final plan, two things 
warrant comment. First, the Judge approached it in 
terms of immediacy with some expectation of correct­
ing deficiencies12 revealed by actual operation. Sec­
ond, we have to look on it in terms of its acceptability 
as a final plan now.

Furthermore, we are not now confronted with the 
problems and dislocations that a midyear change in

>2lt is apparent from reading the District Court’s opinion that the 
practical problems faced by the school district took on great 
importance. It seems clear that this was the basic reason the 
Trial Judge adopted the school’s board’s secondary plan. It 
minimized the disruption resulting from a change in the grade 
structure and the need to relocate portable classrooms.

He said:
“The Board modification [as to junior high schools] 
would retain the current 3-grade structure, obviating 
the necessity of formulating new curricula for a dif­
ferent structure, as proposed by HEW, and would tend 
to lessen the additional bus transportation the HEW  
plans call for, all of which the Court finds are prac­
tical considerations in view of the immediacy of 
conversion. . . .

. . .  Changes as proposed by the HEW plans would 
require an extension of time, not now available, in 
reorganizing physical facilities, re-registering pupils, 
re-assigning members of the faculty, rearranging the 
present 3-grade curricula, constructing additional 
classrooms or relocating temporary or portable class­
rooms, and transferring supplies and equipment, in­
cluding the reinstallation of biology laboratory equip­
ment.”



SINGLETON v. JACKSON SCHOOL DISTRICT 11

the traditional grade structure — 6-3-3 — would in­
volve. (See III (2), infra). Although the changes un­
der the HEW plans for the secondary schools may re­
quire future adjustment, they are not educationally, 
administratively, or economically unreasonable. And 
it appears that under these circumstances and in this 
case, subject, of course, to the experience of actual op­
eration, there is a good possibility that these plans will 
establish a unitary school system at the secondary 
level.

III.

Steps to be Taken to Correct Deficiencies

In order to achieve a unitary system it is necessary 
that steps be taken immediately:

1. A majority to minority transfer rule13 must be 
adopted and all transferring students must be given 
transportation if they desire it. As approved in Ellis
v. Board of Public Inst, of Orange Cty., 1970,____ F.2d
------  [No. 29124, Feb. 17, 1970, slip op. p. 6], the trans­
feree is to be given priority for space and thus the 
transfer is not to be dependent on space being avail­
able. See also Taylor v. Ouachita Parish School Bd., 5 
Cir., 1970, ____ F .2d_____ . [No. 29215, April 13, 1970].

2. Second, the district is to adopt one of the presently 
available HEW plans for the secondary level for use

Counsel have indicated it was intended that a majority to minority 
transfer provision be included in the District Court’s order and 
that its omission was inadvertent.



12 SINGLETON v. JACKSON SCHOOL DISTRICT

in the 1970-71 school year. These are the only currently 
available plans that give any promise of presently 
ending the dual system.14 United States v. Board of
Education of Baldwin Cty., 5 Cir., 1970,____ F .2d_____
[No. 28880, March 9, 1970]; Banks v. Claiborne Parish
School Board, 5 Cir., 1970, ____  F.2d ____  [No. 29192,
April 15, 1970]. The plan adopted shall remain in effect 
until, after substantial operation under the plan during 
the 1970-71 school year, it can be shown that modifica­
tions15 are needed and there is a finding that such

14As illustrated by the following chart the HEW plans will result 
in no major changes in the number of students transported by 
the system.

Plan Students Transported
Freedom of Choice
(Prior to Remand) 2379
HEW A  3567
HEW B 2234
HEW C (same as plan B)

(figures for the present plan are unavailable)
In fact, HEW Plan B would reduce the transportation burden 
below that under the freedom of choice plan. Moreover, nearly 
all problems of building capacity can be solved by the shifting 
of presently available portable buildings. And there are no 
major problems of either economics or administration present­
ed by the plan.

isin connection with both the mandatory revision at the elementary 
level and the likelihood of some modifications being proposed 
for the secondary level, it bears emphasizing that Ellis does not 
stand for the universal proposition that equi-distant or capacity 
zoning establishes unitary schools in all cases. This is the clear 
holding of our recent case of Andrews v. City of Monroe, 5 Cir.,
1970, ______ F.2d ______ [No. 29358 April , 1970] which
quotes the following from Ellis:

“  ‘Under the facts of this case, it happens that the 
school board’s choice of a neighborhood assignment 
system is adequate to convert the Orange County 
school system from a dual to a unitary system. This 
decision does not preclude the employment of differing 
assignment methods in other school districts to bring



SINGLETON v. JACKSON SCHOOL DISTRICT 13

modifications will not tend to reestablish a dual school 
system or that operation under the plan has not in fact 
produced a unitary system. We specify July 1, 1970'6 
as the date to be fixed by the District Court for making 
pupil assignments for the 1970-71 school year and 
notifying parents of those assignments.

3. The District Court shall without delay initiate 
proceedings to eliminate the dual system which still 
remains in the elementary level. The District Court 
shall call for new proposals from the parties, HEW, 
and the bi-racial committee.

It is evident that the factors delineated by the HEW 
plans as reasons for not more fully desegregating the 
elementary level cannot justify this continued segre­
gation. And it is also evident that the burden will be 
heavy on the school district to find alternatives that 
hold promise of disestablishing the dual system now. 
And the District Court shall make findings of fact that 
specifically evaluate the alternatives in terms of cost 
as well as administrative, educational, or economic 
factors bearing on the elimination of the dual system.

about unitary systems. There are many variables in 
the student assignment approach necessary to bring 
about unitary school systems. The answer in each 
case turns, in the final analysis, as here, on all of the 
facts including those which are peculiar to the parti­
cular system.’ ”

Andrews, supra, --------- F.2d at --------- , quoting Ellis, supra,
---------F.2d a t ---------[slip op. p. 11-12, n.7],

isPursuant to letter request by the Court, see notes 4, 5 and 6, supra, 
counsel inform us that the present school year ends on June 
4, 1970, and that classes begin for the 1970-71 school year on 
September 8, 1970.



14 SINGLETON v. JACKSON SCHOOL DISTRICT

The findings shall specifically include the reasons, if 
for the continuation of any all Negro or all white 

schools.'7 The District Court shall expedite this pro­
ceeding and shall have completed all findings and en­
tered all orders by June 15, 1970. The time for assign­
ments and notification pursuant to this order is, as in 
paragraph 2 above, to be on July 1, 1970. Further pro­
ceedings in the District Court are to conform to part 
III of Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School
District, 5 Cir., 1969,------ F.2d_____(consolidated cases
en banc) [No. 26285, Dec. 1, 1969].

4. Following the pattern of Ellis, supra, and United
States v. Hinds County School Bd., 5 Cir., 1970,____ F.2d
------ [No. 28030, March 31, 1970], a bi-racial committee
is to be constituted by the District Court from names 
submitted by the parties to this suit. The number of 
members is to be left to the District Court, but there 
shall be no more than 40 nor less than 10 members. The 
membership is to be divided equally between whites 
and Negroes. The chairmanship is to alternate an­
nually between a white chairman and a Negro chair­
man. This committee is to recommend to the school 
board ways to attain and maintain a unitary system.

5. Finally, the District Court is to retain jurisdic­
tion of this case and the school board and the bi-racial 
committee are to make bi-annual reports — on Decem­
ber 1 and April 1 — to it on the maintenance of a uni-

,7On this record in this posture, we do not prejudge whether, 
to what extent, or under what circumstances such conditions 
may exist and satisfy the requirements of a unitary system.



SINGLETON v. JACKSON SCHOOL DISTRICT 15

tary school system.18 Such reports are to be made until

isThe reports should include the following information:
I.

(a) The number of students by race enrolled in the school 
district;

(b) The number of students by race enrolled in each 
school of the district;

(c) The number of students by race enrolled in each 
classroom in each of the schools in the district.

II.
(a) The number of full time teachers by race in the dis­

trict;
(b) The number of full time teachers by race in each 

school in the district;
(c) The number of part time teachers by race in the dis­

trict;
(d) The number of part time teachers by race in each 

school in the district.
III.

Describe the requests and the results which have accrued, 
by race, under the majority to the minority transfer provi­
sion which was a part of this court’s order of November 7, 
1969.

IV.
State the number of inter-district transfers granted since 

this court’s order of November 7, 1969, the race of the students 
who were granted such transfers, and the school district to 
which the transfers were allowed.

V.
State whether the transportations system, if any, in the 

district is desegregated to the extent that Negro and white 
students are transported daily on the same buses.

VI.
State whether all facilities such as gymnasiums, auditoriums, 

and cafeterias are being operated on a desegregated basis.
VII.

Give brief description of any present or proposed construc­
tion or expansion of facilities.

VIII.
(a) State whether the school board has sold or abandoned 

any school facility, equipment, or supplies having a total value 
of more than $500.00 since this court’s order of November 7, 
1969.



16 SINGLETON v. JACKSON SCHOOL DISTRICT

the District Court finds that the dual system will not 
be or tend to be reestablished.

REVERSED and REMANDED. 

Appendix A
Projected Enrollment under HEW Plan 

for Elementary Schools

School White Negro
Building
Capacity

Sykes 544 0 576
Lee 370 0 416
Marshall 600 0 576
Baker 310 24 512
Wilkins 600 16 416
Key 513 68 576
Lester 320 152 480
Clausell 47 165 224
Isable* 0 640 1120
Reynolds 0 1009 1088
George 100 106 192
Martin 76 220 384
Lake 600 0 576
Whitfield 282 166 416
Barr 123 90 192
Poindexter 47 102 192

IX.
(a) Give a brief description of the work of the bi-racial 

committee since the last report.
(b) Copies of all recommendations made by the biracial 

committee.
See United States v. Hinds County, 5 Cir., 1969, --------- F.2d

------- [No. 28030 - Nov. 7, 1969].



SINGLETON v. JACKSON SCHOOL DISTRICT 17

Robertson 6 575 544
Davis 46 182 224
Jones 70 1171 1248
Galloway 185 262 448
Brown 0 575 832
Power 383 216 544
Raines 780 72 736
French 354 83 576
Johnson 71 1023 1088
Duling 194 227 448
Casey 420 0 576
Bradley 33 293 384
Smith 0 917 928
Walton 0 527 1120
Dawson 65 387 608
Morrison 0 338 616
Watkins 773 291 608
Boyd 395 127 576
Green 380 149 576
McWillie 624 74 620
Spann 539 39 540
McLeod 500 66 608

*Not considered an all black school under the HEW
plan because it was to be part of an integrated ele­
mentary-secondary complex.



18 SINGLETON v. JACKSON SCHOOL DISTRICT

Appendix B
JACKSON PUBLIC SCHOOLS 

Jackson, Mississippi

Student Enrollment as of March 26,1970 
SCHOOL
Elementary Negro Other Total
Baker 4 321 325
Barr 41 83 124
Boyd 168 420 588
Bradley 339 14 353
Brown 658 0 658
Casey 0 451 451
Clausell 201 5 206
Davis 309 55 364
Dawson 421 10 431
Duling 126 115 241
French 138 313 451
Galloway 388 170 558
George 67 111 178
Green 123 480 603
Isable 760 0 760
Johnson 857 54 911
Jones 1248 10 1258
Key 0 487 487
Lake 0 609 609
Lee 0 365 365
Lester 99 236 335
Marshal 0 569 569
Martin 207 20 227
McLeod 50 669 719
McWillie 64 502 566



SINGLETON v. JACKSON SCHOOL DISTRICT 19

Morrison 481 0 481
Poindexter 91 85 176
Power 37 368 405
Raines 131 502 633
Reynolds 999 0 999
Robertson 317 0 317
Smith 1024 0 1024
Spann 47 491 538
Sykes 0 457 457
Walton 852 0 852
Watkins 132 517 649
Whitfield 163 238 401
Wilkins 16 490 506

TOTAL 10558 9217 19775
Secondary Negro Other Total
Bailey 514 408 922
Blackburn 593 34 627
Chastain 523 660 1183
Enochs 562 101 663
Hardy 424 758 1182
Peeples 218 864 1082
Powell 796 673 1469
Rowan 609 31 640
Whitten 346 579 925
Brinkley 1076 2 1078
Callaway 86 1027 1113
Central 192 564 756
Hill 376 50 426
Lanier 713 7 720
Murrah 180 864 1044



20 SINGLETON v. JACKSON SCHOOL DISTRICT

Provine 278 637 915
Wingfield 51 897 948

TOTAL 7537 8156 15693

TOTAL ELEMENTARY 19775
TOTAL SECONDARY 15693

GRAND TOTAL 35468

Appendix C
Projected Secondary Enrollment 

Under HEW Plan A

Junior High

Building
School Grades White Negro Capacity
Whitten 7-8 370 165 868
Peeples 7-8 801 282 1286
Isable-Hill 9 501 190 Hill 200 

Isabell 500
Blackburn 7-8-9 268 756 1458
Hardy 7-8 572 697 1278
Enochs 9 248 293 830
Bailey 7-8 692* 632* 1310
Rowan 9 285 281 996
Chastain 7-8 823 482 1234
Powell 9 509 379 1574
Callaway 7-8 456** 402** 550

*(W)942, (N)682, option from Calloway overflow 8th to 
Rowan.
**(W)206, (N)350, option.



SINGLETON v. JACKSON SCHOOL DISTRICT 21

Senior High
Hill 10 532 167 894
Wingfield 11-12 924 289 894
Provine 10-12 873 533 1180
Murrah 11-12 772 531 1180
Brinkley 10 875 762 1154
Callaway 11-12 851 759 448

Appendix D
Projected Secondary Enrollment 

Under HEW Plan C

School Grades
Peeples-Whitten 7-8
Enochs 7-8
Hardy 7-8
Bailey-Rowan 7-8
Chastain 7-8
Hill-Isable 9-10
Blackburn 9-10
Brinkley 9-10
Powell 9-10
Wingfield 11-12
Provine 11-12
Murrah 11-12
Callaway 11-12

White
1382

Negro
438

Building
Capacity

2154
128 408 830
549 587 1286

1243 983 2306
884 546 1434

1022 401 1374
691 869 1458
645 531 1154

1085 708 1574
825 338 894
507 581 1180
707 502 1180
779 584 998



22 SINGLETON v. JACKSON SCHOOL DISTRICT

Appendix E
RACIAL COMPOSITION OF STUDENT BODIES 

JACKSON MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL 
DISTRICT

SCHOOLS Under HEW Plan B
JUNIOR HIGH: WHITE NEGRO

Whitten 370 165
Peeples 801 282
Isable-Hill 501 190
Blackburn 268 756
Hardy 572 697
Enochs 248 293
Bailey 942 682
Rowan 285 281
Chastain 823 482
Powell 509 379
Callaway 206 350
Lanier 0 0

SENIOR HIGH:
Brinkley 627 629
Callaway 853 441
Murrah 707 625
Provine 741 521
Hill 456 169
Wingfield 730 276

MAGNET HIGH SCHOOLS:
Central 823 532
Lanier 734 339