Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenberg Board of Education Appendix Vol. II pp. 465-890

    APPENDIX
Volume II— pp. 465a-890a

Supreme Court of the United States
OCTOBER TERM, 1970

No. 2 8 1

JAMES E. SWANN, ET AL., PETITIONERS,

vs.

CHARLOTTfe-MECKLENBITRG BOARD OF 
EDUCATION, ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES 
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

CERTIORARI GRANTED JUNE 29, 1970 
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED JUNE 18, 1970



I N D E X

Volume I

PAGE

Docket Entries .............................. ;...............................  la

Motion for Further Relief, filed September 6, 1968.... 2a

Answer to Motion for Further Relief ......................  9a

Transcript of March 10, 1969, hearing, pages 18-39, 
line 20 ; page 41, line 15 through page 85, line 23; 
page 352, line 10 through page 487, line 17; and 
page 544, line 3 through page 678, line 2 5 ..............  11a

Opinion and Order Dated April 23, 1969, Regarding 
Desegregation of Schools of Charlotte and Meck­
lenburg County, North Carolina....................   285a

Appendix ................................................................. 317a

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 
dated May 15, 1969 .....................................................  324a

Defendants’ Plan for Desegregation, filed May 28,
1969 ............................................................................  330a

Defendants’ Report in Connection with Plan of De­
segregation filed May 28, 1969 ...............................   341a

Appendix .........................    346a

Defendants’ Response to Motion for Temporary Re­
straining Order, filed May 29, 1969 .... .................. 365a

Order Dated June 3, 1969 .............................................  370a



11

Order Adding Additional Parties, dated June 5, 1969 372a

Motion to Set Aside Order Joining Additional Par­
ties Defendant, filed June 12, 1969 .......................... 376a

Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Motion to Strike 
Additional Parties Defendant, filed June 16, 1969 379a

Transcript of June 16, 1969, Proceedings, page 487, 
line 22 through page 544, line 8 ..............................  383a

Tentative Plan for the Integration of the Charlotte- 
Mecklenburg Schools (for discussion purposes), 
dated May 8, 1969 ............... ......................... ...........  431a

Opinion and Order dated June 20, 1969 ......................  448a

Supplemental Findings of Fact in Connection with 
the Order of June 20, 1969 (dated June 24, 1969) 459a

Plaintiffs’ Motion to File Supplemental Complaint, 
filed July 22, 1969 ..................................................... 460a

Order Allowing Filing of Supplemental Complaint, 
filed July 22, 1969 .....................................................  464a

Volume II

Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Complaint, filed July 22,
1969 .....      465a

Exhibit A Attached to Foregoing Supplemental 
Complaint ...........................................................  477a

Defendants’ Amendment to Plan for Further Deseg­
regation, filed July 29, 1969 ...................................... 480a

PAGE



I ll

Defendants’ Report in Connection with Amendment 
to Plan for Further Desegregation, filed August 4,
1969 .......    491a

Exhibits attached to foregoing R eport............... 498a

Transcript of August 5, 1969, Proceedings: page 4, 
line 22 through page 41, line 17; and page 57, line 
5 through page 84, line 25 .........................................  525a

Answer of the Defendants, the North Carolina State 
Board of Education and the Superintendent of 
Public Instruction for the State of North Caro­
lina, to the Supplemental Complaint, filed August 
11, 1969 ........................................................................  575a

Order dated August 15, 1969 .....................................  579a

Order dated August 29, 1969 ...................................... 593a

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Further Relief, filed Septem­
ber 2, 1969 ..................................................................  596a

Order dated October 10, 1969 ...............  601a

Defendants’ Response to Motion for Further Relief, 
filed October 11, 1969 ...............................................  606a

Summation of Integration 1965 (March) and 1968-69 
(Oct. 1, ’68) and 1969-70 (Oct. 2, ’69) (App. 1, pp.
63-70) ..........................................................................  608a

Defendants’ Report to the Court Pursuant to Order 
of October 10, 1969, and filed October 30, 1969 ..... 616a

Exhibits annexed to foregoing Report ............... 626a

PAGE



IV

Order dated November 7, 1969 .................................... 655a

Memorandum Opinion dated November 7, 1969 ....... 657a

Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation of
Schools, filed November 17, 1969 ..........................  670a

Report submitted in Connection with the November 
13 (17), 1969, Amendment to Plan for Further 
Desegregation ........................................................... 680a

Exhibits annexed to foregoing Report ............... 691a

Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Amendment to 
Plan for Further Desegregation of Schools, filed 
November 21, 1969 .....................................................  692a

Opinion ............................................................................ 698a

Order dated December 1, 1969 .....................  714a

Order dated December 2, 1969 ........   717a

Motion for Immediate Desegregation, filed January 
20, 1970 ........................................................................  718a

Plan for Desegregation of Schools Submitted Feb­
ruary 2, 1970 ............................................................  726a

Exhibits annexed to Foregoing P lan ..................  744a

Transcript of February 2 and February 5, 1970, 
Proceedings: page 43, line 5 through page 11, line 
15; and page 137, line 1 through page 150, line 
1....................................................................................... 749a

PAGE



V

Motion for Hearing on Plans for Desegregation of 
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Schools, filed Feb­
ruary 6, 1970 .............................................................  817a

Order dated February 5, 1970 .....................................  819a

Motion to Add Additional Parties Defendant and for 
Further Relief, filed February 13, 1970 ..............  840a

Notification and Request for a Three-Judge Court, 
filed February 20, 1970 .....   845a

Defendants’ Tender of Evidence Nunc Pro Tunc and
Objections filed February 24, 1970 ..........................  848a

Affidavit of William C. Self Referred to in Forego­
ing Tender of Evidence.............................................  850a

Affidavit of J. D. Morgan Referred to in Foregoing
Tender of Evidence ...................................................  853a

Board of Education Plan Referred to in Tender of 
Evidence ......................................................................  867a

PAGE

Volume III

Affidavit of Louis W. Alexander Referred to in Ten­
der of Evidence ......................................................... 891a

Affidavit of Herman J. Hoose Referred to in Tender
of Evidence .........................................................    894a

Affidavit of Robert L. Deaton Referred to in Tender 
of Evidence ............................................................... 898a



VI

Order Adding Additional Parties Defendant, filed 
February 25, 1970 ....................................................... 901a

Notice of Appeal, filed February 25, 1970 ................  904a

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Add Additional Parties Defen­
dant and for Further Relief, filed February 27,
1970 .............................................................................. 906a

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 
and for Contempt, filed February 27, 1970 ............. 914a

Plaintiffs’ Request for Admission of Facts, filed Feb­
ruary 27, 1970 ............................................................. 918a

Amendment, Correction or Clarification of Orders of 
February 5, 1970, dated March 3, 1970 ..................  921a

Court of Appeals Order Granting Stay Order of 
March 5, 1970 ............................................................. 922a

Order Suspending Superior Court Temporary Re­
straining Order, entered by Judge Snepp, filed 
March 6, 1970 ............................................................. 925a

Order of March 6, Directing Parties to Prepare and 
File Additional Evidence by March 13, 1970, dated 
March 6, 1970 ............................................................. 928a

Order Directing Parties to Submit Information with 
Respect to Specific Inquiries of the Court, filed 
March 6, 1970............................................................... 930a

PAGE

Deposition of John A. Finger, dated March 11, 1970 932a



vu

Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Request for Ad­
missions dated March 13, 1970 ................................ 1011a

Defendants’ Submissions to Court in Response to 
March 6, 1970, Order and Motion for Extension of 
Time, tiled March 13, 1970 ........................ ...............  1014a

Exhibits Annexed to Foregoing Submissions .... 1015a

Affidavit, of Herman J. Hoose Referred to in Forego­
ing Submissions ......................................................... 1038a

Defendants’ Submissions to Court in Response to
March 6, 1970, Order, filed March 17, 1970 .......... 1041a

Affidavit of William C. Self Referred to in Foregoing 
Submissions ............................................................... 1042a

Affidavits of J. D. Morgan, Ralph Neill and W. H.
Harrison Referred to in Foregoing Submissions .. 1045a

Exhibits Annexed to Foregoing Affidavits ......... 1047a

Deposition of J. D. Morgan dated March 19, 1970 .... 1069a

Exhibit Annexed to Foregoing Affidavit............. 1188a

Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Supplemental 
Exhibit of March 20, 1970, submitted March 21,
1970 ..............................................................................  1192a

Response to Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Exhibit of 
March 20, 1970 ........................................................... 1193a

PAGE

Tabulation 1196a



V lll

Supplementary Findings of Fact dated March 21,
1970 .............................................................................. 1198a

Supplemental Memorandum dated March 21, 1970.... 1221a

Defendants’ Objections and Exceptions to Supple­
mentary Findings of Fact of March 21, 1970, and 
Motion for Modification and Clarification Thereof 
dated March 25, 1970 .................................................  1239a

Order dated March 25, 1970 .......................................... 1255a

Further Findings of Fact on Matters Raised by the 
March 26, 1970, Motions of Defendants dated 
April 3, 1970 ............................................................... 1259a

Opinions of Court of Appeals dated May 26, 1970 .... 1262a

Judgment of Court of Appeals ..................................  1304a

Order of Three-Judge District Court dated April 29,
1970 ..........................................................................   1305a

Order Granting Certiorari dated June 29, 1970 ....... 1320a

PAGE



465a

Supplemental Complaint

(Filed July 22, 1969)

I

This Supplemental Complaint is a proceeding for a tem­
porary restraining order and a preliminary and permanent 
injunction against the enforcement of the portions of North 
Carolina General Statutes §115-176.1, (Chapter 1274 of the 
Session Laws of the 1969 General Assembly of North Caro­
lina, ratified on July 2, 1969, a copy of which is attached 
hereto as Exhibit A ) which reads:

“ No student shall be assigned or compelled to attend 
any school on account of race, creed, color or national 
origin, or for the purpose of creating a balance or ratio 
of race, religion or national origin. Involuntary buss­
ing of students in contravention of this Article is pro­
hibited, and public funds shall not be used for any 
such bussing.”

In addition, plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the 
statutory provisions complained of are unconstitutional on 
their face and as applied.

II
A. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1343, this being a suit in equity authorized by 42 U.S.C. 
§ 1983 to redress the deprivation, under color of North 
Carolina Law, of rights, privileges and immunities guar­
anteed by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to 
the Constitution of the United States.

B. Jurisdiction is further invoked under 28 U.S.C. §§ 
2281 and 2284, this being a suit for a temporary restraining 
order, an interlocutory and permanent injunction restrain­



466a

ing the enforcement, operation and execution of portions 
of North Carolina General Statues §115-176.1 and requir­
ing the convening of a three-judge Federal Court. Juris­
diction is further invoked under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 
2202, this being a suit for a declaratory judgment declaring 
the unconstitutionality of portions of North Carolina Gen­
eral Statutes 115-176.1.

III

A. The plaintiffs bringing this Supplemental Complaint 
are those plaintiffs who originally brought this action 
styled James E. Swann, et al., v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg 
Board of Education, Civil Action No. 1974, which was filed 
on January 12, 1965.

B. This Supplemental Complaint, as the original com­
plaint, is brought on behalf of the individual plaintiffs and 
other black students and parents similarly situated, pur­
suant to Rule 23 (a) and (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure. There are common questions of law and fact 
affecting the rights of such other black students, who are 
and have been limited, classified, segregated or otherwise 
discriminated against in ways which deprive or tend to 
deprive them of equal educational opportunities because 
of race or color. The members of the class are so numerous 
as to make it impracticable to bring them all before the 
Court. A common relief is sought and plaintiffs adequately 
represent the interests of the class.

IV
The defendants in this action are:

(a) The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, the 
original defendant in this case, and the individual members

Supplemental Complaint



467a

thereof heretofore added as defendants by order of the 
Court dated June 4, 1969;

(b) The North Carolina State Board of Education, a 
public body corporate of the State of North Carolina, which 
is charged by the State Constitution and laws with the duty 
and responsibility of the general supervision and admin­
istration of the public schools and educational funds of the 
State of North Carolina; and

(c) Dr. A. Craig Phillips, who is the elected State Super­
intendent of Public Instruction of the State of North Caro­
lina, the administrative head of the Public School System 
of the State and by force of law, a member and the Secre­
tary of the State Board of Education.

V

Plaintiffs initially commenced this action on January 12, 
1965, (Civil Action No. 1974) against the Charlotte-Meck- 
lenburg Board of Education seeking to obtain the elimina­
tion of racial segregation in the public schools in Mecklen­
burg County.

VI

On July 14, 1969, the Court entered an Order approving 
a plan submitted by the Board for the desegregation of 
the schools. The plaintiffs appealed and the decision was 
affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the 
Fourth Circuit. (Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board 
of Education, 369 F .2d------  (Fourth Circuit 1966).)

VII

A. On September 6, 1968, the plaintiffs moved the Court 
for further relief contending that the Board was required

Supplemental Complaint



468a

to take further steps to disestablish the dual school system 
in Mecklenburg1 County.

B. On April 23, 1969, the Court, following several days 
of testimony heard in March, 1969, entered an Opinion 
and Order Regarding the Desegregation of the Schools of 
Charlotte and Mecklenburg County. The Court found that 
the schools remained segregated, that the pupil assignment 
system and the placement of the schools continued to 
racially segregate the pupils, that the faculties had not 
been adequately desegregated as previously directed by the 
Court in 1965 and that the Board was to submit a plan 
for the desegregation of the schools by May 15, 1969.

C. The Order directed the defendants to submit a plan 
for the active and complete desegregation of the teachers 
within the system to be effective in the 1969-70 school year 
and that the plan should seek to apportion teachers to 
each school in substantially the same ratio (3 to 1) as the 
ratio of white teachers and black teachers in the system at 
large.

D. The defendants were also directed to submit a plan 
and timetable for the active and complete desegregation 
of the pupils within the system to be predominantly effec­
tive in the fall of 1969, and to be completed by the fall 
of 1970.

E. The Board was directed to consider several methods 
of desegregation which had been advanced by the plaintiffs, 
including pairing of grades and schools; feeding elementary 
schools into junior and senior high schools; combining 
zones and free choice where each method proceeds logically 
toward eliminating segregation; bussing and other trans­

Supplemental Complaint



469a

portation; setting up large consolidated school units freely 
crossing city and county lines to serve larger areas; and 
to seek aid as may be available from State and Federal 
agencies.

F. The Court thereafter upon request of defendant, 
granted an extension of time until May 29, 1969, within 
which to file its plan.

VIII

A. On May 15, 1969, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a 
temporary restraining order seeking to restrain all school 
construction pending approval by the Court of a school 
construction plan designed to promote desegregation of the 
schools.

B. The Board filed its plan on May 28, 1969, as required 
by the Order of the Court.

C. On June 4, 1969, the Court entered orders setting a 
date for hearing on the adequacy of the defendant’s plan 
and set forth certain questions to which the parties were 
to respond at the hearing. In addition, the Court ordered 
that all members of the Board of Education be added as 
parties-defendant.

D. On June 11, 1969, the plaintiffs filed objections to the 
plan submitted by the defendant and moved for civil con­
tempt.

E. On June 11, 1969, the defendants moved to set aside 
the Order of the Court adding the individual Board mem­
bers as defendants. On June 12, 1969, a similar motion 
was filed on behalf of the defendant, William E. Poe. The 
plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to these motions.

Supplemental Complaint



470a

F. A hearing was held on the adequacy of the plan and 
on all pending motions on June 16, 17, and 18, 1969.

IX

A. The Court entered an Opinion and Order dated June 
20, 1969, which was supplemented by additional findings 
on June 24, 1969.

B. The Court denied the motions of the individual Board 
members to dismiss and denied plaintiffs’ motion for con­
tempt.

C. The Court found that a desegregation plan had been 
submitted to the Board by the Superintendent, but that 
the Board struck out virtually all the effective provisions 
of the plan; that the plan filed as to pupils and teachers 
was nearly identical to the one previously found racially 
discriminatory; that the attendance areas of several of the 
schools were racially gerrymandered; that the defendants 
had not met their burden to show that the school construc­
tion plan would promote the desegregation of the schools.

D. The Court found that desegregation of schools is 
something that has to be accomplished independent of 
freedom of transfer.

E. The Court ordered the defendants to prepare and 
submit by August 4, 1969, a positive plan for the desegre­
gation of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School System as 
originally directed on April 23, 1969.

Supplemental Complaint



471a

Supplemental Complaint 

X

A. The April 23, 1969 Order of the Court contained the 
following findings by the Court:

“ The ‘Neighborhood School’ Theory . . .

The neighborhood school concept may well be invalid 
for school administrative purposes even without regard 
for racial problems. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg School 
Board, today, for example, is transporting 23,000 stu­
dents on school busses. First graders may be the larg­
est group so transported. I f  a first grader lives far 
enough from school to ride a bus, the school is not 
part of his neighborhood.
When racial segregation was required by law, nobody 
evoked the neighborhood school theory to permit black 
children to attend white schools close to where they 
lived. The values of the theory somehow were repudi­
ated by the 1955 North Carolina General Assembly and 
still stands repudiated in the Pupil Assignment Act 
of 1955-56, which is quoted above. The neighborhood 
school theory has no standing to override the Consti­
tution.
Bussing. Under North Carolina General Statutes, 
§§115-180, the Board is expressly authorized to oper­
ate school busses to transport school children. The 
state pays bus expenses only for rural children and 
for some who have been annexed into the city in 
recent years. This apparent discrimination against 
city dwellers is reportedly under attack in another 
Court. This Board already transports 23,000 students 
to school every day out of the 32,000 who live in the



472a

area presently eligible for bus service. The present 
cost of school bussing is about $19 for bus operation 
plus the cost of the bus which is $4,500 per bus should 
not exceed $20 per pupil a year. In other words, it 
costs about $40 a year per pupil to provide school bus 
transportation, out of total per pupil school operat­
ing costs of about $540. The income of many black 
families is so low they are not able to pay for the 
cost of transportation out of segregated schools to 
other schools of their choice.

The Board has the power to use school busses for all 
legitimate school purposes. Busses for many years 
were used to operate segregated schools. There is no 
reason except emotion (and I confess to having felt 
my own share of emotion on this subject in all the 
years before I studied the facts) why school busses 
can not be used by the Board to provide the flexibility 
and economy necessary to desegregate the schools. 
Busses are cheaper than new buildings; using them 
might even keep property taxes down.”

B. The Court found that 95% of the blacks were con­
centrated in the western portion of the City of Charlotte 
and that official action taken on schools, zoning and plan­
ning had contributed to this concentration.

XI

A. On May 7, 1969, a member of the Mecklenburg County 
House delegation of the North Carolina General Assembly 
introduced a bill (House Bill 990, a copy of which is at­
tached hereto as Exhibit B) entitled “Ax A ct to  protect

THE NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOL SYSTEM AND TO PROTECT THE IN­
VOLUNTARY BUSSING OP PUPILS OUTSIDE THE DISTRICT IN

Supplemental Complaint



473a

w h ic h  THEY beside .”  The Bill, as subsequently amended, 
was ratified on July 2, 1969 (See Exhibit A ), and is now 
codified as North Carolina General Statutes §115-176.1.

B. The ratified bill, which has the same title as the bill 
introduced on May 7, 1969, provides:

1. Students cannot be excluded from any school on 
account of race.
2. Students shall be assigned to the school within the 
geographical district where the pupil resides, except 
for children attending special schools or except for 
any reason the local board deems sufficient.
3. “No student shall be assigned or compelled to at­
tend any school on account of race, creed, color or 
national origin, or for the purpose of creating a bal­
ance or ratio of race, religion or national origins. In­
voluntary bussing of students in contravention of this 
article is prohibited, and public funds shall not be used 
for any such bussing.”

4. The article does not apply in temporary situations 
of unsuitability of schools or over-crowding.
5. Nor does it apply to “any assignment made pursu­
ant to a choice made by any pupil . . . pursuant to 
. . .  a freedom of choice plan voluntarily adopted by 
the Board.”

xn
The defendants State Board of Education and State 

Superintendent of Public Instruction are responsible to 
insure that the prohibitions against involuntary student 
assignments and bussing contained in North Carolina Gen­
eral Statutes §115-176.1 are complied with in the Charlotte-

Supplemental Complaint



474a

Mecklenburg School System and other administrative units 
throughout the State and that public funds over which they 
have control not be used for any such bussing.

X III

Involuntary bussing and pupil assignments which are 
prohibited by North Carolina General Statutes §115-176.1 
are necessary devices to carry out the existing orders of 
this and other Federal Courts in North Carolina and to 
comply with the duties imposed by the Constitution upon 
defendants herein and other school officials in North Caro­
lina. The purpose, motive and effect of provisions of North 
Carolina General Statutes §115-176.1 complained of herein, 
is to forbid these defendants and other school officials in 
North Carolina from complying with existing lawful orders 
of this and other Federal Courts and to forbid them from 
complying with the requirements of the Thirteenth and 
Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution in the State 
of North Carolina. The provisions thus violate the con­
stitutional rights of plaintiffs and other similarly situated.

XIV

Plaintiffs and those similarly situated and affected, on 
whose behalf this action is brought are suffering irreparable 
injury and will suffer irreparable injury in the future by 
reason of the provisions of the Statute complained of 
herein. They have no plain, adequate or complete remedy 
to redress the wrongs complained of herein other than this 
action for a declaratory judgment and injunction. Any 
other remedy to which plaintiffs could be remitted would 
be attended by such uncertainties and delays as to deny 
substantial relief, would involve a multiplicity of suits 
and would cause further irreparable injury.

Supplemental Complaint



475a

W h erefo re , plaintiffs respectfully pray that, upon the 
filing of this Supplemental Complaint, the Court:

1. Issue a temporary restraining order restraining the 
defendants, their agents and other persons acting in con­
cert with them from giving consideration or effect to and 
from enforcing, administering, or applying the provisions 
contained in North Carolina General Statutes §115-176.1 
complained of herein;

2. Convene a three-judge District Court as required by 
28 U.S.C. §§2281 and 2284;

3. Advance this cause on the docket and order a speedy 
hearing of this action according to law and upon such 
hearing:

a. Enter judgment declaring the statutory provisions 
complained of herein void as repugnant to the Thir­
teenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitu­
tion of the United States;
b. Enter a preliminary and permanent injunction re­
straining all defendants, their agents and other per­
sons acting in concert with them from giving consider­
ation or effect to and from enforcing, administering, 
or applying the complained provisions of North Caro­
lina General Statutes §115-176.1;
c. Allow plaintiffs their costs herein, reasonable attor­
neys fees and such other and further relief as to the 
Court may appear equitable and just.

Supplemental Complaint



476a

Supplemental Complaint 

Respectfully submitted,

/ s /  A dam  S te in

C onrad  0 .  P earson

203% East Chapel Hill Street 
Durham, North. Carolina

C h a m b e r s , S te in  F erguson  & L a n n in g  
216 West Tenth Street 
Charlotte, North Carolina

J a c k  G reenburg

J am e s  M. N a b r it , III
N o rm an  C h a c h k in

10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Plaintiffs



477a

Exhibit A Attached to Foregoing 
Supplemental Complaint

NORTH CAROLINA 
GENERAL ASSEMBLY

1969 SESSION
RATIFIED BILL

C h a pt e r  1274

H ouse B il l  990

A n  A ct  to protect  t h e  neigh borhood  school system  and  
to  pr o h ib it  t h e  in v o l u n t a r y  bu ssing  of p u p il s  outside

THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THEY RESIDE.

The General Assembly of North Carolina do enact:

Section 1. There is hereby created a new Section of 
Chapter 115 of the General Statutes to be codified as G.S. 
115-176.1 and to read as follows:

“ G.S. 115-176.1. Assignment of pupils based on race, 
creed, color or national origin prohibited. No person shall 
be refused admission into or be excluded from any public 
school in this State on account of race, creed, color or na­
tional origin. No school attendance district or zone shall 
be drawn for the purpose of segregating persons of vari­
ous races, creeds, colors or national origins from the com­
munity.

Where administrative units have divided the geographic 
area into attendance districts or zones, pupils shall be as­
signed to schools within such attendance districts; pro­
vided, however, that the board of education of an admin­
istrative unit may assign any pupil to a school outside of 
such attendance district or zone in order that such pupil



478a

may attend a school of a specialized kind including but not 
limited to a vocational school or school operated for, or 
operating programs for, pupils mentally or physically 
handicapped, or for any other reason which the board 
of education in its sole discretion deems sufficient. No 
student shall be assigned or compelled to attend any school 
on account of race, creed, color or national origin, or for 
the purpose of creating a balance or ratio of race, religion 
or national origins. Involuntary bussing of students in 
contravention of this Article is prohibited, and public funds 
shall not be used for any such bussing.

The provisions of this Article shall not apply to a tempo­
rary assignment due to the unsuitability of a school for its 
intended purpose nor to any assignment or transfer nec­
essitated by overcrowded conditions or other circumstances 
which, in the sole discretion of the School Board, require 
assignment or reassignment.

The provisions of this Article shall not apply to an ap­
plication for the assignment or re-assignment by the parent, 
guardian or person standing in loco parentis of any pupil 
or to any assignment made pursuant to a choice made by 
any pupil who is eligible to make such choice pursuant to 
the provisions of a freedom of choice plan voluntarily 
adopted by the board of education of an administrative 
unit.”

Sec. 2. All laws and clauses of laws in conflict with this 
Act are hereby repealed.

Sec. 3. If part of the Act is held to be in violation of 
the Constitution of the United States or North Carolina, 
such part shall be severed and the remainder shall remain 
in full force and effect.

Exhibit A Attached to Foregoing Supplemental Complaint



479a

Sec. 4. This Act shall be in full force and effect upon its 
ratification.

2 House Bill 990

In the General Assembly read three times and ratified, 
this the 2nd day of July, 1969.

H. P. T aylo r , Jr.
H. P. Taylor, Jr.
President of the Senate.

Philip P. Godwin 
Philip P. Godwin
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Exhibit A Attached to Foregoing Supplemental Complaint

House Bill 990 3



480a

(Filed July 29, 1969)

Pursuant to the order of the Court dated June , 1969, 
the Board of Education proposed to amend and modify the 
amended plan submitted to the Court on May 28, 1969, by 
adding thereto the following:

Policy Statement

Equal opportunity to develop all capabilities to the full­
est potential is the right of every individual in a democratic 
society. Since this right is a basic precept of education, 
it becomes the responsibility of those who make educational 
decisions to see that equality of opportunity is provided 
for all.

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education affirms 
the long held principle that equality of educational oppor­
tunity for all children without regard to socio-economic, 
ethnic, religious, or racial differences is essential to the 
continued growth of our community and is basic to a free 
and open American democratic society.

The Board further believes that equality of educational 
opportunity can best be provided by attempting to free 
individuals from the burden and handicaps imposed by 
varied circumstances, backgrounds, and environmental dif­
ferences. To this end the Board has devised an educational 
program which will to the greatest extent possible, provide 
for the equal development of all students regardless of 
such burdens and handicaps.

In this light, the Board of Education firmly believes fur­
ther desegregation of students and professional staff will 
contribute to the educational and social development of all 
children. Based on its own experience and the experiences 
of other school systems, the Board is further of the belief

Amendment to Plan for Further
Desegregation of Schools



481a

that desegregation of students should be coordinated with 
desegregation of teachers, principals, and staff members, 
both of which should be accomplished at the earliest pos­
sible date.

The section which follow outline the immediate plans of 
the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education for accom­
plishing this goal.

Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation of Schools

Close Schools and Temporarily Re-assign Pupils

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg School System has certain 
schools which are unsuitable for the continuation of an edu­
cational program because of the obsolescence of the physi­
cal plant and location, declining enrollment and other fac­
tors. The Board of Education will close the following 
schools and temporarily reassign students previously as­
signed to such schools to other schools more suitable for 
the quality of education of the students involved. Trans­
portation will be provided pupils who are reassigned. The 
schools to be closed are:

Elementary Schools 
Alexander Street 
Bethune 
Fairview 
Zeb Vance 
Isabella Wyche

Projected Enrollment 
260 
195 
330 
235 
215

Junior High Schools 
Irwin Avenue
Senior High Schools 
Metropolitan

1,235

Projected Enrollment 
630

Projected Enrollment 
1,135



482a

The schools to which the 1,235 pupils from the five closed 
elementary schools will be reassigned are as follows:

1.
Elementary

Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation of Schools

Receiving School
Number

Reassigned

Projected Enrollment
%White Negro Negro

Ashley Park 75 575 75 11
Beverly Woods 75 550 75 12
Huntingtowne Farms 60 570 70 11
Idlewild 90 573 92 14
Lansdowne 75 770 75 9
Merry Oaks 45 460 45 9
Olde Providence 90 535 100 16
Park Road 60 540 60 10
Sharon 100 425 100 19
Myers Park 50 437 73 14
Albemarle Road 50 500 50 9
Briarwood 45 670 50 7
Selwyn 75 615 80 12
Shamrock Gardens 60 535 60 10
Westerly Hills 75 605 75 11
Windsor Park 75 770 75 9
Winterfield 75 715 75 9

1,175* 9,845 1,230

* The differential between students from the closed schools and 
the number of students reassigned will be filled by special educa­
tion students reassigned to nearby schools.

Nine of the above schools have sufficient capacity to accommo­
date the students assigned. The capacity at eight schools would 
have to be increased by the use of mobile units. These mobile units 
would be transferred from three schools which are presently re­
ceiving additions: Matthews— 2, Statesville Road— 5, and Tryon



483a

2.

Junior High

Irwin Avenue Junior High students would be reassigned 
on the basis of the elementary schools they attended to 
schools having a low percentage of Negro enrollment. This 
reassignment would be as follows:

Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation of Schools

Projected Enrollment

Receiving School
Number

Reassigned White Negro
%

Negro

Smith 90 1470 90 6
McClintock 150 1325 200 13
Eastway 180 1360 183 12
Wilson 75 1140 135 11
Alexander Graham 135 1045 144 12

630 6,340 752

Students whose parents object to involuntary transporta­
tion at Irwin Avenue Junior High School will be instructed

Hills— 7. By reopening Woodland Elementary School and housing 
the fifth and sixth graders from Paw Creek at this facility, an 
additional eight mobile units may be picked up from Paw Creek 
for use in the above schools.

The Board is aware of the fact that some parents may oppose 
the transportation of their children to distant schools which have 
the capacity to receive them. Should this occur, the following 
action will be taken: A  program will be operated in the Zeb Vance 
building for elementary students from the former Zeb Vance, 
Isabella Wyehe, and Bethune areas on a first come first served 
basis for students whose parents object to involuntary transporta­
tion. Students from Pairview and Alexander Street whose parents 
object to involuntary transportation will be instructed to enroll 
in the school nearest their place of residence. Zeb Vance and such 
nearby schools upon reaching a maximum capacity will not be 
permitted to receive additional students and such students will be 
assigned as previously reassigned.



484a

to enroll their students in the junior high school nearest 
their place of residence as long as space is available and 
will be reassigned on a first come first served basis. If 
space is not available, such students will attend the junior 
high school to which they were previously reassigned.

3.

Senior High

The Metropolitan Senior High School attendance area 
would be eliminated and the area divided among the sur­
rounding senior high schools. Description of the revised 
attendance areas are as follows:

East Mecklenburg—Begin at the intersection of Central 
Avenue and Briar Creek Road. Proceed westward on Cen­
tral Avenue to McDowell Street. Proceed south on Mc­
Dowell to East Fourth Street. Proceed eastward on East 
Fourth Street and Randolph Road to Briar Creek.

Myers Park—Begin at Randolph Road on Briar Creek. 
Proceed west on Randolph Road-East Fourth Street to 
McDowell Street. Proceed north on McDowell to East 
Eleventh Street. Proceed west on Eleventh Street to North 
Tryon. Proceed south on Tryon Street to the intersection 
of South Tryon and Independence Boulevard.

Garinger—Begin at the intersection of Central Avenue 
at Briar Creek Road. Proceed westward on Central Ave­
nue to the intersection of Central and McDowell Street. 
Proceed north on McDowell to East Eleventh Street and 
west on Eleventh Street to North Tryon, north on Tryon 
to Dalton Avenue. West on Dalton to North Graham.

Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation of Schools



485a

Harding—Begin at the intersection of Summit Avenue 
and South Tryon Street. Proceed north on South Tryon 
to West Trade. Proceed west on West Trade to Irwin 
Creek.

West Charlotte—Begin at the intersection of North Gra­
ham and Dalton Avenue. Proceed southeast on Dalton Av­
enue to North Tryon. Proceed south on North Tryon to 
the intersection of Tryon and Trade. Proceed west on West 
Trade to Irwin Creek.

South Mecklenburg—Begin at the intersection of South 
Boulevard and Scaleybark Road. Proceed north on South 
Boulevard and Camden Road to the intersection of South 
Tryon. Proceed southwest on South Tryon in a line to 
connect with Griffith Street. From Griffith Street, proceed 
in a line south to Nations Ford Road and the present South 
boundary. Continue southward on the present boundary.

Metropolitan Senior High School students would be re-

Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation of Schools

assigned in this manner 

Receiving School
Number

Reassigned

Projected Enrollment
%

White Negro Negro

Harding 240 831 409 33
West Charlotte 185 0 1660 100
Garinger 85 2350 250 9
East Mecklenburg 250 2100 280 12
Myers Park 200 1802 308 15
South Mecklenburg 175 2084 231 10

1135 9167 3138



486a

Transfer Some Students From All Or 
Predominantly Negro Schools To 

All Or Predominantly White Schools

The Board of Education has determined that the follow­
ing schools will experience substantial overcrowding dur­
ing the 1969-70 school year. The Board of Education there­
fore propses to reassign temporarily a portion of such 
students as follows:

Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation of Schools

Schools

Double Oaks 
Amay James 
Lincoln Heights 
University Park 
Barringer 
Villa Heights 
Lakeview 
Wilmore

Number Reassigned

110
225
140
140
280
225
50
75

1245
Transportation for these 1245 pupils will be provided. 

The facilities and other factors of the following schools 
would provide more desirable educational conditions, and, 
therefore, such students would be reassigned to receiving 
schools as follows: Cotswold, Sedgfield, Thomasboro, Chan­
tilly, Devonshire, Enderly Park, Hidden Valley, Midwood, 
Montclaire, Oakhurst, Pinewood, Rama Road, Starmount, 
Steele Creek.

Facilities, student body growth and other factors make 
it impossible to determine at this time the precise allocation 
of such reassigned students to the receiving schools.



487a

Restructure Of Attendance Lines

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education has con­
ducted a preliminary review of school attendance lines. 
This review has revealed that it is possible to further pupil 
desegregation by a restructuring of attendance areas. In­
deed, this restructure may well be the best long-range 
solution to the further desegregation of the schools.

Thus, the Board intends to undertake the extensive study 
immediately. The study will require approximately six 
months to complete. The procedure which the Board in­
tends to use is based upon the concept of systems analysis 
assisted by computer calculations.

The results of the study will be incorporated in the pupil 
assignment plans for the 1970-71 school year.

Review Of Construction Program

The Board of Education will institute a comprehensive 
review of the entire school construction program. The ob­
jective of this study will be to locate, construct, and organ­
ize school facilities in such a way as to promote desegrega­
tion to the extent possible. The study of the current 
construction program will be completed by February 15, 
1970, and a more general long range study will be completed 
by June, 1970.

In addition to the study of the building program itself, 
the Board will point out to the Planning Board, the Housing 
Authority, the Urban Redevelopment Commission, real 
estate interests, local government officials and other inter­
ested parties the extent to which they share the responsi­
bility for bringing about desegregation in this community. 
This study will also clarify for the community additional 
building funds which will be needed by the school system 
in the immediate future.

Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation of Schools



488a

While the total review of the building program is under­
way, the Board will conduct specific studies on all sites 
which it may be necessary to purchase and as each construc­
tion project which it may be necessary to begin before the 
study is completed. The purpose of each specific review is 
to be assured that each site or project is so developed as 
to produce the greatest degree of desegregation possible.

Support Programs

It is the opinion of this Board of Education that students 
and staff members called upon to make adaptations to 
change should be given support and reinforcement. To 
this end, the Board plans to initiate, within the funds avail­
able, a program of compensatory education for certain 
students. This program, to be initiated during the 1969-70 
school year, will be aimed at assisting those pupils who are 
behind their classmates in academic achievement.

Furthermore, the Board is well aware that an increase 
in faculty desegregation will require a more extensive pro­
gram of in-service education aimed at better teacher orien­
tation and adjustment. To meet this need, the Board has 
instructed the central office staff to look carefully at the 
resources available for the task, the obstacles to be over­
come, and the specific steps to be taken to see that this task 
is accomplished during the 1969-70 school year. The objec­
tives of such a program would be to (1) create a willingness 
to study and change one’s own behavior and develop the 
ability to do this more scientifically, (2) improve the 
teacher’s knowledge of the environment, background, and 
special learning problems of students in a desegregated 
setting, and (3) improve the teacher’s professional compe­
tence—subject matter, knowledge, teaching skills, and class­
room performance.

Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation of Schools



489a

Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation of Schools

Grouping Of Schools For Student Exchange

Many schools have experienced significant desegregation 
moves the past several years. The Board of Education 
feels that all segments win the school community should 
share in the tremendous changes encountered in further 
moves toward desegregation. The Board has sought in the 
preceding steps to involve large numbers of schools which 
to this point have been little affected. For the remaining 
schools which have not been so involved, the Board plans 
to implement during the 1969-70 school year student ex­
change programs. Predominantly Negro schools will be 
paired as matched with predominantly white schools and 
intensive efforts to produce student contacts through class 
projects, intramural games, field days, the exchange of stu­
dents and similar activities will be initiated.

I, William C. Self, Superintendent of the Charlotte- 
Mecklenburg school system and Secretary to its Board of 
Education, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, 
perfect and correct copy of the Amendment to the Plan for 
Further Desegregation of the Mecklenburg School Unit as 
adopted by the Board of Education on the 22nd day of July, 
1969, and spread upon its minutes.



490a

Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation of Schools 

This the 29th day of July, 1969.

/ s /  W illiam C. Sell 
William C. Self
Secretary to the Board

Respectfully submitted,

/ s /  Brock Barkley 
Brock Barkley 

Law Building 
Charlotte, North Carolina

/ s /  W illiam J. W aggoner 
William J. Waggoner

1100 Barringer Office Tower 
Charlotte, North Carolina

Attorneys for Defendant, 
Charlott e-Mecklenburg 
Board of Education



491a

Report in Connection With Amendment to Plan 
for Further Desegregation

(Filed August 4, 1969)

On July 29, 1969, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of 
Education submitted its amendment to plan for further 
desegregation of the schools of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg 
School Administrative Unit as approved by the Board of 
Education by official action on July 22, 1969.

The following information is submitted for the informa­
tion of the Court in consideration of the plan.

Following entry of the order of the Court on June 20, 
1969, the Board met, reviewed the order and appointed a 
subcommittee of five members to investigate, prepare and 
recommend to the full Board a possible plan for further de­
segregation of the schools served by the system. The com­
mittee met on frequent occasions and several of its mem­
bers, along with staff members, traveled to Syracuse and 
Buffalo, New York, to review desegregation procedures 
employed by those systems. All plans of desegregation sub­
mitted in reported cases subsequent to the New Kent County 
decision were reviewed in search of ideas for possible 
further desegregation within the system. The staff inde­
pendently and in conjunction with the committee held nu­
merous meetings and explored various alternatives. Subse­
quently, on July 22, the committee made its formal 
recommendation to the Board. The Board of Education 
adopted the recommendation for amendment to its plan for 
further desegregation of the schools in the system which 
was filed herein.

The Board of Education expected to file the plan of de­
segregation and this report contemporaneously and se­
lected the target date of July 29 for the filing date. By



492a

reason of difficulty in correlating statistical information, it 
was determined that the plan of desegregation should be 
filed as scheduled to prevent further public speculation 
concerning its contents and that the report should be filed 
as soon as the information was reasonably available. Ac­
cordingly, this report is submitted for the information of 
the Court for consideration in conjunction with the plan 
of desegregation.

It is most important that at all times the plan of de­
segregation be considered in light of the policy statement 
which commits the Board to a course of desegregation to 
be accomplished at the earliest possible date.

Admittedly, the first two provisions of the amendment 
to the plan are interim measures to be utilized during the 
1969-1970 school term. In the past, and with Court ap­
proval, the Board of Education has closed a substantial 
number of schools and consistent with its policy of phasing 
out obsolete schools, the plan provides for closing five ele­
mentary schools, one junior high and one senior high school. 
All students will be reassigned for one school term pending 
development of a comprehensive restructuring of attend­
ance lines and review of the construction program, which 
should result in substantial further desegregation.

A similar situation will exist with reference to transfers 
from overcrowded schools. On restructuring attendance 
zones, the overcrowding should be remedied for the school 
term beginning 1970-1971.

The factual data concerning desegregation in the schools 
for the year 1969-1970 discloses that 13,000 Negro students 
out of 24,843 will be assigned to schools in which the white 
student enrollment is ten per cent or more, which percent­
age was acknowledged by plaintiff’s experts to constitute

Report in Connection With Amendment to Plan for
Further Desegregation



493a

a desegregated school. Thus, a predominance of the Negro 
students in the system will be assigned to desegregated 
schools this year. At this point, the Board cannot specify 
the number of students or parents who may object to as­
signment outside of their former attendance area. Exhibit 
“A ” relating to projected racial composition of pupils and 
faculty for statistical purposes assumes complete acceptance 
of reassignment. It is hoped the communities affected will 
respond in such manner as to assure success of this interim 
measure.

Prior to reaching the decision to transfer Negro students 
from their neighborhoods on a temporary basis, the Board 
of Education found from studies of the school systems in 
Syracuse and Buffalo, New York, one-way bussing of Ne­
groes was generally acceptable to all segments of those 
communities.

With reference to transportation of students from closed 
schools including the junior and senior high schools, Page 
2 of the Plan provides: “Transportation will be provided 
pupils who are reassigned.” Students formerly attending 
Irwin Avenue Junior High and Metropolitan Senior High 
will be advised prior to the opening of schools of the as­
sembly points for transportation to their new assignment.

At the prior hearing in this matter, the Board of Educa­
tion advised the Court that transfers from majority to 
minority racial situations amounts to 332 students, all of 
whom are black. By reason of the closing of schools, this 
number will be reduced to 227 as 105 students, though 
attending the school of their choice, will not be leaving a 
school in which their race is in the minority by reason of 
reassignment. Nevertheless, transportation will be fur­
nished for the 105 students.

Report in Connection With Amendment to Plan for
Further Desegregation



494a

Attached marked Exhibit “B” is a summary of the ac­
tions taken with respect to free choice of transfer requests 
processed during the period expiring June 15, 1969. As­
signment will be made in conformity with the requests 
granted.

In its order of June 20, 1969, the Court disapproved the 
provision of the plan relating to disqualification of athletes 
on transferring from one school to another. The notice at­
tached as Exhibit “ C” will be distributed to all coaches at 
senior high schools for distribution to all junior and senior 
varsity athletes. To assure that all freshman athletes enter­
ing high school will receive notice, junior high school 
coaches will distribute the notice to all former ninth grade 
junior and senior varsity athletes. Attempts will be made 
to obtain newspaper publicity.

The most significant of the provisions of the Plan relates 
to the restructuring of attendance lines. The Board’s policy 
in the past has been to establish school lines on a non-racial 
basis. It is most significant that the Board will undertake 
to restructure attendance lines for the purpose of achieving 
further pupil desegregation. Restructuring of attendance 
lines coupled with a revision of the policy on building 
schools to promote desegregation should offer the most 
beneficial and least disruptive method for achieving fur­
ther desegregation and indeed may offer the best long range 
solution to the problem.

As an aid in restructuring attendance lines, the Board 
will utilize a new concept in desegregation. A computer as­
sisted systems analysis approach was suggested to the 
Board by an interested citizen. He presented a manually 
prepared illustration which admittedly did not consider all

Report in Connection With Amendment to Plan for
Further Desegregation



495a

of the options available to a computer. However, it indi­
cates that dramatic changes in racial composition of many 
schools may be achieved.

The Board recognizes that the systems analysis approach 
is merely one of the aids to assist in restructuring of school 
attendance lines. However, it will provide extremely help­
ful information in conforming school lines to natural boun­
daries which will promote further desegregation. It is ex­
pected that this approach will provide even more dramatic 
desegregation in junior and senior high schools which have 
larger attendance areas.

Attached marked Exhibit “D” , the Court will find the 
revised building construction program dated July 30, 1969, 
which reflects the latest revision of this program and is 
based upon the same criteria employed in formulating prior 
programs. Attention is called to the fact that it does not 
reflect any implementation of the Board’s new policy of 
promoting further desegregation. Upon approval of the 
plan, immediate review of the entire construction program 
will be initiated to promote the stated Board policy.

Attached marked Exhibit “E” is a copy of the statement 
made by Dr. Self in making presentation of this plan to 
the news media.

With reference to faculty desegregation, substantial 
changes have been made as indicated on Exhibit “A” . With 
few exceptions, schools having black or nearly all black 
students have white faculties ranging from 40 to 50 per cent 
of the faculty of such schools. All other schools have sig­
nificant desegregation. By the school term 1970-1971, fur­
ther faculty desegregation will be experienced. With re­
spect to the seven closed schools, all members of the

Report in Connection With Amendment to Plan for
Further Desegregation



496a

teaching faculty have been reassigned within the school 
system. Three of the principals of the closed schools will 
move to new principalships, two of which will be in pre­
dominantly white schools. Four of the principals have 
been assigned to positions which have equal or greater 
responsibility on the central staff of the school system. 
Attached marked Exhibit “F” reflects the new assignments 
of such principals.

This the 4th day of August, 1969.

Respectfully submitted,

/ s /  Brock Barkley 
Brock Barkley 

Law Building 
Charlotte, North Carolina

/ s /  W illiam J. W aggoner 
William J. Waggoner

1100 Barringer Office Tower 
Charlotte, North Carolina

Attorneys for Defendant

Report in Connection With Amendment to Plan for
Further Desegregation



497a

State of North Carolina 
County of Mecklenburg

Dr. William C. Self, of lawful age, being first duly sworn, 
on his oath states that he is the Superintendent of Defen­
dant named in the above and foregoing matter and that 
the facts stated herein are true according to his best knowl­
edge and belief.

/ s /  W illiam C. Self 
Dr. William C. Self

Sworn and subscribed to before me 
this 4th day of August, 1969.

/ s /  Faye Jalley 
Notary Public

My commission expires : 3-27-71

Report in Connection With Amendment to Plan for
Further Desegregation



The C harlotte-M ecklenburg Schools  
COMPARISON OF PUPILS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFFING BY RACE 

October 1, 1963 -6 9  and 1 969 -7 0  (Estim ated)

______________P u pils __________  ________ _ _
1 968 -6 9  1 9 6 9 -7 0 ,E s t . 1968 -6 3  1 9 6 9 -7 0 ,E sti

-,tnry B % W B % VJ B 'A W B % W
B (other) B (other) B (oth er) B (othe

Albemarle Rd. 4 PL 4 99 * ri 3 107*. 502 6 35.1.13 6 3 0  7. 14
Alexander S treet 2 57 iou"|. C losed 11 lO0»|. C losocj
Allenbrook 50 109.452 55 U*L 465 2 lol 18 5 a.7 °lo 16

Avslilev Park 0% 553 *75 1X7. 57 5 2 71. 20 6 S 3  7. 2 0
Bain 25 3*1.699 25 37. 7 35 1 37„ 23 5 17 7* 2 5

B arringer 66S m i 3 i 500 707. 55 13 417.18 14 M il. 18
3 e r r y h i l1 119 151.605 100 111. 715 2 67.32 6 \t>-L 27
Bcil.hu me 223 111* 3 Ci osed 11 1 00 l1 C. Closed
B everly Woods 07.286 *75 111- 550 1 77*12 6 i7 7 . 16
B i l l i n g s v i l le 619ico*i. 2 605 1 oo 7. 25 too7. 15 L07. 10

Briarwood 8 17.640 *55 vio 66 5 3 1X1* 22 6 i l l .  2 2
Bruns 740 111- 4 793 10O7o 2 26 137. 2 21 707. 9 |
C h a n tilly 2 07,491 *4 2 <27. 503 1 51., 21 4 to Id 17
C lear Creek 5310 .225 60 177. 260 1 % % 12 3 i 3 ‘/u 10
C ollinsw rod 72 137*490 70 13-7o 510 1 51. 21 4 1 77o IS

C orn eliu s 2 39 i n .252 230 h$7* 25 0 7 33114 5 a 67* ].4
Cot swold 11 1*1.567 * 75 11-1. 5-! 5 1 57. 21 4 117. 18
Davidson 101 -357.186 100 367* 1 99 1 3 7* 11 2 151. 11
Marie Davis 7 05 'oo*|c 695 100 7. 29 loo*U 14 50% 14
D erita 16 5 137*7 28 140 lb7o 720 3 77. 32 6 I1L 29

Devon .shire t'L 389 *110 11 clo 935 4 101. 37 7 1 71. 34
D .i Iwo r t h 223 HL3 55 225 431 295 4 157*22 6 W o  19-
Double Oaks 900 loo*(. 700 1007* 32 icc 7. 19 It 11. 12
Druid H i l l s 504 71-1* 3 512 77 %  3 20 \oc n-i 12 60*6 8
Eastover 49 Si. 580 50 S I  570 1 7 7. 24 4 l ve';o / J

ill j zaheth 270 531194 310 L-VU 150 2 77. 21 4 111* 17
Enderly Park 2 11. 374 * 57 1 b7o 15 3 111. 13
Fairview 36 3 |oo*i. Closed IS loo 7 c Closed
F ir s t  Ward 749 loolc 825 lOÔ /u 30 SOO *io 16 S i l . 15
Hickory Grove SO 157-5 31 80 l*H. 505 1 47* 2 3 ' 4 177. 19

Does not include sta i i: as signed tn more than one school pe r IIEW reqj
k i s  n earest whole per cent that fj i s  o f t o t a l

* JV, 1 969 -7 0  as increased by sch ools which are clo sed
* Durin j 196 > -70 as increased  to  r e l ie v e  overcrowded sch ools

(which are underlined)
(vice)



2
499a

COMPARISON OF PUPILS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFFING !)V r a c k
(Continued)

_________________ P u p i  I.;;_______ _ _ _ _ _  ___ ________S l . i U _
196H-69 1969-70,EiH . 1.96'<-69 IOOm -To" ^  .

'•Momenta ry 13 % W B 
B (other)

11//o
B

w
(other)

B % W 
B (other

B
)

%
B

w
(oth'

Hidden V a lle y o% 977 * 140 \x% 1 025 2 5% 35 7 111. 34
Highland 47 13% 324 7 0 19 1. 305 1 TU 14 2 137. 14
Hoskins IB LI. 261 25 to Ho 2 35 2 t h i l l 2 111. 10
H u n tersv ille 162 ao.1560 16 5 037: 560 2 17. 2 5 5 111. 22
Huntingtowne Farms 7 11. 695 *67 109. 57 3 1 49. 26 5 199. 21

Id lew ild 2 01521 * 0 ?. \ 4-aJo 57 3 1 11. 22 6 331,, 20
Amay James 4 77 l e d  1 300 Ico*!. 19 »oc*h 13 l»59. 7
Lakeview 269 151:147 34 5 %4-lc> fj 5 14 ■117. 5 12 uoi. e
Lansdowr.e o1o75S *75 9 l . 770 1 3 To 30 6 i9i. 27
Lincoln H eights 817 icol. 2 62 5 lool. 30 lot Ho 16 551. ] 3

Long Creek 250 3 5 4  66 2 5 5 35*/. 4 00 2 19. 26 5 15 V. 23
Matthews 93 111. 742 95 H°lo 765 . ]. 3%  32 6 199. 26
Merry Oaks 0*1. 469 * 4 5 9 % 4 60 1 51. 19 4 199. 17
Midwood 1 C*j. 522 *65 11 1„ 505 2 31. 21 4 111. 19
M ontclaire Ok 722 *0 5 730 1 4 9. 27 5 IH 23

Myers Park 23 Hi. 54 3 *70 137. 4-55 1 41... 2 3 4 H7. 19
Nations Ford 63 |Cj*I» 5 B 5 65 ■ 97. 660 1 4-7. 25 5 Ill: 22
Newel 1 7 3 15*1.4 23 60 11*1. 48 5 1 5 %  18 4 00*1. 15
Oakdale 7 2 13-1430 70 ia.‘7. 505 1 51. 21 4 11*1. 17
Oakliurst 2 01. 615 *53 647 1 4 7. 2 3 4 licit 21

Oaklawn 650 iooi. .570 10*1. 25 931. 2 11 4Vic 12
Olde Providence 1011: 4 34 *100 lb6lc 535 1 ill,. 17 6 3,41. 19
Park Road C% 551 *60 540 1 51. 21 7 301. 16
Paw Creek 63 Tit B61 . 40 lei. 707 1 37. 31 6 IV). 28
P in e v ille 168 311.36 3 170 31*!. 330 1 5*1. 21 4 111. 19

Piiiewood 0*1. 7 07 *120 1*1*1 735 1 S I. 26 5 197. 22
Plaza Road 99 191.409 115 13'/. 375 1 5'(. 21 4 111. 17
Rama Road 2 O'i-777 * p, 2 91. 790 2. 17. 27 5 ill . 24
Sed gefield 7 11. 545 * 7 0 11*1. 570 2 9*1. 20 4 111. 18
Selwyn 5 |1, 598 *70 in . 6.17 1 4 1 .2 2 5 19*1. 21

Shamrock Gardens 01. 539 *60 jcOo 5 35 1 51 . 20 6 351. 18
Sharon 0°!.. 519 *90 ia*/. 410 1 51. 20 5 a s i. 16
Starmount 25 31. 713 *95 775 1 3 1 .  28 5 hejo 26
S t a te s v i l le  Road 295 301.5 34 300 3lc‘/« 525 3 9 *1. 29 6 in . 25
S teele  Creek 12 1*1.531 *30 I2l» 550 1 5*1. 20 4 i *?>i. 18

\U CAAA'Viy IS Ho i SjO



500a

comparison

.o-'i i
len'-ant v ry

Thome.s'jor:)
Tryou Hi.lit) 
Tuckasee jeo 
U n iv ersity  Park 
Zo'o V-mcp

V il la  noi.ihts  
W esterly  H il ls  
VJ i lnio.ro 
Windsor Pp / k 
Win t e r f ie ld

l.-a.oel la Wyche

Cii'■ id Dove 
C

Da /ids '. !
. i! < .’ Ill . , ;t2 
S e v e r ? v i1l e , i!3
i V a r y a  n ,  ,74

Totn 1
E l e m o n t  a r y

OF PUPILS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFFING BY RAC-i
(Continued)

p u p ils__________ _
1 968 -6 9  1 9 6 9 -7 0 ,E s t .

B % V? 1* A w
B (other B (other)

_______ S t a f f_________ ___
1 9 6 0 -6 9  1 9 6 9 -7 0 ,Hlsr J

B % W B A V
B ('Other) B (othal

01- 705 * 14 0 IT 1c 690 2 1 "Ic. 2 5
2411307.24 5 240 S U io  230 1 5 *1. 20
61 I0*i. 553 60 I0'7. 540 1 Hi. 2 3

111 ioc’7- 610 \0O 0̂ 30 917. 1
257 lr,o*i< C losed 11 1 OOc|o

796 '40.126 6 50 1 i '7o 60 23 b 14
C 'L  569 *75 57 0 1 97. 22

145 337. 29 3 200 13% 265 8 701, 12
2 O 'i-7 37 *77 97c 768 1 71. 27

O 7. 6 S  9 *75 71. 715 1 IT. 26

222 l00*u Closed 12 loo  I.

5 22
3 16 7. 16
4 11% 19

21 Talc O
Closed

21 5 5 ' I* 17
5 \97o 22

10 937, 13
6 Ills 27
6 1T "h 25

Closed

5 7i‘|, I. i 7 r.o 409c 1 2 0 ) 3 c  7 0  7 3 3  c " /0 7

1 6 6  ‘b'J 7" 37 1 6 5 i 3 % 35 2 I  a :f. '
f P’

90"P 2

1 7 4  371 . 26 1 7 6 ?,V1c 24 8 %0"U ? ( l 7 c7» 3

1 8 3  9 7 7 . 6 1 9 0 9 5  “(u 10 8 -iSol.. 2 V 2 ao7 o  0

9 30 3 0 *7o 1 4 ,, 18 3 3  17. 5 0 1 a n i o 5 1 0 3-T "h
3 1 ,8 1 6 3 1 ,9 9 1 1 3 5 6 1 3 3 4



501a
4

COMPARISON OF PUPILS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFFING 3Y RACE
(Continued)

P u p ils  ___________ S t a f f
S c h o o l  

J u n io r  H ig h

1 963 -6 9  1 9 6 9 -7 0 ,E s t .

B % W B X W
B (oth er) B (other)

19 6 8 -6 9  1969 -70 ,

B % W B %
B (oth er) B

, E st

W
( o  t  h1

Aloe'i a r l e  Road S o n .  3 :1 60 67° 960 4 77° 4 3 - 177. J' _■
7'.] ex ardor 347 3(7.7 55 375 337. 775 6 117,44 167. '1 3
C o ch ra n e 76 57.1444 75 SI. 1495 6 \c*|u 55 ! i. n=u _■ J

Cou 1. wood 119 1+7. 7 27 110 l l ‘|. 785 4 111. 34 6 1 71. : 0
E a stw a y 30113S4 *163 111.1357 3 SI. 55 n 1 17. 52

A lex. Grata.! 9 11. 10 4 *145 117.1045 4 77° 43 1 77. 4 0
Hawthorns 4 9 2 5 H 447 535 +17° 540 12 177. 3 3 13 a n . 35
Irwin f v a . 656 \oc/ k Closed 32 177< 1 Closed
McCl in took 46+7.1-22: *200 137.1325 2 4 7 .4 8 10 lu"K 52
Northwest 932 ICO'!. 1050 icon. 39 l oCl c* 22 5 5  7, IP

pi ednoit 42-. Til l. 53 4 30 117° 35 13 517.12 13 ■Ho 7° 15
Cuail Hollow 17 U1ML2S1 172 111.1318 3 -57. 61 1 0 llc7> 5 3
Randolph 27 2 161.711 255 167° 750 2 57. 34 9 107. 3 3
Ranson 2 5 3 307c5 36 280 3+7. 550 6 tulc 31 9 14 % 2
Sedgofield j 3;9 H'l. '.02 200 XX%  7 30 5 i n . 39 .8 117° 35

•Smith O'A 17 3 5 *9 0  (°*1. 1470 3 57. 57 9 147. 51
Span ih 1 6 til. '71 200 935 6 111.43 10 H I . 35
N illia n a fr-3 ico'i,. P.50 100 7. 37 loo'lc 22 567° 17
Wilson 60571132 *135 hi- 1140 4 VI. 4 5 117. 4 0
York Re. 7 27 517. 6 950 77*1° 5 32 177. 1 20 551. 15

(Kennedy) 

Learning Academy -  7th & 33th 
counted in

jrodos  
JH, a b _> v e , 5 177. 21 4 307°

Tot a !
Junior High 5 .9 3 4  l l 7 . 6 ,1 9 5  3-9 7° 228 141° 219 3o7c

1 4 ,7 4 1 15 ,2 1 5 706 697



502a
5

CO-1PAIUSO.-! OF PUPILS MID PROFESSIONAL STAFFING BY RACK
(Continued) ■

P u pils____________  ___________S t a f f
S chooL 1 963 -6 9 1 9 6 9 -7 0 ,E st. 1'S63-69 1969 -7 0 .E s t .

Senior High 1) %  W B %  W B %  VI B /o W
B (otlie r )  B (other) B (otlicr) B (ot hc»]

3 v ' s t  Mo. ck Ion b ur j 155*7.! 7 39 *  330 IT/.2050 6 17. 8 5 17 9  2
Garin jar 20277.2157 *335 13% 226 5 6 to*l. 102 20 m . (')

H ardin j 169 11*1.314 *4 50 3b“l. 800 4 V I .  49 10 1 (f *1o 54
I n cleric n d o nee 92 1 * / .  962 115 10 *1 . 1035 6 ') el. 59 12 1*6*70 5  5

Myers Park 153 HIM  5 5 *34 5 H.4. 176 5 6 L ' R  37 17 111. 34

l'~  "th H ecklenburj 4 1 0D%1 109 4903OLH 70 6 ’ l l .  63 13 m . 64
< lyirpic 259 357cP 2 2 320 3*7o 520 5 U'1.39 10 J L i * ] , 36
Second Mere! 1139 i0o*fc 3 Closed 57 95-1. 3 Closed
South Mecklenburg 1 06t*Mr 12 *760 \\1. 2055 4 5*1.70 17 11*1. b  5
West C h a rlotte 1559 ioo"|. *16 50 lool. 74 7-3*1. 6 55 (p(o*lt> 2P

West Mockletibur I l f  *1.-1340 160 107.14.15 4 5 To 7 3 14 m . &

T o t a l

S e n i o r  H i g h 4 , 3 7 7  3 G 7 . 4 , 4 6 5  0 5  **!.. 1 7 8  i a . 1 . 2 1 9  M l .

1 2 , 3 1 3 1 3 , 0 7 5 6 4 4 6 9 7



503a
CORRECT™ JULY 2fj, 190 )

CHARLOTTErM2CXLK,’IBURG JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS

•—4o *-> ^ r. c oW V:

V)4-» O O VI ̂  O ft)3 O GO' « O OI< « -u ta

a o<» > t‘i rj
o o£4 r-1cs*O O

ft)C5C<-> Uo ,c 2*. u Ba
ck
 t

o 
1 

or
ig
in
al
 j

“!
!!

:_
__

_i
Gr
an
te
d 

as
 2

nd
 

ch
oi
ce

X̂ —<

LO ►"J

H «*)o fl 
03

ALBEMARLE ROAD 10 3 a, a /0 -to n 0 - 3 / PX77

ALEXANDER o -Ao 4 0 - 1 0 l lS < i

COCHRANE iS Q i, 0 A l 6 - / IS O S '

COULWOOD . 84 <? / o f/4 f 10 v-xg £7 7

LASTWAY I3S~3 0 4 - 4 r 0 4 / /36'f

ALEXANDER GRAHAM T i l P-' tsj 0 s t c , ! /ora

HAWTHORNE l ° 7 cf /(, /Ah - H o 103 5 -f ! ° i S  |

IRWIN AVENUE N  9 /4 Z l "43 o O -/3 , i! m  4  f.1

ROBERT V. KENNEDY ‘137, At I I I I S o -7 3 " 'a5 7 i
McCLINTOCK 137.0 o 7 -7 4 0 "5" ij

NORTHWEST 1014 37u S r -X3 37 i 4/4 I 0 5 ct Jj

PIEDMONT 5~oi S<i -4 4 ■ 1 o - 3ST |

UUAIL HOLLOW 7 . 9 -.4 4 7.j 44 / 4 i'0 ij

RANDOLPH 47/- /+ s ? -44 P-1 . I2J -ST '/';/ ||

m m r ^ i . ° 3 -3 A 6 '  i ■//j

SEDGE. FIELD T o 30 43 -1 3 D 0 ’ -,71 737 1*
SMITH H5'w elf 7 -f/4 ? 0 £ 2 l / 4 (7 1
snAUCH le n 4°) A 7 f?-<S . 444 | 1 1 'i (l 1

WILLIAMS L l £ £ i S 37. 3 -3" | V/f(i |

1 1 7 7 |WILSON °
/r* - s~ 0

LBAPNI NO ACADEMY r ____ !L _ _i
Schools.closed out for transfer requests: 
Code: 0 - All Requests

** - Regular Requests

3?



504a
C H A R E . K T I i - M I C E L E S T A : E G  S E N O R  ! 1 I G ;  s o :  .

•—  4 1
c r  

o  
r .  v- 
[•-:

i ' ,  t-.
4 > C T 'J  
l ' .  < -• O
o  ; . - m  
rJ  o r .  
c  c.’
O  C O  

4-* t

L’ i O

CO CJ 
O O

c r
o  o

f -  4- i

CO
f-
t i

rC
u

O

c- c  
4̂  r .

• r-4 •
rV. C-G CC 
u  IT, 
c :  o  o  

O'- o  «■

'U
O  'U  O 
4-  c : o
r  o r .  r-:
«  o
O  t/uO 

o  c :  u

V • -<
cJ
a  >■ 
n  »-* 
p  p

LO »-)

EAST MECKLENBURG Z c  <5 7 ‘1 1 3  A O / / G X r X l

GARINGER T .6 ' 4 ? 37 C x - o r r 0 — A c

HARDING T H 1 3 X t lot
3 X f / / 3

INDEPENDENCE ll X I 2  S ' (r H I / X t - X X

METROPOLITAN %'C- A ‘l / x n - I C O X- O - 9 ?

MYERS PARK n n 2 3 3 1 - I I 6 " 0

NORTH MECKLENBURG U  / ? 'J-'fp 6 0 <9

OLYMPIC % t 31 f  7 3 W -f

SOUTH MECKLENBURG AIS~X 3 2-1 -xi 9 O - I X

WEST CHARLOTTE 4'l 103 -JT<J 0 X - 0 7

WEST MECKLENBURG I s7z 23- A 1 tx 6 . 1



505a

J -
En
ro
ll
- 

\'t: 
me
ri
t 

j- in Ô 'Ov, «-> <l>o c: -iJ? « cCr" (3O C *-< Cx", 4-> t0

m o
m m o o »•*« O'O O

OCDft*-J IS Ô u

O rt t:•M * A' CO CO U -fi m cs F-. on W O rj Gr
an
te
d 

as
 2

nd
 

H 
| 
ch
oi
ce
 

V'

X!•< rHC5G X{■ i*+3 2 CO

>>Cs»—i r* CO £;c *r•H "1Cc, 07

Albemarle Road trot. II /4 - 5 0 > -1 vTo-S"

Alexander Street m 51 3 +3S O 0 +3+ n s r

A1lent rook tr/? /a- 5 + 1 o 0 + 1 s x p

Ashley Park SX2. 3 7 4- +33 o 1 A 34 S S(,

Bain o C - 6 o D - c 3C%

Barringer tlo o 3 f -3 4 3 0 -31 S3C;

Berryhill VC 14- 4 r!0 J 1 -A /f 31o

Bethune ICC 0 4- - f o 0 l+ x

Beverly Woods •5 IS \o +-7T 0 0 AdT S 5 I

Billingsville Cl 7 o H> -1C o t> -1C C o/

Briarwood 111 o 7 -  7 z 0 - 3 ' 7 4 4

Bruns Avenue . %oc X- dT - 3 o 0 -  3 113

Chant i1ly +11 a 4 t 7 o 0 A 7 +S(,

Clear•Creek 30 f o - 3 o o - 3 2 0 i

3 X 4Collinswood SS4- 7 7 o V 0 o

Cornelius f  CX. 7 -  4 £> 0 - X SCO

Cot swold S'32, Z l 4 IS5~ o o i x s S' s '!

Davidson XS1 P o  ̂ ro o 0 A?- A l l

Marie Davis 479 /7 43 + IS £> 0 / /  7 (M *

Derita ?3<e IP 8 A 4- 7 Xj A / 3 4:4-7

Devonshire CjOX- 0 7 -  7 3 0 -  4- 4 7 7

Dilycrth So o s — 13 e o - /  7 
G

48.-5

Double Oaks 8 ox- (p (f 0 0 0 ? o ,x

Druid Hills , o '/ij s 8 -  3 C o - 3 S  IS'

Schools closed out for transfer requests:
Code: * - All Requests

** - Ren liar Requests



E
n

ro
ll

m
en

t

R
eq

u
es

ts
 

to
 

en
te

r 
gr

an
t'

R
eq

ue
st

s 
to

 
le

av
e

g
N

et
 

® 
ch

an
ge

B
ac

k 
to

or
ig

in
a

l
as

si
gn

m
en

t

G
ra

nt
ed

 
ns

 
2n

d 
ch

oi
ce

Su
m

m
ar

y 
Ju

ly
 

1

F
in

al
Su

m
m

ar
y

j s t o v e r (o 1 a / / 13 -  2- 0 tp - X 60S?

E l i z a b e t h 5'/S' / 4 1 3 - 4 ? 1 C? -s% +5-7

E n d e r ly  Park 3SS X X 9 7 / 3 0 £ f-13 t o  1

Fai r v i  ew 3 XI 4 I t 3 0 o t 3 3 M

F i r s t  Ward *X I S 0 t £ 0 o t~ J

H ic k o r y  Grove 4 7 7 o 4 - 4 1 o - 3 5'](n

Hidden V a l l e y 1 0 Ob' o / -  / 0 H lo o t ,

H ighlan d 31-1 ± _ 4 0 o b o 3 4 7

H oskins 2 M X 3 o - n 0 o -  n 2  4 3 '

H u n t e r s v i l l e feV-f ll 77 0 o n fc<?3

H untingtow ne Farms 0~i>l s 4 7 / o 0 11 57T8

1 d J. o w i  1 d 3~3'o cl / 2- - 3 0 0 - 3 4 4 7

-Amay James 4 4 4 0 3 4 - 2 4 5 0 - 2 2 . 4 2 4

LaUevi ew 4 7 4 1 3-1 'Z D 0 c> - 2 0 4  4 6

I.rnsdowne 7 ? 7 1! 3 t g 1 1 M O 7 4 7

L in c o ln  H e ig h ts ? o f 4 lx- — <7 0 3 / 7 0  0

■Long Creek 736 o 31 - 3 1 v5~ £ - A t 7  ID

lie i thews * 5 1 7 <■> +  / 0 0 1- / * .5 ?

Merry Oaks 445-' 3- ! o -  ? o 0 - ? 4 3  7

Mi cl wood 4 is " / 4 13 -t / 4 o 4 -S' 4 ^ 0

ilo'atc l a i  re i n 13 4 +-<? / j r H S ' 7 3  3

Myers Park 4 10 / 4 9 f- -5' 0 M " 4 :i 4

N a t i o n s  Ford 7 13 14 IO + 4 J 0 7 7 7  2 -4

Newel 1 553 J He - 1 3 5 -  S 5 4  3"

Schools closed out for transfer requests: 
Code: * - All Reque r. t r»

*ft- Regular Re nests



En
ro
lI
me
nt

Re
qu
es
ts
 t

o 
en
te
r 

gr
an
ts
:

O
4->
V)
4->V)
o  o  
3  >
D" C.J 0) 0) 

rH

507a
cjCXj
c
c?
x.
u
+>o'X. Ba

ck
 t

o
or

ig
in

a
l

as
si

gn
m

en
t

Gr
an
te
d 

as
 

2n
d 

ch
oi
ce

>•*^  rH
n 1

P  P 
l:  ^

!

P
r~< fa CU
• r. ;i

f.7

Oakdale v T 4 3 1 ? X ■ rx i X 0 7 A ? S I X ,

Oakhurst ■ n i I X 7 4  -S' 3 0 7  ? S ' ? ?

Oaklawn 5 1 1 X IS -11 X 0 -  7 5" 6 7 "

Olde Providence 1 2 A S ’ X 0 o 4 3

Park Road 5~ 3 o 10 7 7  7 0 1 4 8 5 \ ? 8

Paw Crock l 3 o o 1- - f 0 0 - 4 - 9 K -

Pineville s n 1 1 - 7 Cs t - 7 5~1 O

Pinewood 7 H 1 II -  7 0 o - 7 n o n

Plaza Road 4 ? < J 1 X'O - / < £ 1 - s

Rama Road 7 3 ? o x -  i - D 0 ~X 7 3 7

Sedgcfield f i x 3 7 - 4 0 0 - 4 5 "5  8

Selwyn £r u / 7 7 7 7 0 0 4 / 7 s '  <17

Shamrock Gardens 4?ST X I 7 7 Ao 3 0 4 . 2 3 s '  i l

Sharon 3 ? 7 p 3 3 -  i -T 0 0 - ? , r 3 0  3 ,

Starmount '713 A 3 -  ( 0 o -  / 7 7  .7

Statesville Road SiS" 7 / x -  -S' Z-' 0 - 3 « Z “ .

Steele Creek 0 t o -  / 6 o D - l o s x i

Thcmasboro (•i I 17 X I -  4 0 1 - 3 6 7 ?

Tryon Hills f f X S ' XI - / 6 X c - 1 1

Tuckaseegee S V f 7 X 7 7 i 6 4 8 G or.

University Park i t n / / 1 4 7 0 c 4  7 £ 5  2

Zeb Vance O X -  A- 0 o - a . J&XS’

Villa Heights 7 3 8 o U -7 6 0 0 - i t ‘13. X

Westerly Hills £ 2 '] o <1 -  7 X- -  '7 3~XO

Wilmore £ b 3 4 t(> - I X 0 •3 • ; (>

Windsor Park 7 ? ') /3 * S 1 o f 6 8 6 .  :|

Schools closed out for transfer requests:
Code: * - All Requests *■* - Regular Requests



r:G.’
r—I
oucw

CJo <•' 
oCl  ̂CO WOCJ M3 o cro c «

o<-»
wo<-»toCJ O
P > c* riC) oC: r>t

508a
CJto
n
u
4->V

4 JCr~< CJ o c; :• V ri u •»"' t-0 rX M*H U «H 10 C3 f- 10w o n G
ra

nt
ed

 
as
 

2n
d 

ch
oi
ce

X»« r-ic,n
y sto

1

P•"< cJ 
tJ R
.5 ytin CO

’.'inter field 7 0 2 . l-S~ S Src'Jj 0 0 f 7 ? -  7
Isabella V/yche m o A- - t 0 0 H 3

Davidson C.D.C.
Morgan C.D.C.
Pineville C.D.C.
Sevcrr.ville C.D.C.



509a

CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG SCHOOLS 
CHARLOTTE, N. C.

August A, 1969

NOTICE TO ALL STUDENTS PARTICIPATING IN HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETICS

Under the revised pupil assignment guidelines adopted by the Board 

of Education, that section dealing with varsity athletics which requires 

a student exercising freedom of choice to lose his eligibility to participate 

in varsity or junior varsity athletics during his first, year at the school 

of assignment is revoked. Under the new provisions a student who exercises 

freedom of choice w’ill be eligible to participate in varsity or junior 

varsity athletics immediately upon enrollment at the school to which he is 

assigned. In the case there was a student who did not exercise freedom of 

choice last spring because of this reason, he may now do so by contacting 

the principal of the school where he has been assigned.

c



510a

PROJECT STATUS REPORT

March 6, 1968
Revised June 27, 1 96 8
Revised Nov. 11 , 196 3
Revised Jan. 27, 1969
Revised July 30 , 1 969

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools 

Five-Year Construction Program (1967-72)

1. There are 91 building projects to be undertaken in the 
1967 bonds.

2 . At the present time these projects may be divided into 
stages as foilows :

A. Projects completed $ 8,805,000

B. Projects under construction 7,600 ,000

C. Projects approved for bidding 3,050,000

n. Projects approved and in the planning stage 3,950,000

E. Projects approved by Board 4,600,000

F. Projects approved by staff 2,865 ,000

G. Projects not yet acted upon 4 ,800,000 
$3 5 , 6:7 0 70TTO

I D



Projects completed

I. Huntingtowne Farms 

2 . Hidden Valley

3. First Hard
/

4. Starmount

5 . Quail Hoi 1ow J r .

6 . P i n e v i 11 e

7. Olde Providence

8. Albemarle Road Elem.

9. Steele Creek

10. Bruns Avenue

II. Alexander J r.

12. Idlewild

13. Col 1inswood

14. Corhrane J r .

15. Huntersvi1 le

16. Lansdowne

17. Chantilly

18. Westerly Hills
19. Beverly Woods

20. Statesvi 11e Road



Projects under construction

1 . Northwest Jr.

2. Independence Sr. Hi.

3. Matthews

4. Smith Jr.
5. East Mecklenburg

6. Bain
7. Tryon Hills

8. Allenbrook

9. Harding
10. Long Creek

11. Clear Creek

12. Hawthorne

13. Project 600

14. Enderly Park

15. Wilson Jr.



513a

C . Projects approved for bidding $ 3,050,000

1. Myers Park Sr.

2. Coulwood

3. Amay James

4. Barringer

5. Hickory Grove

6. Ranson Jr.

7. Albemarle Rd. Jr.

8. North Mecklenburg

9. South Mecklenburg



514a

D . Projects approved and in planning stages S 3 , i>

Elementary Junior Senior

1. Center City * 1. Alex. Graham 1. fie

2. Spauqh

* Hold action

0,000

ronolitan *

Totals s 7s: S T ,2 P 0 ,rr - n.v>



515a

E . Projects approved by

1 . L i n c o l n  H e i g h t s  

2 . Uni versi ty Park

3. Villa Heights

4. Highland

5 . F a i r v i e w *

6. Moores Chapel

7. Allen Hills

8. W i 1 ora La L e

Hoard

* Hold action



516a

F • PfQJ e c t s_ ap p r o v ed by_ s_t a f  f S ?  ,80 :> , 0

E 1eme n t a r y J u n i o r

1 . Iakov i ow
1. Sedge f i e l d

2. Druid Hills
2 . M c C T i n t o c k

3. Dri a rwood

4. Gillingsville

b . Shanirock Gardens

6. Marie Davis

7. Cotswold

8. Ashley Park

9, Sedge fi e 1d

10. Nations Ford

11 . Montclai re

12. P i newood

13. Tuckaseegee

14. Oakhurst

15. Merry Oaks

Total $ 2 ,065 ,000 $ 800,000



517a

G. Projects not y et acted upon ? 4 , 800,000

E 1 einen tary J u n i o r

1 . Paw(Creek 1. York Road

2 . Corne1i us 2. Irwin Avenue

3. Mewe 11 3. Piedmont

4 . De r i t a 4. J . H . Gunn

5. Be rryhi 1 1
Total - $ 1 ,4 50

6 . M i d w o o d

7. Hi 1 more

3. El i zabeth

9. Eastover

10. Myers Park

11 . Davi dson

12 . Thomasboro

13 . Park Road

14. Selwyn

* Hold action

Tota 1 $ 3,350 ,000



518a

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education is about 
to file its plan for further desegregation of the School 
System. The Board is aware of the tremendous impact 
which this action promises to have on the community. 
Board members also know that the matter of how the plan 
is received is, in large measure, dependent upon how well 
it is understood by the community. It is imperative, there­
fore, that the community know the plan and its implica­
tions. The Board knows of no way to engender support for 
an idea superior to the simple act of “ telling it like it is.” 
It is in this spirit that these w7ords are offered in answer 
to three questions in the minds of responsible Charlotte- 
Mecklenburg citizens as this time. They are:

I. What does the plan seek to do!

II. What are the implications of the plan?

III. What will it take to make the plan work?

Speaking to the first question. “ What does the plan seek 
to do?"

1. The first part o f the plan is iooost significant for in 
• - - : - . - r garuirc I s g

t m .  The policy statement begins by reasserting an «U  
hrifcf Hot! every individual should have tqp d  n»puti—ity 
h  hfe capabilities to the M h ^ .  A  afcwr* the
twig ae3d principle that equality of educational ?cporttt- 
i  -.l.i V  vdtheut regard to sevto-evononue. trimw.

vv ds'W'ss’ves. ?; scans rua: rc
caa Wst W probated by- ahtvuiptt 

j o  'j\ ~ ss-;v  th e  X - 'vvks-.N aavt 'ta  "u n ca p s. m p o se » i i r o n  

XOifVe H > .v's\l yi IVU'if.NSlsWS. .\«vx ,̂-'>wsv:Sy jmt U' ■ 
iv.nroL s' K -m -.ww Vsxi K">' X vo.ass. s UPdg

Exhibits Attached to Foregoing Report, Etc.



519a

important statement which I quote, “ In this light, the 
Board of Education firmly believes further desegregation 
of students and professional staff will contribute to the 
educational and social development of all children.” 
Finally, the Board commits itself to a course of action 
by stating that “the desegregation of students should 
be coordinated with desegregation of teachers, principals 
and staff members and that the desegregation should be 
accomplished at the earliest possible date.” Next, the 
plan outlines the steps which are to be taken to achieve 
this goal.

First, the Board proposes to close several schools and 
reassign the students (parents permitting) to other schools 
in the system so as to achieve the twin purposes of better 
educational offering for those reassigned and further de­
segregation for the system.

Next, the plan proposes to draw off from overcrowded 
all or predominantly Negro schools a number of students 
and reassigning them to other schools presently experienc­
ing minimal desegregation.

Third, with the help of local experts skilled in the art 
of systems analysis, the Board proposes to begin an exten­
sive study of attendance areas. The purpose of this study 
would be to determine whether or not alteration of certain 
attendance areas would result in more desegregation.

The Board proposes to undertake a.' extensive >.*ucy
of the school system'-- com-v action program to v ...........
the effect of planned nev. c o nno t i o n  Or Vm w .e ,  no", 
pm .",o' of senooJs The Board plans to eon'O -a.v. 
*~,s e* uos *- >.o o'-nm g/ovps >Pn.n to,- egy rM  kfpi a 
ta • - of "a . s o  g n  s, o,,, t y.

Exhibits Attached to Foregoing Report, Etc.



520a

The Board plans to initiate certain programs which 
would give support and reinforcement to students and 
teachers called upon to make adaptations to change. The 
aid to pupils will be through a compensatory education 
program. Teachers will have support through an orienta­
tion and in-service education program whose objectives 
will be to improve the teachers’ knowledge of the environ­
mental background and special learning problems of stu­
dents in a desegregated setting.

Lastly, the Board of Education feels that the burden 
of this problem should be shared by all sections of the 
school community. To accomplish this purpose, the Board 
has asked the staff to explore the possibilities of student 
exchange programs, school pairing, and other techniques 
aimed at involving those schools in the system which, at 
this point, have had only minimal contact with members 
of the opposite race.

Now to the second question, “What are the implications 
of the plan ? ”

This question could be approached from several different 
directions. Let’s approach it statistically first. Seven 
center city schools will be closed and approximately 3000 
students will be reassigned. This is not the first round 
of school closings. Up to this point, 16 other schools iu 
the city and county have been closed. By and large tht s 
'chools served a dual school system. They are ill-adapted 
to a unitary school organization. As a group they are eld 
to the point o f being obsolete. Bethune. fur example 

years old. While the youngest, Irwin A venae, is 34. 
They s:a: .1 cm small sites which someone " ‘ he past 
managed to wrestle away ftoaa a  gtowingr city—U T  acres 
aft f  ifrrm  Wwfce. i.30 acres at Betfewa, 7JB seres al

Exhibits Attached to Foregoing Report, Etc.



521a

Second Ward, etc. Their combined enrollment has dwindled 
sharply from 4442 in 1965 to less than 3000 projected for 
this fall—a 33Vs% loss in four years. Certainly the closing 
of these schools can be defended administratively.

But what are the implications of the plan from the 
standpoint of the cost? The Board intends to offer the 
transferred students transportation. This will cost money 
both to buy the equipment and to operate this equipment. 
The Business Service Department estimates that we would 
need to spend an additional $98,000 for the extra vehicles 
needed and that the operating cost would be about $30 
per pupil or about $90,000. By comparison, commercial 
transportation costs are estimated at $45 per pupil or 
$135,000 for the year. A maximum estimate of transporta­
tion cost for the 3000 pupils from the seven closed schools 
using our own department would be about $188,000.

It is estimated that 39 additional reloctable classrooms 
would be needed to increase the capacity of the receiving 
schools. The cost of purchasing and equipping these units 
is estimated at $330,000. Delivery on these units will take 
6 to 8 weeks. The first 5 to 10 units could be in operation 
by the middle of September and w7e might expect a one per 
day delivery rate from that point.

There are, however, some figures which might be ex­
amined on the other side of the ledger. The $383,000 slated 
for purchase of a few additional acres for the Metropolitan 
High School site could be used for other purposes. The 
$100,000 used to add to the Zeb Vance property could be 
reclaimed through sale. Bond monies tentatively allocate ; 
to some of these schools could be restudied. Mue-h of the 
property could be declared surplus and sold.

But the question, “ What are the implication* of the 
plan?” could be approached from -till another f t f 
view—the student’s and the school program.

Exhibits Attached to Foregoing Report, Etc.



522a

The students who are being moved from center city 
schools will have some adjustment problems. The system 
is proposing to help them make this adjustment. The 
students in the receiving schools will find some adjust­
ments necessary. Again, every effort will be made to help 
make this transition a smooth one.

The students from the center city have generally been 
achieving below the students in the receiving schools. This 
move will make it possible to attack the problem. Never­
theless, we should not expect a dramatic improvement in 
achievement during the first year. Some improvement will 
be registered but the main effect will take place over 
a period of years. On the other hand, the achievement 
of youngsters in the receiving schools will not be adversely 
affected. There is ample evidence that this does not occur 
in spite of the fears on the part of some that this might 
happen.

The PTA’s and school committees in the receiving school 
will need to make plans to incorporate new parents in their 
activities and programs else the very objectives of any 
move toward desegregation will be lost.

Finally, the net result of this move will be to place some 
3000 youngsters from closed schools and 1200 youngsters 
from overcrowded schools in learning environments where 
their chances for success will be greatly enhanced.

And now, finally, let’s consider the important question, 
“What will it take to make the plan work? ”

Certainly, it will take commitment to action by the Board 
of Education—united action, if possible— action by a demo­
cratic majority, if necessary. But the community must 
know that the Board is willing to lead the way. I feel 
events o f the past month demonstrate that the Board is 
ready to do this.

Exhibits Attached to Foregoing Report, Etc.



523a

Commitment on the part of the Board must be matched 
by commitment on the part of the professional staff. I am 
convinced by the tremendous support offered by principals 
and central office staff members and by the very favorable 
progress we have made in faculty desegregation that the 
commitment is there.

Certainly, the plan will have a better chance of success 
if it is generally accepted by those who are directly 
affected. Parents of students who are involved must see 
in this plan a better educational opportunity for their 
child.

In order for this plan to succeed there must be an 
outreach on the part of the receiving school. This must be 
more than a casual letter of greeting. Vital programs must 
be developed which will at one and the same time demon­
strate true concern and insure incoming students and 
parents that they will not be regarded as outsiders but will 
have a place in the school’s life and program.

Finally, in order for the plan to succeed there must be 
a commitment on the part of the community as a whole. 
The policy adopted by the Board of Education must be 
adopted by the community and by certain agencies and 
forces within the community. The majority of the people 
must truly believe that it is in the best interest of a demo­
cratic society to afford equal opportunities to all people 
regardless of race, creed, color or economic circumstances.

Exhibits Attached to Foregoing Report, Etc.



524a

Approved
7-31-69

PROPOSED ADM INISTRATIVE CHANGES

Exhibits Attached to Foregoing Report, Etc.

To

Asst, to SuperintendentE. E. Waddell 
Gerson Stroud 

Asaac Graham 
John Kibler 

Mrs. Mathilda Spears 
B. G. Whisnant 
B. D. Roberts 
0. N. Freeman 
Louis Hughes 
W. G. Byers

From
Prin.-Second Ward 
Prin.-Kennedy 
Prin.-Irwin Ave. 

Prin.-Bethune 
Prin.-Zeb Vance 
Prin.-Elizabeth 
Prin.-Isabella Wyche 
Prin.-Lincoln Heights 
Prin.-Alexander Street 
Prin.-Fairview

Prin.-P-600*
Prin.-Kennedy 
Prin.-Lakeview 
Prin.-Park Road 
Prin.-Hidden Valley 
Prin.-Elizabeth 
Adm. Asst.-Personnel 
Prin.-Lincoln Heights 
Adm. Asst.-Elem. Ed.

* Mr. Stroud will serve as Administrative Assistant until such time as the 
school is completed.



525a

Transcript of August 5, 1969 Proceedings (Excerpts)

[4] * * *
Dr. W illiam C. Self, a witness for the defendant, having 

first been duly sworn, was examined and testified as fol­
lows :

15] Direct Examination by Mr. Waggoner:

Q. Dr. Self, you are Superintendent of the Charlotte- 
Mecklenburg Board of Education? A. I am.

Q. Dr. Self, are you familiar with the order of the Court 
dated June 20, 1969? A. Yes.

Q. Did the Board of Education meet to review the order 
of the Court? A. Yes, it did.

Q. What meetings were held by the Board of Education 
and any committees? A. There was a meeting of the 
Board of Education a few days after the Court order was 
issued. As I recall, the major objective of this meeting 
was to ask the Board attorney to review the Court order. 
It was discussed thoroughly by the Board of Education 
at that time. A second meeting of the Board of Education 
was set, at which time the Board directed the staff to take 
the plan for desegregation prepared by the plaintiffs, re­
ferred to as the Finger plan, and present it to the Board 
of Education for their study. There was this second meet­
ing, then, following it at which time the staff endeavored 
as best it could to interpret the Finger plan for desegrega­
tion to the Board of Education, using audio-visual slides, 
overlays, maps, things of this nature. After [6] consider­
able discussion by that Board of Education at that meet­
ing, it was determined that the Board should attempt to 
devise a plan for desegregation and they also determined 
that this work should be assigned to a committee of the 
Board rather than to the Board as a whole. Five members



526a

of the Board of Education were appointed to this commit­
tee and three staff members worked with the committee. 
The committee itself held quite a few meetings. The first 
one that 1 recall was on July 3. There was another meet­
ing on the 11th, the 19th, the 21st and 22nd. Most of these 
meetings were for long periods of time, lasting for half a 
day or thereabouts. Meanwhile, the committee, or at least 
members of the committee, visited other school systems to 
see what was going on there and also spent a good hit of 
time studying other court eases, the objective being to 
identify for further study some of the approaches used to 
achieve desegregation.

Q. Which systems did you study? A. We communicated 
by telephone with several school systems in an attempt to 
determine whether or not the approaches they were using 
could say anything to us. In contacts with Buffalo and 
Syracuse, Xew York, we did determine that it probablv 
would be worth our while to pay them a visit, an on site 
visit.

Q. How much time was spent on these visits? A. As I 
recall the trip took a little better than two days.

[" ]  Q. Did this special sub-committee report tack to 
the committee as a whole? A. Yes. it did.

Q- X 'w . with reference to the rlan of desetrresstion. the 
nrst portion reals with the policy statement Did the Board 
spend — tfc tin e  on the poficr statement! A  I  ffent tte  
ream  spent eeres. rename time er the ne 'e”  statement

h Tees m s  pehry star erne"' refect »m* ienarmtm frrm 
fjmaer >.\srd pvh.-y ' A. Y«w it iocs.

V- what way* A Wet?. I behove in the Catrrr n-rcr 
«* Jmsc M  WM of the IM fefK  *•* Star Sic Board 3 d  trot 

• ' . fj*.
s. er e;‘ sviKv.s. saym; -■ :— - »» -«■ isssssisw

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct



527a

by neighborhoods. In this policy statement the Board does 
acknowledge that it has a responsibility. I think that the 
key phrase in the policy statement is the one which is 
found in the fourth paragraph which says: The Board of 
Education firmly believes further desegregation of stu­
dents and professional staff will contribute to the educa­
tional and social development of all children. A statement 
of belief. And then a statement which, at least in my opin­
ion, in a commitment: The Board is further of the belief 
that desegregation of students should be coordinated with 
[83 desegregation of teachers, principals and staff mem­
bers, both of which should be accomplished at the earliest 
possible date.

Q. Now, the first actual implementation of this policy 
statement appears to be with reference to closing some seven 
schools. A. That is correct.

Q. Now, what was the reasoning of the Board for clos­
ing these particular schools? A. I feel that there are some 
administrative reasons. The schools themselves are old to 
the point of being obsolete. Bethune is the oldest one and it’s 
57. Irwin Avenue is the youngest and it’s 34 years old. 
All of the schools sit on inadequate sites, sites which could 
be expanded only at rather sizeable cost. The enrollment 
of the schools has decreased over the past several years. 
I believe that statistics show that the enrollment of all of 
the seven schools combined has decreased by approximately 
33Vs% since 1965.

Q. Now were the schools selected to which these students 
would be reassigned? A. Some of the schools that were 
selected had some space but by and large the criteria which 
was used was to find schools in some of the sections of 
Charlotte which had experienced up to this particular point 
minimum desegregation and which had good educational 
programs into which these youngsters might fit.

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct



528a

Q. From an educational standpoint is this a desirable 
move? [9] A. In my opinion, it is.

Q. Why do you feel this is educationally desirable? A. 
Well, I think from the standpoint of an educator moving 
youngsters from one geographic area to another has been 
defended down through history on the basis of improving 
his educational opportunity. I think that this is the ra­
tionale that prevailed in the Mecklenburg County system 
when Bain and Matthews and Sterling and some of the 
smaller schools were replaced by larger consolidated 
schools. Here the movement was from an environment 
which offered limited educational opportunity to one that 
offer a greater potential, and I think that the same rationale 
could be applied here.

Q. Under this plan that’s proposed, primarily blacks 
would be the only ones bused. Why are only blacks bused 
under this plan? A. Well, the predominant number, of 
course, would be Xegro youngsters. There is one provision 
that might pick up some youngsters from the disadvantaged 
neighborhoods who are white and bus them to other areas 
as —en. rut I think it’s beeause the blacks are found in this 
parttealar area of the disadvantaged.

Q ^"kat is the motivation from an educational stand­
point for busing these h acks on* of these disadvantaged 
re u: to mood s ' A To provide * better educational ac­
r e 'm o v  m  it tost sane time accent rdsb fx~ther re- 
segregatooa rf tie svstem

w  wfengki tksjt 4M1 feftDsf - —
XT— rfhirritiiwrl “  J L lttU h fM IflM r
re ''Ompgaters are atoned anj- tnese sehoois. dn» smr- 
o tvcraattpafsi %ttt be aQattoeedi. aov
• • da .V ed'tewtoeaA o-.-xpa.r. ■' ■ -a .-cv- r-s 
' 't  bK> a wdf V t  >-v-

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct



529a

Court: Mr. Marshal, it may be that these people 
in the hall can keep order among themselves if I tell 
them they will have to close the doors unless the 
noise from the hall is kept down. Can you people in 
the hack of the hall hear me! We will have to close 
the doors unless there is less noise in the hall.

Go ahead.

Q. Dr. Self, with reference to the black schools which are 
being closed, could they he operated for another year! A. 
Yes, they could he operated another year. I  think that 
you’d have to take into account, again, some of the things 
which I mentioned, the age of the building, the limited 
facilities, but yes.

Q. Have most of these schools been on the drawing board 
for closing out for sometime in the school system! A. Yes. 
As a part of the thirty-five million dollar construction 
program it was anticipated that these schools would be
[11] abandoned.

Q. Are you familiar with the recommendation of Dr. 
Finger with reference to these schools! A. I  believe I recall 
his recommendation, yes.

Q. What was his recommendation, if you recall! A. I 
believe that he recommended closing Zeb Yance, Isabella 
Wyche, Bethune, Alexander Street. I  do not believe he 
mentioned Fairview but mentioned in its place Elizabeth. 
The plan did not deal with Irwin Avenue Junior High 
School. As a matter of fact, I don’t think Irwin Avenue 
was mentioned, and it did not mention Metropolitan High 
School.

Q. Did Dr. Finger’s plan make any specific disposition 
of the students who formerly attend those schools! A.

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct



530a

These students were assigned to other schools although I 
cannot recall exactly what schools.

Q. Now, the next feature of the plan provides for trans­
portation of blacks from overcrowded black schools. On 
what determination was this provision reached! A. I feel 
the objective is the same as in the closing of schools, to 
achieve further desegregation and to afford better educa­
tional opportunities for the pupils involved.

Q. Aren’t there some white schools that have fairly severe 
overcrowding? A. Yes. As a matter of fact, our physical 
facilities as a whole in the school system are overcrowded.

[12] Q. Is it your feeling, then, that the educational 
advantages of this move outweigh the disadvantages that 
would be experienced from moving whites to other schools ? 
A. Yes, it is.

Q. Now, the next feature of the plan provides for re­
structuring of attendance lines. Why hasn’t the School 
Board restructured the attendance lines prior to this time? 
A. Well, I think that probably the major reason would be 
that the Board of Education did not adopt a policy on 
desegregation officially until just several weeks ago. With 
that policy adopted, it then became necessary for the Board 
of Education to examine its present method of redrawing 
attendance lines and respect this matter of desegregation 
while they did so.

Q. From an administrative standpoint, would it be pos­
sible to restructure the school attendance lines for the year 
1969-70? A. I do not feel that it would be. I ’d have to 
qualify that by saying that you could take a map and draw 
a circle around schools, but this would be a very shallow 
way of treating a very, very difficult problem. I view the 
drawing of the attendance lines as a mammoth undertaking.

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct



531a

one which would have to update the statistics of the school 
system, arrive at some guidelines for drawing the new 
attendance lines, subject these to numerous review by the 
Board of Education and, to the degree that it’s possible, 
to the school community, and then interpret this in terms 
of administrative action.

[13] Q. This is not a job that could he accomplished by 
one or several people, is this correct! A. I think it might 
be supervised by one or several people, but many people 
would be involved in the actual work.

Q. How long would it take to restructure the attendance 
lines for the school served by the system! A. Well, again, 
we can only make an estimate. We have estimated it would 
take six months. I believe that’s the wording of the plan.

Q. What is the basis for the six months estimate! How 
do you reach the six months estimate! A. I think on the 
basis of knowing how much work there is to be accomplished 
and on the experience that we have had in terms of drawing 
attendance lines in the past where new schools were built, 
additions to schools were completed, that sort of thing.

Q. I understand that the Board of Education proposes 
using a system analysis approach as an aid to restructuring 
of attendance lines, is this correct! A. The possibility has 
been investigated, yes.

Q. Basically what would be involved in this approach! 
A. Well, my impression is more or less a lay impression 
because I ’m certainly not versed in the field of system 
analysis. It’s a systematic approach where you determine 
what criteria you’re going to use to redraw an attendance 
line, you look at [14] the data and statistics that are avail­
able and you come out with some sort of determination 
where that line is going to be. I think that the possibility

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct



532a

of adapting all this to a computer for the purpose of han­
dling the tremendous amount of logistics which would be 
involved has also been explored.

Q. Have you had an estimate as to how long it would 
take to do the systems analysis and programming work 
for a computer printout of the schools? A. I believe that 
that’s where we got the six months, Mr. Waggoner.

Q. Now, there’s been a reported plan, called a plan by 
the press, presented to the Board by a Mr. Weil. Are you 
familiar with this illustration? A. Yes.

Q. Could this illustration prepared by Mr. Weil be im­
plemented for this fall? A. No, I do not believe it could be.

Q. Why could it not be? A. I’m basing my answer on 
that more from the standpoint of Mr. Weil’s comments 
than I am on any intimate knowledge of the situation, but 
I believe he himself indicated that it would take six months 
to work it through.

Mr. Chambers: Objection.
Court: The objection to what he said would be 

sustained.

[15] Q. Do you feel that any further substantial degree 
of desegregation could be accomplished by restructuring 
of attendance lines? A. Yes.

Q. What criteria would you basically use in restructur­
ing these lines? A. Well, I think that much of the criteria 
you would use would be the same we have used in the past, 
the distance from school, major highway arteries, grade 
levels involved, capacity of the school, things of this nature, 
and one new criteria, that of achieving a racial mix in the 
student body would be introduced.

Q. This - t " .....a : ......cry  usee, is this : .....

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct



533a

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct

A. That’s correct.
Q. What would he the effect of changing one or two at­

tendance zones for this current year on the proposed total 
restructuring for nest year? A. It would be my opinion 
that it would produce an uproar on the part of the com­
munity that was involved, that we would he immediately 
charged with singling them out for action and not taking 
any action as far as the rest of the school system is con­
cerned.

Q. When you restructure a school attendance line, is 
merely one line involved or does it involve other lines? 
A. All the lines in the school probably would be involved. 
Of [16] course, if this is true, you’re studying the attend­
ance lines of the neighboring schools as well.

Q. Now, there’s been some discussion and testimony 
concerning pairing of certain schools and there are two 
schools that are urged more often than others, Billings- 
ville and Marie Davis. Could these schools be paired for 
this year? A. Yes, they could, but I think the same com­
ments that we made about singling out a particular area 
for action in attendance lines would be applicable if a 
single school was singled out for pairing.

Q. What effect would this have on your restructuring of 
lines for next year? A. Rephrase your question, please.

Q. You have just stated that we were discussing the pair­
ing of Billingsville and Marie Davis for this year. What 
effect would the restructuring for next year have on the 
pairing that might be accomplished for this year? A. It’s 
possible that in these same schools desegregation could be 
achieved through a redrawing of attendance lines. I  be­
lieve that the committee, in its consideration of pairing, 
came to the conclusion that pairing should be resorted to 
after you’ve explored other possibilities for desegregation,



534a

that attendance line restructuring holds more premise of a 
permanent solution than does the pairing of schools.

Q. The plan provides another departure, that the school 
[173 construction program will be reviewed. What effect 
do you expect this to have on desegregation? A. As I 
understand it, the construction program is to be reviewed 
with the objective being to locate, construct and organize 
school facilities in such a way as to promote desegregation 
to the extent that it can possibly be achieved through this 
technique, and I think that some progress toward further 
desegregation can be achieved through this technique.

Q. Do I understand this technique to be that the schools 
will be located so as to promote further desegregation? 
A. Yes.

Court: Does that include giving attention to the 
size or population of the proposed schools as well 
as to the location with that purpose in mind?

A. I think it would although, Your Honor, I think that size 
of school is an optimum way of solving a desegregation 
problem. Both Syracuse and Buffalo have used many of 
the techniques we’re using here but they are resting a good 
bit of their hope on the construction of campus schools 
where large numbers of pupils are housed and practically 
everyone except those living in close proximity to the 
campus are transported.

Q. Dr. Self, do you feel that the restructuring of school 
attendance lines and constructing schools and setting ca­
pacities so as to promote further desegregation offers 
any real solution to the desegregation problem? [183 A. I 
feel it offers very positive hope.

Q. Now, wuth reference to the report filed with the Court 
relating to faculty, have you reviewed the various schedules

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct



535a

relating to faculty assignments in the elementary schools for 
this year? A. Yes, I have.

Q. What do you find noteworthy in the report as filed 
with reference to elementary schools? A. Well, the Board 
and staff set as a goal 17% minority race representation on 
every faculty and with only one or two exceptions this goal 
has been reached. I find this noteworthy.

Q. What has the effect been with reference to formerly 
no all black or nearly black faculties. I think that we have 
no all black or nearly black faculties. I think that we have 
been able to desegregate faculty to the point where it is 
not a token number of members of the minority race.

Q. Do you have an opinion with respect to faculty de­
segregation for the school year 1970-71? A. I feel that it 
is our intention to continue to make progress in this area.

Q. What is the normal attrition of your faculty during 
the school year from year to year? A. Well, our turn­
over is rather high. That plus the fact that we grow by 
about 3000 pupils per year means that we will [19] employ 
around 650 new teachers every year.

Q. Do you feel that the number of vacancies created and 
new positions created will enable you to accomplish sig­
nificant further desegregation of faculty? A. Yes, it will, 
but we have not relied upon that as the sole technique this 
year. We have moved some people.

Q. Has this been by assignment by the staff? A. This 
has been by design of the staff, yes.

Q. What has the faculty acceptance of these assign­
ments been? A. I think on the whole it’s been very good. 
Our Assistant Superintendent, I believe, reported to the 
Board of Education that there had been three resigna­
tions which could be attributed to the fact that these moves 
were made, but other than that I think it has been very 
well accepted.

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct



536a

Q. Has the Board taken any recent action with reference 
to Second Ward High School or Metropolitan, as it is now 
referred to? A. Yes. There was a motion made at the 
last Board meeting which was last Thursday afternoon. 
I can’t recall the wording of the motion but in effect it 
reserved the bond money which had been designated for the 
center-city area for the Metropolitan High School for the 
construction on that site of an educational facility.

Q. Dr. Self, the plan makes mention of compensatory 
education. Would you tell the Court what is intended when 
we speak of compensatory education? [20] A. Well, if two 
students enter a particular classroom at the same time with 
the same teacher and one of them is behind the other in 
terms of his achievement, the chances are that he will get 
further behind his classmate as the year progresses. The 
only hope that he can catch up is through providing him 
with additional help and resources. This is the thinking 
that educators use when you plan a summer school pro­
gram, help those who need additional help to catch up to 
their classmates. And actually the compensatory education 
program as we have it in mind would be the application of 
this same principle during the regular school year. If we 
can help the youngster who is in need of it through correc­
tive or remedial programs or something of this nature, we 
feel that we ought to try to provide it within the limits of 
the funds that are available.

Q. There is further mention of the in-service training 
for teachers. What does this involve? A. Simply an at­
tempt to improve the teacher’s knowledge of the environ­
ment, background, special learning problems of students 
in a desegregated setting. It could apply to white as well as 
black.

Q. One of the last statements concerning the plan of

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct



537a

desegregation relates to further studies of grouping or 
pairing. What is the proposal of the staff with reference 
to implementing this provision? [21] A. We propose to do 
just that. I think that that provision is in the plan because 
the Board of Education recognizes that this problem is 
of such importance that every section of the school com­
munity ought to be touched by it and if there are some sec­
tions that are not touched by school closings or by attend­
ance line alterations or something of this nature, then we 
would like to find some other way to bring them into con­
tact with members of the opposite race.

Q. Do you have an estimate of the cost of the interim 
measures for transportation of the students during the 
school year 1969-70? A. I do. Our Business Service De­
partment has given us estimates on this. They used a 
figure of $30.00 per pupil in terms of transportation. That 
means that if all of the children of the closed area accepted 
the assignment to another school that we would multiply 
the 3000 pupils by $30.00 and came up with $90,000.00 in 
terms of cost. In addition to this, it costs about $98,000.00 
in terms of providing the equipment for use in the imple­
menting the transportation program. Then in terms of the 
relocatable classrooms, which would be necessary in terms 
of housing the youngsters, our estimate is about $330,000.00.

Q. Dr. Self, what provision has been made for those 
students attending the schools being closed who do not 
wish to be transported? [22] A. The plan calls for the 
youngsters in the Zeb Vance, Isabella Wyche, Bethune 
areas who do not choose to take advantage of the trans­
portation to be accommodated in the Zeb Vance Elementary 
School facility. The plan calls for those youngsters from 
the Fairview and the Alexander Street area who do not 
wish to be transported to be reassigned to adjoining schools.

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct



538a

The plan calls for the students from Irwin Avenue and 
Second Ward who do not wish to be transported to be 
assigned to adjoining schools.

Q. So what this basically means is that for these students 
who do not want to be transported, they won’t have to be 
transported, is that correct! A. That’s my interpretation 
of it, yes.

Q. Do you need community support for the success of 
this interim measure! A. Definitely.

Q. What support would be most helpful to you! A. 
Well, I think that the parents whose youngsters are 
effected by any move in terms of transportation, if they 
come to an awareness that their youngsters will profit by 
this, educationally speaking, it would be of great value 
to us. On the other hand, if the parents in the receiving- 
schools could develop an understanding that their educa­
tional program would not be diminished by the move but 
really would be enhanced by the move, I think we would 
be helped mightily by [23] that as well.

Mr. Waggoner: I have no further questions.
Court: Cross examination!
Mr. Chambers: Yes, sir.

Cross Examination by Mr. Chambers:

Q. Dr. Self, you mentioned that after the Court’s order 
in June the Board met and decided to appoint a five man 
committee to draw a plan. You also stated that the Board 
instructed you to review the Finger plan. Did you review 
the Finger plan! A. Yes, we did.

Q. Did you prepare a written report with respect to the 
Finger plan! A. Not in that sense, Mr. Chambers. We 
made a presentation. We had maps and overlays and went

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross



539a

through the Finger plan in detail. There was some written 
material but I would not call it a report.

Q. You did have some written material! A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you had some maps! A. Yes.
Q. Are those in your possession! A. They are not in 

my immediate possession. They are in the office.
Q. How many maps did you have! [24] A. We had 

the three maps, one for the elementary schools, the junior 
high and the senior high, three separate maps.

Q. How much written material do you recall that you 
had in this connection! A. I don’t recall how much it 
was.

Q. However, the complete material is in your possession! 
A. Yes.

Q. Did you report on the possible pairing of Billingsville, 
Cotswald, Eastover and Chantilly! A. We did.

Q. Would you tell the Court what you stated about the 
possibility and feasibility of doing that for 1969-70! 
A. Mr. Chambers, as best I recall I reported the plan 
without interjecting any of my judgment into it at that 
particular time. I simply interpreted what I had under­
stood the Finger plan to be without trying to interject 
any judgment into it.

Q. Did you state, Dr. Self, whether it was feasible to 
implement the pairing of those schools for 1969-70! A. 
No, I did not.

Q. Did you state whether it was possible to integrate 
those schools for 1969-70! A. No, I did not.

Q. Did you consider in your report the possible pairing 
of Marie Davis, Collingswood, Sedgefield, Pinewood and 
Montclaire! A. I reported on that pairing arrangement 
which, I believe, [25] Dr. Finger had drawn up around 
Marie Davis, yes.

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross



540a

Q. Did you state whether it was feasible to pair those 
schools! A. No, I didn’t.

Q. Did you discuss the possible pairing of Hidden Valley 
and Tryon Hills! A. Again, I reported on the plan itself.

Q. Did you state whether it was feasible to pair those 
schools! A. No, I didn’t.

Q. Did you report on the possible pairing of Bruns 
Avenue, Enderly Park and Ashley Park! A. I reported 
on the plan itself, yes.

Q. Did you talk about the feasibility of pairing those 
schools! A. No, sir.

Q. Did you report on the possible pairing of Thomas- 
boro, Hoskins and Lakeview! A. Yes.

Q. Did you report on the feasibility of pairing those 
schools! A. No, I did not.

Q. Did you report on the possible alteration of the 
geographic zones for Second Ward or Metropolitan High 
School! A. I do not recall that.

Q. Did you subsequently, Dr. Self, prepare a report 
or some information for the Board relative to a plan 
for desegregation in compliance with the Court’s order! 
A. No, Mr. Chambers, I did not. The committee itself 
elected to [263 avoid the technique of having the staff 
prepare a plan for consideration by the committee. The 
committee itself elected to be involved in the derivation 
of the plan as a body, not to ask that the staff make it in 
terms of recommendations to them.

Q. Did you work with the staff in the preparation of any 
plan! A. I worked with the committee itself.

Q. You worked with the committee! A. Yes.
Q. H o w  many plans did you prepare! A. I believe there 

were several revisions, at least three that I know of.
Q. Were these revisions written up! A. They were.

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross



541a

The majority of them had to do with revision of the policy 
statement.

Q. Are those revisions in your possession? A. I have 
rough notes on them, yes.

Q. Do you recall whether the committee considered the 
possible pairing of the schools we just mentioned? A. Not 
of these schools specifically, no.

Q. Did they consider the pairing of any schools? A. I 
think in terms of school pairing the school committee con­
cluded that the first alternative for desegregation which 
should be attempted was the alteration of attendance lines.

Q. Did the committee consider the pairing of any schools? 
[27] A. Not beyond what I have just stated.

Q. Now, you mentioned something in your direct ex­
amination about a Weil report. A. Yes.

Q. Do you know the name of the individual who pre­
pared that report? A. That is his name, Mr. Jack Weil.

Q. Do you know whether he is in court at this time ? A. 
No, sir, I do not.

Q. Did you contact Mr. Weil? A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. Do you know who contacted Mr. Weil? A. Mr. Weil’s 

first contact with me was on his initiative.
Q. He contacted you? A. He did.
Q. What followed after he contacted you? A. He asked 

for a conference. He stated that as an interested citizen 
that he would like to talk with me about a technique for 
redrawing attendance lines. He did not know all of the 
problems that there would be involved and the conference 
that we had was for the purpose of trying to give him what 
data he would need to make some additional judgment.

Q. Did you give him that data? A. To the best of my 
ability, yes, I did.

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross



542a

Q. Did he subsequently prepare some report or some in­
formation for you? [28] A. He prepared a report and he 
presented it to some of the members of the committee 
working on the desegregation plan.

Q. This report was presented to the committee? A. 
Yes, it was.

Q. Were you present? A. I was.
Q. Now, you’re supposed to have today a copy of that 

report.

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, if I may make 
a statement. With reference to the Weil plan or 
illustration or whatever it might be, we have some 
pencil notes that Mr. Weil turned over to us after 
his presentation at the Board meeting. He did not 
pass out any papers of any kind. It was merely his 
notes that he turned over to me as attorney for the 
Board.

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, it’s my understand­
ing they also have a map.

Mr. Waggoner: There is a map in the back room.
Court: Are you objecting to the question?
Mr. Waggoner: I was just trying to shorten the 

testimony. It appeared there was some thought 
there was a formal report presented. It was an oral 
report from his notes. I have his notes and I have 
his map also.

Court: I have no intention of killing a lot of time 
[29] on the whereabouts or the custody of the Weil 
plan, but it has occurred to me listening to this ex­
amination that one of the things the Court has got 
to decide, if this plan in whole or in part is approved, 
is what kind of timetable needs to be followed in the 
preparation of plans and statements of intention for

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross



543a

further action. With that in mind, I think the Weil 
plan or uny other plan that somebody might have 
worked up in whatever form it is would be relevant 
in trying to set a timetable. So I would be curious 
about the plan itself without attempting to pass 
judgment on it.

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court pleases, with refer­
ence to the plan, this was a manual plan. It doesn’t 
consider all the options available to a computer. 
They were a layman’s educational criteria applied to 
designing these boundaries and we feel that it would 
do a disservice to the community to put this map out 
for public speculation that the school line could run 
here or there or I may be in this school or I may be 
in that school. The Board has no intention of adopt­
ing this particular plan. It was merely an illustra­
tion. A great deal of mischief would be done to pre­
sent this to the public.

Court: Well, nobody made an objection so far. 
What’s the next question1?

Mr. Chambers: I have filed with opposing counsel 
a copy of our objections and response to the defen­
dant’s plan. [30] We would like to get the map that 
was prepared by Mr. Weil to identify.

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, I object to 
the Weil map as being irrelevant to the conduct of 
this hearing. It does not represent any feature of 
the plan, any adoption of the plan.

Court: Mr. Waggoner, in view of the absence of a 
timetable which, as you know, the appellate deci­
sions all require in such plan, it evolves upon the 
Court to set a timetable. The nature of work that 
may have been generated by Mr. Weil in whatever

Colloquy



544a

time he worked on it is of some relevance in enabling 
the Court to decide what kind of time is reasonable 
for preparation of this kind of study. If you are, in 
substance, asking the Court to treat this so-called 
plan as confidential or to require it not to be released 
to the public, I ’ll hear both sides on that because that 
would make some sense.

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, I have no ob­
jection to revealing it to the Court and counsel. I 
just feel that a publication of it would not do this 
community any service.

Court: You see, Mr. Waggoner, you’re in the posi­
tion of asking the Court to accept the six months 
timetable for the submission of plan for the further 
action, but of concealing from the Court and oppos­
ing counsel the [31] information from the man who 
says six months is needed. I can’t accept this posi­
tion. I ’ll either have to disregard all that’s been said 
about computer analysis or take a look at what Mr. 
Weil said and do some thinking of my own.

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, I believe Mr. 
Weil would be . . .

Court: You might be in more danger if I have to 
do my thinking on my own.

Mr. Waggoner: Well, the thing that hasn’t been 
explored, and I think perhaps this would be in the 
nature of voir dire on determining whether or not 
this particular map would even relate to a method 
that would be a process for reaching a restructuring 
of lines. This was a manual preparation.

Court: They all start out that way.
Mr. Waggoner: And to develop this computer 

system, all of these hundreds of little boxes on the

Colloquy



545a

map, they’ve got to be stored with the numbers of 
elementary, junior high and senior high by races 
and a system has to be designed that would give a 
computer printout. Mr. Weil has advised it will take 
three months to do . . .

Court: I can’t cross examine you, Mr. Waggoner.
Mr. Waggoner: I know you can’t, Your Honor, but 

I think that Dr. Self, with his familiarity with the 
difficulties . . .

[32] Court: Let’s just put it this way; if you 
want the Court to pay any attention to the existence 
or probable contents or difficulty of preparing a 
computer plan, you have to put the plan up here for 
the Court to see. Otherwise I ’d just have to make 
sort of a running guess about how long it would take 
Dr. Self, using the resources of the Board, to do 
what’s necessary to carry out the undertaking that 
the plan embraces.

Mr. Waggoner: I would prefer to rely on the wis­
dom of the Court’s guess.

Mr. Chambers: I  would like to say one thing in 
reference to that. We would like to introduce this 
matter, not only because of the contention relative 
to the time necessary to present a plan for complete 
desegregation, but also because under Green the 
Court was to consider alternatives which would pro­
duce the most desegregation in the school system. 
Now, the Board has submitted this plan and it’s 
before the Court on the condition that it’s all the 
Board or the most feasible step the Board could 
take for 1969-70. We want the Court to consider 
what Mr. Weil has done to determine whether there 
should be some other step that the Board should

Colloquy



546a

take to desegregate the system for 1969-70. We 
submit, therefore, that what evidence is presented 
on the Weil plan would be relevant on the matter of 
whether there should be some alternative plan or, if 
the Court accepts the plan that [33] is submitted, 
what time schedule should the Board be required 
to present the new plan.

Court: Mr. Waggoner said he wanted me to guess 
on that. I would rather not guess to the extent that 
this is necessary, but I don’t think it’s really a guess, 
it’s an estimate based on the evidence in the case 
and in the absence of some evidence as to what it 
takes to do that the Weil plan or what the use of a 
computer would require, I will have to disregard 
the opinions that have been given about six months 
being required. We come out the same place which­
ever way we start. I ’d rather get on to something 
else than to . . .

Mr. Chambers: I would like to offer this evidence 
on the feasibility of an alternate plan.

Court: As I recall the evidence already in the 
record, the evidence of Dr. Self in this court before 
was that all of these groupings and p a ir in g s  about 
which you've ask him were feasible if politically ac­
cepted. That's substantially what you testified be­
fore. isn't it?

A 1 used the titahicatiou administratively feasible.

- - - • e : '
make people mad. That's my recollection jf  what 
le sac ecu- a... >  Y"igjrr’s matt except for a
toitpie h areas- ‘hat to retied me.

Dr. William C. Self-—for Defendant—Cross



547a

Mr. Chambers: Well, Your Honor, I also under­
stood him to say that he did not consider it educa­
tionally advisable [34] to pair those schools for 
1969-70.

Court: He didn’t say that in his previous testi­
mony. What he said earlier today is that he did not 
recommend to the Board that they were feasible 
for 1969-70.

Mr. Chambers: There was a question about
whether the children involved in those areas would 
be going to a disadvantaged area in connection with 
sending some white kids into black schools. Again, 
I simply go back to Green and we should, I submit, 
be able to show the Court that there are other feas­
ible plans that this Board could utilize for 69-70 
which would effectively desegregate the system better 
than the plan that is now before the Court.

Court: Don’t you suppose the Court knows that? 
Don’t you suppose everybody here knows that?

Mr. Chambers: If the Court is going to do what 
we request the Court to do, that is, to bring in 
another plan, if the Court requests the Board to do 
that, that’s the only thing . . .

Court: If the evidence in the case already demon­
strates to the satisfaction, I think, of everybody 
that’s heard it that more could have been done than 
is proposed to be done here, I don’t think we need 
to belabor that.

Mr. Chambers: It still leaves me hanging on 
whether the Court is going to require a new plan.

Court: The Court is still hanging on that point,

Colloquy



548a

[35] Mr. Chambers. I don’t believe a lot of in­
formation about the Weil plan is going to help us 
on that.

Mr. Chambers: May I make one further request, 
Your Honor. Since it has been indicated that the 
defendant would not like the plan to be offered in 
public that the Court allow us to offer this plan 
under Rule 46.

Court: If you’ve got it, you may offer it. I have 
no objection to its being offered, and I ’ll rule that it 
may be admitted if you’ve got it.

Q. Now, Dr. Self, you talked about the seven schools, the 
closing of the seven black schools. In the plan submitted 
by the Board in April the Board did not propose to close 
either of those schools for 1969-70. A. That is correct.

Q. Now, would you tell the Court what led the Board to 
decide to close those seven schools for 1969-70? A. Well, 
I think the starting point for such deliberations was the 
policy statement by the Board of Education. They felt 
that further desegregation of students was called for at 
this time. They saw this as a way of achieving it.

Q. Now, why did they decide that the closing of those 
schools was the way to achieve further desegregation? A. 
Well, I think that one thing that influenced their thinking 
was that it was a part of the proposal by the plaintiffs’ 
expert in this area, and the second thing which called it to
[36] their mind was that the technique of school closing 
had been employed before by this Board of Education and 
was employed by both Boards of Education in Buffalo and 
Syracuse.

Q. In your report you indicate that the Board considered 
it more feasible to consider the closing of black schools and

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross



549a

transportation of black students one way than to integrate 
both the black and white schools, is that correct? A. I think 
in my testimony I tried to indicate that the movement, 
educationally speaking, is more defensible if you can move 
a youngster from an area in which he may suffer educa­
tional deprivation into one where he is promised a better 
education.

Q. Did the Board determine that there was no black 
school in the system which would allow a student to advance 
educationally? A. No, the Board did not.

Q. Now, did the Board decide that there are some black 
schools in the system which would allow a student to ad­
vance educationally? A. I don’t believe that the committee 
discussed this.

Q. All right. Now, you gave your opinion a moment ago 
about the educational advantage of transferring students 
from a disadvantaged area to a more advanced area. In 
your opinion is there a black school in this system which 
you would utilize to integrate students in the schools? A. 
Not at this time.

[37] Q. You stated that the objective of the Board 
was to proceed further with integration in 1970-71. Is it 
your intention as you understand the policy of the Board 
to close all of the black schools in this system? A. I be­
lieve I stated that it was our intention to proceed further 
with faculty desegregation in 70-71 but it is not my under­
standing that the Board of Education contemplates closing 
all black schools.

Q. Is it your understanding that the Board contemplates 
closing more black schools in 1970-71? A. That is not my 
understanding.

Q. Is it your understanding that it plans to close any? 
A. No, it is not.

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross



550a

Q. Then, despite the fact that you say there is no black 
school in this system which would offer any educational 
advantage for purposes of integration, you do not under­
stand the Board of Education plans to close any more black 
schools? A. I did indicate that it was not my understand­
ing that the Board of Education intended to close any 
additional black schools.

Q. Does the Board plan to integrate any of the remaining 
black schools? A. That matter was not discussed by the 
committee.

Q. Then is it your testimony, Dr. Self, that the Board 
excluded any consideration of integration of black schools 
for 1969-70? [38] A. For 1969-70, yes.

Q. Well, does the Board plan to integrate any of the 
black schools in 1970-71? A. I have no way of knowing 
that, Mr. Chambers. It has not been considered by the 
committee.

Q. Well, you filed a report here that said that you were 
going to draw new school zone lines and that you were 
going to use the objective of the Board of promoting in­
tegration. Now, is it your understanding of the policy 
statement of the Board that you are to integrate the re­
maining black schools? A. Well, it could be assumed from 
reading the policy that this would be an ultimate goal but 
this matter has not been discussed by the committee as yet.

Q. Well, you testified, Dr. Self, that you anticipated 
substantial integration of students in 1970-71. I want to 
know what standards of criteria you’re planning to follow 
and if you are planning to integrate the remaining black 
schools or leave them like they are. A. Well, these plans 
have to be devised, Mr. Chambers, by the Board of Educa­
tion working with the staff. I am not at liberty to say what 
it is that the Board of Education intends to do.

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross



551a

Q. You just testified about you anticipate a substantial 
integration of teachers, that you anticipated substantial 
integration of students as a result of the new zones and as
[39] a result of the new school plan with respect to con­
struction. Are you telling the Court now that you don’t 
anticipate this integration! A. No, I am not. I am saying 
that we will try to use these techniques which have been 
identified as a part of the plan to achieve substantial fur­
ther desegregation.

Q. Isn’t it a fact, Dr. Self, that the committee discussed 
and you understood the committee and the Board as re­
quiring no integration with white students going into black 
schools in 1969-70 or later? A. That is not my under­
standing.

Q. Did you understand them to require integration of 
these black schools? A. I understand from the declara­
tion of the policy on the part of the Board that we will 
move in this direction.

Q. In integrating black schools? A. But what techniques 
will be used I have no way of knowing at this particular 
time.

Q. Dr. Self, did you consider it feasible to integrate West 
Charlotte in 1969-70? A. Did I or did the committee?

Q. Did you? A. No, I did not.
Q. Do you now consider it feasible ? A. Not at this time.
[40] Q. What would be the educational reason for not 

integrating West Charlotte? A. The educational reason 
for not integrating West Charlotte?

Q. Yes. A. I don’t know of an educational reason. 
There are certainly some political and economic reasons.

Q. What would be the political reason? A. I think that 
the technique for integrating West Charlotte would be a 
very marked change in the attendance lines of West Char­
lotte and that redrawing of an attendance line should be

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross



552a

accompanied by a reexamination of every other attendance 
line in the school system.

Q. Did you consider the feasibility of using a different 
feeder system for West Charlotte? A. No, we did not.

Q. It isn’t . necessary, therefore, to redraw the lines to 
integrate West Charlotte. A. If you used a feeder system.

Q. And is it feasible to use a feeder system and use 
transportation for white students into West Charlotte for 
1969-70? A. Not in my opinion.

Q. What would be the reasons that would indicate edu­
cational disadvantages in bringing in white students by a 
feeder system into West Charlotte? A. Would you repeat 
your question?

[41] Q. In your opinion you say it would not be feasible 
to integrate West Charlotte in 1969-70. I ’m trying to find 
out why you’re saying that. A. I think I did indicate that 
I thought that the technique for integrating West Char­
lotte would be through the restructuring of attendance 
lines and to single out one school and draw its attendance 
line in a different way at this particular point would seem 
to me not to be feasible.

Q. Wlel, you have singled out seven schools. Are you 
saying that you can single out these seven but you should 
not single out any other?

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, this is argu­
mentative rather than evidentiary.

Court: Objection overruled. How much longer do 
you think your examination of Dr. Self will last?

Mr. Chambers: About another hour, Your Honor.
Court: Let’s take a ten minute recess. 

* * * * *
[57] * * *

W hebettpox, Dr. Self returns to the witness stand.

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross



553a

Cross Examination (Cont’d) by Mr. Chambers:

Q. Dr. Self, has the Board determined where it will 
assign the black students at Second Ward or Metropolitan 
High if that school is closed! A. Yes, it has.

Q. Would you tell the Court which schools these students 
would be assigned to? A. Harding, West Charlotte, Gar- 
inger, East Mecklenburg, Myers Park, South Mecklenburg.

Q. Has the Board determined how it’s going to assign 
these students? A. Yes. The plan calls for dividing the 
Metropolitan district in such a way that part of it falls in 
the attendance areas of the schools that I named.

Q. Has that district been divided into the districts in the 
schools that you named? A. Yes.

Q. Did you do this by a map? A. Yes.
Q. Do you have a copy of that map? [58] A. No. The 

plan contains the description of the revised attendance lines.
Q. But you don’t have a map? A. No, I do not.
Q. Approximately what is the average distance that these 

students will be bused? A. I could only guess at about 
three miles.

Q. Approximately how far is East Mecklenburg from 
the center part of Charlotte? A. I would estimate live 
and a half miles.

Q. Approximately how far is South Mecklenburg? A. 
Probably seven miles.

Q. Approximately how far is Harding? A. Prom the 
center of Charlotte?

Q. Prom the center of Charlotte. A. Again, I ’m only 
estimating. I would estimate about two and a half miles.

Q. Approximately how far is West Charlotte from the 
center part of Charlotte? A. About the same.

Q. Now, have the faculty members at Second Ward or 
Metropolitan High already been assigned by the Board?

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross



554a

A. That’s my understanding, yes.
Q. Do you know what was done with the principal of 

that school? A. Yes. Mr. Waddell was made Assistant 
to the Superintendent.

[59] Q. And what does that mean? A. Just as the 
name implies.

Q. What will he do ? A. He will assist in whatever areas 
of work there are in the office which demand attention.

Q. That is a new position? A. Yes, it is.
Q. With no defined duties. A. None other than what 

I have said.
Q. Do you know what the football coach of Second Ward 

is to do for next year? A. I do not know.
Q. Are you familiar with the guidelines of the Depart­

ment of Health, Education and Welfare pertaining to 
teachers? A. Not intimately, no.

Q. In your determination to assign the coaches at Second 
Ward or Metropolitan High School did you consider the 
qualifications of all coaches in the school system? A. I 
believe that pertains to dismissal of personnel, does it not? 
No one has been dismissed.

Q. Did you consider the qualifications of all coaches in 
the school system? A. No.

Q. He wasn’t compared, for instance, with the coach at 
East Mecklenburg or South Mecklenburg? [60] A. I do 
not know. I do not believe so.

Q. Your policy doesn’t provide for that, does it? A. No, 
it doesn’t.

Q. So he will be assigned irrespective of his qualifica­
tions or ability. A. To a position as closely as possible 
as we can to the position he held at Second Ward.

Q. I gather coaches at various schools make additional 
money because of their coaching duties. A. They are 
supplemented.

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross



555a

Q. And if he does not get a coaching position he will 
lose this money for 1969-70. A. He will have a coaching 
position and he will receive his supplement.

Q. Do you know which school he will be coaching at? 
A. No, I do not.

Q. Do you know what school the basketball coach has 
been assigned to? A. No, I do not.

Q. Do you know if he will have a coaching position? 
A. He will.

Q. Is there a difference between the salary of an as­
sistant coach and a head coach? A. There is.

Q. Will they have head coaching positions? [613 A. I 
do not know. If he does not, he will not suffer a penalty 
in salary. An exception will be made.

Q. This is similar to the practice you followed in 1965 
in assigning the black principals to assistant principal 
positions. A. I don’t believe it is the same.

Q. Now, did you have guidance counselors at the Metro­
politan High School? A. Yes.

Q. Do you know what schools these guidance counselors 
have been assigned to? A. I do not.

Q. Did you have cheering leaders at Second Ward High 
School? A. Yes.

Q. Do you know what arrangements have been made for 
them at the schools to which they are being assigned?

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, we are going 
to object to this. This is getting down to intimate 
details of assignments within a particular school. 
I don’t think we’re here this afternoon to get to 
individual personalities and where they may be 
placed. We made our statement and if they feel 
this is untrue, then the burden is upon them to come

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross



556a

forward and show that we have discriminated in 
reassignments.

[62] Court: Objection is overruled.

A. It is my understanding that this matter was discussed 
in the principals’ meeting where the details were being 
planned and that the person who had the cheerleading 
position at the Metropolitan High School would be auto­
matically a cheerleader in the receiving school, if they 
chose to transfer.

Q. Do you know about the student organizations at 
Second Ward? A. Not in detail, no.

Q. Do you know what accommodations have been made 
for the student leaders at Second Ward? A. They are to 
be accorded positions similar to this in the receiving school. 
If they are members of a National Honor Society, they 
are automatically members of the National Honor Society 
at the receiving school.

Q. What about holding offices in the organizations? 
A. I do not know that that detail has been discussed.

Q. Do you know whether any of the students at Second 
Ward presently were being considered for scholarship op­
portunities following graduation? A. I do not know.

Q. Do you know what arrangements, if any, have been 
made if any student at Second Ward was being considered 
for scholarship opportunities? A. Sorry, I don’t under­
stand the question.

Q. Do you know whether you have made any arrange­
ments for the [63] coaches at Irwin Junior High School? 
A. The same arrangements made for the coaches at Metro­
politan High.

Q. Before leaving Second Ward, I believe you have at 
each of the high schools you mentioned ability groupings.

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross



557a

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross 

A. Yes.
Q. Is it your intention to give additional tests to stu­

dents at the receiving schools to determine which ability 
group the student should be in? A. No, it is not. We 
anticipate placing these youngsters in many of the classes 
in this school. We will definitely prevent the sectioning 
of these youngsters by themselves in a section.

Q. Well, do you plan to have ability groupings at these 
high schools, the receiving high schools? A. Yes.

Q. Do you plan to put these students in any of the 
groups? A. In all of the groups, not in one.

Q. Do you know how you will place them in the groups ? 
A. I think the best determinate would be the marks which 
they scored at Second Ward and the teacher’s judgment 
there.

Q. Now, have you decided on your bus routes? A. No, 
we have not.

Q. Have you purchased your buses? A. No.
[64] Q. Do you plan to purchase these buses before the 

beginning of school? A. We do if our plan is approved.
Q. When will school begin? A. September 2nd.
Q. Now, it’s my understanding you don’t have enough 

mobile units at all of the schools to accommodate the stu­
dents who are going to be transferred. A. That’s true.

Q. And you won’t have the mobile units there at the begin­
ning of the school term. A. That’s true.

Q. And that it will take approximately six months in 
some cases to get sufficient mobile units there to accommo­
date the students. A. According to our conversation with 
the vendors, they can deliver a certain number, five to ten, 
early in September and that we might expect one or two 
units per month delivery schedule from that point on.



558a

Q. Do yon anticipate having enough mobile units at the 
various schools to accommodate all the students by Jan­
uary, 1970! A. I ’m sure we would have by that time.

Q. Do you think you would have enough units by Decem­
ber, 1969 ? A. Probably.

Q. What do you plan to do with the students in the mean­
time! [65] A. Well, the section of the plan which antici­
pates movement of youngsters from overcrowded black or 
all black or nearly all black schools anticipates movement 
during the year and that provision was written into it, 
recognizing the fact that we could not have all mobile units 
immediately. The children from the closed schools will be 
accommodated, those of them who choose to exercise this 
privilege of moving into another school, in whatever fash­
ion we can come up with. We will take mobile units wher­
ever possible from schools where new construction makes 
them available once more. I think the Paw Creek situation 
was a technique for getting some mobile units to accommo­
date this purpose. Things of this nature. We have, on 
occasions, had to use classrooms on stages, auditoriums, 
partitioning larger than average classrooms, making them 
two, the same techniques we have used all along to try to 
accommodate the youngsters.

Q. Do you know the number of black schools in your 
system that will be underpopulated for 1969-70! A. No.

Q. Do you recall the testimony of Dr. Larsen about the 
number of black schools that had substantial space accom­
modations! A. I recall the testimony of Dr. Larsen but 
not in the detail you’re requiring here.

Q. You don’t recall the report that they submitted that 
was identified in evidence in this proceeding! [66] A. I 
recall their report but not the details of the report.

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross



559a

Q. Dr. Self, would you state whether in your opinion 
there are approximately 2500 spaces available in black or 
predominantly black schools in this system for 1969-70? 
A. I do not recall that detail, Mr. Chambers.

Q. Do you know approximately how many are available? 
A. No, I do not.

Q. Now, there are some overcrowded white schools, are 
there not? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And the Board has no intention of transporting any 
of the white students from those overcrowded schools to 
spaces available in black or predominantly black schools. 
A. That is not a part of the plan.

Q. Now, Dr. Self, did you study the Weil plan? A. Not 
in depth, no.

Q. Did it provide for the complete desegregation of the 
elementary schools in this system? A. It did not.

Q. Do you know which schools it left segregated? A. 
No, I do not.

Q. Did it leave any black school in the system racially 
identifiable as a black school? A. I don’t recall.

Q. Now, in your report about faculty desegregation you 
state that in 1970-71 you will move further along in de­
segregating the [67] faculty members. A. Yes.

Q. Do you have a timetable for complete desegregation 
of faculty members in this system ? A. I think it is generally 
understood that the task would be accomplished in the 
next school year.

Q. Did the Board decide to do that? A. The Board has 
made no definite decision in this direction.

Q. And it’s not written in the plan. A. No, sir.
Q. Now, how did the Board arrive at the 17% ? A. I 

believe that there was conversation which was introduced

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant-—Cross



560a

relative to how much faculty desegregation could be ex­
pected and a review of a court case—I don’t recall which 
case—indicated that a ruling had been made which ordered 
the system to move to a one to six ratio. I feel that this 
influenced our group to determine this as the goal which 
we would try to achieve this September.

Q. Now, in this document which has been referred to in 
this record as the Self plan you proposed to completely 
desegregate teachers 1969-70. A. It did, but it did not define 
completely desegregated.

Q. You did not state in your proposal that you would 
have the percentage of teacher desegregation as directed 
by the court? A. I don’t believe that it did state a definite 
percentage.

[68] Q. You don’t have a copy of your proposal with 
you, do you? A. No, sir.

Q. Are you telling the Court that you didn’t state in 
April of 1969 that in your opinion you could achieve 33% 
desegregation in each school in the system? A. That ratio 
was not used to the best of my recollection.

Q. How did you determine that you couldn’t do more 
than 17% ? A. We set this goal and worked toward it, Mr. 
Chambers.

Q. And you stated that you had approximately three 
resignations which you could attribute to non-racial assign­
ment of faculty. A. Yes.

Q. Dr. Self, did you prepare a report on the number of 
students who would be affected by the elimination of free­
dom of choice in this system? A. A report was prepared 
in the Research Department of the school system.

Q. Are you familiar with the Court’s finding that freedom 
of choice in this system had promoted segregation of the 
schools in the system? A. I don’t recall that finding.

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross



561a

Q. You don’t recall that finding? A. No.
Q. Why didn’t the Board eliminate freedom of choice for 

the next school year? [69] A. I can only conjecture that 
the Board members felt that freedom of choice had rather 
slight effect on the overall problem.

Q. Do you know how many white students would be at 
York Road if you eliminated freedom of choice? A. No, I 
do not.

Q. Do you recall whether your report showed 190? A. I 
don’t recall that detail.

Q. Do you recall how many white students would he at 
Amy James if you eliminated freedom of choice? A. No, I 
do not.

Q. Do you recall how many white students would be at 
Marie G. Davis if you eliminated freedom of choice? A. No, 
I do not.

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant-—Cross

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, this is a mat­
ter of record. The exhibit is filed before the Court 
and it seems to me he’s asking questions that he 
couldn’t humanly he expected to recall such figures 
as this.

Court: Mr. Chambers, are you about through with 
this phase of your examination?

Mr. Chambers: About freedom of choice ?
Court: If you’re pursuing something that I ought 

to be listening to real hard, I  want to hear about it.
Mr. Chambers: I would like, then, to get the re­

port of Dr. Self regarding the effect of freedom of 
[70] choice in the school system.

Court: That’s not at issue here. The Court found 
as a fact that freedom of choice does not promote



562a

Colloquy

desegregation and that the constitutional purposes 
have to be accomplished totally without regard to 
freedom of choice.

Mr. Chambers: The plan they have now doesn’t 
eliminate freedom of choice.

Court: The Court did not direct that freedom of 
choice he eliminated. It directed the School Board 
do the job regardless of whether they kept freedom 
of choice or not.

Mr. Chambers: Without it being eliminated in 
1969-70 you will have 1200 or more white students 
transferring out of integrated schools.

Court: That’s my recollection of the figure.
Mr. Chambers: And we contend that’s an element 

that has clearly been ruled unconstitutional by the 
Supreme Court and that it should be ruled out in 
this plan, too.

Court: I made the clearest statement about it 
that I think has ever been made. I said freedom of 
choice promotes segregation. It does not promote 
compliance with the constitution and that the con­
stitutional mandate has to be accomplished by 
methods other than [71] freedom of choice. But I 
also said if the Board wanted to operate a system in 
which people had some freedom to go from one 
school to another and could, in spite of that, comply 
with the constitution, that’s their business, not mine.

Mr. Chambers: The evidence now before the 
Court, we submit—and that’s the reason I was going 
into it now—clearly shows that freedom of choice 
promotes segregation in this system and without it 
being eliminated here and now, it would perpetuate



563a

Colloquy

segregated schools in the system. There is no justi­
fiable reason whatever for allowing freedom of choice 
in the system for next year, none whatsoever. They 
have not advanced one educational reason for leav­
ing it in the system for next year, and I think the 
court decisions clearly hold that the school systems 
have to get rid of it now.

Court: Well, it may be the distinction or the dif­
ference that isn’t apparent yet. It seems to me that 
some day you may be asking the Court to restore 
freedom of choice if the Court today rules it out.

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, that might be true 
and it might be true that the Board will come in 
with a plan next year which will be acceptable to all 
parties and we might come back in years hence and 
ask that some alterations be made. We cannot con­
trol the housing patterns. We think that at this stage 
of the game, where the record clearly shows that free­
dom of choice perpetuates a segregated system, that 
the [72] decisions of the Supreme Court and the 
decisions of the Fourth Circuit require that it be 
eliminated now.

Court: Are you suggesting, for example, that the 
freedom of these 4200 children to stay where they 
are be abrogated by the Court1?

Mr. Chambers: I am suggesting if the Board is 
going to use freedom of choice in any instance that 
it be only a majority to minority transfer of a stu­
dent in a black school to a white school or a white 
student in a white school to a black school—as we 
referred to them, majority to minority transfers. 
Now, the Board proposed that in the plan con­
sidered by the Court in June and it also contained



564a

Colloquy

in there the general open-ended freedom of choice 
provision and the Court spoke highly of the majority 
to minority transfer. But we think here now, if it’s 
allowed, that the only way it should he allowed would 
be a situation where the students are allowed to 
transfer from a school where their race is in the ma- 
pority to a school where their race is in the minority. 
There is no justifiable reason at all for allowing gen­
eral freedom of choice and it further emphasizes the 
point Bev. Leake was talking about, that we’re al­
ways talking about moving black kids to white 
schools.

Court: Well, this reminds me of the story that 
one of the lawyers told me recently, one of the law­
yers in this case. The very wise old Babbi had a man 
and his wife come [73] in fighting, as husbands 
and wives do, and the wife told her story and the 
Babbi said, “You know, you’re right.” Then the 
husband says, “ I want to be heard.” , and he said, 
“Yes, I ’m going to hear you.” Then he heard the 
husband and he said to the husband, “ ’Well, you’re 
right.” And his clerk said, “How can they both be 
right?” , and the Babbi turned to him and said, 
“You’re right, too.”

Now, that story merely illustrates the point that 
when you’re dealing with a situation with so many 
hundreds of variables, you can’t be perfect about it 
all at once. It was my judgment six days ago that 
what I found and ruled about freedom of choice in 
this system for this school year was substantially 
correct. It may not be right, but I get your point. 
It’s still a live point but I don’t know that we need 
any further evidence on it. Any ruling necessary



565a

on that subject is amply covered by the evidence al­
ready introduced and by the finding that I ’ve made 
which says that freedom of choice, to the extent of a 
thousand or 1200 students a year in this system pro­
motes segregation of the races. That’s true.

Mr. Chambers: If counsel for the School Board 
will stipulate that is the effect projected—

Court: That’s been found as a fact. Nobody needs 
to stipulate that.

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I’m talking about the 
[74] effect in 1969-70. The evidence before the 
Court was talking about what occurred in 1968-69.

Court: All right. Isn’t this covered by the state­
ment in the report which says that the net effect of 
it is some—no, I guess it’s not expressly covered.

Dr. Self, does that continue to be the general re­
sult of the free transfer provision, that it enables 
a goodly number of white students to get out of a 
mostly black school! Is that the net’ result of the 
free transfer provision!

A. Yes.

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross

Court: It’s still true that if any white children 
have requested transfer from a white school to a 
mostly black school your records don’t reveal it!

A. That’s true.

Court: And would you estimate that the number 
of white children who would be in mostly black 
schools this fall without free transfer provisions 
would be somewhere between a thousand and twelve 
or thirteen hundred!



566a

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant-—Cross 

A. I think that’s about right, Your Honor. It’s an estimate.

Court: O-K.
Mr. Chambers: Would the Court indulge me one 

moment ?
Court: Yes, sir.
Mr. Chambers: I just have one or two more ques­

tions.

Q. What consideration did this Board give the anti­
busing bill [75] in the drafting of its plan? A. I don’t 
think it influenced the Board. It was not considered as a 
part of the plan.

Q. What was the purpose in the plan for the provision 
that if the black students objected to being assigned to the 
school to -which they were assigned by the Board they 
would then be allowed to choose Zeb Vance or attend Zeb 
Vance? A. Well, I think in my own mind the provision 
was introduced because in educational fields we think that 
it is good to have some alternatives to a particular plan. 
On occasion, if you have that alternative, it may save your 
plan.

Q. What do you mean by that? A. To allow those who 
object vehemently to a particular course of action some­
thing else to choose from.

Q. Something— A. Something else to choose from.
Q. Is that why you used freedom of choice? A. I think 

that’s one of the purposes of freedom of choice.
Q. And the reason for the provision that the students 

who were assigned to Irwin and Second Ward who did not 
want to go to the school to which they were assigned by 
the Board that they would be allowed to attend the next 
nearest school was to give them another chance or another 
alternative? A. To give a second alternative.



567a

Q. Well, why did you limit them to the next nearest 
school! [76] A. I don’t know.

Q. Can they request transfer to another integrated 
school? A. I would assume that these youngsters, upon 
being assigned could exercise freedom of choice to another 
school.

Mr. Chambers: I have nothing further.
Mr. Waggoner: No further questions, Your Honor.
Court: All right, come down, Dr. Self.
I have a statement which was supplied by the rec­

ord of a specially called meeting of the League of 
Women Voters recently, expressing their belief that 
the community should assume the responsibility for 
desegregating the schools and improving the quality 
of education, expressing generally support for the 
point of view that the plan proposed by the Board is 
unfair and one-sided and that the Weil plan should 
be made public.

You may put this in the record, Miss McKnight.
Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I ’d like to correct 

the record. When I was discussing the Weil plan 
previously I made reference to it being admitted 
under Rule 46.

Court: Well, I don’t remember the numbers of 
the rules, either, Mr. Chambers.

Mr. Chambers: I meant Rule 43(e). We would 
like to identify that map and the overlay, as Plain­
tiffs’ Collective Exhibit #  ------ .

Mr. Waggoner: Your Honor, we would like the 
Court [77] to order that this be held confidentially 
in the Clerk’s office.

Mr. Chambers: Does that mean we’ll be excluded 
from looking at it, too?

Dr. William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross



568a

Mr. Waggoner: No, sir. Just counsel will be per­
mitted to review it and the Court.

Court: Do you want it to be confidential from the 
Court or do you want the Court to consider it in 
making up the timetable?

Mr. Waggoner: No, sir. As I understand, he is 
introducing this on the basis it’s excluded testimony 
and it will be in the record in the event he appeals 
and, therefore, it is not properly evidence in the 
case. It’s merely an offer of proof under Rule 43(e), 
and therefore it really does not constitute evidence 
in the case but the proof is offered.

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I don’t recall the 
Court actually ruling that it could not be admitted. 
The Court was considering its relevance but never 
ruled that it was not admissable. I was tendering 
it really under the rules so that whatever determina­
tion the Court made, we would at least have it in 
case the matter were appealed to the Fourth Circuit.

Court: Well, in view of the fact that the Court 
is not going to consider what was said about the 
Weil plan in making any extended timetable for fur­
ther action by the Board, the request that the Weil 
plan not be publicized will [78] be granted and it 
will be kept confidential by the Clerk except as to 
counsel, unless and until good cause is shown to 
the contrary. It will be open to all counsel who want 
to see it. It will be considered as evidence unre­
stricted in the event the record on appeal needs to 
be made up. I will not undertake to understand it 
myself and I will not consider in any further orders 
how long it would take to develop the Weil plan. 
Mr. Weil is getting a lot of free advertising. Does

Colloquy



569a

that cover what everybody wants about the Weil 
plan?

Mr. Waggoner: Yes, sir.
Mr. Chambers: No. We’d like to tender that Weil 

plan as evidence to show that the Board could have 
adopted a different plan which would have resulted 
in more complete desegregation of the school system.

Court: Well, I can find that totally without re­
gard to the Weil plan and I will, if need be, but I 
don’t think that’s our real problem here. We have a 
community problem that gets into this court because 
it raises questions of equal treatment of people un­
der the law. Nobody here created the problem. We 
have all participated in it. When this case was last 
heard in 1965—I was just looking back at the origi­
nal order—the Court could very properly proceed 
upon the assumption that teacher desegregation 
could be validly accomplished by having the same 
proportion of black teachers in a school as you have 
black pupils. They could proceed [79] upon the as­
sumption there was no duty on the Board to increase 
or change the racial makeup of a school, and all that 
was good law under Briggs against Elliot, which 
Judge Parker decided about eight or ten years ago, 
and all of that law has been changed. But the fact 
that the Supreme Court has ruled as it did and that 
it’s the duty of the School Board and the court to 
desegregate the schools now doesn’t mean that they 
need to be hung if it doesn’t happen this week. It 
takes a little time and a little patience and, frankly, 
I find in the policy change and in the faculty integra­
tion and in the somewhat disappointing one-way 
proposition a lot of action and a lot of implications

Colloquy



570a

which I think are most favorable for the completion 
of this job in fairly short order.

I’d like to think, when I ’m not mad with somebody 
myself, that everybody is right and is proceeding ac­
cording to his own conscience, and with all of ns 
this is true about 95% of the time. It will be help­
ful if we remembered that we are not just here grad­
ing papers on some rule that’s been in existence for­
ever, but we are here taking part in a change that 
nobody here started and nobody here will see the 
end of. I don’t know at this moment what my duty is 
under the constitution about the approval or disap­
proval or modification of this plan, but if we can 
leave here with everyone feeling that he has been 
fairly heard and that there is time to achieve per­
fection, then all the [80] commotion may have been 
somewhat worthwhile.

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I ’d like to say one 
thing. Rev. Leake has spoken about the black com­
munity reaction to the Board’s plan and I must say 
that what the Court now has before it, I submit, is a 
plan—and even though an interim one—that should 
not be approved by the Court. I think for good rea­
sons many of the black citizens in this community 
have expressed apprehension about the portent of 
this plan for 1970-71, even if the Court were to ap­
prove what we have now. I think the testimony of 
Dr. Self clearly demonstrates that what we’re going 
to be doing in the future is moving black kids to 
white schools. Now, we contend in our objections to 
the plan not only that it is rank discrimination to 
have one-way busing, but unconstitutional discrim­
ination . . .  I mean to say more persuasive discrim­

Colloquy



571a

ination when you have some clearly easily obtainable 
means for implementing the constitutional duty of 
this Board that the Board simply refuses to under­
take because of race. I mean specifically that free­
dom of choice in this system has no constitutional 
justifications or even any pragmatic justification at 
this stage. There are many schools in this system, 
black, that could easily be integrated by this Board 
now, and to approve a plan now that provides for 
only one-way integration is only going to set the tone 
for the rest of the practices by the Board that it will 
carry out plans of [81] desegregation by moving 
blacks into white situations. I think that the Brown 
decision itself clearly pointed out the dilatorious ef­
fect this practice would have and I think that we 
aren’t really accomplishing the objectives of Brown 
to just talk about the idea that we’re going to get 
better educational settings for black students by put­
ting them in white schools without considering also 
the effect that always moving blacks to white schools 
will have on the students. Now, we have here in this 
system, where we are trying to bring the people 
together as the Court intimated, an opportunity now 
for showing the black people that we’re going to 
integrate the school system right even beginning 
1969-70 by requiring that both black and white stu­
dents he integrated into all schools in the system. 
And I think this is the opportunity for doing it and 
I respectfully request that the Court order that it be 
done.

We have, as the Court intimated at the beginning, 
for further consideration by the Board a statute 
pending and we have our motion for temporary re­

Colloquy



572a

straining order before the Court and whatever 
future considerations are given by this Board to a 
plan, we think, would probably be effected by this 
statute and we would like to be heard.

Court: I don’t want to shorten the discussion of 
the anti-busing law but it contains a provision in it 
that the anti-busing neighborhood school law does 
not apply to [82] any transfer necessitated by over­
crowded conditions or other circumstances which, 
in the sole discretion of the School Board, require 
reassignment. That is an exception which makes the 
statute totally nill. It’s a statute which attracted a 
lot of attention but which contains a statement in 
it that this statute doesn’t prevent a School Board 
from doing what for any cause it chooses appropri­
ate to do. As I read the plan which the Board has 
prepared, they have quite properly read all of the 
statute instead of its title and read the part that 
says they may make any transfer or assignment 
that, in their sole discretion, they desire and they 
have not considered it in doing what’s being done 
here. I am assuming that they will continue to put 
that interpretation upon it and we don’t really have 
to deal with the question of a temporary restraining 
order as far as the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School 
Board is concerned.

Mr. Stein: Your Honor, may I speak very briefly 
to that? I think that possibly the statute is not a 
paragon of clear legislative drafting, but I would 
suggest that a contrary interpretation to that which 
you have given it might be read into it and that as it 
stands it has the possibility of having a chilling

Colloquy



573a

effect upon the prospects for integration. May we 
point out that the plan that they have provided for 
looks to the exceptions in the statute, not the general 
one you speak of, but the provision here which allows 
for [83] freedom of choice for everybody. I think 
that despite the testimony of the Superintendent, 
the fact they left Zeb Vance over there, giving all 
black students an opportunity to apply there, the 
fact that on Page 2 they talk about closed schools 
and temporarily reassigned pupils looks to the pro­
vision in the statute which says the provisions of this 
article shall not apply to temporary assignment due 
to the unsuitability of the school for its intended 
purpose. That’s their claim here. You might he 
right, Your Honor, that there is a total escape clause 
here, hut we would urge that in your order, which 
we expect shortly, that some language be in there 
directing the Board to do what you seem to suggest 
they have already done, and that is to ignore the 
statute.

Court: I suppose since you haven’t paid any at­
tention to it anyhow, it’s not material what’s done 
as long as there is no door being closed against a 
hearing by the State of North Carolina, which is 
not represented here today.

Mr. Weinstein: Your Honor, we have consulted 
with the Attorney General’s office in view of the 
fact that they have, at least tentatively, the State 
Superintendent of Education, the State Board of 
Education, been made parties and we are informed 
by Mr. Ralph Moody, the Deputy Attorney General 
of North Carolina, that they intend to take a posi­

Colloquy



574a

tion with reference to the statute now being dis­
cussed. Mr. Moody did not have notice that this 
might come up today until late [84] yesterday and 
he was in Washington and he asked us to convey 
the message to the Court that he would urge the 
Court to defer any action with reference to the 
statute until he had an opportunity to be heard.

Court: Certainly nothing done today will be bind­
ing upon the State and I ’m just a little bit undecided 
whether to put any temporai’y restraint on the 
School Board in view of the fact that they’ve read 
the statute and it’s not inhibiting their action here. 
I ’m just going to have to think a little about whether 
to include any kind of restraint on the School Board. 
My inclination is really not to do it but I ’ve got to 
think some about it.

Mr. Weinstein: Your Honor, as I read the statute 
I heard the words used with reference to some stat­
utes that the exception swallowed the statute and we 
have testimony here that these exceptions, with ref­
erence to the plan pending before the Court, swallow 
the statute. There’s no objection to what’s been 
presented to this Court or what is contemplated for 
the future.

Court: Is there anything else that counsel wants 
to say? I would like to talk with all the lawyers as 
soon as court adjourns.

I ’d like to express my thanks to all of you who 
came today and stood and sat so quietly through a 
right warm afternoon. Adjournment, please.

Colloquy



575a

Answer of the Defendants, the North Carolina State
Board of Education and Superintendent of Public 

Instruction of the State of North Carolina, to the 
Supplemental Complaint

(Filed August 11, 1969)

(1) Answering the allegations of Paragraph I of the 
Supplemental Complaint, these answering defendants al­
lege that the order allowing the plaintiffs to file a supple­
mental complaint is based upon a motion which was filed in 
the Office of the Clerk of the Federal Court for the Western 
District on July 22, 1969, and the order of the Judge of 
the District Court was also filed on the same date, July 22, 
1969, and said order allowing said Supplemental Complaint 
to be filed is void, invalid and contrary to due process of 
law for that the North Carolina State Board of Education 
and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction were 
never given an opportunity to appear before the Court and 
resist said Motion, but, to the contrary, the same is an ex 
parte order entered without service upon the said defen­
dants of any notice or copy of said motion prior to the 
granting of said order; it is admitted that there is quoted in 
Paragraph I of the Supplemental Complaint a portion of 
Chapter 1274 of the Session Laws of 1969 of the General 
Assembly of this State; it is denied that the plaintiffs are 
entitled to any preliminary and permanent injunction as 
against these State defendants or that the plaintiffs are 
entitled to a declaratory judgment as against these defen­
dants.

(2) Answering the allegations of Paragraph II of the 
plaintiffs’ Supplemental Complaint, it is denied that this 
Court has jurisdiction as against these State defendants 
under Federal statutes cited in said paragraph or under the



576a

constitutional provisions cited in said paragraph; it is de­
nied that G. S. 115-176.1 is unconstitutional and invalid or 
that the plaintiffs are entitled to any declaratory judgment 
or the convening of a 3-judge federal court; the allegations 
of Paragraph II are, therefore, untrue, and are denied.

(3) The allegations of Paragraph II are untrue and are 
denied except the allegation as to the status of the plaintiffs 
being the same plaintiffs who instituted the original action; 
it is denied that the plaintiffs are entitled to maintain a 
class action as against these State defendants.

(4) Answering the allegations of Paragraph IV, these 
State defendants have nothing to do with the defendants 
named as the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education 
and the individual members thereof, and, therefore, are not 
required to answer the allegations of subparagraph (a) of 
Paragraph IV of the Complaint; it is alleged, therefore, 
that the duties of Forth Carolina State Board of Education 
and of Dr. A. Craig Phillips are fixed by State statutes, and, 
therefore, the allegations of subparagraphs (h) and (c) 
are denied.

(5) The allegations of Paragraph V are admitted.

(6) The allegations of Paragraph VI are admitted.

(7) Answering the allegations of Paragraph VII, these 
State defendants allege that the same relate to a motion for 
further relief filed against the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board 
of Education, hearings on same, orders to submit plans of 
desegregation and matters with which these State defen­
dants are not concerned, and these State defendants allege 
that they are not required to answer said Paragraph VII.

Answer of the Defendants, the North Carolina
State Board of Education, Etc.



577a

(8) The allegations of Paragraph VIII of the Complaint 
relate to matters with which these State defendants are 
not concerned and of which they have no knowledge or in­
formation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of same, 
and as to these State defendants the allegations of said 
paragraph are, therefore, denied.

(9) Answering the allegations of Paragraph IX, these 
State defendants allege that said allegations relate to mat­
ters that these defendants are not concerned with and with 
which State defendants have not knowledge or information 
sufficient to form a belief to form the truth of same and 
as to these defendants said paragraph is, therefore, denied.

(10) Answering the allegations of Paragraph X, the State 
defendants allege that whatever appears in the orders of 
the Court previous to the filing of this Supplemental Com­
plaint are matters of record, and, therefore, they are not 
required to answer as to same.

(11) Answering the allegations of Paragraph XI, these 
State defendants allege that the General Assembly of North 
Carolina at its Session of 1969 enacted into law an Act which 
is now codified as G. S. 115-176.1 and that said Act was 
ratified on July 2, 1969; that said Act speaks for itself as 
to its contents, and except as herein admitted the allegations 
of Paragraph X II are untrue and are denied.

(12) The allegations of Paragraph X II are untrue and 
are therefore, denied.

(13) The allegations of Paragraph XIII are untrue and 
are therefore, denied.

(14) The allegations of Paragraph XIV are untrue and 
are therefore, denied.

Ansiver of the Defendants, the North Carolina
State Board of Education, Etc.



578a

W herefore, having fully answered, these State defen­
dants pray the Court that this action as to the State de­
fendants he dismissed, that the plaintiffs take nothing by 
their action as to these State defendants and that the State 
defendants have and recover their costs to be taxed by the 
Clerk of this Court.

/ s /  B obert Morgan

Attorney General of North Carolina
/ s /  B alph Moody

Deputy Attorney General
/ s /  A ndrew A. V anore, Jr.

Staff Attorney

P. 0. Box 629
Justice Building
Baleigh, North Carolina 27602

Answer of the Defendants, the North Carolina
State Board of Education, Etc.



579a

Preliminary Summary

Pursuant to this court’s June 20, 1969 order, the defen­
dants submitted on July 29, 1969 an amended plan for 
desegregation of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools, in­
cluding a highly significant policy statement accepting for 
the first time the Board’s affirmative constitutional duty to 
desegregate students, teachers, principals and staffs “at 
the earliest possible date.” On August 4, 1969, a report was 
filed in connection with the plan. A hearing was conducted 
on August 5, 1969. The plan is before the court for ap­
proval.

Because the schools must open September 2, and because 
the Board’s plan includes both substantial action and gen­
uine assurance of sustained effort toward prompt compli­
ance with the law of the land, the plan of operation, for 
1969-70 only, is approved and as indicated below, the defen­
dants are directed to prepare and file by November 17,
1969, detailed plans and undertakings for completion of the 
job of desegregating the schools effective in September,
1970.

The A mended Plan— A nd Its Reception

The plan proposes, among other things, to close seven 
old all-black inner-city schools and to assign their 3,000 
students to various outlying schools, now predominantly 
white, mostly in high rent districts.

This technique of school closing and reassignment has 
been employed in dozens of school districts to promote 
school desegregation. It is not original with the local School 
Board.

The school closing issue has provoked strident protests 
from black citizens and from others; evidence showed that

Order dated August 15, 1969



580a

an estimated 19,000 names are listed on a petition denounc­
ing the plan as unfair and discriminatory. The signers add 
their own brand of protest to that of the 21,000 whites who 
last May (though protesting their acceptance of the princi­
ples of desegregation) raised a “ silk-stocking” community 
outcfy against bus transportation except to schools of in­
dividual choice. Another 800 white Paw Creek petitioners 
have joined in protest against a part of the plan under 
which some 200 fifth and sixth grade pupils would he as­
signed to re-opened Woodland, a new unused (and formerly 
black) school. Comment from people who have not studied 
the evidence tends to ignore the law—the reason this ques­
tion is before a court for decision—and to concentrate on 
public acceptance or what will make people happy. A cor­
respondent who signs “ Puzzled” inquires:

“If the whites don’t want it and the blacks don’t want it, 
why do we have to have itf”

The answer is, the Constitution of the United States.

T he Constitution— The Law of the Land— R equip.es 
Desegregation of Public Schools

Xorth Carolina reportedly refused to ratify the United 
Stares Constitution until the Bill of Rights had been in­
corporated into it. The Fourteenth Amendment to that 
Constitution, now part of the Bill of Sights, guarantees :o

Order dated August 15, 1969

a ll eiti.tens the •’equal protection  o f law s." In  Brow n

B j t i r i j ~  E d u c - r - . i  ~~~ U. S. 4>.: W .U , :54a rp $ ■194
■ 1955 •. the Suprem e Court held m at racia l segresatio n rw
uahhe schools produces in fe r io r  edm. a d o a  and m orale
strrcts- a p c o r r in iy  fo r  association. and  thus violates- jlE
equal irocecfcr. guaranty or me _ anscxunott and s rm- 
iawrai. hi .-reen x. X«**r SjatE Sotoo» Tuon*. 381



581a

U. S. 430 (1968), and two other simultaneous unanimous 
decisions, the Supreme Court held that, school hoards have 
the affirmative duty to get rid of dual school systems, to 
eliminate “ black schools” and “ white schools,” and to oper­
ate “ just schools.” The Court said:

“ The burden on a school bo;: d today is to come forward 
with a plan that promises realistically to work and 
promises realistically to work now”  (Emphasis on the 
word “ now”  was put in the text by the Supreme Court.)

For years people of this community and all over the south 
have quoted wistfully the statement in Briggs v. Elliott by 
Judge John J. Parker (who at his death was one of my few 
remaining heroes) that though the Constitution forbids 
segregation it does not require integration. Passage of 
time, and the revelation of conditions which might well have 
changed Judge Parker’s views if he had lived, have left 
Judge Parker’s Avords as a landmark but no longer a guide. 
The latest decision on this subject by the Fourth Circuit 
Court of Appeals (Avliich is the court that first revieAvs my 
actions) contains this statement:

“The famous Briggs v. Elliott dictum—adhered to by 
this court for many years—that the Constitution for­
bids segregation but does not require integration, is 
now dead.” Hawthorne v. Lunenburg, Nos. 13,283, 
13,284, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, July 11, 1969.

“Freedom of choice,” as tins court has already pointed 
out, does not legalize a segregated school system. A plan 
Avith freedom of choice must be judged by the same stan­
dard as a plan Avith out freedom of choice—whether or not 
the plan desegregates the public schools. The courts are 
concerned primarily not with the techniques of assigning

Order dated August 15, 1969



582a

students or controlling school populations, but with whether 
those techniques get rid of segregation of children in public 
schools. The test is pragmatic, not theoretical.

Continued Operation of Segregated Public 
Schools I s U nlawful

The issue is one of law and order. Unless and until the 
Constitution is amended it is and will be unlawful to oper­
ate segregated public schools. Amending the Constitution 
takes heavy majorities of voters or lawmakers. It is diffi­
cult to imagine any majority of Supreme Court, of Con­
gress or of popular vote in favor of changing the Constitu­
tion to say that public school pupils may lawfully be kept 
in separate schools because they are black. A community 
bent on “ law and order” should expect its school board 
members to obey the United States Constitution, and should 
encourage them in every move they make toward such com­
pliance. The call for “ law and order” in the streets and 
slums is necessary, but it sounds hollow when it issues from 
people content with segregated public schools.

The questions is not whether people like desegregated 
public schools, but what the laiv requires of those who oper­
ate them.

The Duty to Observe the Constitution and Desegregate 
the Schools Cannot Be Reduced or A voided Because of 
Soothing Sayings From Other Government Officials N or 
Outcries F rom T hose W ho W ant the L aw to Go A way.

The rights and duties of the parties to this suit are in 
this court for decision according to law■—not according to 
HEW guidelines or public clamor. The court and the school 
board are bound by the Constitution. So are the legislative 
and executive branches of government. No one in Washing­

Order dated August 15, 1969



583a

ton or Raleigh or local government is above or beyond the 
Constitution. None have power to change it except by law­
ful means. None have or claim the power to interfere with 
the courts in cases like this one. The malleable HEW 
“guidelines” put out by the President’s administrator for 
educational affairs, and dubious inferences from statements 
of other officials, however highly placed, are irrelevant to 
the constitutional rights of the parties in this case. Also 
irrelevant are soothing sayings of the Vice President (who 
has the duty in this area) to black-tie political audiences, 
and the not-so-soothing sayings of citizens who erroneously 
talk as if the school segregation issue were a simple matter 
of political pressure and short-term public opinion. As for 
the Attorney General of the United States, he has just tiled 
the biggest desegregation suit of all—against the whole 
State of Georgia! Segregation of children in public schools, 
whether they be black or white, and regardless of whether 
they do or don’t want to stay apart, is unlawful. As the 
Supreme Court said in Brown II:

“ . . . the vitality of these constitutional principles can 
not be allowed to yield simply because of disagreement 
with them.”

T he School Board’s New Plan R epresents S ubstantial 
Progress.

Against this background the Board’s new plan is re­
viewed :

1. The most obvious and constructive element in the plan 
is that the School Board has reversed its field and lias ac­
cepted its affirmative constitutional duty to desegregate 
pupils, teachers, principals and staff members “ at the 
earliest possible date.” It has recognized that who; people

Order dated August 15, 1969



584a

live should not control where they go to school nor the 
quality of their education, and that transportation may be 
necessary to comply with the law. It has recognized that 
easy methods will not do the jo b ; that rezonirig of school 
lines, perhaps wholesale; pairing, grouping or clustering 
of schools; use of computer technology and all available 
modern business methods can and must he considered in 
the discharge of the Board’s constitutional duty. This court 
does not take lightly the Board’s promises and the Board’s 
undertaking of its affirmative duty under the Constitution 
and accepts these assurances at face value. They are, in 
fact, the conclusions which necessarily follow when any 
group of women and men of good faith seriously study this 
problem with knowledge of the facts of this school system 
and in light of the law of the land.

2. In the second place, by the following actions the 
Board has demonstrated its acceptance of its stated new 
policies:

a) The desegregation of faculties and the non-racial 
reassignment of principals and employees from newly 
closed schools. In the formerly all-black faculties the 
Board has dramatically exceeded its goal. It is as­
sumed by the court that this process of faculty de­
segregation will continue and that the goal for 1970-71 
will he that faculties in all schools will approach a ratio 
under which all schools in the system will have ap­
proximately the same proportion of black and white 
teachers.

b) The closing of seven schools and the reassign­
ment of 3,000 black pupils to schools offering better 
education.

Order dated August 15, 1969



585a

c) The reassignment of 1,245 students from several 
overcrowded primarily black schools to a number of 
outlying predominantly white schools.

d) The announced re-evaluation of the program of 
locating and building and improving schools, so that 
each project or site will produce the “greatest degree 
of desegregation possible.”

e) The Board correctly and constructively concluded 
that the so-called “anti-bussing law” adopted by the 
General Assembly of North Carolina on June 24, 1969, 
does not inhibit the Board in carrying out its constitu­
tional duties and should not hamper the Board in its 
future actions. Leaving aside its dubious constitu­
tionality (if it really did what its title claims to do) 
the statute contains an express exception which ren­
ders it ineffectual in that it does not prevent “any 
transfer necessitated by overcrowded conditions or 
other circumstances which in the sole discretion of 
School Board require reassignment

f) The elimination without objection of the former 
provision which had the effect of inhibiting transfer 
rights of black would-be athletes.

g) Quite significantly, the Board calls upon the Plan 
ning Board, the Housing Authority, the Redevelopment 
Commission and upon real estate interests, local gov 
eminent and other interested parties to recognize and 
share their responsibility for dealing with problems 
of segregation in the community at large as well as in 
the school system.

h) The proposals for programs of “ compensatory 
education” of students, and for teacher orientation and

Order dated August 15, 196ft



586a

exchange of activities among black and white students. 
The court assumes that these somewhat vaguely stated 
ideas will become implemented with concrete action.

3. The Seven School Problem.—The Board plan proposes 
to close Second Ward High School, Irwin Avenue Junior 
High School and five inner-city elementary schools (five of 
which were already marked for abandonment) and to re­
assign their 3,000 students to outlying white schools. This 
part of the plan has struck fire from black community 
leaders and some other critics. Counsel for the plaintiffs 
contend that it puts an unconstitutional and discriminatory 
burden upon the black community with no corresponding 
discomfort to whites. One spokesman for a large group of 
dissenting and demonstrating black citizens was allowed to 
express his views at the August 5, 1969 hearing. Threats 
of boycotts and strikes have been publicized.

This part of the plan is distasteful, because all but 200* 
of the students being reassigned en masse are black. It 
can legitimately be said and has been eloquently said that 
this plan is an affront to the dignity and pride of the 
black citizens. Pride and dignity are important. If pride 
and dignity were all that are involved, this part of the 
plan ought to be disapproved. The court, out of forty- 
year memory of four years of transportation on an un­
heated Model-T school but thirteen miles each way from 
a distant rural community to high school in a “city” of 
4,000, is fully aware how alien and strange are the sensa­
tions experienced by a school child who is hauled out of 
his own community and into a place where the initial 
welcome is uncertain or cool.

* The 200 students being reassigned from Paw Creek to Wood­
land are white.

Order dated August 15, 1969



587a

However, this part of the plan is not compulsory. 
Students who want to remain in the comfort of their 
familiar area may elect to attend the Zebulon Vance School 
instead; alternatives are also provided for the junior high 
school students.

Moreover, as one of the attorneys remarked at the first 
hearing in a discussion about reassignments and school 
busses: “ The question is really not one of ‘bussing’ but 
whether what the child gets when he gets off of the bus is 
worth the trouble.”

I personally found the better education worth the bus 
trip.

Despite their undoubted importance, pride and dignity 
should not control over the Constitution and should not 
outweigh the prospects for quality education of children. 
The uncontradicted evidence before the court is that 
segregation in Mecklenburg County has produced its 
inevitable results in the retarded educational achievement 
and capacity of segregated school children. By way of 
brief illustration a table follows showing the contrasting 
achievements of sixth grade students in five of the closed 
schools (Bethune, Fairview, Isabella Wyche, Alexander 
Street and Zeb Vance) and in five of the schools to which 
black students are going to be transferred:

Order dated August 15, 1969



588a

Order dated August 15, 1969

A verage A chievement T est Scores 

S ixth Grade— 1968-69
ACM. WM (Word

SP. LANG. (Math) Meaning )
(Bethune 45 34 41 41
(Ashley Park 61 62 56 58
(Fairview 46 38 42 39
(Westerly Hills 61 61 52 57
(Isabella Wyche 41 34 40 38
(Myers Park 80 84 58 73
(Alexander Street 45 38 34 40
(Shamrock Gardens 57 62 53 56
(Zeb Vance 38 34 39 42
(Park Road 71 75 58 66

This alarming contrast in performance is obviously not 
known to school patrons generally.

It was not fully known to the court before he studied 
the evidence in the case.

It can not be explained solely in terms of cultural, racial 
or family background without honestly facing the impact 
of segregation.

The degree to which this contrast pervades all levels 
of academic activity and accomplishment in segregated 
schools is relentlessly demonstrated.

Segregation produces inferior education, and it makes 
little difference whether the school is hot and decrepit or 
modern and air-conditioned.

It is painfully apparent that “quality education”  can 
not live in a segregated school; segregation itself is the 
greatest barrier to quality education.

As hopeful relief against this grim picture is the un­
contradicted testimony of the three or four experts who



589a

testified, some for each side, and the very interesting 
experience of the administrators of the schools of Buffalo, 
New York. The experts and administrators all agreed that 
transferring underprivileged black children from black 
schools into schools with 70% or more white students pro­
duced a dramatic improvement in the rate of progress and 
an increase in the absolute performance of the less advanced 
students, without material detriment to the whites. There 
was no contrary evidence. (In this system 71% of the 
students are white and 29% are black.)

Moreover, the Board’s announced policy and the uncon­
tradicted testimony of the superintendent show that 
serious arrangements are being made to welcome, rather 
than rebuff, the transferees into all school activities. This 
is something new and important.

No legal authority is cited that the Constitution pro­
hibits transport of consenting black children from an 
inferior educational environment into a better educational 
environment for the purpose of complying with the con­
stitutional requirement of equal protection of laws.

The choice of how to do the job of desegregation is for 
the School Board—not for the court.

The Board has wide discretion in choosing methods; 
many effective methods are described in the evidence; the 
court’s duty is simply to pass on the legality of the Board’s 
actions. It appears to the court that the improvement in 
the education of 4,200 school children is the one most 
obvious result of the Board' plan of action for 1969-70, 
and that this is more important constitutionally than other 
considerations which have been advanced.

It is not the intention of this court to endorse or ap­
prove any future plan which puts the burden of desegrega­
tion primarily upon one race. However, there is not time 
before September 2, 1969 to do a complete job of reassign-

Order dated August 15, 1969



590a

ing pupils; the plan is a step toward more complete 
compliance with the law; the court reluctantly votes in 
favor of the 4,200 school children and approves the plan 
on a one-year basis.

T he M ajor T ask L ies A head T his F all

The big job remains to be done. After implementation 
of the current plan, further large scale faculty transfers 
will still be necessary. Sixteen years after Brown v. Board 
of Education, some thirteen thousand school children will 
remain in black or nearly all-black schools. Most white 
students will remain in substantially all-white schools. 
The failure of the plan to deal with those problems of 
course can not be approved. The failure of the plan to 
include a time table for the performance of specific ele­
ments of the program of course can not be approved, 
Felder, et al. v. Harnett County Board of Education, et al, 
409 F. 2d 1070 (4th Cir., 1969). These matters must be 
covered by specific instructions to the Board.

All findings of fact in the previous orders of April 23. 
1969. and June 20. 1969. and the supplemental findings 
of June 24. 1969. are incorporated herein to the extent 
that they are consistent with the findings, conclusions and 
orders herein reached and given. All evidence at all hear­
ings is considered in reaching these conclusions.

Order dated August 15, 1969

Order

1 The noi-cy statement of t.n dear*.: js appro -'ed.

The taeuJty d -seg~egar.cn  rregrarn  -  ircrtrced .

X. The maci to  h s e g -e g a  ~eu>; , s  o r - . g  s e v -n  a ii- 
s. !u  .> g t' ' 'u ee>  o oee ng •-:n



591a

schools is approved only (1) with greed reluctance, (2) as 
a one-year, temporary arrangement, and (3) with the 
distinct reservation that “ one-way bussing” plans for the 
years after 19G9-70 will not be acceptable. If, as the school 
superintendent testified, none of the modern, faculty- 
integrated, expensive, “ equal” black schools in the system 
are suitable for desegregation now, steps can and should 
be taken to change that condition before the fall of 1970. 
Unsuitability or inadequacy of a 1970 “black”  school to 
educate 1970 white pupils will not be considered by the 
court in passing upon plans for 1970 desegregation. The 
defendants contended and the court found in its April 23, 
1969 order that facilities and teachers in the various black 
schools were not measurably inferior to those in the 
various white schools. It is too late now to expect the 
court to proceed upon an opposite assumption.

4. The plan to reassign 1,245 students from presently 
overcrowded black schools is approved.

5. Reassignment of the Paw Creek students to Wood­
land is approved.

6. The proposals of the Board for restructure of atten­
dance lines; for consideration of pairing and grouping 
schools; for review of the construction programs; and for 
supp rt programs, student exchange and faculty orienta­
tion are approved in principle, although for lack of specific 
detail and time table they are not approved as presented.

7. The Board is directed to prepare and present by 
November 17, 1969, the following:

(1) Plan for complete faculty desegregation for 
1970-71.

Order dated A ugust 15, 1969



592a

(2) Plan for student desegregation for 1970-71, in­
cluding making full use of zoning, pairing, grouping, 
clustering, transportation and other techniques, com­
plete with statistics and maps and other data showing 
precisely what (subject to later movement of pupils) 
the assignment of pupils and teachers will be for the 
year 1970-71, having in mind as its goal for 1970-71 
the complete desegregation of the entire system to the 
maximum extent possible. (The assumption in the 
Board’s report that a school is desegregated when it 
has as many as 10% of a minority race in its student 
body is not accepted by the court, and neither the 
Board nor the court should be guided by such a figure.) 
“Possible’ as used here refers to educational—not 
“political”—possibility. If Anson County, two-thirds 
black, can totally desegregate its schools in 1969, as 
they have now done, Mecklenburg County should be 
able to muster the political will to follow suit.

(3) A  detailed report showing, complete with 
figures and maps, the location and nature of each 
construction project proposed or under w-ay. and the 
effect this project may reasonably be expected to hav- 
apon the program of desegregating the schools.

-• >mee a m id-city i_.gr school m ay g rov e  m ost desir­
able. me B o-ari s  d irected  pend ing  fu rth er t r ie r s  i f  cou rt 
noc to ir--esr irsec  i t  any atiu, options, rent i m i s e n i s a t s  
m  i c i e r  access to  j r  lea cro i / m-*r ~ea_ estate vhich  t maw 
to a '• cvad acea.

Order dated August 15, 1969

r .'xr*s«ricdot! s  s iS u ie e .



593a

The School Board’s amended plan for desegregation of 
the Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools was approved by order 
of court dated August 15, 19G9. The Board has now ten­
dered a modification to this plan which was filed today, 
August 29, 1969.

The modification relates to the facilities to be provided 
for those black children whose parents exercise freedom of 
choice to attend a black elementary school in the inner city 
instead of attending the white schools listed in the July 29, 
1969 plan which has already been approved by the court.

The amendment calls for using the building of former 
Irwin Avenue Junior High School with certain minor reno­
vations, instead of Zeb Vance School, and a limit of six 
hundred students upon those who would be admitted to 
this program at Irwin Avenue School. This part of the 
motion to amend is approved. The choice of building, per 
se, is a matter for the School Board, not the court.

The amendment proposes that the Irwin Avenue School 
would he operated “ as an innovative school.” The court 
does not know what this means. If by this phrase is meant 
that anything will be done to make this school more attrac­
tive to the black students than the black schools they have 
been attending, then the program will constitute the loca­
tion and use of a school facility for the purpose of promot­
ing segregation which by previous decisions of this and 
other courts the defendants have been fully advised is un­
constitutional. Felder, et nl. v. Harnett County, North Caro­
lina, 409 F.2d 1070 (4th Circuit, 1969) (decided April 22, 
1969), and cases cited therein. The addition of “ innova 
tions” at Irwin Avenue School will not be approved by the 
court unless these “ innovations” have been ana aged ami

Order dated August 29, 1969



594a

provided for all the black students who transfer to white 
schools under the July 29,1969 plan of the Board previously 
approved. The phrase “ innovative” may refer to what the 
Board has heretofore called “compensatory education.” 
The court has not yet been advised of any performance by 
the Board in line with the undertaking in its July 29, 1969 
plan to provide “compensatory education” for pupils who 
lag behind their classmates in academic achievement. Unless 
and until the court can be informed and satisfied that this 
“ compensatory education” is provided in the other schools, 
the court is of the opinion that providing it in the Irwin 
Avenue School would set up a magnet to attract black 
children awrny from desegregated assignments and there­
fore on the present record at least that part of the plan is 
disapproved.

The proposal to provide transportation for any of the 
students attending Irwin Avenue School is expressly dis­
approved. The effect of providing transportation is to sub­
sidize at tax payers’ expense those who are actively seeking 
to defeat the constitutional mandate to desegregate the 
schools. No authority is advanced or suggested to justify 
such a flagrant violation of the law, and none has been 
imagined by the court. The Board is expressly restrained 
from and enjoined against providing transportation in any 
form to any student in the system, black or white, which 
may or might enable him to travel any part of the distance 
from his home to or from any school elected by or for him 
under “ freedom of transfer” or “ freedom of choice,” except 
that the Board may provide transportation as previously 
ordered by this court to those students who elect to transfer 
or who are transferred by the Board from a school in which 
their race is in a majority to a school in which their race

Order dated August 29, 1969



595a

is in the minority. As this court pointed out before, bus 
transportation has too long been used as a tool to promote 
segregation. The year 19G9 is too late in the day to start 
using this tool for that purpose in now situations.

This the 29th day of August, 1969.

/ s /  J ames B. M cM illan 
James B. McMillan 

United States District Judge

Order dated August 29, 1969



596a

(Filed September 2, 1969)

Plaintiffs, by their undersigned counsel, respectfully move 
the Court for further relief and for a show cause order in 
the above styled cause and, as grounds therefore, show the 
Court the following:

1. On August 15, 1969, the Court entered an Order ap­
proving an amended plan of desegregation for the Char- 
lotte-Mecklenburg Public Schools filed by the defendant 
Board. The plan provided generally (1) for the closing of 
seven all-black schools, five elementary schools, one junior 
high school and one senior high school; (2) the transfer of 
these students to previously all white schools; (3) the trans­
fer of some black students from overcrowded black schools 
to previously all-white schools; (4) the restructuring of at­
tendance zones; (5) reviewing the construction program; 
(6) the initiation of a compensatory education plan to 
assist pupils who are behind their classmates in academic 
achievement; (7) an increase in desegregation of teachers 
and school personnel with a more extensive program of in- 
service training for snch personnel: (8) the grouping of 
schools for student exchange: and a policy statement with 
respect to the hoard's obit.gatton to iSraiativeb- desenre- 
gate schools and to provide equality of educational rccor- 
ramties for all scudencs. The hosing of me seven 'fiscs, 
scttovfis ate the musst-ciiner t of some ifiaes scERteuts tr-nn. 
> -  e w . ' . . v . s .  eec-ovKs would mean an increase it  ~~ii~ 
fiavs smt\ie»:s : ntegraced ss-tov-.s* The Tdard - r t - s y i  
to grevode '“"Wtspv'r-'ai'vu; oos~ tne fisscs sttatstps

itt i>} tea**, -t** as oapwuMr m
;e=?S5C*> ,v~ - :vMS- -ntyitjx e c  -te -vte "tera*?#* bc ie -

Motion for Further Relief and for Show Cause



597a

v. Landis,—F. Supp.— (N.D. Calif., Civ. No. 51805, Aug. 8, 
1969). The Court stated however, that in view of the other 
steps being taken by the Board and the apparent commit­
ment of the Board to now carry out its obligations under 
the Constitution the Board’s plan warranted approval, at 
least for one year. The Court directed the Board to submit 
a plan for complete desegregation of the system on or be­
fore November 17, 1969.

2. Plaintiffs are now advised that the defendants have 
failed to implement the plan approved by the Court and in 
fact have taken steps to impede and limit the desegregation 
ordered.

(a) The plan approved by the Court retained freedom 
of choice for students to transfer out of schools after initial 
assignments to other schools. Zeb Vance Elementary School 
was designated as a black school to which students in the 
closed elementary schools could transfer if they elected not 
to attend integrated schools. Plaintiffs objected initially to 
this feature of the plan because of the patent inadequacy of 
this school facility. The Board now proposes to reopen 
Irwin Avenue School in lieu of Zeb Vance Elementary 
School and in addition to provide transportation1 and com­
pensatory education for the students at this school. Plain­
tiffs have no objection to the reopening of Irwin rather than 
Zeb Vance if freedom of choice is to continue since Irwin 
is obviously a better facility.2 Plaintiffs submit, however,

1 Similar transportation is provided for white students who re­
side in Negro or predominantly Negro school zones who elect under 
freedom of choice to transfer out to white or perdortunanrly white 
schools such, for example, as white students transferring from 
Amay James, Marie G. Davis, Hawhtorne and Piedmont

2 The Court on August 29, 1969 entered an Order .v
this proposed change but enjoined the Board front t-rv\ ex­
portation and compensatory education.

Motion for Further Relief and for Show Cause



598a

that the operation of this school as well as the other racially 
segregated schools in the system continues to violate the 
constitutional mandate to desegregate. Freedom of choice, 
however, has served and has been utilized by defendants as 
a means to effectively limit and impede the desegregation 
of students anticipated by the Court. Of the 1,235 students 
affected by the closing of the black elementary schools, a 
substantial portion have elected to attend Irwin or other 
all black elementary schools. A stubstantial number of the 
junior high and senior high school students have also elected 
to attend all-black schools. Black students have quite ap­
propriately objected to one-way desegregation and have 
opted, under freedom of choice, not to shoulder the complete 
burden of desegregation. A fact which is more important, 
however, is that defendants have failed to institute pro­
grams and policies to accommodate those students who 
choose to remain in the intergrated schools. When all prac­
tices of the Board are considered, freedom of choice has not 
been free but patently illusory. See Green v. County School 
Board of New Kent County, 391 U . S .  430, 20 L. ed. 2d 716; 
Monroe v. Board of Commissioners, 391 I T .S .  450, 20 L. ed. 
2d 733; Coppedge v. Franklin County Board of Education, 
372 F.2d 410 (4th Cir. 1968); United States v. Jefferson 
County Board of Education, 372 F. 2d 836 (5th Cir. 1967), 
afFd en banc (5th Cir. 1968). The elimination of freedom of 
choice in this system would promote integration of both 
black and white schools. No administrative or other con­
stitutionally acceptable reason has been shown for retention 
of this practice. It should be eliminated notv. Green v. 
County School Board of New Kent County, supra.

(b) Not one step has been taken by the Board to imple­
ment the plan and Court Order with respect to reassigning

Motion for Further Relief and for Show Cause



599a

the black students now in overcrowded black schools. The 
Court viewed this step by the Board as an indication of its 
sincerity to desegregate. We are now told that the Board 
will move some children in the midst of the school year as 
mobile units are removed and secured although there are 
spaces available to accommodate some students now. Plain­
tiffs are advised that none of the children have been advised 
of pending reassignment. It would be unconscionable to 
pick up large blocks of black students in the midst of the 
school year and reassign them to white schools. Despite 
the order, despite the promises, the Board has done nothing 
to implement this provision for the beginning o f  the 1969-70 
school year.

(c) The Board has failed to implement the provision of 
the Order requiring compensatory education for the under­
achievers. Subsequent to the Order, the Board proposed to 
provide such program for the black students who remained 
at the all-black Irwin School. Nothing, however, has been 
done in this regard for the black students who have elected 
to integrate in the previously all-white schools. What the 
Board proposes is to penalize those students who would 
integrate while providing compensatory programs for those 
who remain. The Board should be specifically directed to 
provide these programs for all students in all schools. 3

3. School is scheduled to open on September 2, 1969. 
The Court will not be able to review compliance with its 
Order in time to insure its complete implementation before 
the beginning of school. Clearly, however, the anticipated 
substantial steps toward desegregation (see Order of April 
23, 1969) have not been achieved. Nor has the Board taken 
even the minimal steps to desegregate as directed by the 
Court. Constitutional rights are involved here. Plaintiffs 
are entitled to effective relief now.

Motion for Further Relief and for Show Cause



600a

W hekefobe, plaintiffs respectfully pray:

(a) That this matter be reopened for consideration of a 
plan of desegregation for the 1969-70 school year.

(b) That the defendants be enjoined to adopt and to 
implement a plan for the 1969-70 school year which will 
completely desegregate the schools. Plaintiffs pray that 
the order specifically enjoin the defendants from placing 
the primary or sole burden of desegregation upon black 
students and parents.

(c) That an order be issued directing the defendants to 
show cause why each of them should not be held in contempt 
for failing to implement the Court’s Order of August 15, 
1969.

Motion for Further Relief and for Show Cause

Respectfully submitted,

/ s /  J. L evonne Chambers 
Conrad O. P earson

2031/2 East Chapel Hill Street 
Durham, North Carolina

Chambers, Stein, F erguson & 
L anning

216 West Tenth Street 
Charlotte, North Carolina

Jack Greenberg 
James M. N abrit III 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York

Attorneys for Plaintiffs



601a

On April 23, June 20 and August 15, 1969, orders were 
entered directing the defendants to submit a plan and a 
time table for the desegregation of the Charlotte-Mecklen- 
burg schools, to be completed by the fall of 1970. Nearly 
six months after the original order, faculty desegregation 
is well along and there have been a number of substantial 
improvements in the stated policies of the Board, including 
the stated assumption of duty by the Board to desegregate 
the schoools “at the earliest possible date.” Limited steps 
have been taken toward compliance with the pupil desegre­
gation provisions of that original order. However, the 
major part of the job remains undone, and no plan for 
desegregation of the entire system has apparently been 
voted on by the Board.

The latest order set November 17, 1969, as the revised 
date for defendants to file a complete plan and time table. 
Defendants have now filed a 15-page motion and supporting 
affidavit asking the court to extend by another two and 
one-half months, to February 1, 1970, the time for com­
pliance with the orders. Plaintiffs oppose the extension.

The justification advanced for this delay is that they 
have hired a systems analyst to re-draw attendance lines, 
and that the three months between August 15 and Novem­
ber 17 are not enough time to program a computer and 
prepare a plan.

It would be a happy day if the job could be turned over 
to a computer. A computer, if programmed objectively, 
could produce objective results; all could blame the machine 
(in addition to the court) for any unpleasant decisions. 
Also, the court would like to avoid unnecessary pressure 
on the school staff and administrators.

However, the information thus far available is inadequate 
to justify the extension. Computers are for time-saving,

Order dated October 10, 1969



602a

not delay. The computer work was estimated by the Board’s 
chosen systems analyst, Mr. Weil, to require ninety man 
days of work. He proposes to consume ninety calendar 
days with this jo b ! The Board’s motion says that their 
decisions about construction and location of 21 building 
projects (involving many millions of dollars) are to be 
held up pending development of the plan. The school bud­
get approaches fifty million dollars. The question fairly 
arises why the Board should not employ or assign more 
than one person at a time to feed the computer. Mr. Weil’s 
original plan, which is in evidence, was prepared in a very 
few days. The court has on file also three or four other 
plans, including at least one which local school officials say 
is educationally and technically feasible, which were pre­
pared in a few days each. The use of a computer does not 
appear to justify the delay.

Moreover, computers cannot make political nor legal de­
cisions ; they react to what is fed into them; and the request 
for postponement leaves the court to speculate over what 
will be fed into the computer. The motion does not say 
that Mr. “Weil has been instructed by the Board to frame a 
plan to desegregate the schools; his commission, by a 
Board committee only, is limited to re-drawing attendance 
lines; the vague references in the Board’s motion to his 
instructions as to travel limitation and specified school 
capacities and desirable racial balance permit the inference, 
in fact, that his mission could be re-segregation of much 
of the system.

The motion also contains no commitment on the part of 
the Board to adopt any plan that the computer may pro­
duce; it gives no information about the Board’s intentions 
as to other desegregation methods it will use; and it prom­
ises no result from the delay except consideration by the

Order dated October 10, 1969



603a

Board of a computer plan for re-arranging school lines.
The motion is preoccupied with one method, and silent 

about results.
Before passing on the motion, the court has a duty to 

discover what the Board has accomplished since its July 29 
promises were made, and whether the extra time will pro­
mote genuine progress toward compliance with the Consti­
tution or whether it will just he time lost.

The Board is therefore directed to file with the court by 
October 29, 1969, the following information:

1. A full statistical report on the results of the 
closing of the inner-city schools and where the 4,200 
black pupils the Board proposed on July 29 to transfer 
to white schools are actually going to school as of 
October 10, 1969.

2. The figures regarding the effect of freedom of 
transfer on the desegregation proposed in the July 29, 
1969 plan for closing inner-city schools and transfer­
ring their students.

3. A report on freedom of choice or freedom of 
transfer: How many children, by school or location 
and race, chose to transfer out of and into the various 
schools for the 1969-70 year.

4. Full reports on the current numbers and races of 
the children and teachers in the system, school by 
school, with percentages of each race for each school.

5. A report on the children being provided bus 
transportation, school by school.

6. A description of what has been done to provide 
the compensatory education programs proposed in the 
July 29 plan and policy statement.

Order dated October 10, 1969



604a

7. A copy of all September and October, 1969, re­
ports of the Board to the Department of Health, Edu­
cation and Welfare.

Unless the Board has made the hard decisions needed to 
desegregate the schools, the time spent on a computer plan 
may well be just more time lost, and delaying decision may 
simply compress into fewer months next year the decisions 
that should have already been made. Therefore, in addi­
tion to the above, the Board is directed to answer by Octo­
ber 29, 1969, the following questions:

1. What, in verbatim detail, are the instructions 
that have been given to Mr. Weil!

2. What is Mr. Weil’s assigned mission or goal!

3. What areas of the district is he directed to in­
clude in his program of re-drawing attendance lines!

4. What areas, if any, is he directed to exclude!

5. What schools will his program affect!

6. Will pairing, grouping or clustering of schools 
be used by the Board as needed to supplement the com­
puter plan!

7. Will the Weil program of re-drawing attendance 
lines produce desegregation of all the schools by Sep­
tember, 1970!

8. If the Weil program does not produce desegrega­
tion of all the schools by September, 1970, what does 
the Board plan to do to produce that result!

9. Will any plan produced by the Weil method or 
any other re-drawing of attendance lines desegregate

Order dated October 10, 1969



605a

the schools if unrestricted freedom of transfer or free­
dom of choice is retained?

The value of the answers to these nine questions is sub­
stantially dependent on whether they are made by vote of 
the full Board or by non-voting representatives such as 
attorneys or other agents.

Pending receipt of the above information, the court will 
defer action on the request for time extension. Action will 
also be deferred for the present on the motions which have 
been filed by the plaintiffs which include requests for aboli­
tion of freedom of choice and appointment of an outside 
expert to devise a plan in default of Board action.

This the 10th day of October, 1969.

/ s /  James B. M cM illan 
James B. McMillan 

United States District Judge

Order dated October 10, 1969



606a

Defendants’ Response to Motion for Further Relief
(Filed October 11, 1969)

The defendants, The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of 
Education and the individual Board members, answering 
the motion of the plaintiffs filed herein on the second day 
of September, 1969, allege and say:

1. The allegations of Paragraph 1 deal with matters and 
things appearing of record in this case and this defendant 
is not required to either admit or deny said allegations.

2-A. The order of the Court dated August 29, 1969, has 
disposed of the allegations contained in Paragraph 2-A 
and these defendants are not required to either admit or 
deny the same.

2-B. The allegations contained in Paragraph 2-B are 
denied and in further answer thereof, these defendants 
allege that substantial steps have been taken to implement 
the plan with respect to re-assigning black students now 
in over-crowded schools and that the record in this cause 
expressly discloses that the plan did not contemplate re­
assignment of these students until such time as the addi­
tional mobile units were available and some students might 
not be re-assigned until the end of December. It is ex­
pected that all students will be re-assigned on or before 
October 15, 1969.

2-C. The allegations contained in Paragraph 2-C are 
denied.

W herefore, these defendants pray the Court that the 
relief demanded by the plaintiffs in said motion be denied



607a

Defendants’ Response to Motion for Further Relief

and that these defendants have such other and further 
relief as it may he entitled to receive.

Brock Barkley 
814 Law Building 
Charlotte, North Carolina

William J. Waggoner 
1100 Barringer Office Tower 
Charlotte, North Carolina



The C h a r lo t t e -M e e k  Ie n b u rg  S c h o o ls
608a

R e se a rch  R e p o rt  2 - '6 9  
/*- '6f

SUMMATION OF INTEGRATION 1965 (MARCH) AND 1 9 6 8 -6 9  (OCT. I ,  '6 8 )
At/D / U V -H  ( A t .  2 ,  ' ( f J

F o r  P u p i1s P r o f e s s io n a l  S t a f f

S c h o o ls  Hav i nq In t e g r a t  io n

. P u p i l s  9W 

B.

476N
M in o r i t y  Race 
( in t e g r a t e d )

iJW
1I92W  6709N

ON
131W 208N

1 /7-VM ^

. P u p i l s

Number in  
M a j o r i t y  Race 
( in t e g r a t e d )

393N 16.996W
8697N  97.356W

itst SZiOSrJ 1 9 3 .3 N +0W 3 13 nn
379N  2575W

T o ta l in v o lv e d  by 
In t e g r a t  ion

. P re d o m in a n t ly  
N egro  S c h o o ls  
-  -  Pup i I s 

352

/e,oll
988 9  S t a f f  199 505

StO

. P re d o m in a t1y 
W h ite  S c h o o ls

P u p i l s  16 ,922

. . T o ta l
-  -  P u p i l s  1 7 ,2 7 4  

o r
24%  o f  

72 .3 3 6  
E n ro l 1ed

LD,
5 9 ,0 6 0 S t a f f

AfSl!
6 3 ,9 9 9  7 0« S t a f f

o r
o f

111
fS& 't

149
o r

J L %  o f  
3140 i n c l .  

p a r t  a s s ig n m e n t s  
in  s c h o o ls

3288
o r  / "

91% o f  . v,.'
3613 ^ s s  i gned 
a t  one d e f in i t e  
s c h o o l63



RACIAL DISTRIBUTION OF PUPILS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFF
1965 (March). 1968-69 (Oct. 1, >68). and 1968-69

G ra d e
No.

S c h o o l
1965

N
P u p i l s

7 1  W

1 -6 72 9 , 3 6 4 2 7 .6 9 6

7 - 9 17 2 ,4 7 5 1 1 ,8 0 4

1 0 -1 2 8 1 ,6 2 5 1 0 ,6 7 7

No.
S c h o o l

1 96 8  Pup i 1S 
N W

No.
S c h o o l

7 6 - 1 3 ,2 9 0 3 1 , 5 4 5 7 3 -

21 5 , 9 3 4 14 ,7 4 1 2 0 -

11 4 , 3 7 7 1 2 ,3 1 3 1 0 -

1965  1 9 6 8  196 9
N W N W N W

1 9 6 9  P u p i l s  
N U

1 3 . 3 7 4  3 1 , 5 2 2

6,188 15.191 

4 , 4 7 2  1 2 ,8 0 8

Professiona l S ta ff

3 7 7 +  11 71 i  4 7 8

1 1 1 -  533  228

6 5  4 7 9 }  178

1 32 9 4 9 9 1 34 4

706 232 6 9 4

6 4 4 194 6 6 6

O th e r

97 1 3 ,4 6 4  5 0 . 1 7 7 108-  2 3 ,6 0 1 5 8 , 5 9 9  1 0 3 - 2 4 , 0 3 4 5 9 ,5 2 1 5 5 3 i 2 1 8 4 8 8 4 2 6 7 9  925 2 7 0 4

12 6 , 8 7 7  1 .8 1 8 4 +  6 4 0 271 4 + _ 6 5 6 3 0 7 3 2 3 i 7 9 23 27  22 3 0

:K g n .  +  T r a i n a b le

1 -4 1 360
1 -7 2 431 207
1 - 9 3 729 1611
5 - 9 1 505
1 -1 2 3 2 40 0
7 - 1 2 2 2 4 5 2

T o t a l * . 109 2 0 ,3 4 1 5 1 , 9 9 5 112  2 4 ,2 4 1  5 8 , 8 7 0  107

15}
17
3 2

25}
1 1 3 }
120

9 }
68

ii

2 4 , 6 9 0  59,828 8 7 7  2 2 6 3  9 0 7  2 7 0 6  9 4 7  2 7 3 4

In c lu d e  N ot In c lu d e
P a r t - t im e  P a r t - t im e

Among t e a c h e r s  a s s i g n e d  t o  m ore 
t h a n  o n e  s c h o o l

64



COMPARISON OF PUPILS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFFING BY RACE
March 6, 1965. 1968-69*. and 1969-70 *

Professiona l S ta ff

S c h o o l 1965 P u p i1s 1968-69 Pup 1 s 1 9 6 9 -7 0  P u p i l s 1965 1968- 69* 1969- 70*

E le m e n ta r y N y. w N °7C w N w N %  w N ‘ 7. W N W

2___ /V ( o t h e r ) ( o t h e r ) -J l_________
t f (o t h e r ) ( o t h e r )

A lb e m a r le  Rd . 4 I f . 499 4 / 7 510 6 3 2 7 . 13 6

A le x a n d e r  S t r e e t 3 4 2 . CL ;> 257 /OP 7 e 1 4 .1 lec% 11 t c o l .

A1 le n b r o o k 50 IO 7 . 452 61 452 2 iC *7c 18 5 2 7  7.- 16

A s h l e y  P a rk 0 % 6 9 4 0 % 553 27 574 07c 2 2 . 9 2 1 % 20 4 / 77. , 9
1 - 9  B a in o n  674 25 3  *7c 6 9 9 33 ■j.% 735 Ole 28.2 1 3 % 28 5 177. 25

•65
° X  6 0 4 6 6 8 x 131 8 5 9 "13% 16 ox, 2 4 .8 13 ♦  2  7. 18 16 f  7  A  18

B e r r y h  i 11 0 %  1 02 6 119 ! 3  Vc 6 8 5 114 I f f e 6 7 5 or. 39.6 2 6'/. 3 2 6 / < ”«  31
343 n %  9 223 117 . 3 1 7 .6 /» oTc 11 fec i.

B e v e r l y  W oods O 7c 286 6 8 9 7c 6 8 4 1 t t c 12 5 23

B i d d l e v i l l e 4 3 4 /tc% 1 7 . 2 I e e l

l g |  B i 1 1 i n g s v i 1 l e 729 fee  9c 6 1 9 /0O % 2 6 1 0 I C C  % 0 3 2 .1 laeX 25 / e c % 16 4 2 7 .  ,0

2 0 1 ,  $ 82 8 1 % 6 4 0 6 / % 6 8 0 »7. 2 3 . 9 3 121. 22 6 •-Z7. 21

740 1 1 7 . 4 774 ? ? ? . 10 26 131. 2 21 40 7. 11

C h a n t  i l l y 0 %  41*5 2 O % 491 5 / % 4 8 7 0%  , 8 . 8 1 3  7. 21 4 /7 V. 19

C le a r  C re e k 0 %  207 58 20% 225 51 i'7% 2 4 4 o x  9 . 6 1 f t . 12 3 12

C o l 1 i n sw ood 0 % 375 72 13 % 4 9 0 111 2 0 % 443 0X 16.1 1 S ic 21 3 /Y^. 19
C o r n e l i  u s o f .  241 2 3 9 252 195 1S % 237 0x 11.3 7 33*7* 14 5 U " - -  14

C o t s w o ld 0*  631 11 1*7* 5 6 7 23 7 % 537 oz  2 5 . 0 1 s i . 21 4 / f  7 .  18

97 t ‘ c 9o 5 . 0 /«■  %

D a v id s o n « ? .  178 101 3 5  7. 186 104 J»t % 186 o7„ 7 . 8 1 s % 11 2 777 . 10

M a r ie  D a v i s 808 tt c  7c 705 /e>c 7. 691 ic cV c 0 3 4 .3 Iec7 . 2 9 ioc% 14 y i ‘7< ,5

D e r i  t a 6 / 7. 892 165 I9°7* 728 163 >1‘/c 6 8 8 o Z  3 5 . 4 3 i f . 3 2 5 /Y 7. 30

D e v o n sh  i re 2 o x  474 0 % 8 8 9 0 0 % 903 0%  1 9 .5 4 tc'A 3 7 7 1 S ‘7c 31

D i lw o r t h 100 xc  % 1+01 223 3 1  7. 355 113 2  5 V i 336 c7. 2 3 . 8 4 /$ '7c • 22 3 /Y7« 19

D o u b le  O aks 703 8 0 0 f e e  7 0 8 3 6 / c c  */-> 0 28.2 IDC*7c 3 2 ICC 9. 19 12

*  Does  n o t  i n c l u d e  s t a f f  a s s i g n e d  t o  more th a n  o n e  s c h o o l  p e r  HEW r e q u e s t .



COMPARISON OF PUPILS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFFING BY RACE
March 6, 1965, 1968-69*, and 1969-70 *

a.
s>

P r o f e s s i o n a l  S t a f f

S c h o o l

E le m e n ta ry

1965  P u p i l s

N __ W
°7c

_____ Cl___________

1 9 6 8 -6 9  P u p i l s

N W
H  ( o t h e r )

1 9 6 9 -7 0  P u p i l s

N W
( o t h e r )

N

1965

*  W
n

1 9 6 8 - 6 9 *

N _  W
^ ( o t h e r )

1 9 6 9 - 7 0 *

N W
( o t h e r )

D r u Id  H i l l s 520 /oo *7- . 506 3 6 7 2 777, 3 2 0 . 7 10 o7* 20 t c  c  >\ 13 £,* V* 8
E a s t o v e r OVc 706 6 9 ?  7c 5 8 0 62 7 7c 5 5 9 07. 2 7 .1 1 7 1 . 26 6 I'l /. 20
E l iz a b e t h 5 i % 6 6 8 270 5 3 % 196 3 6 6 7/V# 151 2 2 . 9 2 r % 21 6 Z 3  7 20
E n d e r ly  P a r k o r . 3 6 8 2 1 % 3 7 6 3 / % 371 e%  16.9 1 U 7c 15 3 1 13
Fa I r v  i ew 702 ItC % 363 ltd  7c 28.0 ICC 7. 19 t CC A-

F i r s t  W ard 6 7 3 Itc 7. 7**9 to o  % 8 2 0 t"-t % 0 2 2 . 8 /tt* 7c 3 0 ICr % 17 £c 7. 17
”&§ J .  H . Gunn 6 9 6 toe 7* 3 3 . 6 lee 7«

H ic k o r y  G ro v e o  % 530 80 1 3 7 . 531 70 4 A- V'. 533 O le  2 1 . 7 1 Y* 23 3 /:• \ 20
H id d e n  V a l l e y o % 9 7 7 0 C7» 1100 2 5  7. 3 5 7 1 7 7 3 5
H ig h la n d 2 1 1 . 273 6 7 13 7. 3 2 6 6 9 i f  >. 3 0 5 ®7«, 1 6 .0 1 r% 16 3 /<? 13

H o s k in s o f . 362 18 1 % 261 13 5 7 228 0 7 . 1 6 .7 2 IS % 11 3 S '•s- 9
H u n t e r s v i l i e 0 7 . 553 162 ZZ'7- 560 156 V. a 7o; 535 07. 2 2 . 9 2 7 7. 25 5 22
H u n t in g to w n e  Fa rm s C % 3 5 8 7 H e 6 9 5 7 / 603 d 7c 15.1 1 *7„ 26 6 / « • / , 21
1d 1ew i 1d o '”* 592 2 0  7, 521 56 7 - ’c SSI * 2 .  2 3 . 9 1 ¥-7, 22 6 1 / ' 23
Amay Jam es 360. ICO 7: 6 7 7 /oc% 1 673 11% 3 1 5 .5 Icc 7. 19 io«X 13 S I % 9

A da  J e n k in s **31 tec 7» 1 7 . 0 /ocJS
L a k e v ie w o 7 c 600 2 6 9 tS 7c .167 3 6 2 I f  A 102 « »  1 8 .5 16 7v*i 5 13 t z  * 8
Lan sd o w n e C?i 633 0 7. 7 5 8 75 7 % 802 « *  2 3 . 9 1 3 % 30 6 1 7 % 30
L i n c o l n  H e ig h t s 783 / c c X 8 1 7 ICO 7. 2 711 / r c % 0 2 9 .1 ICC % 30 /cc X 16 J  77c 12
L o n g  C re e k 0?c 623 250 31% 6 6 6 267 j*-' 6 6 8 0 %  17.6 2 71 26 6 J.I 7. 23

M a tth e w s o% 937  ( , " 6 ^3 11% 762 86 /r 7c 8 0 2 0 3  3 9 . 7 1 3% 32 6 U  7. 31
M e r r y  O aks o 'Z 5 3 8 0% 6 6 9 0 O Vc 6 6 2 2 1 . 9 1 57. 19 3 St 16
M id w ood 0 7 . 560 1 o f. 5 2 2 11 6 7 7 o '*  2 6 . 9 2 ?7 , 21 6 /•/ Vc 19
M o n t c l a i r e ex 720 c'% 722 0 £ 'X 718 C s  29.1 1 27 5 / ?  7. , 23
M o rg a n 3 0 5 1 6 . 9
I r w i n  A v e .  (E lem ) 315 l e d . 0 10 i  7  A 5

66



COMPARISON OF PUPILS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFFING BY RACE
March 6, 1965, 1968-69*. and 1969-70 *

P rofessiona l S ta ff

S c h o o l

E le m e n ta r y

1 9 6 5  P u p i l s

N - W
_ _ n  .. _.....

1 9 6 8 -6 9  P u p i l s

N n  W
,V ( o t h e r )

1 9 6 9 -7 0  P u p i l s

N W
( o t h e r )

N

196 5

w
-v

1968- 69*

N 7  W
y j ( o t h e r )

1 9 6 9 - 7 0 *

N W
( o t h e r !

M y e r s  P a r k O'Tc
575 23 *7- 543 22 5 % 4 5 6 c%  2 4 . 9 1 v% 23 3 /-' 22

M y e r s  S t r e e t 820 ICcZ 32.2 teeX
N a t io n s  F o rd ©A 513 63 Ic 585 4 7 681 o ’!. 2 1 . 6 1 H-% 25 6 22
Newel 1 c X 463 73 15 7c 423 7 4 > r z 4 3 8 o Z  1 8 .3 1 5 Z 18 3 / 5 V. 17
O a k d a le 07. 4 0 2 72 n % 4 8 0 6 9 /£% 5 1 7 0 % 1 7 .2 1 21 6 * 5  7= 18

O a k h u r s t • 7. 5 4 8 2 0 7. 6 1 5 5 17. 6 1 6 c %  2 2 . 8 1 *7* 23 4 17%  20

O ak law n 6 6 6 6 5 0 ftc Ve 6 1 3 /«c % 0 2 6 . 0 n e t 25 7': 7. 2 11 15
0 1 de  P r o v id e n c e 10 j. % 4 3 4 80 /¥■ 7. 512 1 17 5 20

P a r k  Road e X 583 0 % 551 4 4 7 % 5 4 8 O'7- 22.7 1 S I . 21 7 3 0 %  16
Paw C re e k o7t 793 63 7% 861 27 * 7. 609 «%  3 0 . 3 1 3% 31 5 2 * 7 .  18

P l n e v i l i e oZ 3 6 4 168 3 1 % 363 146 i S  -7. 3 7 5 0% 1 6 .2 1 S% 21 4 17%  19

P i new ood 7 1 9 0 % 707 0 0  % 6 7 4 o Z  2 8 .1 1 ■f% 26 4 15 % 22
P la z a  Road 0% 4 0 0 9 9 11% 4 0 9 88 362 07. 1 7 .7 1 s % 21 4 /7‘V. 1 7

Rama Road Qlc 4 4 2 2 O % 7 7 7 1 £  7* 815 c %  1 8 .7 2 1% 27 5 / 77. 24

S e d g e f i e l d 3 i% 5 2 6 7 / % 5 4 5 3 / 7 c 548 c %  2 1 . 8 2 77c 20 4 17 7. 19

P l a t o  P r i c e 505 icc7c 2 5 . 4 ice  z

S e lw y n • % 531 5 1% 5 9 8 31 J  7. 6 1 7 2 1 . 9 1 * 7 . 22 5 / Y %  21
S e v e r s v i 11e 96 JO% 229 0 % 1 4 .8

S h a m ro c k  G a rd e n s o% 5 3 6 o7c 5 3 9 0 0 % 515 0% 2 1 . 9 1 5 % 20 4 / Y 7 .  17
S h a ro n e% 591 0 % 5 1 9 8 9 2 0  7. 3 6 4 0 %  2 2 . 9 1 5 % 20 4 a r y .  16

S ta rm o u n t o  7c 481 25 3 % 713 25 3 % 712 0% 20.9 1 y ? . 28 5 / 7  %  25
S t a t e s v i 1 l e  Road o  7. 650 295 3 1 % 5 3 4 333 377. 522 0 % 2 5 . 9 3 7 % 29 8 2 Y 7 .  25
S t e e le  C re e k a X 222 12 531 5 /7.. 5 0 9 0 7 . 1 0 . 7 l 5  7 . 20 4 / f  7  18
S t e r l i  ng 6 9 9 tc c X •>33.S tcc%
Thom as b o ro 885 © A-

7 0 5 0 O % 6 9 0 O v  3 4 . 3 2 7 7 . 25 5 / 7 "  22
Paw C re e k  A n nex 30 /c  7 . 271 1 7  7c 10



COMPARISON OF PUPILS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFFING BY RACE
March 6, 1965, 1968-69*. and 1969-70 *

S c h o o l

E le m e n ta ry

196 5  Pup 

N

<v

I s

w

1 9 6 8 -6 9  P u p i l s

N ^  W 
,-y ( o t h e r )

1 9 6 9 -7 0  Pup 

N
(o

■ P r o f e s s io n a l  S t a f f

M s

W
t h e r )

1965

N ,,  W

N

1968 -69 '--

N £ ( o t h e r )

1 9 6 9 - 7 0 *

N W 
(o th e

i l l  T o r r e n c e - L y t l e 005 •C(% **6.1 ICC%
T ry o n  H i l l s 32 i* 2**1 a 2**5 3 2 2 166 C\ 1 5 .0 1 3  1 20 U i > i  18
T u c k a se e g e e c % 631 61 /cv; 553 58 7 578 a .  2 3 . 9 1 V 7 . 23 ** /79 i 20

U n i v e r s i t y  P a rk 700 i ce % 7 7 7 tec '7c 8 2 5 /Or 1 25.8 H e } . 3 0 77 7- 1 23 !C%  10

Zeb  V an ce **65 ice 257 t e c ’;. 1 9 .5 tec Yo 11 tee

V i l l a  H e ig h t s 23 H 2 59** 796 f t ” 126 9 2 9 /• Fj 88 0 2 2 8 . 3 23 23 S3 % 17
W e s le y  H e ig h t s 21L fc X- 8 . 3 777. 2 . 2

W e s t e r l y  H i l l s 0% 5 6 9 <*6 t % 5 3 9 1 77c 22 *♦ 7 7 7t 20

W iIm o re 6 2% 323 1**5 33% 293 228 235 .0 7 ,1 5 .L 8 * t 7 .  12 9 y/7. 13

W in d s o r  P a r k 1 C% 6 7 9 2 cT . 737 1 o % 7**8 o'/t 25.8 1 27 6 ■-C-7. 2**

W I n t e r f i e l d o r **55 c7 - 6 8 9 **8 7 % 688 oX  1 8 .7 1 f  75 26 6 2**

W o o d la n d 360 /cc% 1**.8 !OC%
W ood law n c % 283 « 21**.0
I s a b e l l a  W yche 383 ICC!: 222 ICC % 18.6 I t c 7 . 12 /oc'K

C h i l d  D e ve lo p m e n t
(K g n .  C e n t e r s )

D a v id s o n ,  #1 83 •fl% 117 80 f c ’vlt 121 3 3e?<  7 3
7

P i n e v l l l e ,  # 2 166 3 a. 7. 3 7 163 7 7 <* **3 2 & 8 2 2£ 9. 8
S e v e r s v i l l e ,  #3 17** S7 % 26 181 ■7 c  r 21 8 TO 7. 2 7 7 r v .  3

M o rg a n ,  ttk 188 7 7  7c 6 187 f 7 /«? 12 8 j r c %  2 7 r t  7. 2

68



CT>h—
S'

CO M PAR ISO N  OF P U P IL S  AND P R O F E SS IO N A L  S T A F F IN G  BY RACE 
M a rc h  6 ,  1 9 6 5 ,  1 9 6 8 - 6 9 * ,  and  1 9 6 9 -7 0  *

S c h o o l 1 9 6 5  P u p i l s 1 9 6 8 -6 9  P u p i l s  1 9 6 9 -7 0  P u p i l s

P r o f e s s i o n a l  S t a f f __________________

196 5  1 9 6 8 - 6 9 *  1 9 6 9 - 7 0 *

J u n i o r  H iq h N
*7c
N

w N
Jy ( o t h e r )

N

A lb e m a r le  R oad 6 6 77, 881 63
A le x a n d e r c % 5 7 7 3 ^ 7 3 i % 755 3 6 9
C o c h ra n e c X 8 7 2 76 5  7c 1 W * 79
C o u lw o o d 3 I X 5 7 ^ 119 /Y7, 727 106
E a s tw a y o Z 1046 3 O ?« 1361* 61

A le x .  G raham 0 % 101*8 8 / % 1081* 113
H a w th o rn e 25 * 7 . 6 7 0 1*92 M *7 596

I r w i n  A v e . 785 IC C  % 6 6 6 /fie 7®

M c C l in t o c k 0  7c 1273 1*6 V 7. 1228 93
N o r th w e s t 773 /Cc % 9 3 2 % 1 05 2

P ie d m o n t 121 291 1*28 yr 7. 53 1*1*3
Q y a i1 H o i low o \ 766 171 >2 Vc 1261 155
R a n d o lp h 272 711 2 8 9

R a n so n 9 /7c 6 5 8 253 J f  % 586 260
S e d g e f i e ld 6 / % 920 189 / 7 6 , 8 0 2 i6 7

S m ith j - t 1115 138 9 55
Sp au g h 1 0 % 330 186 / r  7tf 871 287
W i1 1 iam s 752 ic c  % 893 /re 7e 1081

V i  I s o n 0 % 1C64 6 0 j  :: 1132 71
Y o r k  R d . ( 7 - 12)101*1 • cc V* 7 2 7 77 7c 6 851*

(K e n n e d y )

W
( o t h e r )

N W
X
N

N
p o t h e r )

N W
( o t h e r )

6 X- 995 1* n Z 43 6 /3 H  1*0
3> 7.- 771 0 % 2 8 . 9 6 1*1* 8 /K?. 1*1

1 % 1552 fl-x. 35.1* 6 56 12 /»■* 51*
7.; 770 oSfc 2 7 .1 l* //■% 31* 6 '< 7 ,  32
T -7- 1356 e-S  1*3 . 2 3 n .  55 11 /a •/, 51

r-% 1 0 2 8 o r .  1*3.8 1* 7 7 . 1*3 9 / » v . 1*0
5 t 7a 1*72 °7 , 3 3 .9 12 <17. 33 15 .-*/% 31*

4 2 , 7  • 3 2 77 7c 1
77, 1288 0 % 5 1 . 5 2 7  7, 49 10 / I  5k4 8

/rr 7i- 1 3 3 . 7  IC C  7c 3 9 / . ' /  Jt 22 5lSi. 20

?y-7. 55 o 7 s 26.8 13 5 -7 . 12 17 J - 7 7  13
.C 11*21 e v, 3 5 . 2 3 5 7c 61 8 *5 7- 5 5

i-y 7 . 710 2 5 7c 38 9 v t 'X  35
7 1  ‘7, 51*8 o ~  3 0 .O 6 /<- X  31 11 y/-7, 25
/ 7 7 , 8 0 9 o 7 .  1*0.5 5 ■7 7. 39 9 i > %  3i*

11*36 «  vi 1*8.6 3 5 7; 57 9 > 5 -  52
s -i % 8 3 9 0 % 1*2.5 6 ■ i. 7. 1*3 10 i i ' .  3 7

I t  C *7c 0 34.9 / « v . 3 7 - C f  % 27 - 5  7c |6
c  % 111*5 C 7 .1 *5.6 1* •' 1*5 9 /  S *■ 1*2

1 1 % 9 1 *9 .9  /£ « ? « 32 7 7 ? . 1 21 5 57. ,5

L e a r n in g  Academ y -  7 t h  & 8 th  g r a d e s
c o u n te d  in  JH , a b o v e , 5 // '• 21 1* 11

69



61
5a

COMPARISON OF PUPILS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFFING BY RACE
March 6, 1965, 1968-69*, and 1969-70*

P r o f e s s i o n a l  S t a f f

S c h o o l 1965  Pup i 1 s 1 9 6 8 -6 9  Pup M s 1 9 6 9 -7 0  P u p i l s 1965 1968- 69* 1 9 6 9 - 7 0 *

S e n i o r  H iq h N w N W N W N W N VJ N w
M  ( o t h e r ) ( o t h e r ) 'V # o th e r ) ( o t h e r )

E a s t  M e c k le n b u rg c  X 1782 155 17, 1 7 3 9 2 2 7 Il7r 1925 o ‘i  7 9 . 2 6 85 16 'S*\ 91
G a r i  n g e r 2 O /c 2 26 6 2 0 2 7 ’h 2 1 5 7 4 9 2 f/T 2 1 4 8 10 0 . 0 6 02 22 97
H a r d in g 0  7c 1002 169 n 8 1 4 6 3 6 +77: 720 4 8 . 0 4 ■3 ■/’. 49 16 56
In d e p e n d e n c e 92 77 , 962 135 i t  7. 1111 6 7 7. 59 12 / t  7, 62
M y e r s  P a r k 31 ■J- % 177 2 158 y % 1855 233 /X?.- 176 7 « -* 7 6 . 7 6 <. 7. 87 17 /o 7. 79

N o r t h  M e c k le n b u rg '  1 c 7, 115 5 4 1 0 21 % 1 1 0 9 4 6 2 118 5 c 5i 5 1 . 8 6 / 7, 63 13 / n?. 6 4
O ly m p ic

/ 5 jp - -S e c o n d  W ard
2 5 9 31 V. 5 2 2 3 7 6 f.X-7. 512 5 / /  ^ 3 9 10 i./ /« 38

1411 /cc 7c 1 1 3 9 / c c 3 70.0 ??>: 1.5 57 75 7. 3
S o u t h  M e c k le n b u r g 3 0 2. €.\ 1430 106 6 % 181 2 109 2 0 2 4  • 0 1 72.0 4 0 'c 78 17 / f  - 79
W e st  C h a r l o t t e 1560 /C L  7 1 5 6 9 Zee 7. 1 6 5 8 « c  7, 0 65.0 m  2.0 74 75 7c 6 58 C7 7. 29
W e st  M e c k le n b u r g 1 O 'lc 1270 118 >7, 134 0 148 1 4 4 4 6 1 . 4 4 .FX 73 13 /5 '/, 71

70



616a

On October 2, 1969, the defendants, Charlotte-Mecklen- 
burg Board of Education and the individual Board mem­
bers, petitioned the Court for an extension of time in which 
to file its plan for faculty and student desegregation for 
the 1970-1971 school year. The Court deferred ruling on 
the defendants’ motion pending submission of certain in­
formation to the Court.

1. Attached marked Exhibit “A ” is statistical informa­
tion on the results of closing the inner-city schools and 
transfers from overcrowded schools and attached marked 
Exhibit “B” , the Court will find information on the de­
segregation proposal contained in the July 29, 1969 plan.

With reference to elementary schools, those students re­
maining in the school attendance districts, 463 blacks are 
attending predominantly white schools and 446 are attend­
ing predominantly black schools. Of those students remain­
ing in the Irwin Junior High attendance district, 273 blacks 
are attending predominantly white schools and 229 are 
attending predominantly black schools. Of the students 
remaining in the Second Ward school district, 506 blacks 
are attending predominantly white schools and 169 are 
attending predominantly black schools.

The Board is most concerned with the lack of responses 
of some black students and parents in the overcrowded 
schools. At the present time, 73 students from Amay James 
are now attending predominantly white Ashley Park (27 
students) and Westerly Hills (46 students). Two train- 
able classes were transferred from the Wilmore School to 
predominantly white Berryhill. The anticipated enroll­
ment for Lincoln Heights did not materialize so that it 
was unnecessary to move children from this school.

Defendants’ Report to the Court Pursuant to Order of
October 10, 1969



617a

The Board is continuing to examine new approaches in 
an effort to gain acceptance by the patrons of moves to 
relieve overcrowded schools. To this point, efforts have 
included written communications, meetings in the schools 
and social worker visitations in the homes. Transporta­
tion has been offered in every instance.

In summation, regarding seven closed schools and trans­
fers from overcrowded schools, the total pupils dealt with 
were 2700. Of this number, only 2216 were available for 
re-assignment. Twelve hundred eighty-seven (1287) ac­
cepted re-assignment and 929 requested freedom of choice. 
Thirteen hundred fifteen (1315) of the available 2216 
black pupils are now going to predominantly white schools.

2. With reference to the inquiry of the Court regarding 
the effect of freedom of transfer on the desegregation pro­
posed in the July 29, 1969 plan for the closing of inner- 
city schools and transferring their students, Section 2 of 
Exhibit “ C” discloses the sending and receiving schools 
for such students electing free choice of transfer totaled 
929, 209 of which were granted transfers to predominantly 
white schools. Exhibit “A” also shows school by school 
break-down for receiving schools of students electing free 
choice of transfer.

3. Attached marked Exhibit “ C” is a report of the num­
ber of children, by school and race, who chose to transfer 
out of anti into the various schools for the 1969-70 year. 
This information reinforces the Board’s prior position 
that free choice of transfer has had little adverse effect 
on desegregation. The Court’s attention is directed in 
Section 1 to Albemarle Road Elementary School and it is 
noted that 13 white students were granted transfers to

Defendants’ Report to the Court Pursuant to Order
of October 10, 1969



618a

enter and 14 were granted transfers to leave, leaving the 
school with one less white student than originally assigned. 
By following this comparison, it is easy to note that the 
racial composition of the schools has been affected very 
little by free choice of transfer.

Attention is called to the fact that in Section 1 of Ex­
hibit “ C” , there were 1610 requests for transfer, of which 
1200 were granted. Black students lodged 504 requests and 
were granted 402. In addition, 929 black students from 
the closed inner-city schools requested and were granted 
transfers. Thus, 1331 black students and 798 white stu­
dents were granted free choice of transfer for the year 
1969-1970.

4. Attached marked Exhibit “D” is a report on the cur­
rent numbers and races of children and teachers in the 
system, school by school, with percentages of each race 
for each school.

The first page of this exhibit is a summation that re­
flects the prior information presented to the Court with 
the addition of information for the year 1969. An inter­
pretation of this information on the summation page shows 
that in 1969, 89 of 107 schools served both races. The 16 
predominantly Negro schools integrated had 1153 white 
pupils and 8858 Negro pupils to account for a total of 
10,011 pupils in predominantly black schools. The 73 
integrated predominantly white schools had 8490 black stu­
dents attending school with 52,070 white students. Thus, 
60,560 students attend predominantly white integrated 
schools. Integrated schools have a total of 70,571 students, 
representing 83.5 per cent of all students served by the 
system. Interpretation of the staff summation shows that

Defendants’ Report to the Court Pursuant to Order
of October 10, 1969



619a

all schools are integrated, 18 schools of which are predomi­
nantly Negro and 89 schools of which are predominantly 
white. It is noted that the number of students attending 
schools having no desegregation of their student bodies 
has been reduced from 19,258 in 1968-69 to 13,947 students 
for the year 1969-70. During 1969, 7,342 black students are 
attending schools having no desegregation of student bodies 
and 6,605 whites attend schools in which the student bodies 
are not desegregated.

The remaining information of Exhibit “D” is a school 
by school break-down of pupils and faculty for the years 
noted.

5. Attached marked Exhibit “ E” is a report on children 
being provided bus transportation, school by school. It is 
noted that 599 pre-schoolers, 10,441 elementary, 8,989 
junior high and 4,708 senior high students are being pro­
vided transportation. This represents total daily transpor­
tation for 24,737 students.

6. Attached marked Exhibit “F” is a description of what 
has been done to provide the compensatory education pro­
grams proposed in the July 29, 1969 plan and policy 
statement.

7. The defendants are unable to furnish a copy of all 
September and October, 1969, reports of the Board to the 
Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Ordi 
narily, the forms for reporting are made available to the 
school system for a report as of October 1 of each year. 
The forms for reporting for the 1969-1970 school year have 
not been printed and furnished to the school system. It 
is submitted that substantially all of the information that

Defendants’ Report to the Court Pursuant to Order
of October 10, 1969



620a

would be contained in the report to the Department of 
Health, Education and Welfare is disclosed in the informa­
tion submitted in connection with Items 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 
above.

In its order of October 10, 1969, the Court posed nine 
additional questions which the Board was directed to an­
swer. It is noted that the following responses were approved 
by unanimous resolution of the full Board of Education, 
such responses being as follows:

1. What, in verbatim detail, are the instructions that 
have been given to Mr. Weil?

A n s w e r  : Mr. Weil, on behalf of Systems Associates, 
Inc. has been instructed to devise a computer assisted 
systems analysis approach to restructuring each of 
the attendance lines for all schools served by the sys­
tem. In this connection, it is understood that the prod­
uct of such an approach would involve a computer 
print-out of all the possible configurations or combina­
tions of grids within the following limitations:

1. All grids must be contiguous to the home grid 
or to grids which are contiguous to the home grid. 
(A grid is a 2500 ft. square as shown on the school 
attendance maps filed as exhibits in this matter.)

2. No combination of grids can be considered if 
they exceed the rated capacity of the school by 
20%. Further, such combinations cannot under­
populate the school by less than 20%.

3. A school district cannot contain the home grid 
of another school.

Defendants’ Report to the Court Pursuant to Order
of October 10, 1969



621a

4. A school district must contain the home grid 
in which the school is located.

5. No school district attended by whites should 
have less than 60% white student population to 
avoid “tipping.”

After meeting these five tests, all possible combinations 
for each school will be separately printed in their order 
of desirability. Desirability will be determined first 
by the closeness of the integration ratio to 70% white/ 
30% black. Second, desirability is reflected by the com­
pactness of the school district; and third, the combina­
tion of grids which yields a student population closest 
to 100% of the school’s rated capacity is considered 
most desirable. It is observed that the first five rules 
serve to identify the various combinations of grids 
which are possible, and the latter three rules judge the 
desirability of the various combinations.

2. What is Mr. Weil’s assigned mission or goal?

A nswer: Mr. Weil’s mission or goal is to produce for 
each school, independent of all other schools, all feasible 
combinations of grids which may comprise a school 
district within the limitations set forth in the answer to 
question 1.

3. What areas of the district is he directed to include in 
his program of redrawing attendance lines?

A nswer: Mr. Weil has been directed to include all 
areas of the County in developing combinations of 
grids which may comprise a school district.

Defendants’ Report to the Court Pursuant to Order
of October 10, 1969



622a

4. What areas, if any, is he directed to exclude?

A nswers He has not been directed to exclude any geo­
graphical areas. However, certain special education 
programs, such as the learning academy and child 
development centers, have been excluded from his con­
sideration. These programs enroll students from large 
geographic areas and in some cases, students from the 
entire county.

5. What schools will his program affect?

A nswer: In making the systems analysis, the atten­
dance lines of all schools served by the system will 
be considered and there is substantial probability that 
all attendance lines will be affected in varying degrees.

6. Will pairing, grouping or clustering of schools be 
used by the Board as needed to supplement the computer 
plan?

A nswer: It is not suggested by the Board of Education 
that there is a “computer plan.” The information sup­
plied by the systems analysis approach will be utilized 
by the staff and the Board of Education along with 
other information in restructuring attendance lines. 
The Board of Education will consider pairing, grouping 
or clustering of schools where practical, educationally 
feasible and where such techniques offer reasonable 
prospects of producing stable desegregation in such 
affected schools.

7. Will the Weil program of redrawing attendance lines 
produce desegregation of all the schools by September, 
1970?

Defendants’ Report to the Court Pursuant to Order
of October 10, 1969



623a

A nsw er : The information supplied by the systems 
analysis approach will not produce desegregation of 
all schools by September, 1970. Dramatic results are 
expected. It is hoped that the number of all white and 
all black schools will be substantially reduced. The 
number of such schools cannot be determined at this 
time.

8. If the Weil program does not produce desegregation 
of all the schools by September, 1970, what does the Board 
plan to do to produce that result?

A nsw er : A s pointed out above, the Weil program 
does not purport to be a single print-out of the best 
possible school district. Instead, it consists of a print­
out of the best alternative grids for each school which 
for the purpose of such print-out is considered inde­
pendently of all other school districts. This computer 
information will then be considered by persons familiar 
with neighborhoods, traffic patterns, natural hazards 
and other factors which to a limited degree may affect 
desegregation favorably or unfavorably in restructur­
ing attendance lines. The Board of Education does 
not feel that it will be possible to produce pupil desegre­
gation in each school by September, 1970. It is expected 
that faculties will fairly represent a cross section of 
the total faculty so that most and possibly all schools 
will not have a racially identifiable faculty. Further­
more, the restructuring of attendance lines coupled 
with faculty desegregation may satisfy constitutional 
requirements.

9. Will any plan produced by the Weil method or any 
other redrawing of attendance lines desegregate the schools

Defendants’ Report to the Court Pursuant to Order
of October 10, 1969



624a

if unrestricted freedom of transfer or freedom of choice 
is retained?

A nswer: The Board does not know precisely what 
effect free choice of transfer will have on desegregation 
through the utilization of the Weil approach. However, 
the Board does contemplate that additional restrictions 
on free choice of transfer will be required. The ex­
perience of this system indicates that retention of free 
choice of transfer would have little adverse effect on 
desegregation. During the 1968-69 school years, ap­
proximately 5 per cent of the students served by the 
system elected free choice of transfer, many of which 
transfers had no adverse effect on desegregation. In 
view of the limitation of the school population to not 
less than 60 per cent white, which will tend to stabilize 
racial ratios within the schools, it is believed that re­
tention of a more restricted free choice of transfer 
will not have any appreciable effect on desegregation 
and will enable students in case of practical hardship 
or educational desire to attend the school of his or her 
choice.

The Board has acknowledged its duty to desegregate the 
schools served by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public School 
System and is earnestly striving to fulfill this responsibility. 
Moreover, the Board realizes that to be workable, any plan 
for further desegregation must not only be approved by 
the Court, but must also be accepted by the community. In 
order to enhance the chances of success, the Board feels that 
it is imperative that its planning be thoroughly done, care­
fully reviewed, meaningfully interpreted to the community 
and realistically administered.

Defendants’ Report to the Court Pursuant to Order
of October 10, 1969



625a

In considering the defendants’ motion for an extension of 
time, it is respectfully requested that the Court carefully 
consider the foregoing duties of the Board.

Respectfully submitted this 29th day of October, 1969.

/ s /  W illiam J. W aggoner 
William J. Waggoner 
1100 Barringer Office Tower 
Charlotte, North Carolina

Attorney for Defendant

Defendants’ Beport to the Court Pursuant to Order
of October 10, 1969

State of North Carolina 
County of Mecklenburg

Dr. William C. Self, of lawful age, being first duly sworn, 
on his oath states that he is the Superintendent of Defendant 
named in the above and foregoing matter and that the 
facts stated in this report are true according to his best 
knowledge and belief.

/ s /  W illiam C. Self 
Dr. William C. Self

Sworn and subscribed to before me 
this 29th day of October, 1969.

/ s /  F aye Jalley 
Notary Public

My commission expires: 3-27-71



626a

ANSWERS TO STATISTICAL QUESTIONS 
Civil Action No. 13~}b 

Judge Jarr.es B. McMillan 
Re: 10-10-69

1. Pupil Distribution for Closed and Overcrowded Schools

2. Accounting of These Schools in Total Relating Effect
of Freedom of Choice

3. Report on Freedom of Choice Transfers: Section I, II

U. Degree of Integration: Pupils and Professional Staff 
in Each School

5. Pupils Transported Daily 1 SoS-70 - “ First Month Average

6 . Compensatory Education

7. HEW Reports (Not included, pending official printing.
Expected Report Date is December 15, 1969. Questions 
2 and U, above are basic for the HEW Report).

10-28-69

The Charlotte-Mechlenbuig Schools



627aPupils f ror,i closed schools* 
or

Pupils 1 rotn overcrowded schools

Prow :
Five Elementary Closed Schools

PUPIL DISTRIBUTION REPORT

(1) Reassigned School (Enrolled Oct. 10, 1969 )

S chop Is if Pupils Schools V Pupils
o
Beverly l/oods 7.6 Park Road A A
Idlewild 55 S elwy n 25
Lansdowne 75 Sharon 89
Olde Providence 71 V/interfield 48

(2) Freedom of Choi ce School (After Reassignment)

Dilwor tli 3 First Ward 14
Double Oaks 107 Oak lawn 22
E1 i z a b u t h 2 Wilmore 7

Irwin Elem. 301

(3) Moved Residence: Present School

Double Oaks 7 Oak 1 awn 17
Druid Hills 3 Try on Hills 23
Llizaiietn 18 Villa Heights 2 9
First Wa r d 35 Wi lr.iore 4
Lincoln Heights 7

(4) Left County

(5) Pupils not reporting to school (Still live in
Ares): Dropouts

Grand Total

*Five Elementary Closed Schools

Number of pupils originally assigned to these schools 
at end of school year 1968-69 for 1969-70 year.

* Alexander St. (141), J'.ethune Fairview (321)
Z a b Vance (227), Isabella Wyche (197), Irwin Ave. 
Junior high, Second Ward Senior High

Total j!_ Pupils

452

456

143

1 0 5 2

105 2

4



Pup i

( 1 )

C2)

(3)

( - 1 )(3)

i ' f c  : osc-d • c'.onls * FRO■: I rwin Avenue d?::. ir- r Hi ghor ’
I? Tr. ■ _ovorcrowded 628a

sciioois
PUPIL DISTRIBUTION REPORT

Reassigned School (Unrolled Oct. 10, 1969)
SCI IOOI. 

la? t way
Alexander Graham 
IV i 11 i a ms 
McClj ntock 
Smi 1 1:
Wi1 son

NUMBER PUPILS
47
87
5 7 **
51 
4 6 
7

TOTAL
Freedom of Choice School (After Reassignment)

TOTAL PUPILS

2 95

Last way 2
Alexander Graham 5
Hawthorne 7
Kennedy 15
MeClintock 3
Northwest 78
P i edmont 5
Ranson 1
Scdgcfield 1
Sm i t h 5
Spaugh 16
Will in pi s 124
U' i 1 s o n 4

TOTAL
Moved Residence: Present School

2 64

Cochrane 1 
Alexander Graban 1 
Hawthorne 11 
Spnugn ] 
Kennedy 5 
Northwest ] 
Piedmont. 2 
Randolph 3 
Willi am s 7

TOTAL 32Left County r,
Pupils not reporting to school (Still live in area)

Propouts 23
GRAND TOTAL ------- (7T9---

Number of pupils originally assigned to this school 
at end of school year 1968-69 for 1969-70 -- 619
* Alexander St., Pethune, Fairvicw, Zeb Vance, Isabella Wyche, 

Irwin Avenue dr., Second Ward Senior 
* * Inc 5 to Williams were Project Opportunity students. This is 

a ford foundation project which was tinns forred from Irwin to 
Wi 11 i n n s .



629a
Pupils from closed schools

Pupils from overcrowded schools

From: Second Ward Senior High School

PUPIL DISTRIBUTION REPORT 

(1) Reassigned School (Enrolled October 10, 1969)

School # Pupils School # Pupils Total £ Pupils

East Mecklenburg . . . . . . .15 Independence . . ..........2

Garinger ........... . . . .77 Myers Park . . . . . . . SI

Harding ........... . . . 117 Olympic . . . . . . . . 55
West Charlotte . . . . .  119

466

(2) Freedom of Choice School (After Reassignment)

East Mecklenburg . . . . . . . 1 North Mecklenburg ....... 5

Garinger ........... . . . .30 Olympic....... ....... 4

Harding............. . . . Ill West Charlotte . .............50
Independence ....... . . . . 4 West Mecklenburg ...........2

Myers Park ......... . . . .  2
209

(3) Moved Residence: Present School

East Mecklenburg . . . . . . .  2 Myers Park . . . ., . . . 12

Harding............. . . . .  s Olympic.........

Garinger ........... . . . .  1 West Charlotte . ., . . . .  7

28

(4) Left County

(5) Pupils not reporti

9

ng to school (Still live in Area):
Dropouts 234

GRAND TOTAL 946 **

METROPOLITAN HIGH SCHOOL Plus 10

Number of pupils originally assigned to this school 
at end of school year 1968-69 for 1969-70 year.



630a

2

* Alexander Street, Bethunc, Fairview, Zeb Vance, Isabella Wyche, Irwin Avenue J1I 
Second Ward S1I. **

** Distribution lacks 10 pupils' forms which were retained in the following school 
Irwin 7, Northwest 1, Sedgefield 2.



631a

Statistical 

F r o m :

Amay James

Report, //I (Cont'd)

Accepted Reass i gnmc-nts From Overcrowded Schools 

Jo;

73 Ashley Park 27

Wester 1y Hills b6



632a

2. Total Accounting of Pupils and Pupil Distribution 
(including Effect of Freedom of Transfer)

Closed Schools: Ovcrcrowdcd School : Total

Fi ve
E 1 omentary

one
Junior H i qh

one one 
Senior Hiqh Elementary E K JH SH

\. Enrolled at

(l) Reassigned 
school 453 295 466 73 526 296 466

1,28?
(48%)

(2) Freedom of 
Choice 
School 456 264 209 456 264 209

929
(34%)

(3) New-res i donee 
Local School 143 32 28 32 28

203
(7i%)

left School

(̂ ) Left County 5 9 0 6 9
14

<i»

(5) Still Live in 
Area - - 
Dropouts 23 234 0 23 234

257
1052 619 946 (9*»

Report forms error 10
no ltd - - - - +10

lT25

10

6Ts~ 966
2627 * Total of 
year assignments 
for 190S-70

Principals' end of 
to closed schools '2700*

—

•'Projected enrollment for closed schools was 3000 based on history-trend of these schools.

£



633a [ n ) {'■
F.J.I’HN:TA!*' SCHOOLS Freedom or Choice Deques t«x «Treedr n o f  C h *  i ci\
10*'V- - 3 -*J70____________ t o Inter Oran tec1 _ j'enue-ts to Lnr. \*e:

- _L_ » v
Albemarle Road 0 13

1
n 14 d l 14

A1lenbrook 0 12 0 3 0 i 3
Ashley Park

r
0 38 0 4

l
n ! 2

“ Bain 0 0 0 6
in j 6

‘ Barringer 0 0 22 12
----- 1---------

13: in
Berryhi11 0 15 o 4 0 ! 3
Beverly Woods 0 15 0 10

----- !0 i 10
Bill intjsvi lie 0 (1 14 2 14T  2 "
“ Briarwood 0 0 0 7 0 1 {■
Bruns Avenue 2 n 1 2 1 j 2
Chantilly o n 0 4 n ; 4
‘ Clear Creek 0 o 1 2 1 1 0

Collinswood 0 7 3 • 4 ___
0 • 6Cornelius 1 2 0 7

Cotswold n 18 0 4 0 ' 4
Davidson 0 2 o. 0 0 ; 0
Perj ta 0 14 7 1 0 1 1
‘ Devonshire j 0 0 0 7 0 0
Dil.worth ’ 1 1 f) 22 0 21

'  j 
Double Oaks 5 ! n 5 0 6 ! 0
Druid Hills 5 i 0 3

1
0 6 ; 0

liastover * 1 10 I 12 i 1 : 12
i 1P.l iznhctli 13 ; n >2 18 | 20- 17

**Cnderly Park , 0  j 22 _ > . - J n ! p



634a

Ansv.'ci to Statistic il Puestion No. 3

Report on freedon of choice transfers showing the number of 
children by school and race, who chose to transfer out of 
and into various schools for the 1960-70 school year.

Seed on I
Report On All Schools fxccpt the Seven Closed Down Schools



635a j f t )  f' >
r . l c n c n t n r v  Schools Freedom of Choice requests' FreoCc- of Choice! '’rnrtef
1 0 6 9  - 1 i) 7 n to Inter Crnntei!  ̂ P o q u o c 

y

1 0

s to ! . ' envo i

,V v; V .

0 I 0 nF i r s t  IVaril 2 0

* * l l i c k o r y  G r o v e 0 n 1 3 1 2

‘ H i d d e n  V n ] l e y 0 n 0 i n 1

H i g h l a n d p 4 0 4 0 4

H o s t ,  i n s / 0 2 0 2 0 p I P

l l u n t e r s v i  1 l e
>

0 1 1 1 ~ r ~ < 1 1 1

H u n t i n g t o w n e  F a r m s 0 5 0 4 0 4

I d l e v i l d 0 9 0 12 n 1 2

* A m a y  J a m e s 0 0 5 I P 3 1 9

L a k e v i e w 1 0 2 I P 2 18

L a n s d o w n e 0 1 2 0 3 0 3

L i n c o l n  H e i g h t s 5 0 1 2 0 A P

‘ L o n g  G r e e k 0 0 4 2 7 2 2 5

M a r i e  D a v i s 1 7 0 2 P n n

M a t t h e w s 7 n 2 4 2 3

M e r r y  O a k s 0 2 ' 0 I P n IP

M i d w o o d 0 14
7"  -  

3 in 0 P

M o n t c l n  i r e 0 1 8
■

0 4 0 0

M y e r s  P a r V 2 12 }  4 . .  s  _  ... . 4 . s

N a t i o n s  F o r d n 14 o I P 0 0

N e w e l  1 n 6 0
f

1 6 p p

O a k d a l e i 2 8 1 i 0 n

O a k h u r s t i 11 0 7 0 . 6

O a k  1 a wn 2 n i n P 4 0

O l d c  P r o v i d e n c e I s J 5 0 2 l . n -
2



636a1 I.:
1''( . t  o il'trr *-rant o.l

j l>'
I’c-!! llf'r. t X r . \r: u ;r ' !

iv V 1

Pari: Peru! 0 3 7 0
1

9 ! i
0 ! 8

* Paw Creel 0 j n 1 3 1
1_J_ 7

P i n e v i 1 1 c 1 i 0 1 7 3 7
P i nowood

i
0 •1 0 3 1 0 j 9

PI a ?.a Road 1 C) 1
!

19 o t _u__.
* * Pnna Pone! * 0

1
1 n l. 0 2 0

Sedtjef I e 1 tl 0 ! 5 n 7 0 7

Selwyn 2 17 o t t- 0 2

Shamrock Cardrj15 0 27 n i dl 6
Sharon n 8 0 3 3 0 i>*

* * S t a rn o u n t 3 1 0 3 n 3
* -Statesville load 7 3 9 2 8
* '“Steel C r c c 1 | 0 n 0 10 io 10
Thomasonro 1 0 18 0

i
21 io _ 20

Tryon Hills
1

5 n 5 1 10 1-, .li_
Ttickasecpco 0 0 n 2

l
Io r

University I’m 10 0 4 0 _h . n
*Yilla Heights 0 0 7 0 i

_i3.... n

* V.'e s t e r 3 v 1! i 11 , 0 ! 0 0
t

0 1;0 0

IV i 1 more 1 ! 2 2 3 4
t
h 1 '

Winsor Par) 0 1 13
.
0 8

|
in

Kintcrfield n 1
> 25 f)

1 5
!
•n 5

To t a l : l !()S ] 4 86 1 5b 54 2 lin.I! -1 8 6
Combined Total »591 L 698 Combine d Total
Notes : 3

Schoc 1 
Sc hoc 
inn i or

! i t i ona 1 107 students were re tin*n e d t o school of oripinnl
cent sinee schools requosted were close 3 Col­ t ransfor?.

c 3 o s e d r>l!t to nil transfor rcoue s t s .
closed out to rcyu3a r transfer request on 3 v - (not. Vy to i\i r c rity reque st; .)



637a ( a )  CM
.J1!\:]0 !> I! Mill SCHOOLS Freedom oO Choice Ponucsts Freedom cl Choice Granted

tn inter - Granted ^eouests to leaveN V 1 >- Iv y v-
*Albcmarle Fond i

0 n i 9 n i n
* A1 e x a n d e r 0 0 7 13 4 . 12
*Cochrane 0 0 JO 2 0 1 o
Cou1 wood ] 33 m i n o l 1
* F a s t w a >■ 0 n ■p 4 n 0

Alexander Graham s 58 Cl 2 i
0 ; 2

llawt home 5 13 23 9R 19 25
• J. F. Kennedy 2] n 46 63 4 0 26
*McClintock 0 0 ■9 7 2 2

Northwest fs> O'
*

1 . .
 __ n 4! 6 4 41 4

Piedmont 11 i * 51 8 ; 27
Quail liollow 0 9 0 9 n , 4
Randolph 4 22 0 58 n 23
* Ranson n 0 2 1 2 . 0 .
S e d g e f i e 1 d 27 0 f8 35 8 34
Smith 2 1 9 , ^ 7 n A

Spauwh •18 ; 16 13 14 1 3
\
\JL.

Willi mas 14 I n 1! 2 8 2 21 n

* W i 1 s o n i
1 0

1
| 0 j_°. ... 5 0 : 5

j
Total ! 164 171 .184 394 [164 ■ J7LNote: Combined Total 33S 578 Combined Total

Note: An Additional 2_43 Students were returned to original Assignment 
since schools requested were closed out for transfers.

School clc?°^ out to all transfer requests.
School closed out to regular transfer request only - (not 
majority to minority requests.)



638a

‘ I \ rnv I! 1 r,|; SfNPOI.S freedom o f  Choice r e q u e s ts  Treec-c5' ' ^ r Choice
IjH 9 - 1970 _ t o  Frit cr  Crantc-d    r e q u e s ts  to ! envc r;1

N 1 V N I v:
‘ f*".

Past Meet lenbure n 43 3 27 3 hr
**Cari ne.rr 13 0 1 7 37 i

1 3 i ?0
Hardi up 46 h_. 32 ____ 1 2 in l ’[7

/1 ndepenilence 1 24 0 5 n =:4
**Myers I’arl, 9 o 5 26 , k '
**North Mecklenburg 2n 10 16 10 n 6
Olympic 14 14 17 11 1 s isNote:2 i*South Mecklenburg „ 0 ___ 2 0 24 0 123
West Charlotte 29 5 92 3 67 13
Ivcst Mecklenburg 1 21 8 11 r

8 Jl l
Total : 133 141 164 170

!
.. 13 31 141

Note: - Combined Total: 274 . 334 - Combined Total

Note: An Additional 60 Students were returned to School of nripir.nl
1 Assignment since schools requested vere 'Closed for transfers.

Note: - SAT Students2
* School closed out to all transfer requests. **

** School closed out to regular transfer request only - (not majority 
to minority requests.)



639a

3 . S e c t  io n  I I

Freedom o f  C h o ice  T r a n s f e r s  From C lo se d  S c h o o ls  
To S c h o o ls  in  w h ich  A s s ig n e d  f o r  the 

19 6 9 -7 0  S ch o o l Year

From C lo se d  E le m e n ta ry  S c h o o ls

J o : A le x a n d e r  S t . Bethune

D i Iw o r ih

Doub le  Oaks 2

E 1 i zabe th 2

F i r s t  Ward 7 7

Oaklawn 1

W ilm o rc

Ir w in  (Eler.) 1 <<3

T o ta l
From 8 55

i r v  i ew Zeb Vance 1 sabe  1 1 a v/yche
T o ta l

To

3 3

105 107

2
lb

21 22
1 6 7

121 90 66 301

21.7 91 55 <<56



640a

Section i! (Cont'd): Freedom of Choice Transfers

from: Irwin Avenue Junior High - - - - 264 Pupils

To: Freedom of Choice School

Eastway 2

Alexander Graham 5

Hawthorne 1

Kennedy 15

M c C 1i ntock 3

Northwest 78

P i edmont 5

Ranson 1

Sedgef ield 1

Smi th 3

Spaugh 16

Willi ams \ i k

Wi lson

Total
F rom 264



641a

Section II (Cont'd): Freedom of Choice Transfers

From: Second Ward Senior High - - - - 209 Pupils

To: Freedom of Choice School

East Mecklenburg i

Gar i nger 30

Hard i ng 111

1 ndependence k

Myers Park 2

North Mecklenburg 5

0 1ymp i c

V/est Charlotte 50

West Mecklenburg 2

Total
From 209



The Chariot tu-MeckIonburg Schools
642a

Research Report 2 - ‘69 
/c~'CV

SUMMATION OF INTEGRATION 1965 (MARCH) AND 1968-69 (OCT. 1, '68)
/ U f - 1 *  ( d r .  2 ,  ’6 1 )

For PupiIs Professional Staff

School Hav i ng I nteqrat ion

.Pupils 9W

B.

476N

Pupils

Minority Race 
(i ntegrated)
U £ ! m  5.7M

1192W 6704N

Number in 
Majority Race 
(i ntegrated)

3̂ *3 N 16.446W
8697N 47.356W

& °%rJ 12*3■ 3N

nw 1,7 ****ON -y.y --A'
131W 208N

jyri
37*iN 297 5W

Predominantly 
Negro Schools 
- - Pup iIs 

352

Predomi natIy 
Wh i te Schools

Pupils 16,922

.Total

Total Involved by 
Integrat ion

9889
/Mil

Staff

- Pupi1s 17,27^ 
or

2k% of 
72,336 

Enrol led

514,060 " s taf f

63,9̂ 9
or

21% o f83,111

W 1'Staff
f r f ' t
n sli

149 505 SCO

2783 3U!

149
or

5% of
31^0 incl. 

part assignments 
in schools

3288
or

.^1.7, Of .. . v  - 
3 6 1 3 ass igned 
a t one do f i n i te 
school

on / Cfi %

P



The Char lotte-Mecklenburg Schools

RACIAL DISTRIBUTION OF PUPILS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFF 
1965 (M a rch ) ,  1968-69 (Oct. 1, *6 8 ) ,  and 1963-69

Grade
N o .

School
1965
N

Pup i1s 
W

No.
School

1968
N

Pupils
W

No.
School

1969
N

Pupi1s 
W

1965
N w

1968
N w

196
N

Q

1-6 72 9,364 27,696 76- 13,290 31 ,5 4 5 7 3- 1 3 , 3 7 4 31,522 3 7 7 + 11 71 i 478 1329 499 13

7 -9 17 2,4 75 11,804 21 5,9 34 14,741 20- 6,188 15,131 H I - 533 228 706 232 6

10-12 8 1,625 10,677 11 4 , 3 7 7 12,313 10- 4,472 12,808 65 479i 178 644 194 6

97 13,464 50,177 108- 23,601 58,599 103- 24,034 59,521 553i 2184 884 2679 925 27

Other 12 6,877 1,818 4+ 640 271 4+ 656 307 323i 79 23 27 22

Professional Staff

: Kgn. + Tra inable

1-4 1 360 157
1-7 2 431 207 17 9i
1-9 3 729 1611 32 68
5-9 1 505 257
1-12 3 2400 1137
7-12 2 2452 120 li

Total 109 20,341 51,995 112 24,241 58,870 107 24,690 59 ,828 877 2263

Include 
Part-t ime

Not Include 
Part-t ime

Among teachers assigned to more 
than one school

643a



COMPARISON OF PUPILS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFFING BY RACE
March 6, 1965> 1968-69*> and 1969-70 *

Professional Staff

School 1965 Pup i 1 S 1968-69 ?up i1S 1969-70 Pup Is 1965 1968-69* 1969 1 0 *

N r w N *7e w N W N .7 ,  W N O. w N W

N H (other) (other) /V /\. (other) (othor

Albemarle Rd. 4 He 499 4 / •- 510 6 f.r'v 13 6 \i

342 . C t :1 257 too 7C 14.1 1 1 /CC7,

50 10*7«. 452 61 tz l* 452 2 /C ‘7c 18 5 -y ‘v U

Ashley Park 0% 694 0 % 553 27 i  •< 574 <??£• 22.9 2 ?7, 20 4 /; '> I-

Ba i n °-i 6?4 25 3 % 699 33 -a e7; 735 28.2 1 28 5 2!

°X feo4 668 1 ?  % 131 859 p~% 16 ox 24.8 13 •tz-7 18 16 tv ... 1 j

ox. 1026 119 15 7c 685 114 1* * 675 oR 39.6 2 6/. 32 6 ( .. 3'
343 V %  9 223 77 7* 3 17.6 /»%' 11 /re 7*

Beverly Woods O 70 286 68 1 % 684 1 r7o 12 5 / 6 7. 2.

B iddlevi11e 434 /oC % 17.2 /»X

B i11i ngsv i11e 729 tcc% 619 IOC % 2 610 /cc *K 0 32.1 /*>**£ 25 /ccl\ 16 . ‘Vo 1(
07. 582 8 /7C 640 6 i % 680 23.9 3 /Z% 22 6 2'

Bruns 740 717* 4 774
O’<4 10 26 T3/<. 2 21 ’0 4> 7o 1 ’

Chant illy c %  IfU 5 2 O 7c 491 5 /■/'. 487 °X 18.8 1 5 7c 21 4 / ? '7 1'
Clear Creek 0 %  207 53 225 51 i7 % 244 0 1 9.6 1 $7e 12 3 1.

Col 1i nswood 375 72 / 3 % 490 1 1 1 443 0X 16.I 1 5 7. 21 3 17 7. I<
Cornelius on 241 239 f 'H 0 252 195 * 5 % 237 *71 1 .3 7 33 7. 14 5 1'
Cotswold o x  631 i 1 X7c 567 23 7- 537 25.0 1 S7„ 21 4 / > V|> l;
Crestdale 97 /tc i\1 5.0 /**7
Dav i dson 17. 178 101 3 5  7c 186 104 & - 186 <?70 7.8 1 11 2 / ■ S’.

Marie Davis 808 /cc c.\ 705 /to 7c 691 7c 0 34.3 /®o7. 29 Icc'/C 14 V > V - 1*
Deri ta 6 '  7. 892 165 / ?  7c 728 163 688 0% 35.4 3 77. 32 5 / V  % y

Devonsh i re 2 0 %  4 74 0 % 889 0 C  ‘/is 903 c7„ 19.5 4 IC % 37 7 • • 3

D i Iv/orth 100 A O J i 401 223 3 7 7c 355 113 5  6 v i 336 07. 23.8 4 7c 22 3 /Y  '.V 1 ■

D o u b l e  Oaks 703 /to 30C /  c c 7 c 836 /< :r 0 28.2 (oe7. 32 ICC % 13 L /  ■ 1 .

* Does not include staff assigned to more than one school per HEW request. £



COMPARISON OF PUPILS 'AND PROFESSIONAL STAFFING BY RACE
March 6, 1965, 1968-69*, and 1969-/0 *

Pro fe ss iona l  S t a f f
School 1965 Pup •Is 1968-69 Pup 'Is 1969-70 Pupi1s 1965 968-65* j 5S9-70*

Elementarv N W N w N W N w N W N w
^  (other) (other) ;7 Mother) (other)

Druid Hills

OcmU\ /C-o 504 77 7- 3 472 7 7 3 CO 0 '-J IccV 20 /cci. 13 V. 8
Eastover O *A. 704 49 y •,*. 580 42 > A* 559 O '- 27.1 1 ~ % 24 4 r> \ 20
E 1 i zabeth 5 / A48 270 . 5.® 7- 194 366 7 ; -V c 151 Ĉ t 22.9 2 H 21 6 .-7 ■: 20
-derlv Park V Z 363 2 / -7. 37^ 3 / ?. 371 14.9 1 % 15 3 / ■■■ . 13

Fa i rv i aw 7C2 /C:' eZ 363 tec % 28.0 ICC % 19 1 c.: %

First Ward ^73 l e e  *7i 749 IO C  % 820 0 22.8 / e r 30 / r r  % 17 r f .  17
J. H. Gunn 696 IOC / . 33.6 ;c c  ’/»

Hickory Grove 0 % 530 80 ryr. 531 70 k* • • 533 0 21.7 1 23 3 /  . 20
H 1 dden Vo.] 1 ey c % 977 0 r  v„ 1100 2 5  >; 35 7 - ■ 35
Hi ghi and 2 273 47 / 3 324 69 A  A 305 0  ';L 14.0 1 7 l/- 14 3 f i  ■ 13

Hoskins C ?v 342 18 6  '7.' 261 13 .• •• 228 ;■■■ 14.7 2 / : % 11 3 7 ■•• 9
Huntersvfile o 7 - 553 162 560 154 535 c 22.9 2 7 25 5 / V 4  22
Huntingtowne Farms c  k 353 7 1 % 695 7 / 603 0 ‘A 15.1 1 y-:: 26 4 .  :■ V.- 21
! d 1cw iId V 592 2 C v 521 56 / - a 597 n  A 2 3.9 1 V Vt 22 6 •• ' 23

\gf* Amay James 360 /i'0 7 ; 477 /re '.7 1 473 7'7 % 3

LALA Uc'L 19 /ct‘1. 13 5 7 9

Ada Jenkins 431 /.?<-' % 17.0 I C C ?

Lakevi ew 0  -x 400 269 J 5 147 362 7? 'A 102 o ‘.l 18.5 14 7*# '-1 5 13 4 • -'I 8
Lansdowne £ A 633 <7 v;. 758 75 7 % 802 23.9 1 .7 V.- 30 6 n  *’■ 30
L i ncoln He i ghts

CA0
0r-̂ /Of ’ 817 IC C  % 2 711 / ■' L % 0 29.1 i c e  7 30 / c r  7 t 16 12

Long Creek c  A 423 250 J s % 466 267 jt 468 O rk 17 .6 2 7  7- 26 6 A 1 ?  23

■5 5 Matthews C ‘ ; 937 0 - 6 ^ l l  'it 742 36 /-■ % 802 c v ; 39.7 1 3  7 32 6 /2 31
Merry Oaks £• Vi 533 0 * 469 0 442 O'k. 21.9 1 5 % 19 3 > (. '/.■ 16
Mi dwood <> '; 560 1 cVe 522 11 477 07 , 24.9 2 ?  * 2! 4 /  /  %  19
Monte 1 a i re c 720 £ 722 0 718 0  v; 29.1 1 27 5 /■• 23
Morqan 305 /  r e  "-c 14.9 / w  >1
Irwin Ave. (Elem) LACA k :  • O' 10 A 7 ' 5



COMPARISON OF PUPILS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFFING BY RACE 
March 6, 1965, 1968-69*, end 1969-70 *

Professional Staff

School 1965 Pup i 1 s 1968-69 Pup M s 1969-70 Pupils 1965 1968-69* 1969-70*

Elementary N W N w N w N w N w N w
.v (other) (other)

■v /[/(other) (oth.

Myers Park 0 7c 575 23 “7.- 543 22 S'/t 456 c*.v 24.9 1 Y ‘7c 23 / ■ ' 22
Myers Street 820 /CcS 32.2 /C«f‘2
Nations Ford « v 513 63 /c ‘7 585 47 c - 681 0 ?. 21.6 1 •/■x 25 6 22
Newe 11 C‘.\ 463 73 / 7 7. 423 74 438 * A 18.3 1 A a 18 3 / '1 • 1 7
Oakdale o 402 72 /■'■/. 480 69 /C-7. 517 c** 17.2 1 A */: 21 6 • o *  18

Oakhurst e 7. 543 2 f/c 615 5 / v> 616 22.8 1 23 4 / 7 'X, 20
Oakl awn 666 /.V" 650 613 ICC-Z. 0 26.0 /cr >: 25 ViiS 2 1 1 h;. tv ir
01de Providence 10 - •/- 434 so 1+ %  512 1 17 5 20
Park Road 0% 533 0 <1 551 44 7 '2.' 543 6 7  22.7 1 21 7 .1.- • it
Pav/ Creek c 7c 793 63 7‘A 861 27 - -A 609 30.3 1 3 % 31 5

PInev i 11 e (3 7 364 160 J .i 7C 363 146 IS vi 375 o7. 16.2 1 r/c 21 4 /7V, |'
Pi newocd '■•7 719 n v; 707 0 c */. 674 oS 28.1 1 26 u ?/
Plaza Road 400 99 / 7 7.' 409 88 -A- A 362 o i  17.7 1 a s : 21 4 j j
Rama Road o 7c 442 2 O Vc 777 1 815 18.7 2 ? a  27 5 / 7'/' 2/:
Sedcef i eId 3 r'c 526 7 / % 545 3 / -7C 548 c'A 21.3 2 r z  20 4 /‘7 15
Plato Price 505 / CC'/( 25.4 tec /i-
So 1wyn c 7c 531 5 /7c 598 31 J  % 617 oK 21.9 1 <*■*/. 22 5 //v> 21
Seversv 111 e 96 Jc 7. 229 O S  14.8
Shamrock Gardens 07. 536 O'/c 539 0 o ‘Z 515 0% 21.9 1 j-A 20 4 //•’••' 1/
Sharon 591 C/-. 519 89 2 p 'a  364 0% 22.9 1 A ‘-v 20 4 Ar 7t )/

Stnrmount C 7, 481 25 2% 713 25 7:2 0% 20.9 1 J-lv 23 5 / 7 2/
Statesville Road c  7c 650 295 3  c. ‘I 534 333 5? 9'.- 522 25.9 3 V?c 29 8
Steele Creek £/ 7. 222 1 2 ~ ‘7c 531 5 17< 509 c  ‘/I- 10.7 1 •5 7c 2C 4 /  5 ;• 1 ■
Ster1i ng 699 33.9
Thomasboro O  7. 885 c* 7c 705 0 0 ~  690 DM. 34.3 2 7 VS 25 5 j ■>
Paw Creek Annex 30 n  %  271 1 '! \\ 1



COMPARISON OF PUPILS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFFING BY RACE
March 6, 1 9 6 5 , 1968-69*, and 1969-70 *

! Professional Staff

School 1965 Pupils 1968-69 Pup Is 1969- 70 Pup Is 965 1963-69" 1969-70*

El ementary N W N W N w N w N w N \.i

•> rj (°tt'er) (other) /V . (other) - (oth.

Torrence-Lyt1e 1005 •r.f'/. 46.1
• Hills ? 2d- 2A 1 245 322 U- 166 c% 15.0 1 S i  20 4 is
Tuckaseegce ■■ 631 61 /1V, 553 53 ■7 % 573 2 3.9 1 v;; 23 4 / 7Cl 20
University Park 700 /Cr 777 /£< /. 825 /O r  Pc 1 25.8 K c 'u 30 77 7, 1 23 «•/.■ 10
•7eb Vance 46? /rf /l 257 /i ■: 19.5 t a 11 /o*

Villa Heights 23 4 7 53^ 796 <l c:! 126 929 •f, 88 e> 1:28.3 23 14 23 C( '4 17
Wesley Heights 214 /n 8.3 7-;r. 2 .2
Wester 1 y Hills L 569 46 $ ‘7-- 539 1 22 4 /Vv. 20
W i 1 mo re 6 323 145 37 293 228 235 15.4 8 V. 1 2 9 13
Windsor Park 1 c 673 2 co 737 1 C % 743 tiV- 25.8 1 I"-. 27 6 .: 2A

Wi nterfi e 1d 455 c.. 639 48 7 % 688 o7. 18.7 . 4 K  26 6 • 2 A
Woodland 360 /dC'/t 14.8 /oct :>
Wood1awn c 9  283 c',: 14.0
!sabei1 a Wyche 383 222 18.6 / <■ * p: 12 toe 7c

Child Development
(Kgn. Centers)

Davidson, #1 83 * !  c/t 117 80 •fL^c 121 3 7 3 r/c 7
Pi navi lie, #2 166 ’' A  /l 37 163 •n*n 43 2 -it /i 8 2 -'i Vi 8
Seversv!1!e, #3 1/4 $ 7 Pc 26 181 7 o - 21 8 2 7
Morgen, #k 138 7 7 7<r 6 187 ’i f  >'• 12 8 S'Clt 2 7 ? V, 2

647a



COMPARISON OF PUPILS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFFING BY RACE
Marche, 1365, 1968-65*. and 1969-7 0 *

School 1965 Pupils 1963-69 Pupils 1969-70 Pupils

Professional Staff

1965 1968-69* 1969-70*

•Junior Hiqh M

/V

W N r, W 
’y  (other)

N W
(other)

N
7c

- i V -

w N w
Mother) 

-jtt_________

N W
(other)

66 7 7: 881 63 6 7'- 995
28

4 43 6 /.? ’ 40
C X 577 347 J / % 755 369 771 £ /I 9 6 IX ?4 44 O tc X 41

Coch rone c  % 872 76 5 141+4 79 1552 u'/L 35 4 6 / T % 56 12 / i 7 54
3 / X 574 119 !‘f X 727 106 770 OS: 27 1 - .,4 //X 34 6 / w ‘Vc 32

Eostwav c'T. 1046 3 0 u 1364 61 1356 c vx 43 2 3 S V. 55 1 1 />. */« 51

c  7l 1048 8 / 7 1084 113 1028 0 7V 43 8 4 7 •** 43 9 40
25 4 X 670 492 f*/c 447 536 % 472

42
33 9 12 ■ :1X 33 15 5/ % 34

785 /:: y\ 666 /t t ■/* 7 /oc.vf 32 77 1
McC1intock O Ve 1273 46 ■» <’• 1228 93 79l 1288 51 5 2 v- " V 49 1C / / /. 48
Mcrthv/cs t 77"> / c '7 332 / v. 1052 A-V A- 1 33 7 /fc 39 /ci 7 O V

£ k ^ 20

P :edmont 121 / % 251 428 53 443 3 f '7: 55 C ■ • 26 8 13 12 1 •/ 7 13
Oua i1 Hoi 1ow o 766 17< '. -1 1261 155 - '7- 1421 0 /. 35 2 3 J V. 61 3 55
Rondo 1ph 272 711 289 A 7 7* 710 2 38 9 35

o / X 653 253 ' T<- 586 260 J’A 7.- 548 C 7 30 0 6 /C Vc 31 1 i 1/ Vi 25
Cedqcf 1 e i cl 6 / X 020 !«9 /.'-v 802 167 / 7 7j 809 0 L 40 5 5 39 r> 2; 34

Srr.i th C '7- 1115 (■-. 1389 55 V A- 1 ̂ 36 C ‘,4 48 6 3 57 9 , 52
Spauqh 1 o ■■■; 530 >86 / •) v 871 237 X ■■ 839 0 7 42 5 6 43 1C XI 37

752 ice 7\ 863 / - c 1081 /f+c 0 34 9 /cl ‘7t 37 27 .. •• •- 16
1C64 oO 1132 71 - 7- 1145 c '/ 45 6 4 45 9 42

York Rd. (7- 12)1041 /. / v„ 727 6 354 9 49 9 n. 32 1 21 15
(Kennedy)

Learn I rq Academy - 7th ■- 2th grades
counted ^  JH, above,

648a



School

Sen i H i oh

e-’St Mecklenburg 
Gor ineer 
Herd 1ng 
! ndependence 
Myers Pork

North Mecklenburg 
Olympic 
-Second Word 
South Mecklenburg 
Vest Chor’otte 
Vest Meek’enburg

COMPARISON OF PUPILS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFFING BY RACE
March 6, 1965, i 263-69*,  and 1969-70*

Professional Staff

’.sc 5 Pupils 1968-6 Pu d 1 1s 1969 -70 Pupils 1965 1968 -69* 1969-70*

N w N W N W N W N W N 1.7

(other) (other) ;V‘ Toother) (0 1 h 0 r

■ 1 782 155 1732 227 </6 1925 79.2 6 85 16 qi
2 c  ■ 2266 202 2157 492 '■ " 2148 100.0 6 6 f 102 22 ;v ■: 97

<’v' 1002 169 814 636 720 <■'> 48.0 4 T 6 49 16
92 6 962 U 5 !t -71 1 1 11 6 7 “A 5S l_2 /:••••. 67

3 • ■ '%  L772 158 ' 1855 233 /2/6 1767 ■ -6 76.7 6 0 v. 37 17 79

1 < ' 1155 410 ’ L6 1109 462 2 S'7. i;85 C 5 1 . 8 6 i x  63 13 / / v 6'i
259 ■’ 'A 522 376 6 512 5- // ■•. 39 10 38

141 i /c c 1139 /.- ■v ? ̂ j 70.0 1.5 57 6 2  3
30 1430 106 % 1812 102 2024 ■■ 72.0 4 78 17 /<" 7 0

1560 / C L 1569 /■ - X 1653 /CC 0 65.0 v %  2.0 74 - 'f 6 58 <■ " *■ 29
i 1270 llo 1340 148 V'4/, 1444 0 vt 61.4 4 73 13 /fv„ 71

649a



i. ..'.I,'/. ;; <r r u:.>; wr:”, r«u?.' v'"-?'

rsoi: ..... piv. __

2 2 2 .
.iT̂SKaL:: ,iu: j :>;t 7 / Z
.iT.hxapd :j ./O&'-J-
AT.I.SNT{fy)K 77
iiiJHiSr iw ...U.
V.AIW (o
auianitEa
pRRRY>i H.I. S ^ O
nSVEU.V V/OvTU . _3_7 £3 { T:\p-..'pr.D
PT.Paa 0T7T 2 J 1
nor.H!Ui:s Jir-jon ? c; o
•:oLT,r ■ a 'ooi/
'/0:i?IET.TV5 .

/ S3
P:)T3'-K)TD _ .^.3 .
00CIOT S o o
j.wjdso;? .. V 5
DP.IITA 3 ?S-
DWONUlOiiB / / <2
tv-ST : . J ^ Z -
?v\3T07:,ri 20
\k3T-/f'wV 5.7
•j.jzA'̂riV . _ * v _ _

.. 3  3.-5'
ALEXANDER /<?£
I'n'.lDJ'1'} I IT / 3 5
v/T::o ^  _
: l ]\ ! :

_ .■> <5 o  
£



651aa r:.. , sl f v.u1 j i r s o a . . •’ . •• •<

SCHOOL' ' ' ~ PRE-SCHOOL ElSOKTLRY -  JUNIOR FISH ■ -r set:toT  KiGF "
HEIDSI V*TX3I

(O / .
hunters ;».le

4 1 +

HUKTIHOTAn-S Ha IS _.... 4 o
IDI.2JILD

< ? v ?
INDEPENDENCE 4 R +
AMaY JAKES 222
KENNEDY JUNIOR

/ Z ?
iansdowks

Z  4  S '

LONS GREEK

KATTHEUS .
S 6  3

KrCI.INTOGK JUNIOR
$ 2 S

MYERS PARK HIGH
/ 3 j t

NATIONS FORD
S  S o

V S M L
/<>£  P O / y ’ T ~ * W o s *

NORTH :2':rr.3NTWR0 2 2  s

Oakdale 3  m

QAKKiJRS r . ^ 5
OI.DE FRO '/ID 2 V. 3 /  ?  7

OLYMPIC1. * 3  2 9

PARK ROaD /  O  2

ViC.I GREEK
S / 9

paw nnr.ac annex / o g

PB.'EJILLE / s s

PU2A ROAD 2 . 4
QUAIL HOT,TOW

. 1 3 3 . 2 -  .

RaM\ ROaD
/  3 3 ' .  .

RaNDOLPH 3 9  0
UAHS’ ik ___



652a
<1 * J’-R.'j.’j i  irU.'-3iR 0 ?  PUP1L3 TtW.ioPORTED L\ XLY -  'Lyjy~’i j  I’ZaAT l:.3Xr.

sdPToT-------------------- FRK-3CT.00L f.Eisssnsw __ T j s s o.- n s
9 ’nGErJEXD : 5 "
:nT-̂ iT:LD ,i'..

get;/to /OO
/ 7 0

-S: iTir .run 10: 2 1 1
;;ointi / 7 0 2 3
3PAU0U 2  3  S '
STARIIOIF?!? 2 9
■ >TAT2.j7TJJ.E ROAD 6 > % S
A TESTED ORE'S' 4 4 /
I’HYOII HILLS 7 /
Ti!CK:.:J Em EE 2 2 1
•MiT l l i M ® 3  £~
'.eat iivsixs-hiro 6  / S
WE3TSRLY If JT.TS 4 2
TJU.JA: *3 J.i. 2 2
VJILSOU JUNIOR 2 3 2
wjf'TE^ra,D 3 7
DA ‘/ID'JOI! CDS /37>
I fJE'/JTJ.E ODE 7 6 2
3 EVER 3 /ILLS EDO 7 3 9
'•ORGaO ODE.

T o T - A t  S i T ? 7 / 0 4 4 2 9 2 7 4 ; 7 o 8

T o t a l  2 4  7 3 7



653a

The 1969-/0 budget adopted by the board of Education on September 

9, 1969 contains the following provisions for compensatory education:

A . New p rograns:

Supplements for 12 elementary assistant principals $ 10,000.

Salary for 35 additional special education teachers 320,808. 

In-service workshops, consultants, visitation 25,000.

E. Redeployment of personnel from system-wide duties to 

working directly with compensatory education:

5 directors and coordinators $ 116,175.

20 corrective reading teachers 206,263.

C. Continuing support for the following activities:

Psychological services 
Special education 
Social work

$ 2 A 3,810 . 
882 ,450 . 
217,342.

Child Development Centers ' 760,000.

Learning Academy 190,000.

In addition to the budgetary allotment of funds already committed for 

compensatory education, the Board of Education intends to make a request cf 

•the County Commissioners for the amount of $150,000 which they have announced 

publicly is being held in contingency for compensatory education. Specific 

plans for the usn of this money include individualizing instruction, par­

ticularly in providing materials and supplies. Attached is a proposal for 

the use of these funds which is now being considered.

An application also has been made under the education component through 

the City Demonstration Agency for Model Neighborhood funds as follows:

Instructional Fees for Model Neighborhood students $ 26,645.

Establishment of six Model Neighborhood Centers 1,015,188.

The Board of Education has stated its commitment for emphasis in all 

departments of the school system on the underachiever and the exceptional

P<M. I d .



654a

Purposes Ir-prove rer.cLng skills of slor or retarded readers by pro 
support r.aterialo, equip went end personnel.

P r o ; . f o r  Con? ct. rev::-.-.y la v ,- c iu n  I . ' o y .c t

1. Materials

Supplement State adopted texts 0££n series with rocc;.rr.
suppleciORt:.! re.toriels:

d-» Level Itot&rd-rd Ijcr.dovfc Support
1 2855 $23,1952 2(61 7,380
3 2637 7,180
li 21:75 3,720
5 21:10 3,660
6 2368 3,550
7 21:88 3,750
8 2375 3,570
9 2265 3,1:00

10 2230 3,33‘0
11 1870 2, 800
12 1685 2.530

Tax t.rsd Shipping

200 Tape Recorders © $1.00.00 $20,000
100 Record Players © 70.00 7,000
$00 Liotening Canters 3 $5C60 29,330

Tar and Siiippisg _3XOO

3« Personnel

Recruit 1,000 voluntc r̂n far 20 uclr,o?.i:
2 professional staff ...-siberj is 

coordinate rc.ci’uit'1‘training and 
supervision of vilvjfGC E.ro

Total Cost

$70,

59,

20 „

ended

835

*-V\S-'-'

C00_
13a.,



655a

On October 29, 1969, the United States Supreme Court 
announced its decision in the Mississippi school case, Alex­
ander v. Holmes County, Case No. 632. That decision, the 
most significant in this field since Brown v. Board of Educa­
tion, peremptorily reversed an order of the Fifth Circuit 
Court of Appeals which, upon request of the United States 
Attorney General, had postponed until 1970 the effective 
desegregation of thirty Mississippi school districts, and 
had extended from August 11 to December 1, 1969, their 
deadline for filing desegregation plans. The Supreme Court 
held that the Court of Appeals

“ *' * * shoidd have denied all motions for additional 
time because continued operation of segregated schools 
under a standard of allowing all deliberate speed for 
desegregation is no longer constitutionally permissible. 
Under explicit holdings of this Court, the obliga­
tion of every school district is to terminate dual 
school systems at once and to operate now and here­
after only unitary schools. Griffin v. School Board, 
377 U. S. 218, 234 (1964); Green v. School Board of 
New Kent County, 391 U. S. 430, 439, 442 (1968).” 
(Emphasis added.)

The Supreme Court further directed the Fifth Circuit Court 
of Appeals to make such orders as might be necessary for 
the immediate start in each district of the operation of a 
“ totally unitary school system for all eligible pupils with­
out regard to race or color.”

It is this court’s opinion that the word “dual” in the 
Supreme Court opinion is another word for “ segregated,” 
and that “unitary” is another word for “desegregated” or 
“ integrated.” It is also this court’s opinion that although,

Order dated November 7, 1969



656a

as defendants say, this is not Mississippi, nevertheless the 
Supreme Court’s prohibition against extension of time as 
laid down in Alexander v. Holmes County is binding upon 
this court and this school board, and liars the exercise of the 
court’s usual discretion in such matters, and that to allow 
the request of the defendants for extension of time to com­
ply with this court’s previous judgments would be contrary 
to the Supreme Court’s decision and should not be done.

Therefore, and based also upon the considerations set out 
in the memorandum opinion to be tiled contemporaneously 
herewith, the motion of the defendants for extension of time 
for compliance with the court’s August 15, 1969 order is 
denied. Ruling on all other pending motions is deferred.

This the 7th day of November, 1969.

/ s /  James B. McMillan 
James B. McMillan 

United States District Judge

Order dated November 7, 1969



657a

Preliminary Statement

On Wednesday, October 29, 1969, the United States 
Supreme Court announced its decision in the Mississippi 
school case (A lex a n d er  v. H o lm es  C o u n ty , Case No. 632). 
That decision peremptorily reversed an order of the Fifth 
Circuit Court of Appeals which, upon request of the United 
States Attorney General, had postponed until 1970 the ef­
fective desegregation of thirty Mississippi school districts, 
and had extended from August 11 to December 1,1969, their 
deadline for filing desegregation plans. The Supreme Court 
held that the Court of Appeals

“ V *  * sh ou ld  h ave denied  all m otion s fo r  additional 
tim e  because continued operation of seg reg a ted  schools  
under a standard of allowing all deliberate speed for 
desegregation is no longer constitutionally permissible. 
U n d er explicit holdings o f  this C ou rt, the obliga­

tion  o f  e v e r y  sch ool d istrict is to term inate dual 
sch ool s y s te m s  at once and to op erate n ow  and h ere­

a fter  o n ly  u n ita ry sch ools. Griffin v. S chool B oa rd , 
377 U. S. 218, 234 (1964); G reen  v. S chool B oa rd  o f  
N e w  K e n t  C o u n ty , 391 U. S. 430, 439, 442 (1968).” 
(Emphasis added.)

The Supreme Court further directed the Fifth Circuit 
Court of Appeals to make such orders as might be neces­
sary for the im m ediate start in each district of the opera­
tion of a “ totally unitary school system for all eligible 
pupils without regard to race or color.”

The Mississippi school districts in the H o lm es C ou n ty  
case had degrees of desegregation ranging from nearly zero 
to about 16% of the Negro pupils. They like Mecklenburg 
hoped that their “ freedom of choice” plans would satisfy 
the Constitution.

Memorandum Opinion dated November 7, 1969



658a

The request for time extension, and all later proceedings 
in this cause, must be considered in light of the Supreme 
Court’s reaffirmation of the law which this court has been 
following, and in light of the urgency now required by the 
Holmes County decision.

T h e  R esults  o f  t h e  1969 P la n

For pupil desegregation, the July 29, 1969 plan proposed 
to close seven black inner-city schools (most or all of which 
had previously been ear-marked for eventual “ phase-out” ) 
and to transfer their 3,000 students in specified numbers 
to named suburban schools. All the transferee schools ex­
cept West Charlotte were white. In addition, 1,245 black 
students, in specified numbers, were to be transferred from 
eight black or largely black schools to other designated 
suburban white schools.

The plan was accepted and approved because of its ap­
parent promise to extend the opportunities of a desegre­
gated education to over 4,000 new black students.

The plan has not been carried out as advertised: (a) 
Only 73 of the 1,245 scheduled for transfer from over­
crowded black schools have been so transferred: those 73 
were transferred not to the schools designated, but to other 
'chools not mentioned in the plan, (b) It is now revealed 
that the closed schools, which were billed in July to pro­
duce AXt 'Jack students for transfer, actually had only 
- students t ' : ~ - dosed r

The Boarc allowed full freedom ;f  choice for students 
from the efceed sdheefe* aad these • fmhal k l u f t m -  
'*rs ' :  c : r:. ' o c <ch *>• r  ; - ■ Williams
A w r  H ^ .  EsgAi a a i  other H k I
• scn o v u s . ; t  ~o r t e  XSsSt-XU ed ' > S O .t '.V cS . A s  i  —J -

'  C'i~"  ̂ -f v  loci * " ---•• • •

Memorandum Opinion dated November 7, 1969



659a

from 17% black to 47% black. This produced community 
consternation but no racial disorder among the students. 
The result may be deplorable, but the fact that the students 
at Harding High School have adjusted peaceably to the 
situation (like others before them at Cornelius, Davidson, 
Olympic, Randolph Road, Hawthorne and Elizabeth, and 
like the people of Anson and other North Carolina counties) 
shows that Mecklehburgers can live with desegregated 
schools, (d) The transfers proposed simply appear never 
to have been made to most of the suburban schools named 
in the plan, (e) T h e plan therefore transferred to w hite  
sch ools o n ly  1,315 in stea d  of the promised 4 4̂5 black p u ­

p ils ! From closed schools, the elementary transferees num­
bered 463 instead of the advertised 1,235; junior high 
transferees were 273 instead of 630; and senior high trans­
ferees were 506 instead of 1,135; and from overcrowded 
schools 73 instead of 1,245. If Harding (47% black, 630 
Negro students), Olympic (42% black, 376 Negro students), 
and Wilmore (49% black, 228 Negro students) should be 
allowed to continue their rapid shift from white to black, 
the net result of the 1969 pupil plan would be nearly zero.

Faculty desegregation has significantly and commendably 
improved since the April 27 order. Nevertheless, only six 
“black” schools and one “black” kindergarten have pre­
dominantly white faculties; and 98 out of the 106 schools 
and kindergartens in the system are today readily and 
obviously identifiable by the race of the heavy majority of 
their faculties.

The “performance gap” is wide.

Memorandum Opinion dated November 7, 1969



660a

Memorandum Opinion dated November 7, 1969

T he Situation Today

The following table illustrates the racial distribution of 
the present school population:

Schools Readily Identifiable as W hite

Number of N umbers of Students
% W hite Schools W hite B lack Totals

100% 9 6,605 2 6,607
98-99% 9 4,801 49 4,850
95-97% 12 10,836 505 11,341
90-94% 17 14,070 1,243 15,313
86-89% 10 8,700 1,169 9,869

57 45,012 2,968 47,980

Schools Readily Identifiable as B lack

N umber of Numbers of Students
%  B lack Schools W hite B lack Totals

100%- 11 2 9,216 9,218
98-99% 5 41 3,432 3,473
90-97% 3 121 1,297 1,418
56-89% 6 989 2,252 3,241

25 1,153 16,197 17,350

Schools Not Readily I dentifiable by Race

Number of Numbers of Students
A B lack Schools W hite B lack Totals

32-49% 10 4,320 2,868 7.188
17-20% 8 5,363 1,230 6,593
22-29% 6 3,980 1,451 5,431

24 13,663 5,549 19,212
Totals: 106 59,828 24,714 84,542

Some of the data from the table, re-stated, is as follows:

Number of schools ....................................................  106
Number of white pupils ............................................  59,828
Number of black pupils ............................................  24,714



661a

Memorandum Opinion dated November 7, 1969

Total pupils .................................................................  84,542
Per cent of white pupils ............................................ 71%
Per cent of black pupils ............................................ 29%
Number of “white” schools ...................................... 57
Number of white pupils in those schools................. 45,012
Number of “black” schools ........................................ 25
Number of black pupils in those schools................... 16,197
Number of schools not readily identifiable by race 24
Number of pupils in those schools ..........................  19,212
Number of schools 98-100% black ..........................  16
Negro pupils in those schools .......:.......................... 12,648
Number of schools 98-100% white............................  18
White pupils in those schools ..................................  11,406

Of the 24,714 Negroes in the schools, something above 
8,500 are attending “white” or schools not readily identifi­
able by race. More than 16,000, however, are obviously 
still in all-black or predominantly black schools. The 9,216 
in 100% black situations are considerably more than the 
number of black students in Charlotte in 1954 at the time 
of the first B r o w n  decision. The black school problem has 
not been solved.

The schools are still in major part segregated or “dual” 
rather than desegregated or “unitary.”

The black schools are for the most part in black residen­
tial areas. However, that does not make their segregation 
constitutionally benign. In previous opinions the facts re­
specting their locations, their controlled size and their 
population have already been found. Briefly summarized, 
these facts are that the present location of white schools 
in white areas and of black schools in black areas is the 
result of a varied group of elements of public and private 
action, all deriving their basic strength originally from



662a

public law or state or local governmental Action. These ele­
ments include among others the legal ’separation of the 
races in schools, school busses, public accommodations and 
housing; racial restrictions in deeds to land; zoning ordi­
nances; city planning; urban renewal; location of public 
low rent housing; and the actions of the present School 
Board and others, before and since 1954, in locating and 
controlling the capacity of schools so that there would 
usually be black schools handy to black neighborhoods and 
white schools for white neighborhqgds. There is so much 
state action embedded in and shaping toege events that the 
resulting segregation is not innocent or “de facto,” and the 
resulting schools are not “unitary” or desegregated.

F reedom  of C hoice

Freedom of choice has tended to perpetuate segregation 
by allowing children to get out of schools where their race 
would be in a minority. The essential failure of the Board’s 
1969 pupil plan was in good measure due to freedom of 
choice.

As the court recalls the evidence, it shows that no ivhite 
students have ever chosen to attend any of the “black” 
schools.

Freedom of choice does not make a segregated school 
system lawful. As the Supreme Court said in Green v. 
New Kent C o u n t y .  391 F.S. 430 ( 1 9 6 8 ) :

u* * * If there are reasonably available other ways, 
such for illustration as zoning, promising speedier and 
more effective conversion to a unitary. nonracial school 
system, nreedom of choice' must be held unacceptable.'*

B«dnwriaar itrendanee lines is not b.Vely to accomplish 
aagtliag staUe tm u d  the aaariMe

Memorandum Opinion dated November 7, 1-969



663a

as long as freedom of choice or freedom of transfer is re­
tained. The operation of these schools for the foreseeable 
futnre should not include freedom of choice or transfer 
except to the extent that it reduces segregation, although 
of course the Board under its statutory power of assign­
ment can assign any pupil to any school for any lawful 
reason.

Memorandum Opinion dated November 7, 1969

T he  “N ational Standings”

The defendants filed some statistics concerning the one 
hundred largest school systems in the country, and say that 
Charlotte-Mecklenburg desegregation compares favorably 
with that in most of those systems. That may well be so. 
The court is not trying cases involving the other ninety- 
nine school boards, and has not studied any evidence about 
them and does not know their factual nor legal problems. 
The court in its first order of April 23, 1969 has noted the 
substantial desegregation achieved in certain areas in the 
Charlotte-Mecklenburg system, and is still aware of it. The 
fact that other communities might be more backward in 
observing the Constitution than Mecklenburg would hardly 
seem to support denial of constitutional rights to Mecklen­
burg citizens. The court doubts that a double standard 
exists. The Attorney General of the United States has 
filed suit for desegregation in Connecticut as well as in the 
whole State of Georgia. One of the most stringent de­
segregation orders on record was entered recently against 
a school board in the City of Chicago. Constitutional rights 
will not be denied here simply because they may be denied 
or delayed elsewhere. There is no “Dow-Jones average” 
for such rights. With all due deference to the complexities 
of this school system, which have already been fully noted



664a

in previous opinions, the Board and the community must, 
still observe the Constitution. The fact that the school 
system ranks high in some artificial “national standings” 
or that one-third of the Negro students do attend desegre­
gated schools or predominantly white schools is no answer 
to the constitutional problems presented by sixteen thou­
sand black Mecklenburgers still going to all-black or largely 
black schools in this predominantly white community.

T he P rospects for the F uture

The second part of the Board’s report is-fcaswers to the 
court s questions designed to determine whether the Board 
uas made the hard decisions necessary to desegregate the 
sohoos.

The answers show that those decisions have not been 
made.

The eom.cu.te? expert has teen given restrictions which, 
taken a: face value, indicate that his work will not lead - 
ieseg-sgatzoa or all the schools. One such restrict;.; n has 
me apparent meet of limiting attendance to those whr . -  
a maximum of roughly a mile ami a ha~- from the -school 
f i l e  b  the n p̂oHse gat that ak gnfe «r fe,
'‘’svffls^was So tfe? gcal or  s*

- .. * Arrocher s  the hnunitten fiat
mt se*mjoi aremhci sammi ha-.- less utan i N~-

■- scmaeu~ pcc?nat’.;n. .mess thus were saunie*? v-rii 
a farther that no s-iev; *c-en«e*£ **■ "hacss siail
la^s a v f"  than a-WiN? mars scttirenc Tutjmatam. er.s .rreurs

t u t  :n  u.v.>v ^ " u - v  -  * *vr  ? .>  s u . ~  T i e
eta-. V ’ ■rev s.-. d. •. • -

Wh\ UKiitlftOttSv .'50SC- ■- ~*.C .
taut ~~” itri>wniift iMiiTfiriiiiim 

tFs^e* a .*fe-.u t«s >«••-

Memorandum Opinion dated November 7, 1969



665a

record is silent on what these limitations mean and whether 
they are still in effect.

The Board has not accepted pairing and grouping and 
clustering of schools as legitimate techniques, but has 
simply indicated that it will “consider” those techniques 
where they offer “ reasonable prospects of producing stable  
desegregation * * (Emphasis added.)

The report states unconditionally that:
“ T h e  in form a tion  su pp lied  b y  the s y s te m s  analysis ap­

proach  will n ot p rod u ce d eseg rega tion  o f  all schools  
by S e p te m b e r , 1970. Dramatic results are expected. 
It is h op ed  that the number of all white and all black 
schools will be substantially reduced. The number of 
such schools cannot be determined at this time.” (Em­
phasis added.)

The report also says that:
“ • • • T h e B o a rd  o f  E du ca tion  d oes not fee l that it ivill 

be p o ssib le  to p rod u ce pupil d esegrega tion  in each 
sch ool b y  S ep te m b er , 1970. It is expected that faculties 
will fairly represent a cross section of the total faculty 
so that most and p o ssib ly  all schools will not have a 
racially identifiable faculty. Furthermore, the restruc­
turing of attendance lines coupled with faculty de­
segregation m a y  satisfy constitutional requirements.” 
(Emphasis added.)

The School Board is sharply divided in the expressed 
views of its members. From the testimony of its members, 
and from the latest report, it cannot be concluded that a 
majority of its members have accepted the court’s orders 
as representing the law which applies to the local schools.

Memorandum Opinion dated November 7, 1969



666a

By the responses to the October 10 questions, the Board 
has indicated that its members do not accept the duty to 
desegregate the schools at any ascertainable time; and 
they have clearly indicated that they intend not to do it 
effective in the fall of 1970. They have also demonstrated 
a yawning gap between predictions and performance.

Withholding or delaying the constitutional rights of 
children to equal educational opportunity on such vague 
terms as these is not the province of the School Board nor 
of this court.

Furthermore, since the Supreme Court has now pro­
hibited lower courts from granting extensions of time, it 
may well be that the gradual time table laid down by this 
court’s April 23, 1969 order contemplating substantia] 
progress in 1969 and complete desegregation by September 
1970) was and is too lenient.

If the plan tendered by the School Board on November 
17, 1969 is thorough and informative, and sufficiently shows 
an unconditional purpose on the part of the Board to com­
plete its job effective by September, 1970, the Board may 
perhaps be allowed to adhere to the existing time table. 
Certainly a Mecklenburg plan ought if possible to be pre­
pared by the Mecklenburg School Board and its large and 
experienced staff, rather than by outside experts. Decision 
on that and other pending questions must await further 
developments, including the Board’s November 17, 1969 
report.

Conclusions

The school system is still discriminatorily segregated by 
race and maintained that way by state action. In many 
ways it is not in compliance with the Constitution. The 
Board has not shown a valid basis for an extension of time

Memorandum Opinion dated November 7, 1969



667a-669a

to comply with the court’s judgment; it has shown no in­
tention to comply by any particular time with the consti­
tutional mandate to desegregate the schools; and it has 
suggested its intention not to comply by September, 1970. 
In spite of those facts the court would like as a matter of 
discretion to grant some of the time extension requested, 
but is of the considered opinion that in Alexander v. Holmes 
County the Supreme Court has prohibited the exercise of 
such discretion. The findings of fact in this opinion will 
be considered, along with facts found in previous orders, 
opinions and memoranda, as the basis for such future judg­
ments and orders as may be appropriate, including such 
judgments and orders as may be appropriate upon receipt 
of the Board’s November 17, 1969 plan. All statements of 
fact in this memorandum opinion, whether or not labeled 
as such, shall be deemed findings of fact, as necessary to 
support such judgments and orders.

This the 7th day of November, 1969.

/ s /  James B. McMillan 
James B. McMillan 

United States District Judge

Memorandum Opinion dated November 7, 1969



670a

The Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation
of Schools

Pursuant to the order of the Court dated August 15, 
1969, and as re-affirmed by the order of the Court dated 
November 7, 1969, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of 
Education submits the following as its plan for further 
desegregation of the schools served by the Charlotte- 
Mecklenburg Public School System.

Restructuring of A ttendance Lines

The Board of Education has embarked upon a compre­
hensive program for the purpose of restructuring attend­
ance lines involving all schools and all students served by 
die system. The primary purpose of this program is to 
liinieve furrier desegregation in as many schools is pos­
able Far the oast two and one-half months, mbs uro­
gram has teen u n d e r w a y  and an enormous amount s i  

vurn jus already :een uerutrmei to bring me urogram tu 
a gome vuere meaningful m  irmancii ran now he rnsaat 
i r r a i i

The iru -ra  f ir  ieveltjcog me rumpurer la s te d  sys- 
e a s  analysis at ore am : rescruetuuruuE me amemiane?
hues are as- : lifaws

1 Systems Assseraces, Inc. me iwmiisa  ̂ sairaayett ur 
a mmpupfc isssced ^csosns- analyses apnrtu&m tn 

'•sscrsccarng n am. ucaacs mess nss urscrmcced ti
iKstaifi ail s.'Mve' aad stjaeats ssrrst ty use sescesu Hi 
me a . v : - .  : > mat re r"-*»rac* u -s u
att isvthife* i  JS &I
r*»eev«>£ w >.«8»}kaj»sv' ■. tyncs *rm r ur-

-v. av s  -v . s  e .
N d \ ; - V: s- 3̂ ' tv;'



671a

as shown on the school attendance maps filed as 
exhibits in this matter.)

B. Xo combination of grids can be considered if they 
exceed the rated capacity of the school by 20 per 
cent. Further, such combinations cannot under­
populate the school by more than 20 per cent.

C. A school district cannot contain the home grid of 
another school.

D. A school district must contain the home grid in 
which the school is located.

E. Xo school district to which white students are as­
signed should have less than 60 per cent white 
student population to avoid “tipping."

After meeting these five tests, all possible combinations 
of grids are being printed separately for each school. The 
combinations will be reviewed to determine their desir­
ability. Desirability will be determined by the following 
factors: (1) the closeness of the integration ratio to 
per cent white—30 per cent black, (2) the compactness of 
the school district and (3) the combination of grids which 
yields a student population closest to 100 per cent of the 
school's capacity.

It is observed that the first five rules serve to identify 
the various combinations of grids which are possible an 
the latter three rule,- judge the desirability of the variou- 
combinations.

The best alternative set of grids for each school will then 
he considered by school personnel familiar with n-:gnc- • 
hoods, traffic patterns, natural hazards and other factors. 
This review may have a limited effect upon desegregation,

The Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation
of Schools



672a

favorably or unfavorably. After consideration of the com­
puter information and such factors as listed above, a new 
school district will be formulated and its lines shown on 
a map. Other school districts wTill be formulated in the 
same manner until such time as the entire school system 
serving the elementary, junior high and senior high schools 
have been redistricted.

It is noted that, in any restructuring of lines, there is a 
“domino” effect such that a change in any one attendance 
line may cause changes in other attendance lines. Great 
care must be exercised in devising attendance lines which 
promise a substantial degree of stable desegregation. 
Therefore, in the opinion of the Board, its staff and Sys­
tems Analysis Associates, Inc., February 1, 1970, is the 
earliest practicable date a uniform, comprehensive and well- 
planned program which restructures attendance lines can 
be developed and approved by the Board of Education 
for submission to the Court.

The Board of Education has conducted an examination 
of the results of the computer analysis of attendance lines 
for forty-three (43) elementary schools located in the 
densely populated areas of the city. This examination 
discloses that it is theoretically possible to populate these 
schools with the following ratios of black students:

1.. Two (2) schools at which the black student popula­
tion ratio is 0%.

2. Nine (9) schools at which the black student popu­
lation ranges from one to five per cent.

3. Two (2) schools in which the black student popula­
tion ranges from six to ten per cent.

The Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation
of Schools



673a

4. One (1) school in which black student population 
ranges from eleven to fifteen per cent.

5. Twenty-two (22) schools in which black student 
population ranges from sixteen to forty per cent.

6. Seven (7) schools in which the black student popu­
lation is 100 per cent.

It should be noted that these combinations are theoreti­
cally possible. However, actual drawing of district lines 
may disclose that one or more grids are needed in several 
adjacent attendance areas in order to achieve the ratios 
set forth above. Computation of the alternatives possible 
at one black school disclosed that there were in excess of
2,000 possible grid configurations for the school district 
each of which would yield 60 per cent or greater white 
student population. The task of selecting the most desir­
able configuration consistent with the needs of adjacent 
schools is a monumental task which will require substan­
tial efforts to accomplish for all of the 107 school served 
by the system.

The Board elected to work first with elementary schools 
rather than secondary schools because the size of the sec­
ondary districts requires substantially greater computer 
time. Therefore, the Board is not presently in position to 
furnish to the Court information gained from computer 
print-outs relating to the secondary schools.

The Board is most concerned with the question of “tip­
ping” referred to above. It has been frequently observed 
that once a school reaches a point between 35 and 45 per 
cent black in student population, the school and neighbor­
hood become rapidly predominantly or all black. For ex­

The Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation
of Schools



674a

ample, in the school year 1954-1955, Barringer, Bethune, 
Elizabeth, First Ward, Lakeview, Seversville, Zeb Vance, 
Villa Heights and Wesley Heights Elementary Schools and 
Hawthorne and Piedmont Junior High Schools housed all 
white student bodies totaling 5,502 students. During the 
school year 1968-1969, these schools except Seversville 
and Wesley Heights which are now housed in Bruns Ave­
nue Elementary School had student population of 4,652 
(81 per cent) black and 1,105 (19 per cent) white students. 
It is further noted that in March of 1965, these schools 
had a black student population totaling 35 per cent of 
the combined enrollments. Therefore, it is the plan of 
this School Board to limit schools to which white students 
are assigned to those schools in which it is possible to 
provide a student population which is at least 60 per cent 
white. Otherwise, schools with high percentages of blacks 
become rapidly or more predominantly black and as found 
by the Court, “a racial mix in which black students heavily 
predominate tends to retard the progress of the whole 
groups, whereas, if students are mingled with a clear white 
majority, such as a 70/30 ratio, the better students can 
hold their pace, with substantial improvement for the poorer 
students.” It is the considered judgment of the Board of 
Education supported by its staff that to create a school 
district which is likely to turn predominantly black is an 
exercise in futility and will neither produce quality edu­
cation for the children nor offer lasting prospects for stable 
desegregation.

The Board has instructed the school staff to periodically 
review schools which show an unusual growth in their black 
student population and report to the Board such attend­
ance districts in order that the Board may consider revis-

The Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation
of Schools



675a

mg such attendance lines to avoid the possibility of “tip­
ping.”

A  majority of the Board of Education believes that the 
constitutional requirements of desegregation will be 
achieved by the restructuring of attendance lines, the re­
stricting freedom of transfer and other provisions of this 
plan. The majority of the Board has, therefore, discarded 
further consideration of pairing, grouping, clustering and 
transporting. If the majority of the Board of Education 
is in error in its conviction that such measures are not 
constitutionally mandated, the Board respectfully requests 
clear direction to the contrary through the careful consid­
eration of perplexing questions as they apply to the Char- 
lotte-Mecklenburg School System. These questions include 
the following:

1. What is a unitary school system?

2. What makes a school racially indistinguishable?
3. Will this school system which bases its plan pri­

marily on geographic zoning be considered to have 
a unitary school system!

4. Will this system be unitary even though it operates 
more schools with all white student populations ?

5. Will this system be unitary even though it oper­
ates one or more schools with all black student 
populations ?

6. What constitutes a racially indistinguishable fac­
ulty?

7. If a pupil percentage ratio (black/white) is used, 
what are the acceptable limits?

The Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation
of Schools



676a

8. If pupil ratios (black/white) are used in individual 
schools, must the same ratios be maintained indefi­
nitely in spite of changing neighborhood patterns?

F ree Choice of T ransfer

Any black student will be permitted freedom of choice 
transfer if the school to which he is originally assigned 
has more than 30 per cent of his race and if the school he 
is requesting to attend has less than 30 per cent of his 
race and has available space. Any white student will be 
permitted freedom of choice transfer if the school to 
which he is originally assigned has more than 70 per cent 
of his race and if the school he is requesting to attend has 
less than 70 per cent of his race and has available space. 
Availability of space will be determined by the school 
administration under rules of uniform application estab­
lished by the School Board.

In addition, transfers may be granted to students whose 
request for transfer evidences conditions of hardship. 
Hardship will be determined on the basis of uniform rules 
developed by the administrative staff.

The administrative procedures for such transfer shall 
be readily available to each student.

F aculty Desegregation

During the 1970-1971 school year, the Board of Educa­
tion will staff each school so that the faculty at each school 
will be predominantly white and, where practicable, will 
reflect the ratio of white and black teachers employed in 
the total faculty of the school system.

Recognizing that the assignment procedures necessary 
to achieve this goal will place many teachers in circum­

The Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation
of Schools



677a

stances with which they are unfamiliar and for which they 
have only limited preparation, the Board will therefore 
seek to provide special assistance to them by requesting 
additional funds in its 1970-1971 budget for in-service edu­
cation and by deploying its central office staff in the most 
effective way possible.

It is impossible at this time for the Board to specify 
the precise percentage of racial mix in each school faculty 
since the school system will lose approximately 600 teach­
ers at the end of the current year and will employ approxi­
mately 750 teachers new to the system. Race and quali­
fication of these teachers are unknown at this time, and 
faculty assignments cannot be made until the summer 
months immediately preceding the opening of the school 
year.

School Construction Program

Until such time as the restructuring of attendance lines 
is final, a comprehensive review of the new construction 
program cannot be completed. As indicated in the Board’s 
plan filed with the Court on July 29, 1969, a part of the 
study will be completed by February 1, 1970, and a more 
general long-range study will be completed by June of 
1970.

The Building and Sites Committee has undertaken this 
study at the direction of the Board of Education. The 
Committee has conducted an extensive study involving the 
90 projects identified in school system’s master plan for 
construction. The Committee has reported to the Board 
that 46 of the 91 projects are either completed, under 
construction, or are far along in planning. Of the 45 
projects remaining, 5 ($1,850,000.00) are unaffected by ary

The Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation
of Schools



678a

plan for further desegregation because they are already 
integrated; and 19 ($2,690,000.00) projects are unaffected 
because the work planned will have no effect on the pupil 
capacity of the physical plant. The Building and Sites 
Committee has authorized the staff to proceed with plan­
ning on all projects unaffected by any anticipated moves 
in desegregation.

The Committee concluded that the work on the remaining 
21 projects might be affected by plans for further deseg­
regation and delayed planning on these projects pending 
further study. Funds set aside for these 21 projects 
amounts to $10,475,000.00.

The names of these projects are as follows

1. Moore’s Chapel

2. Allen Hills

3. Thomasboro

4. Cotswold

5. Lincoln Heights

6. University Park

7. Villa Heights

8. Highland

9. Lakeview

10. Briarwood

11. Newell

12. Midwood
13. Berryhill

14. Selwyn

The Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation
of Schools



679a

15. Center City Elementary

16. Fairview

17. Wilora Lake

18. Elizabeth

19. Piedmont, Jr.
20. Irwin Avenue, Jr.

21. Metropolitan, Sr.

The Building and Sites Committee has analyzed the 
present housing conditions for the school system. A copy 
of this analysis is attached as Exhibit “A ” .

I, William C. Self, Superintendent of the Charlotte- 
Mecklenburg school system and Secretary to its Board 
of Education, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a 
true, perfect and correct copy of the Amendment to Plan 
for Further Desegregation of Schools as adopted by the 
Board of Education on the 13th day of November, 1969. 
and spread upon its minutes.

This the 17th day of November, 1969.

/ s /  W illiam C. Self 
William C. Self 
Secretary to the Board

The Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation
of Schools



680a

On November 7, 1969, the Court denied the defendant’s 
motion for an extension of time for submission of a plan 
for further desegregation and ordered submission of a 
report as directed in the order of August 15, 1969. The 
defendant’s amendment to its plan for further desegrega­
tion is submitted contemporaneously herewith, following 
adoption by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Educa­
tion.

The plan should be considered against the background 
of progress in desegregation accomplished by the School 
Board. The desegregation of this system began during 
the school year 1962-1963 by the closing of schools and par­
tial redestricting of attendance lines which was completed 
in 1965. Through this program, the former dual system 
of schools which had existed prior thereto was disestab­
lished.

In 1965, this proceeding was instituted by the present 
plaintiffs and the district court (1965) and the Court of 
Appeals (1966) approved the plan of desegregation under 
which the schools were operated through the school year 
1968-1969. As set forth below, the degree of desegrega­
tion accomplished under that plan has been substantial. 
It should be kept in mind that the School Board during 
that period was guided by the following pronouncement 
of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, to 
w it:

“Whatever the Board may do in response to its own 
initiative or that of the community, we have held that 
there is no constitutional requirement that it act with 
the conscious purpose of achieving the maximum mix­
ture of races in the school population . . .  So long as

Report Submitted in Connection With the November 13,
1969 Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation



681a

the boundaries are not drawn for the purpose of main­
taining racial segregation, the School Board is under 
no constitutional requirement that it effectively and 
completely counteract all of the effects of segregated 
housing patterns.”  (Emphasis supplied.)—Swann v. 
Charlotte-MecMenburg Board of Education, 369 P. 2d 
29 (October 24, 1966)

For almost four years, the Board proceeded in conform­
ity with the plan approved by the District Court and the 
Court of Appeals. It was not until 1969 that the Board 
was informed that its plan was no longer acceptable and 
that additional, hut generally unspecified steps were re­
quired to effect further desegregation.

The School Board has acted affirmatively in many ways 
to assure an equal educational opportunity for all students 
and to further desegregate the system, many of these 
actions having been taken on its own initiative. This posi­
tive action is reflected by the following illustrations:

L Twenty schools have been closed and pupils re­
assigned primarily in order to increase racial 
mixing.

2. A  single athletic league has been created with or: 
distinction between white and black school? :r  
athletes.

c Er.>ornuent practices are on a nondiscrinonattcy 
oas s and employment ratios reflect the vhr.e 
ratio of '".a commonity.

41 ladforfclaat mfaM faeoftfc* have boon desqgmjpilwt-
5 .  l a  r«u* * « n w ,  y e a r  V/70 71f a l l  f a e r d h e *  m i l  t e

pretew-vvar/h/ wfirite,

Report Submitted in Connection with the November 13,
1969 Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation



682a

6. Black principals have been assigned to predomi­
nantly white schools and white principals have been 
assigned to predominantly black schools.

7. Black professional personnel have been appointed 
to ranking administrative positions.

8. A black minister was appointed by the Board of 
Education to its membership when the community 
twice failed to elect him to the Board. This member 
currently serves on the Board of Education.

9. The dual school bus system was eliminated.

10. Nondiscriminatory practices are, and have been, 
followed in all facets of the school system, includ­
ing the following:

a. School fees
b. School lunches
c. Library and other instructional materials
d. Quality of school buildings
e. Use of federal funds
f. Course offerings
g. Evaluation of students

11. The black and white P.T.A. Councils have been 
merged into a single organization at the urging of 
the school administration.

12. Specialized and supplementary programs, such 
as the residential school for underachieving stu­
dents (the Learning Academy) and the kinder­
garten and nursery school programs (Child Devel­

Report Submitted in Connection with the November 13,
1969 Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation



683a

opment Centers), have been designed and imple­
mented in such a way that desegregation has been 
substantially increased.

13. Freedom of choice has been redesigned so that its 
only effect is to promote increased desegregation 
and to give stability to the racial mix of individual 
schools.

14. The current restructuring of attendance lines is 
designed to promote additional desegregation.

15. The current plan provides for periodic review of 
the racial mix at each school so that corrective 
action may he taken to inhibit “tipping” and avoid 
further black racial isolation in the schools.

This portion of the report deals with further information 
concerning the nature and effect of the Plan.

The Order dated August 15, 1969, approved the policy 
statement of the Board and, therefore, a restatement of 
the same is deemed unnecessary.

A  review of the plan discloses that the provisions for re­
structuring attendance lines are in conformity with the 
plan as submitted on July 29, 1969, supplemented by later 
action of the Board which was subsequently submitted to 
the Court. It is important to know that the Board is nov 
submitting preliminary information relating to theoretical 
ratios in the elementary schools which promise a remark­
able degree of desegregation. It is important mat me 
Court does not construe the information submitted in me 
plan relating to racial ratios of elementary schools a- temg 
;r_ the nature of a guarantee by the Board smoe :t . - anttrt- 
pated tne results of restructuring the attendance Lne- may

Report Submitted in Connection with the November 13,
1969 Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation



684a

produce a greater or lesser degree of desegregation, the 
extent of which cannot be determined at this time. Compar­
ing the theoretical ratio with the present racial ratio of 
desegregation in the elementary schools, the following in­
formation is disclosed:

Report Submitted in Connection with the November 13,
1969 Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation

Elementary Schools

N um ber o f N um ber o f

N um ber o f  
Schools 

N ot Com ­
P ercen t Schools 1969-70 Schools T h eoret­ p u ted  1969-70
B lack A ctu a l R atios ical R atios A ctu a l Ratios

0% 9 2 1
1-5% 17 11 3
6-10% 11 2 2

11-15% 6 4 3
16-40% 13 29 8
41-100% 21 8 0

It is noted that it is theoretically possible to reduce the 
number of all white schools by six and the number of 
schools which are all black or likely to become predominantly 
black has been reduced by thirteen schools. The precise 
ratios must wait the difficult task of locating all attendance 
lines.

An illustration of the difficulty in designing school at­
tendance lines and in preserving maximum desirable results 
is shown on Exhibit “A ” attached hereto. This exhibit 
shows three adjacent schools, each of which requires grids 
needed by one or more of the other schools to reach maxi­
mum desirable desegregation. However, by reason of the 
enormous number of alternative grid combinations avail­
able, it is believed that substantial further desegregation 
may be achieved under this approach.



685a

The Court has previously expressed concern over Hard­
ing High School, Wilmore Elementary and other schools 
which have shown a rapid shift in student population from 
white to black. The Board will employ three methods in an 
attempt to produce stable desegregation. The methods to 
be used are as follows:

1. In determining the initial attendance lines, the 
ratio of black to white students will not exceed 60% 
white—40% black where the school is desegregated.

2. Severe restrictions will be imposed on freedom of 
choice so that exercise of freedom of choice may 
have only the effect of improving desegregation in 
the system.

3. The school staff will keep a watchful eye on schools 
experiencing unusual growth in black student popu­
lation. The school staff will report to the Board 
such shifts so that attendance lines may be altered 
to counteract neighborhood shifts which often lead 
to racial isolation of blacks. (See Exhibit “B” at­
tached hereto for examples of such shifts.)

The Court will, therefore, note that the Board’s plan is 
well calculated to produce stable desegregation.

With reference to faculty desegregation, great progress 
has been achieved for the second school year 1969-70. The 
plan will produce substantially more desegregation since 
each school will have a preponderance of white teachers 
and, where practicable, a more desirable ratio. The Board 
is not only interested in numbers but also in assisting its 
faculty with preparation for new teaching conditions and 
situations. Precise statistics for the next school year cannot

Report Submitted in Connection with the November 13,
1969 Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation



686a

be furnished at this time for the reasons stated in the plan.
To develop a meaningful, enduring and comprehensive 

construction program, the Board and staff must know the 
precise location of the new attendance boundaries since 
the capacities of nearby schools and the effect of new con­
struction on such capacities are critical factors in deter­
mining the placement of new schools. Therefore, develop­
ment of this phase of the plan must await restructuring of 
attendance lines.

It is noted that with respect to current construction, the 
five projects unaffected by the desegregation plan involve 
an expenditure of $1,850,000; projects for standardization 
of facilities to meet educational programs where capacity 
is not a factor involve an expenditure of $2,690,000, and 
projects which may be affected by desegregation involve 
an expenditure of $10,475,000. The latter sum is being held 
pending development of the building program specified in 
the plan.

The Court has previously been furnished information for 
the 1968-69 school year which indicates that Charlotte- 
Mecklenburg ranks 43rd in size among the 100 largest school 
systems of the Nation.

Of the 15 systems which have comparable pupil enroll­
ments and comparable percentages of black students, Char- 
lotte-Mecklenburg ranks 5th in the percentage of schools 
having a racial mix. Locally, significant additional progress 
has been made for the 1969-70 school year.

These comparisons are not intended as any indication of 
a self-satisfied complacency on the part of the Charlotte- 
Mecklenburg Board of Education regarding the progress 
which it has made to date in the desegregation of its 
schools or as a justification for any slow-down in its con­

Report Submitted in Connection with the November 13,
1969 Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation



687a

tinuing efforts to afford every child in the system the edu­
cation to which he is entitled. However, these comparisons 
(and similar ones for prior years) do show that Charlotte- 
Mecklenburg has been among the leaders in facing up to 
the responsibility of providing quality education on a de­
segregated basis for all children—white or black.

The Board has no intention of tailoring its performance 
to those of other systems. On the contrary, the Board on 
its own initiative is committed to the proposition that every 
child in the system is entitled in full measure to a quality 
education unimpaired by any restraints or restrictions 
upon his constitutional rights.

As outlined above, in response to the June 20, 1969, order 
of the Court, this Board submitted a plan for the desegre­
gation of teachers and a plan and time-table for active de­
segregation of pupils. These plans were conditionally ap­
proved by the Court on August 15, 1969, with instructions 
to submit a more comprehensive plan by November 17, 1969.

In compliance with the directions of the Court, the Board 
of Education and its administrative staff have worked 
diligently to formulate a plan which will satisfy the mandate 
of the Court and protect and promote the Constitutional 
rights of every child, without sacrificing the quality of edu­
cation which we desire for all our children and without 
jeopardizing the community support which our schools must 
have. It is the belief of the Board of Education that the 
current plan, as detailed in this report, will achieve both 
these goals.

The Board of Education, however, has been handicapped 
in its work. It has been required to proceed without clear 
directives regarding exactly what is required of the Board 
and the plan to satisfy the mandates of the Constitution

Report Submitted in Connection with the November 13,
1969 Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation



688a

to provide for our children a “non-racial” , “desegregated” , 
“unitary” school system.

The Board is now, and always has been, ready and willing 
in good faith to fully acquit its Constitutional duty and to 
incorporate in any plan whatever may be required by the 
Constitution—regardless of what the Board may conceive 
to be the effect of snch compliance on the process of edu­
cating children or upon community support for the schools.

The Board takes very seriously its obligation to act re­
sponsibly— actions which vitally affect in a direct and per­
sonal way the lives and welfare of 85,000 students, their 
parents, 5,500 school personnel and the community at large. 
The formation of a stable and workable desegregation plan 
involves intelligent planning and hard decisions. These 
decisions should not be made more difficult by requiring the 
Board to speculate unnecessarily about what must or can 
be done.

If the Board is in error in its interpretation of its con­
stitutional duty, then the time has come when the Board 
must be given specific directions as to what are and what 
are not necessaiy or permissible ingredients of an accept­
able plan. When the Board understands what is required, 
it can more effectively get on with the job of implementing 
its plan—without the disruptive uncertainties and pro­
tracted litigation involved in the submission of numerous 
pieeemeaL tentative, speculative or conditionally approved 
plans which are the likely results of plans submitted with­
out a clear understanding o f what must be done. It is the 
Board's conviction that, once the community understands 
wh.it 'is required* it will support the Board and accept what­

Report Submitted in Connection with the November 13,
1969 Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation



689a

ever adjustments must be made to comply with these re­
quirements.

Respectfully submitted this 17th day of November, 1969.

Brock Barkley 
Law Building 
Charlotte, North Carolina

Ervin, H orack and McCartha

Benjamin J. Horack

806 East Trade Street 
Charlotte, North Carolina

W einstein, W aggoner, Sttjrges

& Odom

W illiam J. W aggoner

1100 Barringer Office Tower 
Charlotte, North Carolina

Attorneys for Defendants

Report Submitted in Connection with the November 13,
1969 Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation



690a

State oe Nobth Cabolina 
County of Meckuenbubg

Dr. Robert C. Hanes, of lawful age, being first duly 
sworn, on Ms oath states that he is the Assistant Super­
intendent of Defendant named in the above and foregoing 
matter and that the facts stated therein are true according 
to his best knowledge and belief.

Report Submitted in Connection with the November 13,
1969 Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation

/ s /  Robeet C. Hanes 
Dr. Robert C. Hanes

Sworn and subscribed to before me 
this 17th day of November, 1969

/s /  F aye Jalley 
Notary Public

My commission expires: 3/27/71

(See Opposite)



M'rt'Wfj • S v s t k m s  A s s o c i a t e s . In c ..

fr-̂ --------
1!1]
!i Subject

U .

Exhibit ______________3/file No.
__________ Sheet No.__________ of
___ 3 y ______________Dote_____

;i
'i I

1 1 l i i ' .
li

i
i i 1 1 j i | i ' '
ii 1 3 o 3i 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 £ i • i j

■i'
!
i

I
!

I I 4 3 — — — — . I ; 1 • ■,

i l l <4 — — — ' 1 j :
i C i ! •

. ■ I i ! B £= I i 1 , ; ,

j

1
1

i 1 A < ';1 »oC. u* £ L E E E 5 £ & — - -
! , ' 1 ! • . ; I ■ j : |

■i 4 3 ,1  EL * 6 b c I
1 . ! j i ; ' :

r* ' P 5 ? £• 6 5 s  5 c 5 L .
i

! ! :

i
i

*;Vr t>o C t 6(1 1 | | ;

|: \ XI I . ! ' i l l !  1 :

, 6 17 . i l l : ;

/

...

r 7
____ i ' ! ' 1 1 !

i ' J | | ; : j i :
I
i i j ; ' ' :

i 1 i 1 h A  i

1 1
b 'ri ; i

| 1 t
i_ ! 1 i ■ 1

J ( T h r e e  a c i a  c e n t SC l o o l  d i s t r i c t ? rv :p r ; s e : i t i n g  S c h o o l s !  b ,  1 c , 1 a n d  e . ; T h e  s q u a r e s
!

j

l1 r e p r e s e n t  ghid s q u a r e s  d s d isd lo s 'ed on m a s t e r  e le m e n ta r y : m a p . : T h e
a s s ig n a tio n
rrr'irf.c: Thp

oi s c n p o i jg n a  r e p r e s e n t^  tne io c a u u n  ui su iiooi .i .c a c  
1 p.ttnrR w ith in  tnp. oriels T^pnrpsprt ith~ s p  ^ r id s  r e r i 'i ir -d  £.chi*-‘ v

j d e s e g r e g a tio n  r a t io s  in d ic a te d 'o f  64^ 3 w h ite j/3 5 %  b la c k  fo r  S ch o o l o ;  32% ' w h i.e

1 i3 7^o biacjc fo r  ^ c h o o l E  and 76°/^ w.'.ite and 2 3 %  c la c k  fo r  s c h o o l c . 1 it  i s  n c te c
I : • , %

Ulo L fc>2ve L i d .  a.

i 1
L-icL. rrij,n ^

r
w*-. - . w
l i '

uU.vjx per-OO_o . ,

I 1 1 i l l ' i ! I i i i • ! :
I i

! I
i
i_ _ i_ _ _ _ •i i i * : : ■ : •

j I I I 1 i 1 i
j_ _ _ _ l i i ;  ; :

I ! l
1

i : E X H IB IT  ', A '
j i i !

i i ■ i i ! ! ;
. r | I 1 r 1 i

I ;I I ; I
| , 1 ! : 1 ! i i

^ _ _ _ L 1 11 I ! I ! I l i I i : ! i i : i •i ' •

1 1 ! l i | ! 1 i ! 1 1 ! ; : j j ; ' ! |

! i l 1 1 | ! i i i ! 1 i
j 1 5 i 1 j | i i ; * < ! : .

103



C C i l i n )  i tt T1 o l t c - ivU?c is) cr.ii\. r

h'

r 0 ;v.v. r i y  Wn i ;.o Schoo l  s E x p e r i e n c  i i*iQ LPiur.QG tO
Prodo.il i nap t i y  B l a c k  S c h o o l s ,  195^ -55 th ro ug h 1968 -69

P U P 1 L S

S choo l 1954 -55 1965, March 1968- 69
3 W B W B w

B a r r i n g e r  Eleni. 190 60A 668 y 'j ! » j  >
Bethune 373 3^+3 9 223 j

E i i zabe th 718 5 AA8 270 19A
F i r s t  Ward 597 ^73 7^9
Lakev  i ew 3^1 A 00 269 H*7

S e v e r s v  i 11e 361 96 229 *

Zeb Vance 221 A65 257
V i l l a  H e i g h t s 772 23 59^ 796 126
Wes l e y  H e i g h t s 225 2 1A *

- 0 -  3798 1619 • 228A 3232 601
+ E s t .  at B run s  50G i.

3732 605

Hawtho rne  J r .  H i g h 785 25 670 A92 AA7
P i edmont 919 121 291 A 28 Z

- 0-  170A 1 k o 961 920 pGG

Tota l 0 + 5502 1765 + 32A5 A652 + ; 105 .

5502 5010 5757
(0% B) (35% B) (81% 3 \

J

Does not i n c 1ude
(1) P a r k s  H u t c h i s o n  (12! w h i t e  in 195^ -55 )  c l o s e d  as  w h i t e  (no t  needed) at  end

o f  1958 -59  nor  No rth  C h a r l o t t e  (261 w h i t e  in 1 95^ -55 )  c l o s e a :  a s s ig nee ,  to 
n*.>w H i g h l a n d  1955 -56 .

(2) Seven  a i l - b i a c k  s c h o o l s  wh ich  were c l o s e d  in  1 9 6 6 -6 7  to  e l i m i n a t e
d u a l - s c n o o l  b o u n d a r i e s  -  -

C r e s t d a l e ,  Gunn, Ada J e n k i n s ,  P l a t o  P r i c e ,  S t e r l i n g ,  T o r r e r . c e - L y t  1 e, Wood!an 
97 + 696 + A 31 + 505 +  699 +  1005 + 360

o r  3793 b l a c k  s t u d e n t s ,  as  r e p o r t e d  March 6,  1965.
(3) Three  a l l - b l a c k  s c h o o l s :  B i d d l e v i l i e ,  Morgan  + M ye r s  S t r e e t

A3A +  305 + 820 (1559 in  1965)
o r  390 + 2 1 1  + 559 - ( 1 1 6 0  in 1967 -68)

and a l l - w h i t e  Wood lawn sch o o l  (2 73 ) .
- - T h e s e  f o u r  .a long wi th S e v e r s v i l l e *  and W e s l e y  H e i g h t s *  were c l o s e d

at  end or' 1967 -68 .

104



691a



692a

(Filed November 21, 1969)

On three different occasions this Court has urged, en­
couraged and requested the defendant School Board to 
carry out its constitutional duty to desegregate the Char- 
lotte-Mecklenburg public schools. The Court has literally 
leaned over backwards to seek voluntary compliance by 
the Board. Even in its last order, in rejecting additional 
delay to submit a plan, the Court left the opportunity 
open to the Board for additional time to comply by merely 
making some showing now of the Board’s intent to imple­
ment its obligation at some definite time in the future. 
Despite these efforts, however, the Board now unequivo­
cally, defiantly and contumaciously advises the Court that 
it will not now, nor in the future, carry out its constitu­
tional responsibilities.

Irrespective of whether the Court’s directives are con­
stitutionally mandated, and plaintiffs submit that they are 
and further that they are required to be implemented with 
more haste than the Court has heretofore required, the 
Board is constitutionally obligated to implement these 
directives pending some change, modification or vacation 
by this or some other Court. Walker v. City of Birming­
ham. 388 UJS. 307, IS L.ed 2d 1210; United States v. Mine 
Workers. 330 U.S. 258, 91 Led. 584: Hourat v. Kansas. 258 
ITS 151. 66 L-ed 550. As the Supreme Court stated in 
W alkerz '“This Court cannot hold that the petitioners were 
constttuti-:uahy free to ignore all the procedures of the 
law and [cisccey the directives of the Court' . . _ _ 
[S(aspect for judicial process is a snail price to ray fur 
fte- land of Imu which aloe gxrtj afcjjJ&y
meaning to rtnsutunuaai freedom.' 185 *: hul. 15

Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Amendment to Plan
for Further Desegregation of Schools



693a

L.ed 2d at 1220. Here this Court has unequivocally di­
rected a plan for complete desegregation of the Charlotte- 
Mecklenburg public schools. Notwithstanding this direc­
tive, however, the defendants, by the Amendment to Plan 
for Further Desegregation of Schools, in utter contempt 
of the Court’s order, have simply refused to comply. 
Plaintiffs, therefore, respectfully submit that they are not 
only entitled to an order requiring defendants, and each 
of them, to show cause why they should not be held in 
contempt, Walker v. City of Birmingham, supra, but cer­
tainly now to an order appointing educational consultants 
to devise a plan for complete and immediate desegregation 
of the school system. Cf. Dowell v. Board of Education of 
Oklahoma City Public Schools, 244 F. Supp. 971 (W.D. 
Okla. 1965), aff’d in part 375 F.2d 158 (10th Cir. 1967), 
cert, den., 387 U.S. 931, 18 L.ed. 2d 993; Alexander v.
Holmes County Board of Education, ------  U.S. ------  (No.
632).

1. The Board’s response to the Court’s order of Novem­
ber 7, 1969 does no more than reiterate the rejected re­
quest for more time. The Board rejects any affirmative 
obligation to take appropriate steps to disestablish the 
segregated school system it has created. Green v. School 
Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430, 20 L.ed. 2d 716; 
NLRB v. Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Com­
pany, 308 U.S. 241, 84 L.ed. 219; United States v. Crescent 
Amusement Company, 323 U.S. 173, 89 L.ed. 160; Standard 
Oil Company v. United States, 221 U.S. 1, 55 L.ed. 619. 
The Board questions “tipping” , and well it should for the 
record clearly demonstrates that “tipping” has been caused 
by the Board’s own action and conduct See Plaintiffs' 
Further Response filed on November 3, 1969. The Board

Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Amendment to Plan
for Further Desegregation of Schools



694a

Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Amendment to Plan
for Further Desegregation of Schools

then inquires what are its duties, when this Court, the 
Fourth Circuit and the Supreme Court have clearly in­
structed the Board with respect to its duties:

The pattern of separate “white” and “Negro” schools 
in the [Charlotte-Mecklenburg] school system estab­
lished under compulsion of state laws is precisely the 
pattern of segregation to which Brown I and Brown II 
were particularly addressed, and which Brown I de­
clared unconstitutionally denied Negro school children 
equal protection of the laws. . . . [Sjchool systems 
were required by Brown II “to effectuate a transition 
to a racially nondiscrl min atony school system.”  . . . .  
The School Board contends that it has fully discharged 
its obligation by adopting a plan by which every 
student, regardless of race, may “freely" choose the 
school he will attend. The Board &trtirIILp ts to east the 
issue in its broadest form by arguing that its 
“ feeedom-of-choice”  pan  may be faulted onl-  by read-

trrrp- T ;-.~--- p X ~ jm; —mry - a j - n p -p

s  rea& ig  it izLsLsrs Tie 
wurmrrg : f  the Amendment will, net sarcerr. 3ur 
that argument igrems the thrust d  Brown hi ht the 
light ?t the eetmnard :r that rase, what s  tuvrhV-I 
Ira* ’’■slaftra- i t e  B t o e e l l *  ralnmiK.
t h e  - m e t a h y  r w n d S s e m m i r a r o i m  s h a w l  s - s s e n r *  B m w n  

— Jem muse ie a*:gtttared n  wrier to r u s i r  the 
escaoiisaew tseOHsc - •. • ^ >f tm—
gee - strafc. 4WKS:' y t e - - r u s - e

b a s s :  j x

^  Negye .c-dhew .sad >; ee - vh . - itiinif
>  e v  ' <» *£r-



695a

quiry. . . . Brown II was a call for the dismantling 
of well-entrenched dual systems tempered by an aware­
ness that complex and multifaceted problems would 
arise which would require time and flexibility for a 
successful resolution. School hoards such as the re­
spondent then operating state-compelled dual systems 
were nevertheless clearly charged with the affirma­
tively duty to take whatever steps might be necessary 
to convert to a unitary system in which racial dis­
crimination would he eliminated root and branch. . . . 
Green, 391 U.S. at 435-438, 18 L.ed. 2d at 722-723. 
(Emphasis added.)

Further delay has now been clearly enjoined. Green, 
supra; Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education,
------U.S. -------  (No. 632) and theCourt has been directed
to take immediate steps which will disestablish the segre­
gated school system.

2. Defendants propose to restrict freedom-of-choice, 
allowing limited racial majority to minority situations, but 
also to allow transfers in hardship cases as ‘■‘determined 
on the basis of uniform rnleE developed by the administra­
tive staff” . Defendants' past practices and present defiance 
of the directives of the Court clearly entitled plaintiffs 
to some express constitutional standards which can oe 
shown wiJJ not further perpetuate tins racial:y dual -.-non 
system ,

3.. Defendants further promise m mre ma assign each- 
era and school personnel without regard to race, die same 
promise made in 1965 which the Court; found in April. 
1969 had not been implemented.

Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Amendment to Plan
for Further Desegregation of Schools



696a

4. Defendants finally promise to withhold construction 
on 21 proposed projects while proceeding with 24 projects. 
Defendants contend that the 24 projects will not affect 
desegregation. There has been no showing even as to the 
24 projects that they will not adversely affect whatever 
plan may subsequently be devised and directed by the 
Court. Plaintiffs submit that pending the approval of a 
plan by the Court, or at least some showing by the de­
fendants, all construction and additions should be enjoined.

5. The Court has been further directed to devise its 
own plan and to insure its prompt and effective implemen­
tation, particularly where school officials simply refuse to 
do so. Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 
supra, and may do so without further hearings. While the 
Court may hear and consider objections by the Board to 
the Court’s directed plan, such is permitted only after the 
Board has fully complied in all respects with the plan 
directed. Alexander, supra.

Plaintiffs, therefore, respectfully submit and pray that 
the Court reject the defendants’ Amendment to Plan for 
Further Desegregation of Schools; that the Court appoint 
educational consultants to devise a plan for complete 
desegregation to be instituted forthwith; that the Court 
direct that the expenses of the educational consultants be 
borne by the defendants; that the Court enjoin any further 
construction or additions pending the complete implemen­
tation of the plan directed by the Court; that the Court 
order that the defendants, and each of them, immediately 
show cause why they should not be held in contempt of the 
Court’s orders; that the Court award plaintiffs’ costs 
herein, including reasonable counsel fees; that the Court

Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Amendment to Plan
for Further Desegregation of Schools



697a

retain jurisdiction of this cause and award plaintiffs such 
other and further relief as the Court may deem the plain­
tiffs entitled.

Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Amendment to Plan
for Further Desegregation of Schools

Respectfully submitted,

/ s /  J. Levonne Chambers 
Conrad 0 . Pearson 

203V2 East Chapel Hill Street 
Durham, North Carolina

Chambers, Stein, F erguson 
& Lanning

216 West Tenth Street 
Charlotte, North Carolina

Jack Greenberg 
James M. Nabrit, III 
Norman Chachkin 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York

Attorneys for Plaintiffs



698a

On April 23, June 20 and August 15, 1969, the defendant 
school board was ordered to file plans to desegregate the 
schools of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, North 
Carolina. The defendants have admitted their duty to 
desegregate the schools; considerable progress has been 
made toward desegregation of faculties; and progress, pre­
viously noted, has been made in some other areas. The 
schools, however, remain for the most part unlawfully 
segregated. The facts supporting that conclusion in all 
the court’s previous orders are reiterated here.

The issue is what to do pursuant to the board’s latest 
plan, filed November 17, 1969. The plan recites the follow­
ing ostensible purpose:

“ The Board of Education has embarked upon a com­
prehensive program for the purpose of restructuring 
attendance lines involving all schools and all students 
served by the system. The primary purpose of this 
program is to achieve further desegregation in as 
many schools as possible * *

The plan says that a computer analyst has been hired 
to draw up various theoretical possible school zone atten­
dance lines, and that school personnel, before February 1, 
1970, will draw the actual lines.

The details of the plan show that it contains no promise 
nor likelihood of desegregating the schools.

The plan and the report accompanying it say (emphasis 
added):

“No school district to which white students are assigned 
should have less than 60 per cent white student popula­
tion to avoid ‘tipping.’ ” (Plan, page 2.)

Opinion and Order dated December 1, 1969



699a

“ it is the plan of this School Board to limit schools 
to which w h ite stu d en ts  are assigned  to those schools 
in which it is possible to provide a student population 
which is at least 60 per cent white.” (Plan, page 5.)

• • • • •
“In determining the initial attendance lines, the ratio 
of black to white students will not exceed 60% white— 
40% black W here the S chool is Desegregated.” 
(Report, page 5.)

• • • • •
“ A  m a jo r ity  o f  the B o a rd  o f  E d u ca tion  b elieves that 

the constitutional req u irem en ts o f  d esegrega tion  will 
be achieved  b y  the restru ctu ring  o f  attendance lines, 
the restrictin g  fr e e d o m  o f  tra n sfer , and oth er p r o v i­
sion s o f  this plan. T h e  m a jo rity  o f  the B o a rd  has, 
th erefo re , discarded  fu rth er  consideration  o f  pairing, 
grou p in g , clustering and tra n sp ortin g .”  (Plan, page 6.)

The strongest claim made in the plan with respect to 
the all-black schools is that among 43 elementary schools 
in the densely populated areas of Charlotte it is “ th eoreti­

cally [school board’s emphasis] possible to populate these 
schools with the following ratios of black students: . . . 
Seven (7) schools in which the black student population 
is 100 per cent.” (Plan, pages 3 and 4.) Since the 100% 
black elementary schools in the system (Billingsville, Marie 
Davis, Double Oaks, First Ward, Lincoln Heights, Oak- 
lawn and University Park) number exactly seven, this 
language obviously proposes that these seven schools will 
remain all-black.

The plan contains no factual information nor estimate 
regarding plans for desegregation of the 31 other elemen­

Opinion and Order dated December 1, 1969



700a

tary schools, the 20 junior high schools, and the 10 senior 
high schools in the system.

Concerning faculty desegregation the plan says:

“During the 1970-71 school year, the Board of Educa­
tion will staff each school so that the faculty at each 
school will be predominantly white and, where practi­
cable will reflect the ratio of white and black teachers 
employed in the total faculty of the school system.” 
(Plan, page 7.)

With regard to the physical facilities, the court on 
August 15, 1969, ordered the defendants to produce by 
November 17 “A detailed report showing, complete with 
figures and maps, the location and nature of each construc­
tion project proposed or under way, and the effect this 
project may reasonably be expected to have upon the pro­
gram of desegregating the schools.” In response to that 
order, the plan lists the names of 21 out of 91 projects, 
expresses a few opinions and conclusions about the build­
ing program, and promises a partial study by February 1, 
1970 and a “general long range study” “by June of 1970,” 
but it sheds no factual light on the effect of any part of 
the building program on the segregation issue. Since the 
board has, in seven months, failed to produce a program 
for desegregation, it is only natural that they can not 
predict the effect of any particular building project on such 
a program. The court has yet not received information 
necessary to appraise the effects of current building 
activity on the current unprogrammed course of desegre­
gation.

When the plan is understood, it boils down to this:

1. It proposes to re-draw school zone lines, and to 
restrict freedom o f choice, which the court bad already

Opinion and Order dated December 1, 1969



701a

advised the board to eliminate except where it would 
promote desegregation. It states no definable desegre­
gation goals.

2. The “ 60-40” ratio is a one-way street. The plan 
implies that there will be no action to produce desegre­
gation in schools with black populations above 40%, 
and that no w h ite stu d en ts are to be a ssigned  to such  
sch ools.

3. Continued operation of all seven of the all-black 
elementary schools would be assured. The same would 
appear to be true for the. entire group of 25 mostly 
“black” schools, mentioned in the court’s November 7 
order, which serve 16,197 of the 24,714 black students 
in the system.

4. Transportation to aid children transferring out 
of segregated situations (which was ordered by the 
court on April 23 as a condition of any freedom of 
transfer plan, and which w a s a part o f  this plan as 
a d vertised  in the board ’s  O ctober 29  rep o rt) has been 
eliminated from the plan as filed with the court. 
Inevitable effects of this action would be to violate 
the court order and to leave the children recently re­
assigned from seven closed black inner-city schools 
with no way to reach the suburban schools they now 
attend! This is re-segregation.

5. Other methods (pairing, grouping, clustering of 
schools) which could reduce or eliminate segregation— 
and which the board, on October 29 when it was asking 
for a time extension, promised to consider—have now 
been expressly left out of the plan.

6. No time is set to complete the job of faculty and 
pupil desegregation.

Opinion and Order dated December 1, 1969



702a

7. In the written argument (“ Report” ) filed with 
the plan, with the candor characteristic of excellent 
attorneys, the board’s attorneys say:

“ It is important that the Court does not construe 
the information submitted in the plan relating 
to racial ratios of elementary schools as being 
in the nature of a guarantee by the Board since 
it is anticipated the results of restructuring the 
attendance lines may produce a greater or lesser 
degree of desegregation, the extent of which can­
not be determined at this time.”  (Report, page 4; 
emphasis added.)

The defendants have the burden to desegregate the 
schools and to show any plan they propose will desegregate 
the controls. They have not carried that burden. Re-draw­
ing school zone lines won’t eliminate segregation unless the 
decision to desegregate has first been made.

T he Schools A re Still Segregated

The extent to which the schools are still segregated was 
illustrated by the information set out in previous orders 
including the order of November 7, 1969. Nearly 13,000 
out of 24,714 black students still attend schools that are 
98% to 100% black. Over 16,000 black students still attend 
predominantly black schools. Nine-tenths of the faculties 
are still obviously “black” or “white.” Over 45,000 out of
59,000 white students still attend schools which are ob­
viously “white.”

T he Result is Unequal Education

The following table further illustrates the results. 
Groups A and B show that sixth graders, in the seven

Opinion and Order dated December 1, 1969



703a

100% black schools the plan would retain, perform at about 
fourth grade levels, while their counterparts in the nine 
100% white elementary schools perform at fifth to seventh 
grade levels. Group C  shows that sixth graders in 
Barringer, which changed in three years from 100% middle 
income white to 84% Negro, showed a performance drop 
of 1% to 2 years. Group D shows however that Randolph 
Road, 72% white and 28% Negro, has eighth grade per­
formance results approximately comparable to Eastway, 
which is 96% white, and Randolph results are approxi­
mately two years ahead of all-black Williams and North­
west. Until unlawful segregation is eliminated, it is idle 
to speculate whether some of this gap can be charged to 
racial differences or to “socio-economic-cultural” lag.

Opinion and Order dated December 1, 1969



704a





I f  t h e  c o u r t s  s h o u ld  a c c e p t  t h e  d e f e n d a n t s '  c o n t e n t i o n  t h a t  a l l  
t h e y  h a v e  t o  do i s  r e - d r a w  a t t e n d a n c e  l i n e s  and a l l o w  a t y p e  o f  fr eed om  
o f  c h o i c e ,  t w o - t h i r d s  o r  more o f  th e  b l a c k  c h i l d r e n  i n  M eck len b u rg  
C ou n ty  w o u ld  b e  r e l e g a t e d  p e r m a n e n t ly  t o  t h i s  k in d  o f  s e p a r a t e  b u t  
u n e q u a l  e d u c a t i o n .

GROUP A -

GROUP B -

GROUP C -

100% B la c k

AVERAGE ACHIEVEMENT TEST SCORES, GRADE 6 ,  REPORTED IN 
GRADE EQUIVALENT, 196 5 - 6 6 /1 9 6 8 - 6  9

E le m e n ta ry WM PM SP LANG ! ACM ACN AAPP SS SC

B i l l i n g s v i l l e
r r m r a
- 'L L  - ' L l -■l l  -  ' i t ~ ‘LL ' l l

/ U s  / f t p
'  'LL ' I f . '  'LL - 'L l

/1LS / fL t  
-  'LL -  ’L l

7 * 7 / f t p  
- U  -  'L l

H l s  / f t r
- 'L L  " L 1

u n  t u t  
-'LL - 1 1

3 7 /3 9 3 9 /4 2 4 3 /4 5 3 6 /3 7 3 7 /3 8 4T /44 "38/39 '42743 1773d
M arie  D av is 4 2 /4 3 4 2 /4 4 4 9 /4 8 3 9 /4 1 4 3 /4 5 4 5 /4 8 4 3 /4 1 4 3 /4 5 3 9 /4 0
D ou b le  Oaks 4 4 /4 0 4 2 /4 0 4 9 /4 6 3 5 /3 6 4 1 /3 9 4 5 /4 4 4 1 /3 7 4 4 /4 0 4 1 /3 7
F i r s t  Ward 4 3 /4 0 4 2 /4 1 5 0 /4 8 3 9 /3 6 4 0 /3 9 4 4 /4 6 4 3 /4 1 4 8 /4 4 4 2 /4 0
L i n c o l n  H e iq h ts 4 5 /4 4 4 4 /4 4 5 2 /4 9 4 4 /4 2 4 5 /4 3 4 6 /4 8 4 3 /4 1 4 7 /4 6 4 2 /4 1
Oaklawn 4 4 /4 4 4 2 /4 5 5 0 /5 3 4 2 /4 7 4 1 /4 5 5 0 /4 9 4 3 /4 4 4 1 /4 9 4 0 /4 7
U n i v e r s i t y  Park 4 4 /4 4 4 4 /4 7 5 1 /4 8 4 3 /4 3 4 0 /4 4 4 6 /4 8 4 1 /4 4 4 6 /4 6 4 1 /4 3

100% W hite  
E le m e n ta ry

D e v o n s h ir e 5 2 /5 9 5 4 /6 2 5 7 /6 0 5 7 /6 4 4 9 /5 3 5 3 /6  3 5 5 /5 9 5 7 /6 4 5 7 /6  5
H idden  V a l l e y / 5 9 /6 2 /6 1 /6 2 /5 1 /6 0 / 5 9 /6 4 /6  7
M erry  Oaks 6 2 /6 0 6 6 /6 6 6 6 /6 7 6 6 /7 1 5 3 /5 4 5 9 /6  5 6 7 /6 4 7 0 /6  8 7 3 /7 2
M o n t c l a i r e 6 6 /6  7 6 8 /7 2 6 9 /7 0 7 1 /7 6 5 8 /6 0 6 1 /6 7 6 6 /6 8 7 0 /7 1 7 6 /7 7
P inew ood 6 7 /6 4 6 8 /6 8 7 1 /6 8 7 1 /7 1 58 /61 6 2 /6 7 6 8 /7 1 7 2 /7 1 7 3 /7 0
Rama Road 6 8 /6 7 6 8 /7 2 7 0 /7 1 7 3 /7 6 58 /6 1 6 4 /6 7 7 0 /7 0 7 2 /7 3 7 6 /7 8
Shamrock Gardens 5 9 /5 6 6 1 /5 7 6 6 /5 7 6 4 /6 2 5 2 /5 3 5 8 /5 7 6 3 /5 7 6 5 /6 1 6 2 /6 1
Thom asboro 5 8 /5 5 5 9 /5 5 6 3 /5 8 5 9 /5 8 5 2 /5 1 5 5 /5 7 6 0 /5 6 6 3 /5 9 6 4 /6 1
W in d sor  Park 6 1 /6 4 6 3 /6 8 6 1 /6 6 6 5 /6  9 5 5 /5 3 5 9 /6  3 6 3 /6 2 6 5 /6  9 6 7 /7 2

B a r r i n g e r 61*/46* 6 3*/46# 64*/5C^ 6 6 %  2* 5 3 % ^ 59*/4^ 6 4 * /4 # 6 5%y* 68*/4^

*100% w h i t e  in  1965 
#  84% b l a c k  i n  1 9 6 8 -6  9

AVERAGE ACHIEVEMENT TEST SCORES, GRADE 8 ,  REPORTED IN 
GRADE EQUIVALENT, 1 9 6 5 - 6 6 /1 9 6 8 - 6 9

GROUP D - J u n i o r  Hiqh PM SP LANG ACM ACN AAPP SS SC

R an dolph  Road (28% hktf'k)
/ rZ S T fn
- ‘u  - % r

/ iL sT fu i 
-'LL -  I f

/ fL t/ f ie
- n p ? /?Ls 77l9

-'LL -  'Ll
Jlis'H Ld IIl t ITl#

/SO" 7 8 2 7 1 9 ? 6 2 7 1 8 /7 6 718 /8 1
W i l l ia m s  (100% b l a c k ) 5 5 /5 2 6 7 /6 4 5 5 /5 2 5 2 /4 9 5 8 /6 1 5 8 /5 5 56 /56 55 /56
N o r th w e s t  (100% b l a c k ) 5 9 /5 8 7 3 /7 1 5 9 /5 6 5 4 /5 0 6 0 /6 1 5 8 /5 8 5 9 /5 7 5 9 /5 8
E astw ay  (96% w h i t e ) 8 4 /8 2 8 5 /8 6 8 3 /8 1 7 4 /6 7 7 9 /8 2 8 1 /7  5 8 3 /8 2 8 7 /8 7



705a

T he Law Still Requires Desegregation

Segregation in public schools was outlawed by the deci­
sions of the Supreme Court in B ro w n  v. B oa rd  o f  E duca­
tion , 347 U. S. 483 (1954) and 349 U. S. 294 (1955).

The first B r o w n  opinion (B ro w n  I )  held that racial 
segregation, even though physical facilities and other 
tangible factors might be equal, deprives Negro children 
of equal educational opportunities. The Court recalled 
prior decisions that segregation of graduate students was 
unlawful because it restricted the student’s “ability to 
study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with 
other students, and, in general, to learn his profession.” 
The Court said:

“Such considerations apply with added force to chil­
dren in grade and high schools. To separate them 
from others of similar age and qualifications solely 
because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority 
as to their status in the community that may affect 
their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be 
undone.”

Quoting a lower court opinion, the Supreme Court con­
tinued :

“ ‘Segregation of white and colored children in public 
schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored chil­
dren. The impact is greater when it has the sanction 
of the law; for the policy of separating the races is 
usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the 
Negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motiva­
tion of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction 
of law, therefore, has a tendence to [retard] the edu­
cational and mental development of Negro children

Opinion and Order dated December 1, 1969



706a

and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would 
receive in a racial [ly] integrated school system.’

“We conclude that in the field of public education the 
doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. S ep a ra te  
educational fa cilities are in h eren tly  unequal. * * 
(Emphasis added.)

• • • • •

“ * * * Such segregation has long been a nationw ide  
p roblem , not m ere ly  one o f  sectional concern .”  (Em­
phasis added.)

The selection of cases for the B ro w n  decision demonstrates 
the nationwide reach of that concern; Brown lived in Kan­
sas and the defendant board of education was that of 
Topeka, Kansas; defendants in companion cases included 
school authorities in Delaware and the District of Colum­
bia. Later important cases have involved not just Southern 
schools, but also schools in New York, Chicago, Ohio, 
Denver, Oklahoma City, Kentucky, Connecticut and other 
widely scattered places.

Court decisions setting out the principles upon which the 
various orders of this court have been based include the 
following:

Supreme Court Cases

A lex a n d er  v. H o lm es  C o u n ty  (Mississippi), No. 632 (Octo­
ber 29, 1969).
B row n  v. B oa rd  o f  E ducation  o f  T opeka  (Kansas), 347 
U. S. 483 (1954), 349 U. S. 294 (1955).
C o o p er , M em b ers  o f  the B o a rd  o f  D irecto rs  o f  the L ittle  
R ock  (Arkansas) In d ep en d en t S chool D istrict v. A a ro n , 
358 U. S. 1 (1958).

Opinion and Order dated December 1, 1969



707a

G reen  v. C o u n ty  S ch ool B o a rd  o f  N e w  K e n t  C o u n ty  (Vir­
ginia), 391 U. S. 430 (1968).

Griffin v. C o u n ty  S ch ool B o a rd  o f  P rin ce E d w a rd  C ou n ty  
(Virginia), 377 U. S. 218 (1964).
K e y e s  v. D e n v e r  (Colorado) S chool D istrict N u m b er  1 , 
Application for Vacation of Stay (Justice Brennan, Su­
preme Court, August 29, 1969).

M o n ro e  v. B o a rd  o f  C om m ission ers o f  the C ity  o f  Jackson  
(Tennessee), 391 U. S. 450 (1968).

R a n e y  v. B o a rd  o f  E d u ca tion  o f  the G ould S chool D istrict  
(Arkansas), 391 U. S. 443 (1968).
U n ited  S ta tes  v. M o n tg o m e r y  C o u n ty  (Alabama) B oa rd  o f  
E d u ca tion , 395 U. S. 225 (1969).

Circuit Court Cases

B r e w e r  v. S ch ool B o a rd  o f  C ity  o f  N o rfo lk  (Virginia), 397
F.2d 37 (4th Cir., 1968).

F e ld e r  v. H a rn ett C o u n ty  (North Carolina) B oa rd  o f  E d u ­
cation, 409 F.2d 1070 (4th Cir., 1969).
W a n n er  v. C o u n ty  S chool B o a rd  o f  A rlin g to n  C ou n ty  
(Virginia), 357 F.2d 452 (4th Cir., 1966).
H e n r y  v. Clarksdale (Mississippi) M unicipal S epa ra te  
S ch ool D istric t, 409 F.2d 682 (5th Cir., 1969) (petition  fo r  
cert, filed, 38 U.S.L.W. 3086) (U. S. 9/2/69) (No. 545).
U n ited  S ta tes  v. G reen w ood  (Mississippi) M unicipal S e p ­
arate S ch ool D istrict, 406 F.2d 1086 (5th Cir., 1969) (cert, 
denied, 395 U. S. 907 (1969)).
U n ited  S ta tes  v. H in d s C o u n ty  S chool B oa rd , Nos. 28030 
and 28042 (5th Cir., July 3, 1969).

Opinion and Order dated December 1, 1969



708a

Clemons v. Board of Education of Hillsboro, Ohio, 228 F.2d 
853 (6th Cir., 1956) (cert, denied, 350 U. S. 1006).
United States v. School District 151 of Cook County, Illi­
nois (Chicago), 404 F.2d 1125 (7th Cir., 1968) (rehearing 
denied, January 27, 1969).

Distbict Court Cases

Eaton v. New Hanover County (North Carolina) Board of 
Education, No. 1022 (E.D. N.C., July 14, 1969).

Keyes v. School District Number One, Denver (Colorado), 
303 F. Supp. 289 (D. Colo., 1969).

Some of these principles which apply to the Charlotte- 
Mecklenburg situation are:

1. Racial segregation in public schools is unlawful, 
Brown I; Green v. New Kent County, Virginia; Clemons v. 
Hillsboro, Ohio. Such segregation is unlawful even though 
not required nor authorized by state statute, Clemons v. 
Hillsboro. Acts of school boards perpetuating or restoring 
separation of the races in schools are de jure, unlawful dis­
crimination, Cooper v. Aaron; Keyes v. Denver, Colorado 
School Board (August 14, 1969), approved by the Supreme 
Court of the United States two weeks later, Keyes v. Den­
ver, U. S. Supreme Court, August 29, 1969.

2. Drawing school zone lines, like “ freedom of transfer,” 
is not an end in itself; and a plan of geographic zoning 
which perpetuates discriminatory segregation is unlawful, 
Keyes v. Denver; Brewer v. Norfolk; Clemons v. Hillsboro; 
Henry v. Clarksdale, Mississippi; United States v. Hinds 
County; United States v. Greenwood.

Opinion and Order dated December 1, 1969



709a

3. No procedure, plan, method or gimmick will legalize 
state maintained segregation. The constitutional test of a 
plan is whether it gets rid of segregation in public schools, 
and does it “ now,” G reen  v. N ew  K e n t  C o u n ty ; M o n roe  v. 
J a ck so n ; A lex a n d er  v. H o lm es  C ou n ty.

4. Good faith of the school authorities, if it exists, does 
not excuse failure to desegregate the schools. “ . . . The 
availability to the Board of other more promising courses 
of action may indicate a lack of good faith; and at the least 
it places a h ea v y  burden  upon the B o a rd  to explain its  
p referen ce  fo r  an a pp a ren tly  less e ffective  m eth od .”  G reen  
v. N e w  K e n t  C o u n ty . (Emphasis added.)

5. “ Natural boundaries” for school zones are not con­
stitutionally controlling. If a zone encloses a black school 
in a district like this one where white students are in a 
heavy (71% white, 29% black) majority, the “naturalness” 
of the boundary or the existence of reasons for the boundary 
unrelated to segregation does not excuse the failure to de­
segregate the school, K e y e s  v. D en v er , C o lora d o ; H e n r y  v. 
C la rk sd a le ; C lem on s v. H illsboro.

6. It is appropriate for courts to require that school 
faculties be desegregated by formula, if necessary, and by 
a definite time or on a definite schedule, U n ited  S ta tes  v. 
M o n tg o m ery . Faculty assignments so that each school has 
approximately the same ratio of black teachers as the 
ratio of black teachers in the school system at large are 
appropriate and necessary to equalize the quality of in­
struction in this school system, U n ited  S ta tes  v. M o n tg o m ­

e r y ;  U n ited  S ta tes  v. C ook  C o u n ty ; E a ton  v. N ew  H a n ov er  
C o u n ty  (North Carolina).

Opinion and Order dated December 1, 1969



710a

7. Bus transportation as a moans to eliminate segrega­
tion results of discrimination may validly be employed, 
Keyes v. Denver; United States v. Cook County, Illinois, 
404 F.2d 1125, 1130 (1969).

8. Race may be considered in eliminating segregation in 
a school system, Wanner v. Arlington County, Virginia; 
United States v. Cook County; Green v. New Kent County.

9. “ . . . Whatever plan is adopted will require evalua­
tion in practice and the court should retain jurisdiction 
until it is clear that state imposed segregation has been 
completely removed.” Green v. New Kent County; Raney 
v. Board of Education.

10. The alleged high cost of desegregating schools 
(which the court does not find to be a fact) would not be a 
valid legal argument against desegregation, Griffin v. 
School Board; United States v. Cook County, Illinois.

11. The fact that public opinion may oppose desegregat­
ing the schools is no valid argument against doing it, Cooper 
v. Aaron, Green v. New Kent County; Monroe v. Jackson.

12. Fixed ratios of pupils in particular schools will not 
be set. If the board in one of its three tries had presented 
a plan for desegregation, the court would have sought ways 
to approve variations in pupil ratios. In default of any 
such plan from the school board, the court will start with 
the thought, originally advanced in the order of April 23, 
that efforts should be made to reach a 71-29 ratio in the 
various schools so that there will be no basis for contending 
that one school is racially different from the others, but to 
understand that variations from that norm may be un­
avoidable.

Opinion and Order dated December 1, 1969



711a

13. School location and construction and renovation and 
enlargement affect desegregation. Courts may properly 
restrain construction and other changes in location or ca­
pacity of school properties until a showing is made that 
such change will promote desegregation rather than frus­
trate it, F e ld e r  v. H a rn ett C ou n ty .

14. Where pupils live must not control where they are 
assigned to school, if some other approach is necessary in 
order to eliminate racial segregation, G reen  v. N ew  K e n t  
C o u n ty ; K e y e s  v. D e n v e r ; E a to n  v. N ew  H a n o v er  C o u n ty , 
N orth  Carolina B o a rd  o f  E du ca tion .

15. On the facts in this record and with this background 
of de ju re  segregation extending full fifteen years since 
B ro w n  I , this court is of the opinion that all the black and 
predominantly black schools in the system are illegally 
segregated, G reen  v. N e w  K e n t  C o u n ty ; H e n r y  v. Clarks- 
d a le; U n ited  S ta tes  v. H in d s C ou n ty.

16. The school board is endowed by Chapter 115, Sec­
tion 176 of the General Statutes of North Carolina with 
“full and complete” and “ final” authority to assign students 
to whatever schools the board chooses to assign them. The 
board may not shift this statutory burden to others. In 
G reen  v. N ew  K e n t  C o u n ty , the Supreme Court said of 
“ freedom of choice” :

“Rather than foster the dismantling of the dual system 
the plan has operated simply to burden children and 
their parents with a responsibility which B ro w n  I I  
placed squarely on the School Board. The Board must 
. . . fashion steps which promise realistically to convert

Opinion and Order dated December 1 , 1969



712a

promptly to a system without a ‘white’ school and a 
‘Negro’ school but just schools.”

17. Pairing of grades has been expressly approved by 
the appellate courts, G reen  v. N e w  K e n t  C o u n ty ; Felder 
v. H a rn ett C o u n ty . Pairing, grouping, clustering, and per­
haps other methods may and will be considered and used 
if necessary to desegregate the schools.

18. Some 25,000 out of 84,000 children in this county 
ride school busses each day, and the number eligible for 
transportation under present rules may be more than
30,000. A transportation system already this massive may 
be adaptable to effective use in desegregating schools.

19. The school board has a duty to promote acceptance 
of and compliance with the law. In a concurring opinion in 
C o o p e r  y . A a ro n , 358 U. S. at 26 (1958), Justice Frank­
furter said:

"T h a i th e resp on sib ility  o f  th ose  urho ex ercise  p o w er  in 
a d em ocratic g o v ern m en t is not to reflect inflam ed pub­

lic feelin g  but to help fo rm  its understanding, is e sp e ­

cially t m e  when th ey are con fron ted  with a problem  
like «  racially discriminating public sch ool s y s te m .  
This is tie  lessee ;o be crave  from the hearten!:: .5 ex­
perience rx encL.tg eetoreed racial segreg-i* or: . i  the 
p u h c c  s ch o o ls  :'i  v . ::* s  - , : i  N e c - t  v c v  . f a r  r :>  i -r -  
urccvrtomso Cootpcaorce with leciswns of A s  '.'jam. 
ss the jcaso-Pxrjjftiif crjaot of the supreme Law j f  tin?

las* often, t-jughe jot hiscory. ioueuued -n 
auc** sapijcr-t > state and oca! aafiisir-ttes. Br jt-*- 
Sit’oevse'S- stivi: sappur-t. T i  W'cuoic t. jn\. rsdeeti r- 
ase MWvtt'cax ^  ty* 'c  jarst; to :e supreme Law.

Opinion and Order dated December 1, 1969



713a

precludes the maintenance of our federal system as we 
have known and cherished it for one hundred and 
seventy years.

Lincoln’s appeal to ‘the better angels of our nature’ 
failed to avert a fratricidal war. But the compassionate 
wisdom of Lincoln’s First and Second Inaugurals be­
queathed to the Union, cemented with blood, a moral 
heritage which, when drawn upon in times of stress 
and strife, is su re to find specific w a ys and m eans to 
su rm ou n t difficulties that m a y a ppea r to be insur­
m ou nta ble.”  (Emphasis added.)

Opinion and Order dated December 1 , 1969



714a

Order

It i s  Ordered, A djudged and Decreed as follows:

1. All facts found in this and previous orders, and all 
competent evidence including plans, reports and admissions 
in pleadings in the record are relied upon in support of 
this order.

2. The November 17 plan entitled “A mendment to Plan 
for Further Desegregation of Schools” is disapproved.

3. The defendants are directed to desegregate faculties 
in all the schools effective not later than September 1, 1970, 
so that the ratio of black teachers to white teachers in each 
school will be approximately the same as the ratio of black 
teachers to white teachers in the entire school system.

4. A consultant will be designated by the court to pre­
pare immediately plans and recommendations to the court 
for desegregation of the scliools. The legal and practical 
considerations outlined in detail in earlier parts of this 
opinion and order are for his guidance.

5. The defendants are directed to cooperate fully with 
the consultant. This cooperation will include but not be 
limited to providing space at the headquarters of the board 
or education in which he may work; [laying all of his fees 
and expenses; providing stenographic assistance and the 
help of business machines, draftsmen and computers it 
requested, along with telephone and other comm urn mums 
services. He shall have full access to maps, drawings-, re- 
ports, s:a*i>i;e<, compatvr studies, and  all ir f> rrr ,i 
about all peases m’ ‘ be school system which may be roees-

- -



715a

O rd er

any studies and plans and partial plans for desegregation 
of the schools which the defendants may have. The defend­
ants will provide this consultant with full professional, 
technical and other assistance which he may need in famil­
iarizing himself with the school system and the various 
problems to be solved in desegregating the schools. Any 
and all members of the board of education who wish to 
cooperate in the preparation of such a plan may do so. 
The cooperation of the school administrators and staff will 
be requested and will be appreciated.

6. Action on the motion of plaintiffs for an order di­
recting immediate desegregation of the entire system is 
deferred.

7. Further orders with reference to restraining con­
struction and enlargement of schools are deferred.

8. Motion has been filed for a citation of the school 
board members for contempt of court. Litigants are bound 
by court orders and may be punished for disobedience of 
such orders even though such orders may ultimately be 
reversed on appeal, Walker v. Birmingham, 388 U. S. 307 
(1967). The evidence might very well support such cita­
tions. Nevertheless, this is a changing field of law. De­
spite the peremptory warnings of New Kent County and 
Hohnes County, strident voices, including those of school 
board members, still express doubt that the law of those 
cases applies to Mecklenburg County. This district court 
claims no infallibility. Contempt proceedings against un­
compensated public servants will be avoided if possible. 
Action on the contempt citation is deferred.

9. If the members of the school board wish to develop 
plans of their own for desegregation of the schools, with-



716a

Order

out delaying or interfering with the work of the consultant, 
they may proceed to do so, and if they wish any guidance 
from the court they will find their guidance in the previous 
opinions and orders of this court and in the court decisions 
and principles set out in this opinion and order.

10. Jurisdiction is retained for further orders as may 
be appropriate.

This is the 1st day of December, 1969.

/ s /  James B. McM illan 
James B. McMillan 

United States District Judge



717a

Order dated December 2, 1969

The court appoints as a consultant under the terms out­
lined in the court’s order of December 1, 1969, Dr. John A. 
Finger, Jr., of Providence, Rhode Island.

The school board and staff are directed to cooperate with 
Dr. Finger as set out in the December 1, 1969 order.

This the 2nd day of December, 1969.

/ s /  J ames B. McMillan 
James B. McMillan 

United States District Judge



718a

Motion for Immediate Desegregation of the Public 
Schools in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County

(Filed January 20, 1970)

Plaintiffs, by their undersigned counsel, respectfully 
move the Court for an order directing Dr. John A. Finger, 
Jr. to immediately file with the Court his plan for the de­
segregation of schools and to order the defendants to imple­
ment Dr. Finger’s plan immediately and, as grounds there­
for, show the following:

1. On April 23, June 20 and August 15, 1969, the Court 
found the defendants to be operating an unconstitutionally 
segregated school system. Each Order required the de­
fendants to file a plan for the desegregation of the schools. 
Each plan was blatantly defective and was rejected by the 
Court.

2. On December 1, 1969, the Court entered an Opinion 
and Order rejecting the plan filed by the Board on Novem­
ber 17, 1969 and determined that a consultant would be 
appointed by the Court to prepare immediate plans and 
recommendations to the Court for the desegregation of the 
schools. The following day, December 2, the Court entered 
an Order appointing Dr. John A. Finger, Jr. of Providence, 
Rhode Island to act as a consultant to the Court in pre­
paring a plan for the desegregation of the schools.

3. Plaintiffs are informed that Dr. Finger has com­
pleted the essential elements of his plans and is in the 
process of refining and perfecting his proposal.

4. On October 29, 1969, the Supreme Court unanimously 
reversed the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth



719a

Circuit which had granted delays for the desegregation of 
schools in Mississippi.

“Under explicit holdings of this Court, the obligation 
of every school district is to terminate dual school 
systems at once and to operate now and hereafter only 
unitary schools. Griffin v. School Board, 377 U.S. 218, 
234 (1964); Green v. School Board of New Kent County, 
391 U.S. 430, 438, 439, 442 (1968).”

Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 
19 (1969).

5. The day following this Court’s Opinion and Order 
disapproving of the defendants’ November 17 plan, the 
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 
entered an Order in five cases, three from North Carolina.

“We consolidate these appeals for hearing and disposi­
tion in light of Alexander v. Holmes County Board of 
Education, 396 U.S. 19 (October 29, 1969). That recent 
decision of the Supreme Court teaches ‘ [ujnder explicit 
holdings of this Court the obligation of every school 
district is to eliminate dual school systems at once and 
to operate now and hereafter only unitary schools.’ 
The clear mandate of the Court is immediacy. Further 
delays will not be tolerated in this circuit. No school 
district may continue to operate a dual system based 
on race. Each must function as a unitary system within 
which no person is to be excluded from any school on 
the basis of race.”

Motion for Immediate Desegregation of the Public
Schools in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County



720a

Nesbit v. Statesville City Board of Education, No. 13,229
------F.2d. -------  (Dec. 2, 1969). The three school districts
from North Carolina were given until the end of the Christ­
mas vacation within which to implement plans for complete 
desegregation of the schools. The two districts from Vir­
ginia were given until the end of the first semester. Each 
district was required to integrate faculties as well.

“All plans must include provisions for integration of 
the faculty so that the ratio of Negro and white faculty 
members of each school shall be approximately the 
same as the ratio throughout the system.”

6. Following the Supreme Court decision in Alexander 
v. Holmes County, the United States Court of Appeals for 
Fifth Circuit heard and decided a large number of cases 
from various states within the Circuit. The Court en banc 
unanimously decided that complete integration would not 
be required until the Fall of 1970. In several of the cases 
where the plaintiffs were represented by private counsel, 
petitions for certiorari were filed with the United tSates 
Supreme Court. The petitioners requested that the Su­
preme Court order the school districts to prepare for com­
plete desegregation by February 1, 1970 pending a decision 
by the Court on the merits. The petitioners were granted 
the preliminary relief which they sought. Carter v. West
Feliciano Parish School Board, ------ U.S. ------  (Dec. 13,
1969); Davis v. Board of School Commissions of Mobile
County, ------  U.S. ------ ; and Bennett v. Evans County
Board of Education, ------ U.S. ------ (Opinions of Justice
Black in Chambers, December 13, 1969). On January 14,

Motion for Immediate Desegregation of the Public
Schools in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County



721a

1970, the Court in a per curiam and decided without oral 
argument that the Court of Appeals had misread Alexander 
v. Holmes County Board of Education.

“Insofar as the Court of Appeals authorized deferral 
of student desegregation beyond February 1, 1970, 
that Court misconstrued our holding in Alexander v.
Holmes County Board of Education, ------ U.S. ------ .
Accordingly, the petitions for writs of certiorari are 
granted, the judgments of the Court of Appeals are 
reversed and the cases remanded to that Court for 
further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The 
judgments in these cases are to issue forthwith.”

Carter v. West Feliciano Parish School Board, ------ U.S.
------ (Jan. 14, 1970). The decision of the Court, represent­
ing the views of four members, was concurred by Mr. 
Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice White. They discussed what 
they thought were the practical requirements of Alexander 
and found a “maximum” timetable from a Court finding 
of non-compliance with the requirements of Green to the 
time of the actual operative effect of the relief to be eight 
weeks. Justices Black, Douglas, Brennan and Marshall 
found this view to he a “retreat” from the holding in Alex­
ander v. Holmes County Board of Education. Justices 
Berger and Stewart dissented, being of the view that the 
cases should not be decided without oral argument.

7. Findings of non-compliance with the requirements of 
the Green case were made by the Court on April 23, June 
20, August 15 and December 1, 1969. Eight weeks, the

Motion for Immediate Desegregation of the Public
Schools in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County



722a

“maximum” timetable which Justices Harlan and White 
viewed as permissible from the date of a finding of non- 
compliance, a determination which four others viewed as 
a “retreat” from Alexander, has long since passed since 
the decisions of April, June and August. Eight weeks from 
December 1, 1969 would be January 26, 1970. That would 
clearly be the outside date for the implementation of a 
comprehensive plan for the desegregation of schools in this 
case.

8. Dr. Finger has not yet filed his plan with the Court. 
However, even if his plan remains somewhat rough, that 
plan should be implemented now and any suggested modifi­
cations, by the Board, by the plaintiffs or possibly by Dr. 
Finger can be made later.

“It would suffice that such measures will tend to accom­
plish the goals set forth in Green, and, if they are less 
than educationally perfect, proposals for amendments 
are in no way to suspend the relief granted in accord- 
are in no way to suspend the relief granted in accor­
dance with the requirements of Alexander.”

Carter v. West Feliciano Parish School Board, — — U.S. 
------  (1969) (concurring opinion of Justice Harlan).

“The intent of Alexander, as I see it, was that the bur­
den in actions of this type should be shifted from plain­
tiffs seeking redress for a denial of constitutional 
rights, to defendant school boards. What this means is 
that upon a prima facie showing of noncompliance with 
this court’s holding in Green v. New Kent County 
School Board, 291 U.S. 430 (1968), plaintiffs may apply

Motion for Immediate Desegregation of the Public
Schools in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County



723a

for immediate relief that will at once extirpate any 
lingering vestiges of a constitutionally prohibited dual 
school system.”

(Concurring opinion of Justice Harlan.)

9. In this Court’s Opinion and Order of December 1, 
1969, the Court held:

“12. Fixed ratios of pupils in particular schools will 
not be set. If the hoard in one of its three tries had 
presented a plan for desegregation, the court would 
have sought ways to approve variations in pupil ratios. 
In default of any such plan from the school hoard, the 
court will start with the thought, originally advanced 
in the order of April 23, that efforts should be made to 
reach a 71-29 ratio in the various schools so that there 
will be no basis for contending that one school is racially 
different from the others, but to understand that varia­
tions from that norm may he unavoidable. . . .

15. On the facts in this record and with this back­
ground of de jure segregation extending full fifteen 
years since Brown I, this court is of the opinion that 
all the black and predominantly black schools in the 
system are illegally segregated, Green v. New Kent 
County; Henry v. Clarksdale; United States v. Hinds 
County.”

In its Order, the Court invited the Board to submit a plan 
conforming to the requirements established by the Court.

Motion for Immediate Desegregation of the Public
Schools in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County



724a

“If the members of the school board wish to develop 
plans of their own for desegregation of the schools 
without delaying or interfering with the work of the 
consultant, they may proceed to do so, and if they wish 
any guidance from the court they will find their guid­
ance in the previous opinions and orders of this court 
and in the court decisions and principles set out in this 
opinion and order.”

The School Board decided not to appeal from the decision 
of December 1, 1969 as it had decided not to appeal from 
the previous orders of the Court. Nor has it submitted a 
plan as it was invited to do. Instead, members of the Board 
have continued to criticize the law of the land and to pre­
tend that they do not know what the Court means when it 
says that all-black schools in this system are constitution­
ally impermissible. The Court and the plaintiffs have 
waited patiently and in vain for an indication that the 
Board would finally accept its burden to devise a constitu­
tional plan for the desegregation of the schools. Since the 
Board has refused to assume its responsibility, the Court 
must act to vindicate the constitutional rights of children 
within the School System.

W herefore, plaintiffs respectfully pray that the Court 
direct Dr. Finger to file his plan forthwith and upon receipt 
of his plan, order the defendants:

1. To completely implement the plan filed by Dr. Finger 
on or before January 26, 1970; and

Motion for Immediate Desegregation of the Public
Schools in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County



725a

2. To reassign faculty within the School System so 
that the ratio of black and white faculty members 
of each school shall be approsimately the same as 
the ratio throughout the System and that such re­
assignments be implemented on or before January 
26, 1970.

Motion for Immediate Desegregation of the Public
Schools in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County

Respectfully submitted,
Conrad 0 . Pearson

2031/2 East Chapel Hill Street 
Durham, North Carolina

Chambers, Stein, Ferguson & 
Lanning

216 West Tenth Street 
Charlotte, North Carolina

Jack Greenberg 
James M. Nabrit, III 
Norman Chachkin 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York



726a

In response to the invitation of the Court in its order 
dated December 1, 1969, the Board of Education submits 
its plan for desegregation in substitution of all prior plans 
for implementation in September, 1970, as follows:

Policy Statement

Equal opportunity to develop all capabilities to the fullest 
potential is the right of every individual in a democratic 
society. Since this right is a basic precept of education, it 
becomes the responsibility of those who make educational 
decisions to see that equality of opportunity is provided for 
all.

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education affirms 
the long held principle that equality of educational oppor­
tunity for all children without regard to socio-economic, 
ethnic, religious or racial differences is essential to the con­
tinued growth of our community and is basic to a free and 
open American democratic society.

The Board further believes that equality of educational 
opportunity can best be provided by attempting to free 
individuals from the burden and handicaps imposed by 
varied circumstances, backgrounds and environmental dif­
ferences. To this end, the Board has devised an educational 
program which will to the greatest extent possible, provide 
for the equal development of all students regardless of 
such burdens and handicaps.

In this light, the Board of Education firmly believes fur­
ther desegregation of students and professional staff will 
contribute to the educational and social development of all 
children.

Plan for Desegregation of Schools



727a

Plan for Desegregation of Schools

I .

A ttendance A reas

Attendance areas are established for all schools within 
the Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Administrative School 
Unit and the boundaries thereof are hereby established as 
shown onmaps dated January 31, 1970, identified as “Map 
No. 1, Attendance Areas of Elementary Schools,” “Map 
No. 2, Attendance Areas for Junior High Schools” and 
“Map No. 3, Attendance Areas for Senior High Schools,” 
copies of which are attached. Practical administrative con­
siderations may require revision of some of the attendance 
lines shown on these maps to conform to streets, streams, 
railroads and other identifiable monuments. The adminis­
trative staff, with the approval of the Board, may make 
such revisions provided they do not materially affect ad­
versely the racial mix of the schools involved. A copy of 
each map (together with any revisions) shall be kept at 
each school in the attendance areas shown thereon and 
shall be open to public inspection in the office of the Super­
intendent and at the schools.

Board Comment:

1. The Board has devised new and comprehensive re­
structured attendance lines to achieve the degree of de­
segregation which it believes the Constitution requires. 
Thse outlines of the attendance lines shown on these maps 
have been established with the assistance of a computer 
system analysis which had as its purpose the identity and 
selection of contiguous grid areas having pupil populations 
that would most nearly achieve an optimum 70% white to 
30% black racial mix for as many of our schools as possible.



728a

The criteria used in the establishment of these attendance 
areas are as follows:

A. Each school district must be comprised of a single 
set of contiguous grids. (A grid is a 2500 foot square 
as shown on the school attendance maps as filed as 
exhibits in this matter.)

B. No combination of grids could be considered if they 
exceed the rated capacity of the school by 20 per cent. 
Further, such combinations could not underpopulate 
the school by more than 20 per cent.

C. A school district could not contain the home grid 
of another school.

D. A school district, if feasible, must contain the home 
grid in which the school is located.

E. Wherever practicable, no school district to which 
white students were assigned should have less than 
60 per cent white student population to avoid “tipping.”

After the meeting these five tests, all possible combina­
tions of grids were printed separately for each school. The 
combinations were reviewed to determine their desirability. 
Desirability was determined by the following factors: 
(1) closeness of the integration ratio to 70% white-30% 
black, (2) compactness of the school district and (3) combi­
nation of grids which yields a student population closest 
to 100% of the school’s capacity.

Attached (marked Exhibit “ A” and made a part hereof) 
is a report of Systems Analysis Associates, Inc. which re­
flects the scope, nature of work performed, recommenda­
tions and results achieved through their efforts in con­
sultation with school administrative staff and the Board of 
Education.

Plan for Desegregation of Schools



729a

2. It lias been the purpose of the Board to desegregate 
as many of the 103 schools as possible and, in order to do 
so, attendance lines have been drastically restructured and 
gerrymandered, resulting in 100 schools having some degree 
of desegregation. The Board is gratified with the results 
of its desegregation. Sixty-eight (68) of the 103 schools 
in the system will have a student body composed of 10% 
to 41% blacks. Of the remaining 35 schools, only 25 will 
have less than 11% black and 10 will have more than 41% 
blacks.

3. The Board does not believe that it is required to 
supplement its restructuring of attendance lines by other 
techniques, all of which have the primary feature of necessi­
tating involuntary bussing of students from one school at­
tendance zone to another. Such compulsory transportation 
would violate legislative policies of the United States Con­
gress and the State of North Carolina.

In 1964, Congress enacted 42 USCA 2000 C. et seq., com­
monly referred to as the HEW Act of 1964, which provides 
that in an action instituted by the Attorney General under 
such Act, the court may give “such relief as may be appro­
priate” with the following limitation:

. . provided that nothing herein shall empower any 
official or court of the United States to issue any order 
seeking to achieve a racial balance in any school by 
requiring transportation of pupils or students from 
one school to another or one school district to another 
in order to achieve such racial balance, or otherwise 
enlarge the existing power of the court to assure com­
pliance with constitutional standards . . .” (Emphasis 
supplied).

Plan for Desegregation of Schools



730a

The North Carolina legislative policy is expressed in
G.S. Sec. 115-176.1, which specifies:

“ . .. No student shall be assigned or compelled to attend 
any school on account of race, creed, color or national 
origin or for the purpose of creating a balance or ratio 
of race, religion or national origin. Involuntary bussing 
of a student in contravention of this article is pro­
hibited, and public funds shall not be used for any such 
bussing.” (Emphasis supplied).

It is observed that the HEW Act of 1964 relates to de­
segregation actions instituted by the United States At­
torney General, whereas the Board is involved in an action 
in the District Court which was instituted by private liti­
gants. However, the purpose of each type of action is 
the same; namely, to secure an adjudication of the consti­
tutional rights of all members of a class in a community 
who are similarly situated (i.e. black students). Com­
pulsory measures imposed by the court cannot he depend­
ent upon who brings the action—the United States Attorney 
General or private litigants. If a court is prohibited from 
requiring bussing to achieve a racial balance in the one 
instance, it must be prohibited from doing so in the other. 
This same limitation should be equally applicable to any 
court order which (although silent on the subject of trans­
portation) can be implemented as a practical matter only 
by compulsory bussing.

By way of summary, the Court cannot require transporta­
tion to achieve a racial balance in our schools and volun­
tary action of the Board would be contrary to the law of 
the State of North Carolina. Under the circumstances, the 
Board rejected any arrangement for involuntary bussing 
of any student outside of his attendance area. This would

Plan for Desegregation of Schools



731a

be a clear violation of the law as expressed by the United 
States Congress and by the North Carolina Legislature.

4. Aside from the legal reasons which prohibit involun­
tary transportation of a student outside his attendance 
area, in the judgment of the Board, educational and prac­
tical considerations preclude such action:

A. It is the judgment of the Board that the supposed 
benefits to be obtained from the use of extensive additional 
transportation to eliminate the 10 remaining black schools 
referred to above would be far outweighed by the result­
ing burdens, inconvenience and cost. Bussing in a school 
system as large as the Charlotte-Mecklenburg system is at 
best an expensive and complex operation. It is acknowl­
edged that a large number of children are already being 
bussed to and from school. However, the burden, expense, 
hardship, inconvenience, hazards, expenditure of unproduc­
tive time and the added administrative problems occasioned 
by any bussing program should be minimized.

B. The Board cannot justify on any reasonable basis 
the very substantial additional cost and burden of the com­
pulsory bussing that would be required for the sole pur­
pose of effecting a desired racial mix in the remaining 10 
black schools. Under the best arrangement, the Board 
could envision to eliminate these black schools, massive 
cross-bussing would require the transportation of about 
11,500 black and white children—5,150 into and 5,150 out of 
the inner-city at the elementary level and 590 into and 590 
out of the inner-city at the secondary level. This involun­
tary bussing would involve an approximate 15-mile trip 
each way (30 miles round drip) for each student moved 
through the heart of the business and residential sections

Plan for Desegregation of Schools



732a

of the City. Pertinent information relating to such trans­
portation is attached marked Exhibit “B” .

C. A plan that generates unnecessary transportation 
costs and occasions unnecessary burdens and inconvenience 
for parents and children alike would jeopardize the public 
support which provides the tax and bond money upon which 
our schools are totally dependent for financing the already 
high cost of education.

D. The burden of extra bussing that would be required 
to desegregate each of the 10 remaining predominantly 
black schools would fall primarily on elementary children. 
The major impact of this burden would be imposed upon 
children who, because of their tender years, are the most 
illogical candidates to bear this burden.

E. The Board has retained its neighborhood school con­
cept, although admittedly, it has been strained by the gerry­
mandered attendance lines adopted in this plan. It is a 
concept which the Board believes is beneficial to the chil­
dren and enhances the support that comes when children 
and parents identify themselves with a particular school 
and its programs. A fragmentation of this type of asso­
ciation is not in the best interest of our schools.

5. With reference to ratios of black students in the vari­
ous levels of education, attention is called to the fact that 
blacks comprise 30°! of the elementary. 28% of the junior 
high and 24 A of the senior high school population. To the 
extent possible, the Board has sought to reach these ap­
proximate ratios in each schooL

Plan for Desegregation of Schools



733a

A ssignment of Pupils

All pupils within any attendance area shall be assigned 
to the school of his or her grade within such attendance 
area. Assignment for any school year shall he made not 
later than the last school day of the preceding year or as 
soon thereafter as possible. In the case of children en­
rolled during such school year, notice of assignment may 
be given by noting the same on the report card of the pupil 
thereof or any other means which will adequately insure 
the delivery of written notice to the parent. Except for 
beginners, pupils not then enrolled shall be assigned at the 
time of their application for enrollment. In order to undo 
the existing “ freedom of choice” assignments heretofore 
permitted, such assignments will be terminated and the 
students involved re-assigned to the appropriate school of 
his or her attendance area.

Plan for Desegregation of Schools

II.

III.

Continuation of Elementary 
V oluntary Inner-City Re-A ssignments

In its plan submitted to the Court on July 29, 1969, the 
Board of Education closed certain black schools and tem­
porarily re-assigned the students of those schools as well 
as the students of certain other black schools whose facili­
ties were overcrowded. Elementary students who were re­
assigned and accepted re-assignment under the plan of 
July 29, 1969, at their election will be assigned to the school 
of their present attendance provided such school offers in­
struction at their grade level during the 1970-1971 school 
term. Free transportation will be provided such students.



734a

The Board is mindful of the educational advantages and 
the desires of a student and his parents to continuing one’s 
education in the school of last attendance. Therefore, the 
Board has made available to those elementary inner-city 
black students who in good spirit accepted transfer to other 
schools the right to continue attendance at those schools 
provided the grade level is offered.

IV.

Restricted Transfers

In order to encourage, facilitate and maintain desegrega­
tion, transfers from the school to which a student is origi­
nally assigned shall be allowed only on the limited basis out­
lined below. Any black student will be permitted to transfer 
only if the school to which he is originally assigned has 
more than 30 per cent of his race and if the school he is 
requesting to attend has less than 30 per cent of his race 
and has available space. Any white student will he per­
mitted to transfer only if the school to which he is originally 
assigned has more than 70 per cent of his race and if the 
school he is requesting to attend has less than 70 per cent 
of his race and has available space. Availability of space 
and rules of transfer will he determined by the school ad­
ministration under rules of uniform non-racial application 
authorized by the School Board.

In addition, transfers may be granted to students whose 
request for transfer evidences conditions of hardship. 
Hardship will be determined on the basis of uniform non- 
racial criteria developed by the administrative staff.

The administrative procedure for such transfers will be 
readily available to each student.

Plan for Desegregation of Schools

Board Comment:



735a

1. Under this provision, transfers are rigidly limited to 
those which promote desegregation of our schools, except­
ing only transfers with reference to hardship situations 
which shall be determined on a strictly non-racial basis and 
which necesarily must be allowed for the effective adminis­
tration of the schools and the welfare of the children in­
volved.

2. These restrictions on transfers are designed to com­
plement the limitations imposed by the geographic assign­
ments and to assure the stability and permanence of the 
desegregation achieved by this plan. Specifically, the plan 
is designed to accomplish these objectives:

A. Encourage the transfer of hlack students from 
predominantly black schools or schools likely to become 
predominantly black to a school which will promote the 
permanence of a desirable racial mix.
B. Encourage white students from predominantly 
white or all white schools wishing to transfer to help 
stabilize desegregation to do so.
C. Prevent the movement of white students from pre­
dominantly black schools or schools likely to become 
predominantly black.
D. Prevent black students from singling out a school 
for attendance so that blacks predominate or nearly 
predominate.

3. It is believed that the foregoing restrictions will tend 
to minimize tipping and resegregation.

Plan for Desegregation of Schools

Board Comment:



736a

V.

Transportation

Transportation will be provided to and from school for 
all students who are entitled thereto under State law and 
applicable rules and regulations promulgated by the State.

VI.

Stability op E nrollment

A student enrolled in any school after original assign­
ment or by transfer after original assignment shall remain 
in the school of enrollment for the school year and no sub­
sequent transfer will be permitted for such year except for 
hardship or a change of residence from one attendance area 
to another. In the event of change of residence, the pupil 
may elect to remain in the school of enrollment for the 
remainder of the school year. A student enrolled in a school 
by virtue of utilizing a restricted transfer authorized by 
Article IV (Restricted Transfers) shall be advanced to the 
next grade in such school from year to year unless such 
student prior to the expiration of any current year gives 
notice of his or her wish to return to the school serving the 
attendance area of his residence. A pupil enrolled in a 
school in an attendance area other than that of his or her 
residence shall be advanced at the appropriate time to the 
junior or senior high school, as the case may be, serving 
the attendance area in which the pupil resides. This pro­
vision shall not have the effect of denying or enlarging 
such pupil’s right to transfer to another school of his grade 
pursuant to Article IV.

Plan for Desegregation of Schools



737a

The purpose of this section is to prevent voluntary 
transfers of students during the course of any school year 
other than those permitted for hardship or change of 
residence. The Board foresees that an unrestricted right 
with reference to time to transfer could create a chaotic 
condition in the administration of our schools. Addi­
tionally, this provision in effect sends the student back 
to his attendance area for re-assignment to secondary 
schools at the appropriate level. However, restricted 
transfer is still available to the student.

VII.

F aculty Desegregation

The faculties of all schools will be assigned so that the 
ratio of black teachers to white teachers in each school 
will be approximately the same as the ratio of black teach­
ers to white teachers in the entire school system.

Board Comment:

This provision is in conformity with the order of the 
Court dated December 1, 1969.

Concluding Comments of Board

With all due respect to the previously expressed views 
of the Court (pursuant to whose order this plan is sub­
mitted) the Board still adheres to its conviction that the 
Constitutional requirements of desegregation in the school 
system will be achieved by the restructuring of attendance 
lines and further faculty desegregation. In reiterating this 
conviction, the Board acknowledges that it does so with­

Plan for Desegregation of Schools

Board Comment:



738a

out clear guidance from appellate courts concerning a clear 
definition of a “unitary” or “desegregated” school system. 
In its search for guidance from the Supreme Court regard­
ing the true meaning of these and similar terms, the Board 
is not alone. However, recent appellate and district court 
decisions acknowledging this lack of guidance have arrived 
at conclusions that square with the Board’s position. The 
most recent appellate decision comes from the Sixth Circuit 
Court of Appeals, Northcross v. Board of Education of
Memphis, CA 6 ,------Fed. 2nd (January 12, 1970), wherein
the court stated:

“ . . . Upon the oral argument of this appeal, we asked 
counsel for plaintiffs to advise what he considered 
would be the ‘unitary system’ that should be forth­
with accomplished in Memphis. He replied that such 
a system would require that in every public school in 
Memphis there would have to be 55% Negroes and 
45% whites. Departures of 5% to 10% from such rule 
would be tolerated. The United States Supreme Court 
has not announced that such a formula is the only 
way to accomplish a ‘unitary system.’ We have ex­
pressed our own view that such a formula for racial 
composition of all of today’s public schools is not 
required to meet the requirement of a unitary system. 
Deal v. Cincinnati Board of Education (Ohio schools) 
369 F(2) 55 (6th Cir. 1966), cert denied, 389 U.S. 847 
(1967); Mapp v. Board of Education (Tennessee 
schools) 373 F (2) 75, 78 (6th Cir. 1967); Goss v. Knox­
ville Board of Education (Tenn. schools) 406 F(2) 
1183 (6th Cir. 1969); Deal v. Cincinnati Board of 
Education (Ohio schools) ------F(2) (6th Cir. 1969).”

Plan for Desegregation of Schools



739a

Three district judges, Judges Smith, Edenfield and 
Henderson of the Northern District of Georgia in United 
States of America v. State of Georgia, et al., USDC, ND, 
Ga. (Dec. 17, 1969), stated there was uncertainty with re­
spect to specific standards which should be uniformly ap­
plied in desegregation cases and went on to state further:

“ . . .  In this respect, the higher courts have not yet 
issued definitive rules as to just what steps are legally 
required of each local school district.”

In that opinion, ratios were specified which permitted 
retention of some schools entirely populated by the 
minority race.

In Bivins v. Bibb County, USDC, M.D. Ga. (Jan. 21, 
1970), the Court indicated its impatience with the vague 
terms typically employed in desegregation cases:

“The phrase ‘student body merger’ is new in school 
desegregation law . . . The word ‘merge’ is a most 
imprecise term. Just as some of the other customary 
expressions used by the courts in this field, for in­
stance, ‘desegregate’, ‘integrate’, ‘black schools’, ‘all­
black schools’, ‘white schools’, ‘just schools’, ‘dual 
system’, ‘unitary system’ ; the word ‘work’ in ‘a plan 
which promises realistically to work.’ When appellate 
courts use language like this, they must intend to leave 
its interpretation and application to the trial courts 
in the light of the facts and circumstances of each 
particular case. If the Congress were legislating in 
this field it would necessarily have to use precise lan­
guage. If it used language such as that quoted, it 
would have to define such terms; otherwise, its enact­
ments would be struck down by the courts as being 
‘void for vagueness.’ ”

Plan for Desegregation of Schools



740a

In Bickett, et al., v. School of the City of Norfolk 
et al., USDC, ED Ya. (Dec. 30, 1969), Judge Hoffman 
indicated a similar concern over the lack of clear guidance 
from appellate courts; approved a plan for the Norfolk, 
Ya. schools in which the percentage of Negroes in the 
school levels (attending schools housing less than 10% 
of one race) will be 23% in elementary schools, 43% in 
junior high schools and 100% in senior high schools; 
declined “to require massive compulsory bussing merely 
to achieve desegregation” ; and concluded:

“Nor do we feel that the Constitution commands racial 
balancing in each school building predicated upon 
percentage of white and black children in the several 
levels of public education; to wit, elementary, junior 
high school and senior high school.”

“ . . . Until the Supreme Court speaks on the subject, 
no one can tell what is correct (‘racially unidentifiable’ 
or ‘desegregated’ ).” (Information in parenthesis sup­
plied.)

In Bivins, supra, the court addressed itself to the ques­
tion of a merged or desegregated system in which approxi­
mately 75 per cent of the blacks were in all black schools 
and concluded:

“ This court is of the opinion and finds and concludes 
that the student body in this system is sufficiently 
so merged, especially when we take into consideration 
the complete faculty merger above mentioned. . . . ”

That same court found no legal mandate requiring racial 
balances in each school and stated:

Plan for Desegregation of Schools



741a

“ (A)ll three plans were drawn under the impression 
or apprehension that the law requires the achievement 
of racial balances. The Board probably came to this 
apprehension from the repeated use of more and more 
sweeping and expansive, though still imprecise, lan­
guage by the courts. For instance, a recent order 
refers to ‘full implementation of complete desegrega­
tion.’ We look in vain for any authoritative statute 
or decree defining ‘complete desegregation.’ ”

Further comment on the unsettled state of the law ap­
pears in Thornie v. Houston County, USDC, M.D. Ga. 
(Jan. 21, 1970), to wit:

“No one affected by this area of the law as fast as 
it is moving should let his hopes soar too high or 
his fears sink too low. Tomorrow might be a new 
day.”

Plan fot Desegregation of Schools

It is apparent that the courts have not reached a common 
understanding of what is required under the Constitution. 
The Board understandably is prone to exercise caution lest, 
in protecting the rights of some of its citizens, it tramples 
upon the rights of others in the absence of a clear mandate 
from the Supreme Court.

The Board has great faith in the citizens of this com­
munity and shares the conviction of the court in Ililson v. 
Washington County. USDC, M.D. Ga. (Jan. 28, 1970), 
when it stated:

“ This is a nation of law abiding people. A\ hen we know 
what the law is and that it is the law, faithful com­
pliance can be fully expected from everyone.”



742a

Respectfully submitted this second day of February, 
1970.

Plan for Desegregation of Schools

W illiam J. W aggoner 
W einstein, W aggoner, Sturges, 
Odom & B igger

1100 Barringer Office Tower 
Charlotte, North Carolina

Benj. S. H orace 
E rvin, H orace & McCartha 

400 Law Building 
Charlotte, North Carolina

Brock Barkley 
Law Building 
Charlotte. North Carolina

Attorneys for Defendant. Charlotte- 
Mecklenburg Board of Education



743a

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 

COUNTY OF MECKLENBURG

I, WILLIAM C. SELF, do hereby certify that I am Superintendent 

of Charlotte-Mecklenburg public schools and that the foregoing is a true 

and complete copy of the plan of desegregation with official Board 

comments duly adopted at a meeting of.the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board o 

Education on the 31st day of January, 1970.

This the31st day of January, 1970.

William C. Self

Sworn to and subscribed before me 
this 31st day of January, 1970.

Notary Public 

My commission expires:_

137



Rt. search Report
January 31, 1970

The Chariotte-Mecklenburg Schools 

DESEGREGATION PLAN for 1970-71

Elementary Schools

School
Base

1970-71 
Capac i ty

+ 12% B

1969- 

W

70 *

T %B B
Board
W

PI an
T %B

Add i t ional 
Pupils to 
T ransport

Albemarle Rd. 432 484 4 510 514 1% 4 469 473 1%
regulat ions

A11enbrook 540 605 61 452 513 12% 59 496 555 1 r/o
Ashley Park 621 696 27 574 601 4% 155 421 576 27%
Ba i n 702 786 33 735 768 4% 25 706 731 3%Barr i nger 486 544 843 16 859 98% 203 320 523 39% 197
Berryh i11 836 936 98 639 737 13% 24? 574 821 30% 274Beverly Woods 540 605 68 684 752 9% 8 648 656 1%B i11i nsgv il1e 594 665 596 0 596 100% 113 325 438 26% 259Bri arwood 540 605 6 680 686 1% 2 663 665 0%
Bruns Ave. 675 756 759 10 769 99% 624 73 697 90%

Chant illy 432 484 0 472 472 0% 142 303 445 32%
Clear Creek 324 363 48 229 277 17% 43 266 309 14%
Colli nswood 621 696 1 1 1 443 554 20% 224 448 672 33% 233Corneli us 459 514 181 235 416 44% 182 265 447 41%
Cotswold 540 605 23 537 560 4% 128 449 577 24% 193
Dav i dson 324 363 104 186 290 36% 102 174 276 32%Marie Davis 756 847 662 0 662 100% 666 82 748 88%Per i ta 783 877 150 678 828 18% 152 595 747 20%Pevonsh i re 648 726 0 903 903 0% 0 925 925 0%Di1 worth 648 726 90 317 407 22% 241 376 617 39%
Double Oaks 675 756 836 0 836 100% 825 3 828 100%Druid Hills 486 544 472 3 475 99% 465 20 485 96%Eastover 648 726 42 559 601 7% 157 478 635 25% 62E 1 i zabeth 405 454 314 125 439 72% 112 294 4o6 28%Enderly Park 513 575 3 371 374 1% 119 238 357 33%

* N >t including Special Educat ion in self-containec classes

138



live Charh. . to-Mecklenburg Schools 

DESEGREGATION PLAN for 1970-71

Elementary Schools

School
1970-/1 

Capaci ty 
Base + i2% B

1969-70 

W T %8

\

B
Board
W

PI an
T %B

Addi t ional 
Pupils to 
Transport 

(By State
f i r s t  'lard 702 786 805 0 805 100% 7/0 7 777 39%

regulat ions)
Hickory Grove 659 516 70 533 603 12% 76 556 630 12% 20
:t i dden Val Icy 668 726 0 1 100 1100 0% 1 1077 1078 0%
! 11gh1 and 297 333 69 305 376 18% 76 237 313 26%
I'oski ns 297 333 13 212 225 6% 12*+ 219 363 36%

Hunlersvi11e 675 756 • 165 531 6/6 21% 130 556 686 19%
Hunt i ngtowne Farms 596 665 7 603 610 1% 3 616 617 0%
IdlewiId 56? 635 67 581 628 7% 59 569 608 10%
Irwin Avc. 292 0 292 100% k
Amoy James 378 623 662 3 665 99% 90 169 259 35%

Lakevi ew 378 623 366 89 635 80% 119 285 606 29% *+7
Lansdcwne 756 867 75 802 877 9% 79 719 798 10%
Li ncoln He i gh cs 6;-+8 726 711 0 711 100% 903 6 909 99%Long Crock 702 786 267 668 735 36% 259 523 782 33%
h-: l Loews 965 1058 86 802 888 10% 81 837 918 9%

Kerry 0,i k5 686 566 0 662 Mi 2 0% 0 557 557 0%
i ! i dwood 659 516 9 637 666 2% 116 601 517 23%.ontclai re 675 756 0 718 718 0% 1 781 782 0%
Myers Park 632 686 22 666 666 5% 150 316 666 32%
Nations Ford 621 6°6 63 669 712 6% 177 568 725 26% 153

Nawo11 596 665 76 638 512 16% 66 636 500 13%0 i kdale 560 605 69 517 586 12% 202 660 662 31%Oakhurst 596 665 5 616 621 1% 92 506 596 15% 105Oak i a’./n 596 665 586 0 586 100% 597 3 600 99%Otde Providence 560 605 80 512 592 16% 83 661 566 15%

‘̂ distributed to surround ng schc ol s

139



The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools 

DESEGREGATION PLAN for 1970-71

“4

Elementary Schools

School
1970-71 

Capacity 
Base +12% B

1969-70 

W T %B B
Board
W

PI an
T %8

Add i t ions 
Pupils to 
Transport 

(By State

Park Road 540 605 44 548 592 7% 41 571 612 7% regulat ions)
Paw Creek 594 665 27 609 636 4% 83 602 685 12%
Paw Creek Annex 270 302 30 271 301 10%
P i nev i11e 486 544 136 356 492 28% 123 379 502 25%
P i newood 648 726 0 674 674 0% 0 900 900 0%

Plaza Road 459 514 80 340 420 19% 181 350 531 34%
Rama Road 648 726 1 815 816 0% 3 71(4 747 0%
Sedgef i eld 540 605 3 548 551 1% 223 364 587 38%
Selwyn 486 544 31 617 648 5% 32 459 491 7%
Shamrock Gardens 486 544 0 515 515 0% 84 496 580 15%

Sharon 459 514 72 361 433 17% 91 421 512 18%
Starmount 648 726 25 712 737 3% 67 833 900 7%
Statesvi1le Road 648 726 333 522 855 39% 160 553 713 23%
Steele Creek 378 423 5 509 514 1% 195 475 670 29% 86
Thomasboro 729 816 0 690 690 0% 135 777 912 15% 353

Tryon Hills 486 544 309 164 473 65% 200 342 542 37%
Tuckaseegee 540 605 58 578 636 97. 57 510 567 10% 30
Univers i ty Park 648 726 825 1 826 100% 735 132 867 85%
Villa Hei ghts 810 907 902 83 985 92% 877 170 1047 83%
'./esterl y Hills 405 454 46 539 585 8% 144 332 476 30% 156

V/i Imore 378 423 222 210 432 51% 153 250 403 38%
Windsor Park 648 726 1 748 749 0% 1 782 783 0%
Wi nterf i eld 648 726 48 688 736 7% 52 653 705 7% 140

Total 40,391 45,239 13,010 31,278 44,288 12,885 31,523 44,408 2,345



The Char lotto-Mecklenburg Schools
R e se a rc h  Repor t
J.m iM ry  jl, 19/0 DESEGREGATION PLAN for 1970-71

-a

Junior High Schools

School
1970

Capac
Base

71
ty
-■■■20% B

1969-70 

W T %B B
Board Plan 

W T %B

Add i t ions 
Pupils to 
Transport 

(By State

Albemarle Road 398 1138 63 995 1058 5% 19 753 772 2%
regulat ions)

A1 exander 879 1099 328 761 1089 30% 303 698 1001 30%
Cochrane 1190 1928 72 1599 1616 5% 571 1150 1721 33% 539
Coulwood 709 895 101 770 871 12% 313 551 869 36% 220
Eas tway 1093 1312 61 1356 1917 9% 375 971 1396 28%

Alexander Graham 996 1199 • 101 1028 1 129 8% 261 888 1199 23%
Hawthorne 850 910 550 972 1022 59% 276 709 980 28%
Kennedy 801 961 302 9 811 99% 325 510 835 39%
HeCli ntock 923 1 100 89 1288 1372 6% 25 1098 1073 2%
Horthwest 1068 1282 1032 1 1033 296 675 971 30%

PIedmont 631 757 908 55 963 89% 758 89 892 90%
Qua i1 Hollow 1238 1986 129 1921 1550 9% 138 1199 1282 11%
Randolph 972 1170 279 710 989 28% 307 683 990 31% 59
Panson 851 1021 296 598 799 31% 295 558 853 35%
Sedgefield 777 930 167 809 976 17% 239 612 896 28%

Smi th 1093 1312 51 1936 1987 9% 330 957 1287 26% 900
Spaugh 826 1091 262 839 1101 29% 396 752 1098 32%
Williams 801 967 1081 0 1081 100% 336 722 1058 32%
V/ i 1 son 1099 1253 60 1195 1205 5% 396 795 1191 30% 169

Carmel 558 670 • 2 555 557 0%
J. H. Gunn (Wi Igrovi ) 558 670 99 970 519 9%

Total 18,796 22,596 5,877 15,187 21,069 5,905 15,280 21,185 1,377

141



Research Report
January 31, 1970

The Charlotto-Mecklenburg Schools 

DESEGREGATION PLAN for 1970-71

Senior H igh Schools

School 1970-71 
Capoc i ty 

Base +20/6 B

1969-70 

W T VS B
Board Plan 

W T %B

Add i t ions

Pupils to 
T ransport 

(By State

East Mecklenburg T700 2040 215 1925 2140 10% 360 1716 2076 17 %
regu1 at ions

Gar i nger 1874 2249 492 2148 2640 ' 18% 721 1914 2635 27% 78Hard i ng 1202 11+42 612 720 1332 45% 395 692 1087 36%
1ndependence 10/f 7 1256 101 1 111 1212 9% 23 1241 1264 2%
Myers Park 1679 2015 224 1767 1991 12% 426 1883 2309 18%

North Mecklenburg 1158 1390 446 1185 1631 28% 440 998 1438 31%01ymp i c 807 968 ' 351 512 863 41% 201 687 888 23%South Mecklenburg 1523 1828 90 2024 2114 5% ' 482 1846 2328 21% 600
V/est Charlotte 1593 1912 1641 0 1641 1 00% 597 1045 1642 36% 53West Mecklenburg 1371* 161(9 141 1444 1585 9% 494 998 1492 33% 198

Total 13,957 16,749 4,313 12,836 17,149 4,139 3,020 17,159 1 ,202



749a

Transcript of February 2 and 5, 1970 Proceedings 

(Excerpts)
[43] # * *

W illiam C. Self, a witness for the defendant, having 
first been duly sworn, was examined and testified as fol­
lows :

Direct Examination by Mr. Waggoner:

Q. State your name and official position, please, sir. A. 
William C. Self, Superintendent, Charlotte-Mecklenburg 
Schools.

Q. Dr. Self, with reference to the plan for desegregation 
submitted on behalf of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board 
of Education, would you briefly review the circumstances 
leading to the adoption of this plan? A. The Board of 
Education was ordered to come up with a plan for desegre­
gation. They employed the services of Systems Analysis, 
Inc., instructed this firm to use the technique of restruc­
turing attendance lines with the express purpose of achiev­
ing a racial balance in schools.

Q. Did Systems Associates, Inc., submit to you a report 
of their efforts? A. Yes, they did.

Q. Is that attached to and forms a part of the plan for 
desegregation that was submitted to the Court? [44] A. I 
believe it was.

Q. I direct your attention to the document attached to 
the plan for desegregation entitled A plan for Student De­
segregation by Systems Associates, Inc., and ask you, if 
you will, to briefly review the contents of this document for 
the benefit of the Court.

Mr. Chambers: I object. I think that document 
would speak for itself.



750a

Court: Well, if the answer is brief enough, I ’ll 
overrule the objection. I assume he’s asking for a 
brief summary of what it does or says.

A. The document contains several sections. The first one 
is entitled Scope and in that section the author of the docu­
ment sets forth the objectives of the study, the three func­
tions of the computer program, the computational rules that 
were employed, the criteria for selecting the various grade 
combinations. Section 2 consists of a set of recommenda­
tions. The great majority of those has to do with how we 
might improve our present system of pupils census opera­
tion. The third section consists of a section entitled Statis­
tics, and in this section the statistics have to do with what 
the study was able to accomplish in the way of desegregat­
ing the various schools. They are shown by elementary 
schools, junior high schools and senior high schools. The 
Fourth section is the largest part of the document. In this 
section are attached [45] the maps of all of the attendance 
areas of the schools. The fifth section and the last is simply 
an account by the firm as to the chronology of events that 
took place.

Q. Dr. Self, with reference to the scope of the computer 
assisted approach to restructuring grid lines, would you 
briefly describe what was involved in this approach? A. 
Well, using pupil census data and computer programming 
techniques, the firm attempted to achieve a racial balance 
under the guilding principles that they would try to get as 
nearly as possible a 70-30 white to black rati£> in every 
school, that they would attempt to preserve the compact or 
contiguous neighborhood school attendance area and would 
attempt to find a student body that would neither over­
crowd nor underpopulate the school building.

William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct



751a

Q. Could you briefly describe the method of computation 
that was used? A. The rules which governed the computa­
tion are listed on Page 3 of the document. The first one 
states that a combination of grids which is considered ac­
ceptable must contain only grids contig-uous to one another 
on at least one full side, contain only grids contiguous to 
one another and at least must be contiguous on one full 
side to the grids in which the school is located and not con­
tain the home grid of another school of a type similar to 
the one for which the computations are being made. The 
second rule had to do with the [46] capacity. Any combina­
tion containing a number of students whose total was less 
than 80% or more than 100% of the school’s rated capacity 
is not considered acceptable in the initial computation.

Court: Mr. Waggoner, I don’t want to interrupt 
you if this is pertinent, but all this is on the record 
in the previous evidence in this case filed last October 
and November and December.

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, this plan does 
differ in some slight . . .

Court: Don’t you remember that you put it in the 
record?

Mr. Waggoner: Yes, sir, I remember I put it in 
the record for our other plans, but this present plan 
does differ and the results do differ somewhat from 
what was previously submitted.

Mr. Chambers: I have further objection that this 
document that Dr. Self is discussing is already in 
evidence and we can read that. Our objection is to 
the whole proceeding. It’s just a further delaying 
tactic on the part of the School Board.

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, this is not a 
delaying tactic.

William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct



752a

Court: I ’ll overrule the objection so proceed, but 
try not to duplicate stuff already introduced. This 
has been [47] before the Court four months.

Mr. Waggoner: All right.

Q. Continue, Dr. Self. A. I think I had completed the 
answer to your question.

Mr. Waggoner: I’d like for these to be marked as 
Defendant’s Exhibit #3.

Court: If you have any other exhibits, get them 
marked now so we can proceed with them, or are they 
already marked?

Mr. Waggoner: One moment, Your Honor.
Court: The rolled up maps are just like the folded 

maps?
Mr. Waggoner: The rolled up will spread out 

smoothly.

Q. Dr. Self, I hand to you Defendant’s Exhibit # 3  and 
ask you if you can identify it. A. This is the computer 
printout on Midwood Elementary School.

Q. What do the various columns represent on this print­
out ? A. The first two columns represent the racial break­
down in the school. The next column is a column entitled 
Cell Difference which is really a term that has to do with 
the compactness of the grid. The next columns have to do 
with the number of pupils, total black and white. The next 
column has to do with the capacity and the last columns 
are headed Cells Used and in these columns are listed the 
various grid combinations that can be used to make up the 
attendance area of the school.

[48] Q. All right, sir. I direct your attention to the last

William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct



753a

page of that document and ask if you can tell the Court 
the number of combinations that were printed out for that 
particular school. A. The words at the bottom of the 
printout are “Number of records read 320, number of rec­
ords printed 320.”

Q. I next hand you another exhibit entitled Defendant’s 
Exhibit # 4  and ask you if this relates to another school. 
A. This relates to the Bruns Avenue Elementary School.

Q. I direct your attention to the last page as to the 
number of records read and records printed. A. The num­
ber of records read 1065, number of records printed 1065.

Q. Dr. Self, does that represent the total number of 
combinations the computer tried for the various schools 
to reach a grid configuration? A. Yes, it does.

Mr. Stein: Your Honor, could we have a descrip­
tion of these exhibits so we could have a list to know 
what he’s talking about. Perhaps he could call off 
the exhibits he has marked and give us descriptions.

Court: Well, have you got copies of what he’s 
talking about?

Mr. Waggoner: No, sir, these are the only copies. 
They are on rolls, tremendous sheets.

[49] Court: This hearing was called at the request 
of the defendant on short notice and it wasn’t sched­
uled until last night after we found out everybody 
could be here and we may get along faster if you 
all come up here and look over his shoulder, which 
is a bit unusual. Dr. Self, if you’d like to get down 
here to the Clerk’s desk so that everything you’re 
displaying can be seen by all counsel, just stand 
there or sit, as the case may be. It may help every­
body.

William C. Self-—for Defendant—Direct



754a

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, I don’t plan 
to go into specifics. I ’m just submitting these as ex­
amples of the nature of the work of the computer.

Court: Let me ask a question. Did the computer 
decide what line to draw for Midwood School or did 
people have to do that after looking at the printouts f

A. No, sir. A human factor entered the picture at this 
point. From all of the various grid combinations that were 
listed one was chosen and that combination was drawn on 
the map which is part of the court record.

Court: So the maps you’ve got are people plans 
instead of computer plans.

A. Well, the person actually made a choice from among 
the grid combinations but it wasn’t a random choice. There 
were some criteria which were used in that selection and 
the criteria are listed on Page 5 of the report. There is 
also an example [50] given of how that selection was made 
which uses the Lakeview Elementary School and that be­
gins on Page 7 and lasts through Page 10.

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, we’d just like to 
know right now what is Exhibit 1 and 2, the plan 
the Board filed!

Court: Exhibit 1 is the minority opinion or state­
ment made by Mrs. Mauldin and Rev. Kerry. I ’m 
not sure that these are identical, but anyhow, #1 
is Mr. Kerry’s dissenting opinion. # 2  is the combi­
nation plan and brief of the School Board that was 
filed the other day. Do you have copies of those!

Mr. Chambers: We have copies of those. I guess 
# 3  is one of these documents.

William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct



755a

Mr. Waggoner: Yes.
Court: Midwood computer data.
Mr. Waggoner: Those two as samples of the nature 

of the work performed by the computer and our next 
develops how it was used.

Court: Mr. Waggoner, if this is for my informa­
tion, this has been exhaustively developed already 
in your previous testimony and I see no reason to 
go ahead with it.

Mr. Waggoner: This information has not been 
before [51] the Court prior to this time.

Court: I am aware that there are various pieces 
of information that may not be but if your purpose 
is to show the function of the computer, I think it’s 
already been shown. It produces possible plans and 
then the people who draw the plan take the computer 
information and use it as a starting point to draw 
a plan. Now and then I suppose it would produce 
something you could just print and use. Does this 
help in any decision I have to make!

Mr. Waggoner: It would show an Appellate Court 
the great extremes we went to in trying to seek all 
the alternatives to redistrict the zones in this system.

Court: How much longer are you going to spend 
on this computer!

Mr. Waggoner: Not very long, Your Honor. We 
propose moving to the maps quickly.

Court: All right. If you promise not to take long, 
I will instruct Mr. Chambers not to object but give 
him an objection to all the rest of the testimony.

Q. Dr. Self, will you describe to the Court the manner in 
which the [52] printouts of the computer information as

William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct



756a

appears on Exhibits 3 and 4 was utilized in preparing the 
maps that we will introduce later? A. Prom the various 
alternative grid selections one was selected in accordance 
with the criteria on Page 5 of the firm’s report and the 
one that was selected was drawn on the map. At that point 
you go to the next school, print it out, make your selection 
of it, put it on the map. You determine whether or not there 
is a conflict between the attendance line of the second school 
and the attendance line of the first school. If there is, you 
attempt to resolve it and move on to another school. In that 
way you build the attendance lines of all of your schools 
in the district.

Q. So you took this information and then physically and 
manually plotted on the map the grid zones or school zones 
that are on the maps, is this correct? A. The actual selec­
tion of the grid combination was done by the consulting 
firm. The lines were put on the map by the firm. Our staff 
was involved in terms of reviewing this work and offering 
suggestions for modification.

Q. Dr. Self, were you submitted any statistics with refer­
ences to the restructured lines that were proposed by Sys­
tems Associates? A. Yes. The statistics are a part of the 
report.

Q. Did your school staff participate in drawing the school 
lines [53] which appear on the maps? A. The school lines, 
we looked at what the consultant had done. We offered 
suggestions for revision or modification. We actually in­
volved the principals of the schools in this examination and 
permitted them an opportunity to offer suggestions.

Q. Cotdd you give us several examples of suggestions 
that would be made with reference not to particular lines 
but just generally? A. One suggestion that came in rather 
frequently from principals was you have altered my line 
and you’ve put some children out of my school and taken 
in some others, yet both of these groups of children are of

William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct



757a

the same race so what do you profit by altering the line. 
Of course, in this case it was a valid point and on the 
basis of that the line could be restored to its original pur­
pose. There were some cases where principals made sug­
gestions conforming to natural boundary-type reasoning 
which were rejected because to accept them would have 
upset the racial balance achieved under using the grid 
pattern.

Q. All right, sir. Did the transportation or access to the 
school form any factors in the development of these school 
lines ? A. It did not, not up to this point. I would say that 
there is probably some additional work that needs to be 
done on these lines [543 and that accessibility, blocked off 
sections of the community, things like that would have to 
be considered. I do believe that the consultant says that 
this adaptation can probably be accomplished and not 
change the statistical data by more than 2%.

Mr. Chambers: May I ask for a clarification and 
have Dr. Self define which consultant he’s talking 
about.

Court: He’s talking about Mr. Weil.

A. The consultant employed by the Board of Education, 
yes, sir.

Q. Dr. Self, based on this technique of restructuring 
attendance lines, could you give us comparisons between 
the 1969-70 school populations and those for the projected 
1970-71 school year? A. I think to show that comparison, 
Mr. Waggoner, you would use the summary of the results 
page which is Page #23 of the report. Without going 
through elementary, junior and senior high schools, if you

William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct



758a

look at the total at the bottom of the page, you can see the 
comparison of the two years in terms of the number of 
students and also by the number of schools that would be 
involved. The figures are listed by the percent of black 
pupils that would be in the schools. For example, using 
the percent black, let’s say 16 to 41, these are schools in 
which the student population ranges from 16 to 41%. The 
number of black pupils in 69-70 is 15,852. Using the re­
structured attendance line technique, that number is tripled, 
[55] overtripled to 49,748.

Q. Dr. Self, I direct your attention to Page 25 and ask if 
you can indicate the percentage of students that would be 
in schools having a black student population ranging be­
tween 16% and 41%. A. That data would be at the bottom 
of the page. The percent of black students in that particular 
category would be 61.4.

Q. Dr. Self, are there any schools in this system which 
do not have white students that will be assigned to them! 
A. Examining pages 26, 27—I believe that there are three. 
I think you would find this fact by looking down the column 
entitled Black Students and if there were a zero in that 
column this would indicate that was a school which fell in 
the category you were trying to identify.

Q. This is all white you’re talking about? A. That’s 
right, sir. The three schools are Devonshire, Merry Oaks 
and Pinewood, I believe.

Q. Are there any black schools at which there are no 
white students? A. To answer that question you would 
move over to the column entitled white students and see if 
you found any zeros, and there are none.

Q. So there are no all black schools in the full sense of 
the term, is this correct? [56] A. According to these statis­
tics and that assignment pattern, yes, sir.

William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct



759a

Court: Have you got a copy of the report of the 
School Board describing the population of various 
schools under the proposed Board plan!

Mr. Waggoner: Yes, sir, we do.
Court: I thought I had one here but I don’t seem 

to find it.
Mr. Stein: Your Honor, could we make an inquiry 

at this point! Mr. Waggoner began his questioning 
by going through the history of the process of the 
development of the plan and we’d like to know 
whether what he’s talking about now are statistics 
relating to the plan submitted to the Court or 
whether they are statistics relating to proposals by 
Weil at some intermediate stage.

Court: What are you reading from, Dr. Self!

A. From the report.

Court: You’re reading from Mr. Weil’s informa­
tion.

A. That’s true.

Court: Let’s get away from that and get to what 
you submitted to the Court.

A. If I might offer . . .

Court: Is that identical with the information sheet 
that was filed as a part of the proposed plan of the 
[57] Board?

A. There is one exception, if I’m not mistaken. The Weil
plan presumes to continue the Erwin Avenue Elementary

William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct



760a

School. Under the plan which the Board of Education sub­
mitted this school was closed. If there is variance in terms 
of the data submitted under the Weil plan and that sup­
portive data sheet which is part of the Board’s report, it’s 
because Mr. Weil was working with pupil census data from 
October 1 and this has been updated to January 21 in the 
Board’s report.

Mr. Chambers: Sir, I ’d like to make one further 
inquiry. I understand Dr. Self is talking about three 
all white schools and getting his percentages from 
Pages 26 and 27.

A. I was not using percentages, Mr. Chambers, I was using 
numbers of pupils.

Mr. Chambers: May I make one further inquiry? 
Which column were you reading from, the last col­
umns on Pages 26 and 27 ?

A. No, sir, the last line is percent. My information came 
from the third column which is entitled black students.

Mr. Stein: Your Honor, at this point we would 
suggest at this point if we go through statistics re­
lating to October and then statistics relating to Jan­
uary, the Board could keep us here for two or three 
weeks and we think we have passed the stage where 
we have that [58] kind of time.

Court: Well, I ’ve given an indication at the outset 
as to the amount of time that I can devote to this, 
so, Mr. Waggoner, you be guided as to how you spend 
the time.

William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct



761a

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, the purpose 
we have is to develop our evidence as fully as we 
can and we will try to do it in the shortest time 
possible. We feel we must present our case in our 
own manner and this is what we propose doing and 
I am moving as quickly as I can. Now, with reference 
to the question Mr. Chambers asked, there is no 
substantial difference between the Weil statistics, 
the summaries, and those that the Board has sub­
mitted. Is this correct, Dr. Self?

A. That’s correct.

Court: Well, I have studied the information sub­
mitted by the Board and have not studied the Weil 
information to know in what way it varies. I had 
not intended to go back and study the Weil figures 
in detail.

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, I am merely 
pointing out some broad categories. I haven’t gotten 
into specifics except in the predominant figure of 16 
to 41%.

[59] Court: Let me ask a question. Are there 
any schools with a black population of between 41 
and 84% ? Are there black schools either under 41 or 
over 83% ?

Mr. Waggoner: Yes, sir, 84% is the minimum per­
centage in the all black schools.

Court: So you’ve got schools which run up to 
41% black and a majority of white and then you have 
no schools with a black population anywhere between 
41 and 84.

Mr. Waggoner: That’s correct.

William C. Self—for Defendant-—Direct



762a

Court: So any reference to a collection of schools 
from 42 to 100% really means 84 to 100%, doesn’t 
it!

Mr. Waggoner: That is correct and it is so clearly 
set out in the Weil report.

Q. Dr. Self, will you name the all black schools that will 
remain in that range of 84% and 100%! A. The elemen­
tary schools are Bruns, Marie Davis, Double Oaks, Druid 
Hills, First Ward, Lincoln Heights, Oaklawn, University 
Park, Villa Heights.

Q. Erwin Avenue has been closed, is this correct! A. 
That’s correct.

Q. I understand there are certain schools that were pre­
dominantly black or are now predominantly black that will 
not be predominantly black under the projected figures. I 
direct your attention to Page 29. [60] Would you name 
those schools! A. The schools that were predominantly 
black in 69-70 or at this particular time and would not be 
predominantly black next year under the Board’s plan are 
Barringer, Billingsville, Elizabeth, Amay James, Lakeview, 
Tryon Hills.

Q. Each of the schools you just named will have less 
than 41% black, is that correct! A. That’s correct.

Q. Now, with reference to the elementary schools with 
99 to 100% white population, which ones have been removed 
from that category under your projected figure! A. 
Those schools are Chantilly, Enderly Park, Oakhurst, 
Sedgefield, Shamrock Gardens, Steel Creek and Thomas- 
boro.

Q. Dr. Self, I direct your attention to Page 31 and ask 
you to tell me those junior high schools which it is pro­
jected will have less than 15% black student population. 
A. One of those would be Albemarle Road with 2% black;

William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct



763a

McClintock with 2% ; Carmel Road with 0% and J. H. Gunn 
with 9%.

Q. I direct your attention to Quail Hollow. A. I beg 
your pardon, Quail Hollow would have 11%.

Q. Dr. Self, with reference to the high schools would you 
tell us the percentage of black students that it’s projected 
would be attending those schools? A. West would be 33% ; 
Olympic 23; Harding 36; West Charlotte 36; [61] South 
Mecklenburg 21; Myers Park 18; Garringer 27; East 17; 
Independence 2; North Mecklenburg 31.

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, can we take 
a short recess to get the maps on the board?

Court: They won’t go on the board. Why don’t 
you lay them on the floor. That’s what I do with 
them so I can see them. Let’s take a recess until 
11:00 o’clock so these maps can be straightened out. 
Be ready to go again at 11:00.

Short Recess

Q. Dr. Self, will you come down to the maps which are on 
the board which represent the Board maps that were sub­
mitted in connection with this plan for desegregation and 
I ask you to identify the first map that you see there. A. 
The first map is a map of the attendance areas of the 
elementary schools.

Q. Dr. Self, with reference to the lines that appear on 
that map, can you describe those lines for us? A. There 
are two sets of lines. First there is a dotted blue line which 
represents the attendance area as it exists at the present 
time. There are solid lines superimposed over those which 
represent the line as drawn by Systems Associates study.

Q. All right, sir. I direct your attention to the outlying 
or so-called county elementary schools and ask you if there

William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct



764a

lias been any substantial differences in the configuration of 
those [62] attendance lines. A. No substantial change in 
those.

Q. Where has the substantial change taken place? A. 
For the most part I think in the schools under this par­
ticular belt which would be the northwest to west to south­
west section. There are some rather drastic changes 
through here. In other words, I guess you would call it the 
suburban area of the city.

Q. In what would be normally regarded as the city limits 
but the outer perimeter of that, is that correct! A. That’s 
right.

Q. Dr. Self, applying the technique used in drawing those 
lines could you illustrate how one district may have been 
formed? A. Well, I think perhaps the best way to do that 
would be to trace the dotted line to show how it exists now 
and then to point out the grid line as it would be recom­
mended. This is Nations Ford. The old attendance line 
comes down Highway 49, follows the branch here, comes 
out through the countryside, heads north again, again to 
open countryside for the most part, picks up with . . .  I was 
wrong on this, that’s South Blvd. This is Highway 49 and 
York Road . . . and uses the new north-south expressway 
at this point and goes cross country to join the line again. 
The new Nations Ford Road you can see is straight lines 
like this, following the general configuration of the old 
line in this section but departing from C63] it rather radi­
cally here to reach up into and take a part of what was the 
Amay James attendance area so as to bring the black stu­
dent population up in Nations Ford.

Q. That is a rather long elementary district, is it not? 
A. Yes, it is.

Q. All right, sir. I direct your attention to the Marie 
Davis attendance district. A. Right here.

William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct



765a

Q. Do yon know what the racial population of that school 
will be approximately? A. Marie Davis is one of the 
schools we listed as predominantly black.

Q. What efforts were made to desegregate that school? 
A. Well, the same stipulation governed the attempt to 
change the Marie Davis line as did here. The difficulty is 
that as you move out from Marie Davis you get into a heavy 
student population and you have very soon rounded up 
enough pupils to fill your building to capacity. The net ef­
fect of the move is to leave the school as predominantly 
black.

Q. Do the surrounding schools to the attendance lines of 
Marie Davis have a substantial degree of desegregation? 
A. Yes. The neighboring school to Marie Davis is Bar­
ringer. That is one of the schools that I indicated would be 
changed from an all or predominantly black school to an 
approximately 70-30 ratio this next year.

[64] Q. With reference to the Barringer School where 
does its new attendance line extend generally? A. Well, 
it actually moves up into what is presently the Ashley 
Park area, crosses Wilkinson Blvd. to pick up a comple­
ment of white children. It excludes a section of black 
children in this particular section. The effect is to move 
black youngsters out and incorporate a group of white 
youngsters to get the racial balance in Barringer.

Q. Does it remove some of the students who live in the 
Barringer Woods subdivision or Bollingwood section? A. 
I ’m sorry, I ’m not that familiar with the section.

Q. Now, as I understand, this map does leave a sub­
stantial or some black schools in it in the so-called inner- 
city which lies generally northwest of Tryon Street, is 
that correct? A. That’s correct.

Q. What efforts were made to desegregate those schools?

William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct



766a

A, We looked at other possibilities. We thought in terms 
at one time of pairing or clustering arrangement with 
Marie Davis hut to have done that would have upset the 
surrounding schools. The schools that are up in this par­
ticular section could not be desegregated through re­
structuring attendance lines.

Q. I direct your attention to Billingsville. What efforts 
were made to desegregate that school? A. Billingsville 
is desegregated by using restructured attendance [65] 
lines.

Q. I next direct your attention to the next map which 
I understand is the junior high attendance map. As I 
understand this map, many of the outlying junior high 
schools were not affected substantially by the desegrega­
tion on this map, is that correct? A. Well, I think the 
same condition prevailed with the junior high schools in 
the outer region of the county. For example, veiy little 
was done in terms of the Alexander Junior High School 
attendance lines. It is already desegregated.

Q. All right, sir. With reference to Northwest Junior 
High, what efforts were made to desegregate this school? 
A. We draw the attendance line and through that technique 
and through projecting the attendance lines out in a 
westerly direction, Northwest can be desegregated.

Q. I ask you about Williams Junior High. A. The same 
technique was employed except this time the direction was 
in the easterly direction.

Q. With reference to Cochran. A. The Cochran area 
was actually reduced a bit and the area extended in to 
pick up black students to get the black student complement 
for Cochran.

Q. I next direct your attention to the map called the 
senior high map under the Board of Education plan and

William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct



767a

again ask you about the outlying or so-called county 
schools. [636 A. Well, the attendance lines at the senior 
high school level were affected by our attempts to desegre­
gate West Charlotte.

Q. Could you say this is the beginning point in trying 
to formulate a desegregation of the senior high school 
system? A. I think that would be a true statement.

Q. Would you describe the former West Charlotte at­
tendance area? A. The former West Charlotte attendance 
area is very compact, one located around the school itself. 
The northern boundary is Interstate 85, the southern or 
southwestern boundary is West Trade, for the most part 
the boundary on the east is Graham Street.

Q. What did the resulting attendance lines, what area 
did it encompass that it didn’t formerly encompass? A. 
The major change, of course, was to extend the West 
Charlotte area westerly for this block of students and into 
an easterly direction for this block of students.

Q. That line extends to the Cabarrus County line, does 
it not? A. It does.

Q. I direct your attention to Harding. What efforts were 
made to reduce the black population for that school? A. 
Efforts were made to extend the surrounding school dis­
tricts by Harding School in such a way as to pick up black 
students and bring the black ratio up in the surrounding 
schools and reduce it at Harding.

Q. I direct your attention to South Mecklenburg. Would 
you [67] describe the former attendance area there? A. 
The former attendance area produces some desegregation 
in South Mecklenburg by penetrating up into a section of 
the inner city. The revised attendance area does the same 
thing except branches out in to pick up more black students.

Q. I next direct your attention to East Mecklenburg.

William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct



768a

Describe the present attendance line. A. The East Meck­
lenburg attendance lines, of course, start at the county. 
There is a section which is pie-shaped which accommodates 
East Mecklenburg at the present time, one of the bound­
aries being Central Avenue, Lawyers Eoad and out U. S. 
74, and the other boundary being Randolph and Providence 
and going to the county line.

Q. What efforts were made to desegregate that school? 
A. The same technique as we used on South Mecklenburg, 
extend the area up into the city to bring in more black 
students.

Q. You may return to the stand. (The witness does so.) 
Dr. Self, I understand the Board plan contemplates pro­
viding transportation as permitted by state law. Under 
these revised attendance lines would there by any addi­
tional students transported? A. The Board’s provision is 
correct as you stated it. We do not intend to extend the 
transportation system beyond its present limits. However, 
in Board deliberations it has been acknowledged that a 
hardship probably would be placed on some [683 students 
and for these students we would need to come back and 
make some sort of provisions for transportation. Our 
handicap, of course, in this is we must secure the funds 
with which to act.

Q. Now, I believe in the press of time you have requested 
Mr. J. D. Morgan to familiarize himself with the trans­
portation information, is this correct? A. This is correct.

Q. Dr. Self, are you familiar with the Finger plan for 
desegregation of the schools? A. Yes, I am.

Q. Could you use the maps we now have to briefly de­
scribe the difference between his plan and the plan that 
the Board has submitted? A. Yes, sir.

William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct



769a

Q. With reference to the high schools, describe in what 
way differently he treats the assignment of students. 
A. Well, looking at the high school map and at the figures 
which are a part of the Weil document, the thing that 
concerned Dr. Finger was the 2% black enrollment at 
Independence. He instructed our staff to try to modify 
the lines in such a way as to correct this factor. The way 
to do that is to designate a section of the inner city as a 
satellite district for Independence and bus those children 
to Independence High School.

[69] Q. Do you know generally where the area is that 
would be used as a satellite district? A. It is in the inner 
city section and I believe it’s shown in color on the maps 
which Dr. Finger submitted.

Q. With reference to the junior high plan, how does 
his differ from the Board’s plan? A. His concern with 
the junior high plans was the high percentage of black at 
Piedmont and the correspondingly low percentage of white 
in the schools that I named earlier, Albemarle Road, Mc- 
Clintock, Quail Hollow, Carmel Road and J. H. Gunn, and 
he instructed our staff to attempt to redraw the lines in 
such a way as to rectify this condition. Again, through the 
use of satellite districts we were able to do this. It enabled 
us to redraw an attendance area around Piedmont and also 
to set up some satellite districts for those predominantly 
white junior high schools that I named.

Q. Under this junior high plan would it be basically bus­
ing the blacks out of the Piedmont district or cross-busing? 
A. Cross-busing if you think in terms of a system because 
the elongated junior high school district for Northwest 
and Williams would certainly require that white pupils 
be bused into them. Also the same would be the case for

William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct



770a

Kennedy Junior High School. The black youngsters would 
be bused out to the predominantly white schools.

Q. All right, sir. Now, with reference to the elementary 
how [70] does his plan differ basically from that of the 
Board? A. Again, starting with the plan and examining 
it, Dr. Finger notes, of course, there were some all black 
schools and some all or predominantly white schools re­
maining.

Q. Let me ask you this, did he basically utilize the 
Board’s restructured lines in these three systems to formu­
late his plan? A. I think it would be fair to say that Dr. 
Finger had access to these maps. He also thought that, at 
least he seemed to think that restructuring attendance lines 
was a legitimate approach to achieving desegregation.

Mr. Chambers: Objection.
Court: Why don’t you confine yourself to your 

own opinions, Dr. Self, and observations instead of 
seeking to testify for him. That’s the basis of the 
objection.

A. All right, sir.
Q. Now, with reference to the elementary plan, how does 

his plan differ from that of the Board of Education? A. 
It uses pairing for the schools that are all black and those 
that are all or predominantly white.

Q. Now, could you come down again to the elementary 
map and briefly describe the white schools he would pro- 
pose pairing and the black schools he would propose pair­
ing. (The witness does so.)

[71] Court: Have you got a list of those schools?

A. Yes, sir. They are a part of Dr. Finger’s plan.

William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct



771a

Court: That’s what I was going to hand you if 
you wanted it. Go ahead.

A. The black schools that we mentioned earlier as being 
Bruns Avenue, Marie Davis, Double Oaks, Druid Hills, 
First Ward, Lincoln Heights, Oaklawn, Tryon Hills, Uni­
versity Park and Villa Heights, and they are found in this 
particular section. The white schools or predominantly 
white are Huntingtown Farms, Sharon, Starmount, Park 
Road, Pinewood, Briarwood, Devonshire, Hidden Valley, 
Beverely Woods, Lansdowne, Old Providence, Albemarle 
Road, Idlewild, Merry Oaks, Allenbrook, Paw Creek, Paw 
Creek annex as a part of Paw Creek, Tuckaseegee, Hickory 
Grove, Montclaire, Rama Road, Selwyn, Windsor Park 
and Winterfield.

Q. All right, sir. Would you basically describe how he 
would effect his pairing? A. The pairing plan assumes 
that the white schools that were named would become 
schools in which grades 1 through 4 are housed. The 5th 
and 6th grade youngsters would be taken out of those 
schools. The black schools would become schools in which 
grades 5 and 6 are housed. The 5th and 6th grade young­
sters from the white neighborhood would be bused into 
the 5th and 6th grade schools in the inner city and at the 
same time the 1st through 4th grade black youngsters would 
be [72] bused into the white schools I named.

Q. Generally what is the size of a pairing group that he 
would propose here? A. It ranges in terms of the capacity 
of the schools but by and large it would be pairing a black 
school with either two or three whites. (The witness re­
turns to the witness stand.)

Q. Dr. Self, with reference to the pairing plan proposed

William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct



772a

by Dr. Finger, bow does his plan propose getting the stu­
dents to the schools? A. I believe that Dr. Finger recom­
mends that children beyond a mile and a half distance from 
the school be transported.

Q. Do you know how many total students this would in­
volve? A. You can come to a very rough approximation. 
Again, I think this figure could be polished, if you care to, 
in Mr. Morgan’s testimony. The black inner city schools 
number approximately 7000 youngsters. If you assume you 
want a 70% white ratio in there, you must also assume 
that you’re going to move 70% of the youngsters who are 
there. That would be approximately 5000 youngsters. If 
there are 5000 youngsters who are moved out of these 
schools, then 5000 white are moved in to replace them. 
This gives you a rough approximation of 10,000 youngsters 
involved in the paired schools.

Q. Is there additional busing that his plan contemplates? 
A. In the satellite districts of the junior and senior high 
schools, yes.

[73] Q. Dr. Self, do you as an educator have any prefer­
ence with reference to Dr. Finger’s plan or to the plan 
submitted to the Board?

Mr. Chambers: Objection.
Court: Well, answer the question if you can from 

the standpoint of the educational desirability of the 
two plans as to the three different levels of schools 
educationally and administratively, I suppose. You’re 
asking both of those rather than personal opinion.

Mr. Waggoner: Yes, sir.
Court: Go ahead.

A. As far as the secondary schools are concerned—

Court: What do you mean secondary?

William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct



773a

A. Junior and senior high schools. I think I could support 
the idea of using the elongated districts and, if necessary, 
the busing arrangement to achieve the racial balance in 
the secondary schools. I think that there is a basis for 
Dr. Finger’s work in that area. In the elementary schools 
your question forces me to make a value judgment against 
the relative worth of the neighborhood school as against 
the benefits of the desegregated classroom. I think I have 
testified in this hearing before that I do think that there 
are values of a desegregated classroom. You’re in a quandry 
as to whether or not the steps that would be necessary to 
achieve Dr. Finger’s plan would be so traumatic that what 
you were [743  hoping would happen in a desegregated 
classroom would be beyond the realm of possibility. In 
other words, if people would be so upset this would never 
occur.

Court: You’re talking now about whether people 
like it or not, aren’t you?

A. I ’m talking about whether the system can adapt to that 
drastic a change, whether teachers can be—

Court: Let’s confine ourselves not to whether we 
like what the law requires but to the educational 
questions involved.

Mr. Waggoner: Can we get his testimony in the 
record?

Court: I don’t think it’s pertinent and I told you 
Monday that we’re not holding a popularity hearing 
on this question, and I’m not going to do it today.

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, what he is 
stating is that the opinion of children and parents 
can so affect the educational system that the bene-

William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct



774a

Colloquy

fits to be derived from desegregation can be sub­
merged because of lack of popular support or ac­
ceptance.

Court: The Court is not going to entertain evi­
dence on whether these things are popular or not. 
There is ample evidence of the unpopularity of the 
constitution in Mecklenburg County and I don’t need 
expert opinion on that subject.

Mr. Waggoner: We would like to tender his an­
swer.

[75] Court: I think his answer is adequately on 
the record.

Mr. Waggoner: May we tender his answer!
Court: Oh, yes, you may supply it later.
Mr. Waggoner: May he finish his answer that he 

was on, Your Honor!
Court: No, sir. I overruled the objection. You 

may supply the answer later for the record.
Mr. Waggoner: At the conclusion of his testimony!
Court: Any time you like.
Mr. Waggoner: May we do it now!
Court: I have instructed you not to call for any 

more evidence on the question of whether the people 
of Mecklenburg County like or don’t like what the 
law requires. Now, if he wants to supply the an­
swer to the Reporter privately, all right. I ’m in­
structing you, Mr. Waggoner, not to proceed any 
further with comment on what people like or don’t 
like about the law of the land.

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, we are not 
proceeding on what the people like or don’t like about 
the law of the land. What we are proceeding on is 
in the area of education, the benefits. I think this is



775a

something to be taken into account. If an educator 
says that the acceptance—

[76] Court: You may supply the answer after 
this witness has testified, Mr. Waggoner, but I don’t 
want to hear any more on this subject.

Q. Dr. Self, the Court has expressed interest in the 
amount of time that would be required to implement a plan 
for desegregation this spring, have you given any thought 
and study to this? A. Yes, we have, Mr. Waggoner. The 
staff has attempted to devise what we call a planning net­
work which would list the various events and activities that 
must unfold if the Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools are de­
segregated.

Q. Do you have a chart prepared indicating the steps 
that must be accomplished in the order! A. Ido.

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, we would like 
for the witness to be permitted to use this rather 
long chart to illustrate the testimony. It’s not large 
enough for everyone to see and perhaps if the wit­
ness could move close to the Court, he could describe 
what he’s talking about.

Court: Go ahead. I think I can follow all right.
Mr. Chambers: May we see a copy of what we’re 

talking about now!
Court: Do you have only one copy of this?
Mr. Waggoner: We have only one copy. v
[77] Mr. Chambers: We’d like to note another ob­

jection for the record. Mr. Waggoner, we submit, 
persists in trying to make this a popularity showing. 
We think that if he has pertinent evidence about 
the time schedule needed to desegregate that that

William C. Self—for Defendant-—Direct



776a

Colloquy

might be of some interest to the Court. But we sub­
mit that that, too, has been foreclosed in the decisions 
of the Fourth Circuit and the decisions of the Su­
preme Court. The courts explicitly held what the 
obligations of the School Board were and that doesn’t 
include . . .

Court: Mr. Waggoner, you may go ahead and 
offer the exhibit if you think it’s pertinent but I will 
be far more interested in getting a timetable some­
time next week on implementation of the Court order 
than I am in evidence on the implementation of the 
Board plan or anything else as a theoretical matter 
at this point. Let me see the outline, do you have it ? 
(Paper writing is handed to the Court.) You may 
certainly offer it and I ’ll accept it, but I think it will 
be time better spent if it’s with some dates before us 
so the staff will know what job they’re trying to do 
when.

Mr. Waggoner: That’s the reason I wish to use the 
witness, Your Honor, to supply the dates.

Court: How much discretion do you think the 
Court has [78] on this in light of what the Chief 
Judge of this Circuit said about Greenville?

Mr. Waggoner: The Court has the discretion that 
it will not order an impossible or vain act. This 
dates through all the cases in the history of the law 
that I know, that the Court does not order a vain or 
useless act. They have ordered the Greenville and 
Darlington school districts to desegregate now. They 
said come up with a plan and whether or not the 
plan will produce actual and total mixing on the 
deadline is speculative at this point.



777a

Colloquy

Court: Well, Mr. Waggoner, don’t you understand 
that I ’m going to allow just as much time as I be­
lieve the law will permit me to allow?

Mr. Waggoner: I feel certain that . . .
Court: And I cannot he controlled by whether it’s 

somewhat disturbing or not. If you think the evi­
dence will help, go ahead, but I’m already on your1 
side from that standpoint and I think you know it. 
The problem is how far I can go in good conscience 
to extend the deadline which the Chief Judge of the 
Circuit has already put into effect in his hometown 
on three weeks notice.

Mr. Waggoner: Mr. Chambers has already indi­
cated that he thinks March 1st is the latest this should 
be [79] accomplished.

Court: Let’s don’t conduct a hearing that that’s 
controlling upon the Court nor that this evidence 
that you have here can be controlling.

Mr. Waggoner: Well, with Mr. Chambers com­
muting to Richmond these days on . . . .

Court: Let’s leave personalities out of the case.
Mr. Chambers: I object to that. Regardless of 

whether I go to Richmond or Washington I don’t 
think it’s pertinent to this case.

Court: Did I miss something funny? I was talk­
ing.

Mr. Waggoner: Well, the point I was making, 
Your Honor, Julius jokingly, Mr. Chambers jokingly 
asked me if I was prepared to be in Richmond to­
morrow to meet with the Court of Appeals. So I feel 
if he is insistent upon his deadline there may be 
some application and it is our desire to protect our



778a

record, so that we do have something on which yon 
base your order.

Court: Let me get a little information from Dr. 
Self that I missed while you were asking about these 
plans. Dr. Self, looking at the Board’s proposal with 
regard to senior high schools, as I understand it Dr. 
Finger has not presented any proposed change with 
regard to the Board’s plan except that he proposed
[80] that there be a transfer of some three or four 
hundred students from the central part of town out 
to Independence which is almost entirely white under 
the lines drawn by the Board.

A. This is true. This move causes a slight ripple effect in 
terms of adjusting other lines to capacity, but that’s the 
major difference.

Court: Now, with regard to junior high schools, 
am I correct—leaving aside the problems of trans­
portation right now, which may cut through the 
whole thing—with regard to the junior high schools 
am I correct that there again Dr. Finger’s plan 
starts with the basic school attendance zones that 
the Board had prepared and that the main difference 
between those two plans is that the Board plan 
leaves Piedmont High School still substantially black, 
90% or so, and that he has drawn a plan which does 
not leave any all black or nearly black schools f

A. That’s correct.

Court: And is it correct that the Board plan could 
be, if it were decided there ought to be a change in

William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct



779a

the Board plan, the choice would be between rezoning 
or transporting children hack and forth, to and from 
Piedmont or closing Piedmont and reassigning those 
students to some of the outlying white junior high
[81] schools.

A. That would be the alternative. The plan really revolves 
around Piedmont. If you say that the Board plan permits 
preponderance of black in Piedmont, do something about 
it, and if you do something about Piedmont you affect all 
the other schools as well. If you are considering closing 
Piedmont, I would have to say it’s not a very good alter­
native because we’re talking about the use and Dr. Finger 
projects the use of two junior high schools that are not 
now in existence. That’s J. H. Gunn, in which the Clear 
Creek elementary youngsters are being housed while the 
new building is being built, and Carmel Road, which is 
under construction and will open next fall, which is another 
way of saying that we’re tight capacitywise at the junior 
high school level and it would make it more difficult to close 
Piedmont.

Court: If the Court felt that under the decisions 
of the higher court in this area, if the Court felt that 
Piedmont could not he maintained as a nearly black 
school and if you assume the decision is made that 
that cannot be maintained, would you in that event 
feel that Dr. Finger’s plan for the junior highs would 
be preferable to closing Piedmont?

A. I believe so, yes, sir.

Court: I ’m not asking you to make the decision 
whether Piedmont can or cannot be maintained, but

William, C. Self—for Defendant—Direct



780a

[82] simply assuming it would have to be changed 
in its school population. That was the assumption 
of the question.

A. Yes, sir.

Court: Now, with reference to the elementary 
schools, is it correct to say that the Board’s plan 
goes as far as you can go under the restrictions that 
all the school zones must be contiguous and that you 
not contemplate any substantial plans for transporta­
tion?

A. It is correct to say that.

Court: And is it correct to say that the Board’s 
plan was drafted upon the premise that there was no 
duty to eliminate all of the black schools or at least 
that the plan might reasonably present that question 
for appellate review? I ’m not trying to ask you 
another legal question, let me rephrase it. The plan 
for elementary schools is frankly drawn upon the 
assumption that there is no duty to eliminate all of 
the all black or nearly all black schools.

A. I believe the Board started out on a more positive as­
sumption than that, Your Honor. I think they wanted to 
determine whether restructuring attendance lines could 
have a significant impact in terms of reaching better racial 
balance.

William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct

Court: And they found it could have a significant 
impact and it has had as reflected in the plan of the
[83] Board.



781a

A. That’s correct.

Court: So with regard to all three levels of school 
population the plan proposed to the Court by the 
Board represents a very drastic improvement in the 
situation from the standpoint of progress towards 
racially indistinguishable schools.

A. That’s correct, they do.

Court: Just how was the plan that is represented 
in the map and the figures of Dr. Finger, how was 
that plan arrived at with regard to the elementary? 
Did he start with substantially those attendance 
zones which when drawn by Mr. Weil and the Board’s 
staff did result in the desegregation of a great many 
of the schools? Are those incorporated in what is 
referred to as the Finger plan?

A. They are, yes, sir.

Court: And the fundamental difference in those 
two plans starts after the Finger plan includes es­
sentially those rezoned areas which have resulted in 
the desegregation of a great many schools.

A. That’s right.

Court: And then the problem of what to do about 
the other schools has been dealt with by pairing or 
grouping black inner-city schools with outlying white
[84] schools and providing for transportation.

William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct

A. That’s correct.



782a

Court: If children are assigned from a city school 
to a rural or a perimeter area school do they receive 
transportation under the present arrangement?

A. They do and the converse to that is true. If a child who 
resides in the county is moved to a city school, he is pro­
vided with transportation.

Court: I suppose the transportation estimates are 
still rather rough at this stage and there is no way 
to tell exactly what the net result of any one of these 
plans would he as far as ultimate increase in trans­
portation costs.

A. I believe, Your Honor, that the transportation estimates 
are as accurate as we can possibly make them at this time.

Court: As near as you can tell it involves some
10,000 children elementary with some margin for 
error?

A. The 10,000 figure that I used in earlier testimony had to 
do with the paired elementary schools. I think there would 
be some additional transportation for the satellite zones in 
the junior high and for the senior high.

Court: Well, now, I have some recollection from 
previous testimony that the county pays somewhere 
around eighteen or $20.00 a year per pupil and the 
state cost for transportation is about eighteen or 
$20.00 a year [85] per pupil as a long range proposi­
tion for bus transportation.

A. I think the figure used in the earlier testimony was

William C. Self—•for Defendant—Direct



783a

around $19.00. I believe the figure this year is slightly 
higher than that.

Court: But if you add up all the costs, wherever 
the money comes from, it runs somewhere between 
thirty-seven or -eight and $40.00 a year per pupil for 
transportation.

A. I believe I ’d have to let Mr. Morgan give specific data 
on that, sir.

Mr. Waggoner: May I continue, Your Honor!
Court: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Waggoner.

Q. Dr. Self, with reference to the required steps and 
the time required to perform the various functions to imple­
ment the Board plan, do you have an opinion satisfactory 
to yourself as to the steps needed! A. Mr. Waggoner, the 
planning network for the secondary schools is predicated 
upon the statement that you made in testimony in court on 
Monday, which anticipates an actual merging of student 
bodies three weeks prior to the close of school. The ele­
mentary plan assumes that we will attempt to move, if 
implementation is ordered, as quickly as possible and here 
we are concerned with whether or not we are dealing with 
an elementary school around which a new attendance line 
has been [86] drawn or with an elementary school which 
is associated with the pairing technique. If we’re talking 
about the attendance line restructuring, then we have more 
or less an administrative logistic problem which must be 
handled and I think we can move fairly readily. But if 
we’re talking about the paired schools, then transportation 
enters the picture and our efforts to determine how we could

William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct



784a

respond to this transportation need has not been too en­
couraging.

Q. Can you give us some of the specific tasks that must 
be performed aside from transportation? A. I might say 
that the planning network was devised for use by our of­
fice. It was not intended as a part of the testimony. We 
were trying to prepare ourselves for the task. While it 
looks fairly complicated, there are two basic elements to 
the planning network. The rectangular shape on the plan­
ning network is simply a listing of the events which must 
take place. The Circle diagrams which run all over the page 
are the activities that must be performed by school person­
nel before that event can ever take place. The first event on 
the map is approval of the maps by the Board. That would 
mean approval of the maps as they are presented here with 
the final polishing being done, adaptation to the natural 
geographic lines. Of course, I don’t think the Court is in­
terested in all the administrative staff has to do to get it 
ready for the Board to approve.

[87] Q. How long do you anticipate that would take? 
A. We think that could be done by February 17.

Court: What is this you say could be done by 
then?

A. The approval of the maps by the Board, the refinement 
of them and placed before the Board for approval.

Q. These refinements, you say, would not vary substan­
tially from the ratios of these lines now established, is that 
correct? A. We would have to see that it did not vary 
substantially from the racial balance. That was the object 
of restructuring the line to begin with. I ’m talking now 
about the elementary schools which would be desegregated 
through use of restructured attendance lines.

William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct



785a

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I assume we don’t 
have to continue to note our objection. We would 
like to note objections to this testimony.

Court: All right. The objection is overruled.

A. The next three events occur simultaneously and we set 
aside March 6 for this task. The three tasks are prepara­
tion of the community, assignment of pupils and assign­
ment of teachers. The next four events occur simulta­
neously and we have set those down for April 1. They are 
transfer of pupil records, preparation of the building, stu­
dents reporting to school and have the revised transporta­
tion schedules in operation.

Q. Now, as I understand the chart that you have has 
a lot of [88] sub-tasks that must be performed to reach 
these events that you speak of, is this correct! A. They 
do. I think that we might emphasize that regardless of 
the date that is set, all of these tasks will have to be per­
formed one way or another.

Q. Are the events and sub-tasks that must be performed 
accurate as they appear on that chart to the best of your 
knowledge? A. I must emphasize that they are judgment 
items. We have had to look at the task that was ahead and 
make some judgment as to how quickly we could perform 
them, how quickly all of the jobs could he done.

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, we would like 
at this time to offer the elementary chart as an 
exhibit.

Court: Let me ask a question about the last couple 
of minutes of testimony. Are you talking now about 
the elementary system or all three systems?

William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct



786a

A. In our staff work, Your Honor, we have, just to keep 
things straight, divided the elementary schools from the 
secondary schools and one group of people worked on the 
schedule for implementation of any order that would 
effect the secondary schools. Another group worked on 
the elementary school task and in working with the ele­
mentary schools, we divided them, sub-divided them into 
two categories, those elementary schools affected by simply 
altering the attendance lines and those elementary schools 
that would be involved in pairing.

[89] Court: These working schedules that you’re 
talking about, do they relate to which group of 
schools do they relate to? All three types of schools?

A. They do, yes, sir.

Court: You’re handling these problems separately 
with a separate administrator and staff for senior 
high and junior high and elementary but you’re 
working towards the same timetable for all of them ?

A. No, sir. We are following a varying time schedule. The 
time schedule that I went through a moment ago had to 
do with the elementary schools desegregated by attendance 
lines. It’s necessary to separate them in your thinking 
because. . . .

Court: That’s what I ’m trying to do.

Q. Dr. Self, with reference to the secondary schools, is 
there more difficulty in making the change of school for 
the students than there is in the elementary level? A. Yes, 
there is. I think it's related to the nature of the secondary 
school program and courses of study.

William C. 8elf~ for Defendant—Direct



787a

Q. Could you elaborate? A. May I do so simply through 
reciting the events that need to unfold!

Q. Yes, if you will.

Court: Let me go back to the elementaries for a 
minutes, Dr. Self. Assuming you had all the neces­
sary transportation available, is it fair to say that 
the [90] easiest job as an administrative matter is 
the job that involves the grouping or clustering 
schools where the pupils are not being reassigned 
geographically but simply being taken as a school 
grade from one part of town to another?

A. From an administrative point of view, yes.

Court: And the hangup there is whether or not 
transportation can be had.

A. Can be had and can be supported financially.

Court: Now, the matter of redrawing the atten­
dance zones and transferring children from one 
school to another where no serious transportation 
problem is involved is more difficult administratively 
but still something you think can be done, can be 
completed in a couple of months, perhaps by April 
1.

A. Yes, it can. I think that it may be completed because 
of the skill or knowhow that we have acquired in the use 
of the computer.

Court: All right. Well, I think I’ve got my bear­
ings now on what you’ve just told us.

William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct



788a

Q. If yon will, with reference to secondary schools de­
scribe the events. A. The first event. . . .

Q. Is this with reference to junior high schools? A. 
Junior and senior. The first major event is the same one 
as [91] for the elementary school, the adoption of the 
official maps by the Board of Education. We think that we 
can work our way through to the point where these can be 
presented to and approved by the Board by February 25th. 
At the same time that this work is going on with the maps, 
we would need to develop our staffing plan, our pupil as­
signment process and the curriculum that was to be offered 
in the schools in question. Simultaneously with that we 
would he attempting to develop or modify our transporta­
tion system. The next big event in terms of our pupils— 
and I think these are the common thread that go through 
all of this—is the assignment of pupils for the 70-71 term 
and we say that this can be done by March 25th and that 
pupils and parents can be notified about that immediately 
thereafter. The next major event is the assignment of 
teachers which can he done by May 1st. The teacher assign­
ment to secondary schools is dependent a great deal upon 
the courses which the pupils have registered for because 
that tells you whether you need Social Studies teachers 
or math teachers and the like.

Court: Is your thinking in terms of starting the 
19 < 0-11 school year in: mediately after the shift over 

- -  high and senior are
eerued*

A . \ eSv ' t s.

Court: hac are you tnmktng; .scout me oupiis-
are ?e<uors -  u g g  ssatooi?

William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct



789a

A. We would propose to advance the graduation date for 
the seniors in high school and, in effect, make room in the 
senior high schools so that we could move the rising 9th 
graders up to become a part of the new senior high school 
the last three weeks of the school term. At the same time 
this would give us room in the junior high schools to actu­
ally promote and involve the 6th grade students as a part 
of the junior high. So what we would really be doing would 
be organizing for the next school term.

Court: All right, go ahead.

A. There are four events actually which we are envisioning 
as occurring on May 26th and this would include event #1, 
teachers report to new assignments, event #2, students 
report to the new school assignments, event #3, the master 
schedule and the student schedule will have been completed, 
event #4 , the bus transportation system would be opera­
tive.

Q. Dr. Self, the chart you have just read from contains 
the events and the sub-tasks that must be performed to 
reach those, is that correct? A. The events only. The sub- 
tasks, o f course, I  have not read.

Q. Are they sub-tasks required to reach the events ac­
cording to the best of your knowledge or information ’ A. 
Yes, sir. There are quite a few of them.

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, we wonA 
like to [93] introduce these as Exhibits 5 and t to 
illustrate the testimony of the witness.

Mr. Chambers: Objection.
Mr. Horack: Excuse me, they are 13 and 14.

William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct



790a

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, again we are missing 
some exhibits. You’ve got 13 and 14 now?

Mr. Horack: Yes. These were marked earlier at 
the Judge’s request.

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, Exhibit 13 is 
the planning network for desegregation of elemen­
tary schools and Exhibit 14 is the planning network 
for desegregation of secondary schools.

Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, we’d like to point 
out for the record that we have not seen either one 
of those exhibits.

Court: We are still operating under a somewhat 
unusual set of circumstances here.

Q. Dr. Self, have you given consideration to the planning 
network required for pairing these schools? A. Yes, we 
have.

Q. Would you describe the network for the events that 
you must reach to accomplish that desegregation? A. To 
save the time of the Court, Mr. Waggoner, the planning 
network is essentially the same as that for the elementary 
schools affected by restructuring attendance lines. The 
[94] handicapping feature is the transportation so while 
you can draw the planning network, it’s difficult to put 
dates on it until such time as you clear the question of 
transportation entirely.

Q. Dr. Self, with reference to transportation you testified 
that the pairing alone would require the transportation of 
something in the neighborhood of 10.000 children. Dr. 
Fingers plan proposes transporting all students irrespec­
tive of where they live if they reside a mile and a half from 
their school. Do you know approximately how many sra-

William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct



791a

dents would have to be transported additionally under Dr.
Finger’s plan?

Mr. Chambers: Objection.

A. Mr. Waggoner, I believe Mr. Morgan can answer the
questions regarding transportation with more clarity.

Q. All right. Does your budget have funds for acquisi­
tion of a substantial number of buses? A. No, sir.

Mr. Waggoner: We have no further questions at 
this time.

Court: I don’t mean to try to make a tough job 
seem easy hut I do want to he sure I have a simple 
little accurate picture of what you have said to me. 
As I understand it, you think it would he administra­
tively possible or practicable to complete the re­
assignment of the elementary students who are being 
relocated by [95] rezoning by the 1st of April or 
thereabouts.

A. Yes, sir.

Court: And the reassignment of the students who 
are to be relocated by pairing or clustering, if that 
is directed, will be dependent in any given case on 
what transportation can he arranged.

A. That’s true, sir.

Court: Is it correct to say that the pairing and 
clustering of schools is a method which can be se: up 
for any particular group or cluster of schools as a 
small amount of transportation does become avail­

William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct



792a

able without waiting for the same thing to take place 
with respect to all the other pairs or clusters?

A. It’s correct to assume that. I think we said earlier that 
the pairing arrangement usually identified one black school 
and two or three whites. If you had a limited amount of 
transportation available, you could move with those schools 
and move then with other clusters of schools as additional 
transportation became available.

Court: And your present recommendation would 
be to the Board that the transition for the junior 
and senior highs not actually take place until to­
wards the end of May?

A. That would be my recommendation, yes, sir.

Court: You use the date May 26, what is the 
present [96] scheduled time for the completion of 
the conventional school year?

A. June 9.

Court: So this would give what, a full week?

A. It would give two, if I ’m not mistaken.

Court: Well, you’ve got five more days in May. 
That’s two weeks by the calendar, but is the gradua­
tion not usually removed by a few days from the end 
of the actual school year?

A. Yes, sir, usually the commencement exercise precedes 
the end of the school year.

William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct



793a

Court: Have you got a calendar there?

A. No, sir. I looked for one and I do not have one.

Court: I was wondering when Easter is. Isn’t it 
quite early in April this year?

Marshal Beam: 29th of March.

A. I have a calendar here now.

Court: April 1 is the Wednesday after Easter. 

A. That’s correct.

Court: At the present time by the number, just 
about half of the elementary students, black ele­
mentary students who are going to schools that are 
very nearly or all black or entirely black, are they 
not? Have you ever run a total on that?

A. I ’m sure that we have although I find it very hard to 
keep all [97] the figures in my mind, Your Honor.

Court: How many students, Dr. Self, not in exact 
amounts but approximately, of the elementary stu­
dents will be involved in the defective desegregation 
that will result from restructuring the elementary at­
tendance lines?

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, I might direct 
his attention to Page 23 of the Weil report.

A. Let’s see if we can piece this together. From Page 23 
we can get an approximation of the number of students in 
the elementary schools as being approximately 45,000. The

William C. Self—for Defendant—Direct



794a

children who would he involved in the pairing arrangement 
in the schools that I listed earlier would total 22,000.

Court: You mean they would be involved in it as 
persons attending those schools, not necessarily per­
sons being transported.

A. That’s right, they would he. In other words, all of the 
paired schools the total pupil population would he approxi­
mately 22,000. That would mean that in school A, which was 
a 1 through 4 school that the white pupils there would he 
in the school and counted in the 22,000. The black children 
would he bused in. Vice versa on the 5 through 6 schools. 
If you take 22,000 from the 45,000 you get a very rough 
approximation that 23,000 of our youngsters are in the 
zoned schools and about 22,000 are in the paired schools.

[98] Court: Do counsel for the plaintiffs have 
any questions of Dr. Self?

Mr. Chambers: Just one or two, Your Honor.

Cross Examination by Mr. Chambers:

Q. Dr. Self, were you present at the Board meeting where 
you decided to employ Systems Analysis to prepare this 
plan for you! A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you recall what instructions, if any, you gave 
Systems Analysis to follow in the preparation of these 
plans? A. Yes, sir, and the instructions are part of the 
report.

Q. Did you instruct Systems Analysis not to consider 
pairing or clustering of any schools? A. We did.

Q. Did you agree to a contract price per hour or per day 
for the work by Systems Analysis? A. Yes, we did.

William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross



795a

Q. What price was that?

Mr. Waggoner: Objection.
Court: Overruled.

A. The price varied according to the individuals who would 
be employed.

Q. Would you tell us the price per day or per hour for 
the work by Systems Analysis?

[99] Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, this is 
totally irrelevant to the considerations before the 
Court. I think it’s some attempt on the part of the 
plaintiffs to try to embarrass the Board in some way.

Court: Well, I believe lawyers and consultants 
all ought to he paid whether hired by the Board or 
appointed by the Court. I saw in his report, though, 
I believe that he had 200 days of work on it. I guess 
that’s a good deal more than Jack Finger has been 
able to put on it in the last few weeks, isn’t it? I don’t 
think that’s relevant.

Q. How much did you pay Systems Analysis, Dr. Self?

Mr. Waggoner: Objection.
Mr. Chambers: I’d like to get that in the record, 

Your Honor.
Court: Overruled. How much have you paid them 

up to now?

A. I don’t really recall the exact figure, Your Honor. I can 
make an approximation.

William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross

Court: Hive us your approximation.



796a

Mr. Waggoner : Objection.
Court: Well, go on.

A. I ’d say approximately ten to $11,000.00.

Court: So far. Do you think you got your money’s 
worth ?

[100] A. Yes, sir.

Court: Did having Dr. Finger here help in some 
ways to move along towards the solution of a very 
knotty hunch of problems f

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, on the high school map where you were talking 

about Piedmont, as I recall, just taking West Charlotte, for 
instance, your line proposed extends out to the county line, 
is that correct? A. That’s correct.

Q. Now, I believe under the present state law you would 
be providing bus transportation for basically all of the 
students in the county coming into West Charlotte. A. 
That’s true.

Q. It would just be the students now in this small area 
here who would not be receiving bus transportation? A. 
That’s right.

Q. I believe that for East, as another example, your line 
goes up into the inner city but because East is in the county 
these students, too, would be receiving bus transportation. 
A. That’s correct.

Q. The same thing would be true of South, I believe you 
talked about, too. A. That’s right.

Q. In fact, you contemplate quite a bit of bus transporta­

William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross



797a

tion [101] under your plan. A. Within the attendance 
area, yes, sir.

Q. The same would be true of the junior high schools. 
A. That’s right.

Q. I think you told the Court a moment ago a kid resid­
ing in the city, assigned to a school in the county would re­
ceive bus transportation. A. Yes.

Q. Or assigned to a school annexed to the city subsequent 
to 1957. A. Until that date in April where all of this is 
supposed to reach a climax in the court.

Court: That’s a different court.
Mr. Chambers: I understand, Your Honor.

Q. And vice versa for the kids in the county coming into 
inner-city schools. A. Transported!

Q. Yes. A. Yes.
Q. So under both plans, in order to desegregate the 

schools, you would require some bus transportation for the 
students. A. Yes.

Q. Now, Dr. Self, in preparation of your plan how did 
you intend to provide bus transportation for these students 
who under the state law would be entitled to bus transporta­
tion, if you [102] had to implement it this year! A. Well, 
the larger number of pupils we have under consideration 
here are at the secondary level and you notice in our plan­
ning network what we were intending to do was to assign 
the pupils, register them, build a master schedule and post­
pone the actual movement of the student into the school 
until that date of May 26. This has the effect of postponing 
the need for the buses until that time.

Q. Did you plan to get the buses by that time? A. We 
are investigating every possible means of acquiring buses.

William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross



798a

Q. Was it your intent to inform the Court you were 
going to have bus transportation by that time?

Mr. Waggoner: Objection, if the Court please. 
Our plan has stated it proposed implementation in 
1970, September.

Court: He’s simply asking what the testimony 
was. My notation as to the testimony that gives rise 
to the question is that on the 26th of May the trans­
portation system would be operating as far as the 
junior and senior high schools are concerned. That’s 
what you said, I believe, wasn’t it?

A. That’s true. We set the date. It’s our intent to either 
if we have the buses we will use them; if we don’t, we’ll 
try to implement some other technique such as staggering 
the opening of school, pressing activity buses into service, 
or something [103] of that nature, or perhaps use contract 
transportation.

Q. You did intend to have bus transportation by that 
time, did you not? A. Yes.

Q. Where were you planning to get the money for that? 
A. We would have to approach the County Commissioners 
and petition them for the money to purchase any additional 
buses needed and then, of course, we would overature the 
State to pick up the operational costs.

Q. In fact, you had intended to go back to the County 
Commissioners to get additional funds for buses. A. This 
amount of busing, yes, sir.

Q. Now, how many buses did you contemplate you would 
need under your plan? A. I don’t have that detail. I 
think we’ll have to have that testimony supplied by Mr. 
Morgan.

William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross



799a

Q. Do you have any idea of how much money you would 
need to provide buses under your plan! A. No.

Q. Have you, in fact, or the Board consulted with the 
County Commissioners about the availability of additional 
funds? A. I have not.

Q. To your knowledge has this been done by the Board? 
A. If it has, it has not been done in formal board session.

Q. To your knowledge has it been done? [104] A. I think 
there have been conversations between Board members 
and members of the County Commissioner.

Q. Isn’t it a fact, Dr. Self, that the Board has advised 
you that they might make funds available for bus trans- 
portation? A. No, sir, they have not.

Q. The County Commissioners have not?

Court: Mr. Chambers, I think this further pursuit 
of the transportation question is also irrelevant be­
cause as I read what the courts are saying, the fact 
it may cost some money is not a legal reason to do 
or not to do anything about it.

Mr. Chambers: All right, I’ll pursue another sub­
ject.

Q. Dr. Self, how do you buy buses in the State for this 
system? A. I buy the buses through the State Depart­
ment of Public Instruction.

Q. Does the State Department of Public Instruction 
maintain distribution centers around the State! A. I do 
not know.

Mr. Waggoner: If the Court please, we might 
shorten this. We have a man who is with the State 
Department here today to testify and he can give 
precise answers.

William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross



800a

Court: Well, I always learn when I keep my mouth 
shut but I really think that within the limits of what 
we’re talking about here are the things I have to do 
that won’t be helped by knowing a lot of detail about 
[105] transportation, I really do.

Mr. Chambers: I ’ll withdraw the question, Your 
Honor, and go to another area.

Court: Hr. Self, am I correct in my recollection 
that the budget of the school system for this year 
is fifty million dollars'?

A. Closer to forty-five million, I think, Your Honor.

Court: Does that include money supplied by the 
State?

A. Yes, it does.
Court: As well as local.

A. A combination of all sources, State, Federal and local.
Q. Looking at your time schedule that you introduced, 

Exhibits 13 and 14, why would it take until February 17 
and February 25 to get Board approval of a map? A. The 
major reason can be found in the activities which precede 
that event. The work must be parceled out among a large 
number of people. The principals must be involved in this. 
It virtually will be necessary in some cases to ride the 
districts and actually make a visual survey where the 
computer did draw the lines and to take into account any 
hardships as far as transportations are concerned, and 
things like that. The time is not for Board approval. The 
time would be in the preparation of the maps where we 
would feel confident in recommending the maps to the 
Board for approval.

William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross



801a

Q. Are you suggesting that those maps are not the maps 
for the [106] Board? A. They are the maps of the Board 
but in approving that—and I believe that’s contained in 
the study as well—it is admitted that they will have to 
be examined very carefully with a view toward eliminating 
any discrepancies that have not yet been found.

Q. If the Court were to order implementation of the 
Finger plan, would you have to redraw those lines? A. 
Yes, sir.

Q. You don’t think they are accurate? A. They are ac­
curate, the lines are accurate. Our major problem is to 
adapt the grid line to an identifiable natural geographic 
marker. It may be necessary to even go so far as to say 
this lines goes between these two houses.

Q. Why would it be necessary to wait until March 25th 
before actual assignment of pupils? A. Because of the 
various activities that must be accomplished prior to that 
event.

Q. Why did you figure on starting a new year for the 
secondary students rather than transferring them now! 
A. For the most part because their curriculum in the new 
school would stand a pretty good chance of being altered 
from the course of study that they had in the old school. 
We figured it would be better to move the seniors on out 
to get over the problem of whether or not they would grad­
uate from the school [107] they had attended, to make 
room in the senior school to accommodate the rising 10th 
grade class and start them off on a new year.

Q. If the Court were to order you to integrate the schools 
by March 1st, would you be able to accomplish it? A. If 
the Court would order us to integrate by March 1st, all 
the activities and events that you see outlined before you

William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross



802a

would have to be accomplished in one way, shape or form 
before it could be done.

Q. In your opinion could it be done! A. No.

Court Reporter’s Note: At this point in the pro­
ceedings there was applause from some of the 
spectators.)

Court: Any more demonstration and the court­
room will be cleared.

Q. Could it be done by April 1st? A. I think that we 
get back to comment that the judge offered in opening 
this case on Monday. He wanted the minimum amount of 
time but at the same time the amount of disruption to be 
considered. If you disregard the amount of disruption that 
would be caused to secondary pupils with April 1st trans­
fers, I suspect it could be done administratively.

Court: Mr. Chambers, I think you’ve got a can-do 
man here and that’s why I wanted his serious recom­
mendations on the very practical problems that have 
got to be [108] dealt with. Let me ask another ques­
tion about the technique of drawing some of these 
pupil attendance lines. How about turning to the 
junior high map. If you examine the Board’s map 
for the rezoning of the junior high attendance lines, 
you find some of them with corridors a half-mile 
wide and five miles long, reaching from a suburban 
area into an inner-city pocket. From the standpoint 
of administration and ease and economy of trans­
portation which is easier, to have a pocket of people 
in the center of town who are close together and 
easy to identify and have them transported by the 
most convenient route to some suburban school, or

William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross



803a

in the opposite direction, as the case may be? Is that 
not more convenient than having a half-mile wide 
corridor which may have to attend the school several 
miles away?

A. Yes, sir. I think that the net effect in terms of your 
transportation system is that you probably would have one 
or two pickup points in that satellite zone and then ex­
press the bus to the school. Whereas in the corridor you 
would probably have a number of on route pickup points.

Court: Is that transportation problem com­
pounded by the fact that the streets in Charlotte are 
laid off sort of slantwise or catercornered and these 
corridors run diagonally across the major thorough­
fares?

[109] A. Well, I ’m not sure whether that’s the case in 
point. I think certainly our transportation problems, oper­
ating within the city limits, are going to be quite different 
from the transportation problems in the rural areas.

Court: Mr. Hicks, what’s the name of that junior 
high on the lower left center which has a finger ex­
tending?

Mr. Hicks: Smith.
Court: Taking Smith Junior High as an illustra­

tion, doesn’t the corridor extending north into the 
center of town from Smith Junior High extend as 
far as the satellite zone that Dr. Finger has set up 
for Smith Junior High?

William C. Self—for Defendant—Cross

A. Basically it does, yes, sir?



804a

Court: That’s true of Sedgefield and a number of 
others, is it not?

A. Yes, sir.

Court: It has to be true to get substantially the 
same result, doesn’t it?

A. That’s right.

Court: Is this part of the problem that needs to 
be worked out whichever one of these plans is used?

A. Yes, sir. Quite frankly, we do not have a perfect answer 
to the question of natural geographic lines versus grid 
lines. Grid lines give us the ability to manipulate data by 
the [110] computer and it has the disadvantage of not 
being visible to people so they can say I am in this school 
zone or that school zone. The natural geographic boundary 
has the advantage of being clearly identifiable by the 
citizenry but at the same time does not lend itself to mass 
manipulation of pupil data.

Court: I think I have run out of questions. Do 
you have any more. Mr. Waggoner ’

Wxttmunition bit Jfr_ Wxinrvimr:

- a -seerent■: x  r rign. vs .r u :
ilac "he ;iuui)r itgu atretuianee ast ers are suoscannaJr 
aiUP** aati :ae - b i n a r y  drst'- :s a. Yss*. nt-~ an: 

tvs % Mtuttn x o w m  t fc
- Agg - . Ue ; “ v m ." e s s -U s  uc e- mere,

•’w a -a  «.»«.•> veaxxg; • v * cs - ^  ^tstisass- r
A i l i i s t .  O u. >• s -e u tv -g  » * .:£  . *v g g  -S U iS S iX - U3X X

William C. Self—for Defendant—Redirect



805a

you’re speaking about a single school, you do not have 
the cross-busing. If you’re talking about the school system, 
bringing into account the present all black junior highs, 
you’re talking about two-way busing in that whites would 
be bused into Northwest, Williams, Kennedy.

Mr. Waggoner: I have no further questions.
Mr. Chambers: We have no further questions.
[111] Court: Thank you, Dr. Self.
Mr. Horack: If Your Honor please, we’d like to 

call Mr. J. D. Morgan.
Court: I ’m going to run out of time in about a 

half-hour, Mr. Horack. Are you going to run out of 
witnesses by then?

Mr. Horack: I ’d seriously doubt it.
If Your Honor please, in compliance with your 

suggestion earlier we had various exhibits which we 
went ahead and had marked. Mr. Chambers, you 
want these now?

Mr. Chambers: Are those all of them?
Mr. Horack: It’s Exhibits 5 through 12 with th~ 

exception of 8 and 9 which I do not have copies. 
5 through 12 are all offered in evidence.

* * * * *

[1373 D irect E xa m in a tion  b y  M r. H orack:

Q. State your name, please. A. My name is D. J. Dari.
Q. What is your position? A. My position ts Director of 

the Division of Transportation, State Board of
Q. And your office is in Raleigh ? A. Yes, it is.
Q. I hand you Defendant’s Exhibit #8 and a>.r yc. v 

it is and whether you are familiar with its contents

D. J. Dark—for Defendant—Direct



806a

D. J. Dark—for Defendant—Direct 

Court: What is it !
Mr. Horack: It’s a letter from the State Superin­

tendent Craig Philips to Dr. Self.
Court: Let Mr. Dark testify about what he knows. 

I’ll read the letter and see if it’s competent. Did 
he write the letter!

A. No, I assisted in the preparation of it.
Q. Mr. Dark, although that letter is over the signature 

of Dr. Craig Philips have you indicated you did write it! 
A. Well, I did not write it. I  had a part in its preparation.

Q. Do you agree with the analysis of Dr. Craig Philips 
as set forth herein as it relates to the availability of buses 
and financing for them!

Mr. Chambers: Objection.

[138] A. Yes, I do with one clarification. The availability 
of buses . . .

Court: The question is, Mr. Dark, do you know 
the facts in the letter, whatever they are!

A. Yes, I do.

Court: Use the letter to refresh your memory and 
go ahead and testify.

Q. The letter says there are 75 at a maximum, at the very 
outside, 75 buses can he made available. If you agree with 
that statement, please do so, if you do, and explain why. 
A. I agree. That is the largest number that we felt like 
that could be made available to Mecklenburg County until 
a new contract was let and a new order for buses placed.



807a

Q. When is the earliest time that a new contract can be 
let? A. We hope that one can be let by March 27.

Q. After a new contract is let and an order is placed for 
buses, from your experience stemming from the past how 
long does it take to obtain a bus from a manufacturer after 
it’s once ordered? A. Approximately six to seven months. 
This means that if conditions are favorable. If conditions 
are unfavorable it will take longer.

Q. Is there currently any unusual strain on the bus 
manufacturers as far as the amount of orders they are 
receiving? A. The usual rush period is from approximately 
March through September. At this time most manufac­
turers have as many [139] orders as they can fill during 
that period. The reason for this rush period, school ad­
ministrators are purchasing buses. So to have them de­
livered prior to the opening of school, many orders have 
already been placed.

Q. The testimony has indicated that under the board’s 
plan 104 buses will be required. How long would it take to 
fulfill the need for those 104 buses? A. I would say they 
could be delivered by October or November, in the fall.

Q. Under Dr. Finger’s plan 297 buses are required . . .

Mr. Chambers: Objection.

Q. . . . purely on the basis that State law busing is pro­
vided and confined to that, how long would that take?

Mr. Chambers: Objection, Your Honor.
Court: Overruled.

A. That number could be delivered in about the same length 
of time.

D. J. Dark—for Defendant—Direct



808a

Q. And you state that 75 buses is the maximum number 
that can now be made available to this system ? A. That are 
in possession of the State Board of Education.

Mr. Horack: This is a letter, Your Honor, it’s 
Defendant’s Exhibit #9, a letter from the Super­
visor of Purchases to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg 
Board of Education, of which you do not have a 
copy, Mr. Chambers.

[140] Q. Please read that letter and tell me whether you 
agree with the statement set forth therein. A. This letter 
is addressed to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Edu­
cation, Post Office Box 149, Charlotte, North Carolina, At­
tention : Mr. J. R. Cameron. Gentlemen:

Mr. Chambers: I object to the reading of this 
letter. There is no foundation that Mr. Dark had 
any connection in the preparation of it.

Court: The letter is from whom?

A. This letter, Your Honor, is from Mr. A. W. Allers. He’s 
Purchasing Agent, an Assistant Purchasing Agent for 
purchasing contracts.

Court: Objection is sustained.
Mr. Horack: That’s all, Your Honor.
Mr. Chambers: Your Honor, I know the Court 

wants to leave but we would certainly have some ex­
amination of Mr. Dark. My understanding of the 
testimony presently is that it’s concerned with pur­
chasing new buses and we would like to examine him

D. J. Dark—for Defendant—Direct



809a

relative not only to the new buses and present avail­
ability, but . . .

Court: Go ahead and examine him. I said a while 
ago I  Avas going to take his testimony.

Cross Examination by Mr. Chambers:

Q. Mr. Dark, is there a distribution center for buses in 
the [141] State of North Carolina! A. Usually there are 
one or two distribution centers, depending on the number 
of manufacturers who are awarded contracts.

Q. Does the State Board of Education itself maintain a 
distribution center! A. No.

Q. Is there a center in Winston-Salem, North Carolina! 
A. This center is maintained by Wayne-Devco Corporation 
from Richmond, Indiana.

Q. Does the State have anything to do with it! A. Yes, 
it’s on the State, well, it’s on the Winston-Salem-Forsyth 
County school bus garage.

Q. And isn’t it under your supervision as Director of 
Transportation for the State of North Carolina! A. After 
the buses are delivered to us, it becomes under our super­
vision, yes.

Q. Aren’t there some buses there right now! A. Yes, 
there are some there.

Q. Tell the Court how many buses are there right now. 
A. There are approximately eighty buses there.

Q. Where is the other center for distribution in the State! 
A. At the present time!

Q. Yes, sir. A. Perley A. Thomas Car Works.
Q. Where is that! [142] A. High Point, North Carolina. 
Q. Is that directly under your supervision also! A. 

That’s under the Perley A. Thomas Car Works’ supervi­
sion. However, they build buses for the State of North

D. J. Dark—for Defendant—Cross



810a

Carolina and turned over to the State Board of Education.
Q. Don’t you have some there right now, Mr. Dark? A. 

Yes, we do.
Q. Tell the Court how many you have there. A. I ’m not 

sure how many is at High Point. I can tell you the total 
number that we have in North Carolina.

Q. What’s the total number? A. At the present time 
on hand we have 412 buses.

Q. The other center I believe is in Wilson, isn’t it? A. 
No center in Wilson. At the present time we have a few 
buses parked in Nashville, North Carolina.

Q. That’s the eastern district distribution center. A. It 
is at the present time, but it could be in Salisbury, it could 
be in Wilson. At the present time that isn’t a distribution 
center except at the present time we’re storing a few buses 
there.

Q. What you do is just store these buses around at these 
areas we just talked about? A. We have for this year, yes.

Q. And you can sell those buses to any school board in the 
State? A. We could but we’re not in a position to.

[143] Q. You can sell them to any school district in the 
state, cant you? A. Let me explain my answer.

Q. Would you say yes or no and then explain it? A. I 
don’t think it’s a yes or no question.

Court: The question is are you free to sell the 
buses to any local board that can pay for them.

A. Your Honor, we have obligations to a hundred counties 
in North Carolina.

Court: I  think he's trying to fnd out i f  you can 
se~ tnese ruses to anybody you take a notion ~o sell 
them to.

D. J. Dark—for Defendant—Cross



811a

A. No, sir, they can only be sold to the Boards of Educa­
tion.

Court: Any Board of Education you choose to sell 
to, that’s the question.

A. That is correct. However, may I substantiate that? 

Court: Yes, sir.

A. When we said 75 buses to Charlotte-Mecklenburg, we 
promised or committed to them 12% of the buses we have 
on order and they are operating 3% of the buses in North 
Carolina. It seems that we extended our help there as much 
as possible. Let me go along further. At the present time 
there are approximately 10,000 buses in North Carolina in 
dire need of replacements. These buses that I ’ve told you 
about have been purchased for replacements. It means that 
if 75 are sold to [144] Mecklenburg County, the children 
will have to suffer for lack of replacement buses that ride 
these other 1087 buse.

Court: How many buses do you buy and sell to 
county boards a year?

A. We had anticipated approximately 100 for this year. 

Court: To all of them?

A. Yes, sir. We have anticipated about that number for 
next year.

This is an extraordinary situation.
Q. Mr. Dark, what would prevent you from replacing 

these buses you’re talking about replacing in October

D. J. Dark—for Defendant—Cross



812a

when you get the new order! A. We plan to place an order 
after July 1st. We’ve spent the money that’s available 
for bus purposes up to July 1st.

Q. You do plan to purchase some more for this coming 
school year and you say they would be available in October 
or November, didn’t you! A. That is correct.

Q. You’ve got 400 and some buses and you say some 
of them you intend to use to replace existing buses. A. 
That’s correct.

Q. What would prevent you from using those buses you 
have now for Charlotte-Mecklenburg and replacing these 
other buses in October or November! A. We also have 
obligations to other counties all over the State who need 
capital outlay buses just like Mecklenburg County, [1453 
desegregated schools, and what have you.

Q. Do you have an order for those buses! A. No, but 
we will have.

Q. You don’t have presently! A. Not at the present 
time.

Q. What do you do with buses that you replace! A. 
They are priced for sale eventually and sold.

Q. Don’t you keep some on hand! A. Yes, we do.
Q. How many of those do you have on hand! A. We 

have 375.
Q. On hand now! A. On hand.
Q. I believe the State statute permits the Board to pur­

chase a bus to operate or contracting service with some 
other service, is that correct! A. That is correct.

Q. In other words, Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system 
could contract with the City Bus Lines to operate buses 
in the city, could it not! A. It could if it had sufficient 
funds.

Q. Well, the State would pay the funds, as I understand

D. J. Dark—for Defendant— Cross



813a

it, as long as they satisfied the State requirements. A. The 
State will pay per capita cost of that amount on the basis 
of what the cost is to Mecklenburg County to operate 
[146] their buses.

Q. You’re familiar with General Statute 115-189? A. Is 
that the statute that has to do with contract transporta­
tion?

Q. That’s right. A. Will you read that all the way 
through ?

Q. Are you also familiar with 115-190, that’s also dealing 
with contract transportation. A. I ’m not familiar with 
all the numbers.

Mr. Waggoner: If he’d show the book to the wit­
ness, he could identify them. I can’t recall these 
statutes either.

Mr. Chambers: I don’t mind showing him the 
book.

Q. You’re looking at 115-190? A. That’s correct. That’s 
the one I was talking about.

Q. It does provide for the State paying for transporta­
tion of students whose transportation is contracted? 
A. On what basis? Read the whole statute.

Q. You read it. A. I just told you that.

Mr. Horack: Your Honor, I don’t think the wit­
ness ought to be asked to interpret the general 
statutes.

Court: What was the question?
Mr. Chambers: I was asking the witness only, 

Your Honor, what practice the State had followed 
with [147] respect to contracting bus services.

D. J. Dark—for Defendant—Cross



814a

Court: Objection overruled. Wbat practice does 
the State follow in contracting bus services!

A. At the present time the State does not contract any 
transportation and so far as I know very little, if any, is 
contracted other than Special Education with transit bus 
companies. A contract as you mentioned in the law there, 
with the transit bus company or any other company, would 
be done by local boards of education rather than the State 
Board of Education and the statute specifies that the 
local unit could use any State money that it would generally 
use for the operation of its buses, regular buses. It also 
specifies that local boards can supplement the amount 
necessary if they prefer contracts to pay these contracts.

Q. Mr. Dark, the only thing I ’m asking is under the 
present practice of the State wouldn’t the local board be 
able to contract to provide transportation with the City 
Bus Company where the children would qualify for bus 
transportation under the State law! A. Under the law, 
they would.

Q. And their transportation expenses would be paid for 
by the State of North Carolina. A. Not necessarily in 
total.

Q. Well, whatever the State would allow for transporta­
tion, is that correct! [148] A. Whatever they would cost 
on a per pupil basis on the regular transportation.

Q. So your agreement with this letter of February 3rd 
would have to be taken subject to what you have just 
testified to? Do you recall this letter of February 3, 1970! 
A. What’s your question?

Q. I think you said you agreed that only 75 buses would 
be available. A. That is correct.

Q. But you also said you had 400 and some buses new

D. J. Dark—for Defendant—-Cross



815a

and 400 and some used buses? A. I can qualify that by 
saying we have obligations to one hundred counties.

Court: Answer the question and then qualify it.
A. Yes.

Court: You’ve got about 400 new buses and 375 
old buses?

A. Yes.

Court: Are those the figures you said ?

A. Yes. Could I qualify those? Insofar as the used buses, 
if they had been in such shape . . . .  first let say these 
buses that have been replaced and the ones that I have 
mentioned that need to be replaced are thirteen and four­
teen years old. They have been in service that long. Had 
they been in such shape that we would have w7anted to 
continue them in operation, we [149] wouldn’t have re­
placed them in the first place, we wouldn’t have authorized 
them being replaced. And your second question is what?

Q. I just wanted to follow that up a little bit. As I 
recall, the State practice was to take these buses back 
and doctor them up and then resell them to other groups? 
A. They are priced for sale but they are sold as is where 
they are.

Q. And several groups buy them and use them ? A. And 
recondition them, that’s correct.

Mr. Chambers: I have nothing further at this 
time.

Court: Anything else f

D. J. Dark—for Defendant—Cross



816a

Redirect Examination by Mr. Horack:

Q. Mr. Dark, are these buses that have been retired 
and obsolete, why are they obsolete! Don’t they include 
junked buses and you say typically they are about twelve 
to fourteen years old! A. Yes, they are at least that.

Q. Are these buses suitable for bringing into a system 
such as Charlotte-Mecklenburg and put into a bus trans­
portation system like ours! A. In my opinion they would 
not be.

Q. Would we have an assurance that those buses when 
they’re being driven from wherever they are now to 
Charlotte that they’d make it! [150] A. I wouldn’t 
guarantee it.

D. J. Dark—for Defendant—Redirect



817a

Motion for Hearing on Plans for Desegregation of 
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Schools

(Filed February 6, 1970)

The Defendants, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of 
Education and the individual Board members, respectfully 
move the Court that:

1. Before issuing any Order in response to the Plaintiffs’ 
“Motion for Immediate Desegregation of the Public Schools 
in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County” (dated January 19, 
1970) a hearing be held at a time to be fixed by the Court 
regarding the “ Plan for Desegregation of Schools” filed 
by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education on Feb­
ruary 2, 1970, and the Plan filed or to be filed by Dr. John 
A. Finger, Jr. in response to the December 1, 1969 Order 
of the Court.

2. At said hearing the Defendants be heard and per­
mitted to introduce evidence relating to the “Board Plan” 
and the “Finger Plan” and the implementation of these 
Plans.

3. Dr. John A. Finger, Jr. be present at said hearing 
and available for examination by the Defendants regarding 
each of the above-mentioned Plans.

4. In the alternative, if said hearing is not held as re­
quested in this Motion, the Defendants be permitted to 
tender pertinent evidence regarding the two Plans and re­
lated matters.

In support of this Motion the Defendants show the Court 
that the hearing and evidence referred to herein is neces­
sary for a full explanation and evaluation of each of the 
two Plans and with reference to the implementation re-



818a

Motion for Hearing on Plans for Desegregation of 
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Schools

quested in the above-mentioned Motion heretofore filed by 
the Plaintiffs.

W herefore, the Defendants respectfully pray the Court 
that it grant the request of the Defendants as set forth in 
the foregoing Motion.

This 4 day of February, 1970.

W illiam J. W aggoner 
William J. Waggoner 
Weinstein, Waggoner, Sturges, Odom 

& Bigger
1100 Barringer Office Tower 
Charlotte, North Carolina

B e n j . S. H orace:
Benj. S. Horac-k 
Ervin, Horack & McCartha 
400 Attorneys Building 
Charlotte, North Carolina

B r o c k  B a r k l e y  

Brock Barkley 
Law Building 
Charlotte. North Carolina

A rtm m vs  fe r  Drr'Dttiitnu. Cwr-'orre- 
f  r r ar-i >r P iur-icum



819a

On December 2, 1969, this court appointed Dr. John A. 
Finger, Jr., of Providence, Rhode Isand, to study the 
Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system and advise the court 
how the schools could be desegregated. The defendant 
school board, by order of December 1, 1969, had been ex­
tended a fourth opportunity to submit a plan if they wished. 
Dr. Finger went to work; the school staff worked with him; 
and they have produced some extremely useful information 
and reports, which will be referred to in this order as the 
Board plan and the Finger plan.

Hearings on the plans were conducted on February 2 
and February 5, 1970.

The Board plan, prepared by the school staff, relies 
almost entirely on geographic attendance zones, and is 
tailored to the Board’s limiting specifications. It leaves 
many schools segregated. The Finger plan incorporates 
most of those parts of the Board plan which achieve de­
segregation in particular districts by re-zoning; however, 
the Finger plan goes further and produces desegregation 
of all the schools in the system.

Taken together, the plans provide adequate supplements 
to a final desegregation order.

The court would like again to express appreciation to 
Dr. Finger for the intelligence, resourcefulness and tact 
with which he has pursued his difficult assignment, and to 
Dr. William Self, Superintendent of the schools, and to 
his able staff, for the excellent work done by them in their 
difficult role of helping prepare one plan to comply with 
what the court believes the law requires, and simultaneously 
preparing another plan to suit the majority of the School 
Board who, at last reckoning, still did not appear to accept 
the court’s order as representing the law of the land.

Order dated February 5, 1970



820a

The court is also grateful to the Board’s outside con­
sultant, Mr. Weil, of Systems Associates, Inc., whose two 
hundred days of work and whose computer studies formed 
the building blocks, or points of departure, for much of 
the work of the others.

Recent appellate court decisions have hammered home 
the message that sixteen years of “deliberate speed” are 
long enough to desegregate tax supported schools. On 
October 29, 1969, in A lex a n d er  v. H o lm es C o u n ty , 369 U.S. 
19, the Supreme Court ordered numerous Deep South 
school districts to be completely desegregated by January 
1, 1970; schools in Atlanta, Miami and parts of Chicago 
have been ordered totally desegregated; the Supreme Court 
in January ordered February 1, 1970, desegregation of
300,000 pupils in six Gulf Coast states; the Fourth Circuit
Court of Appeals in N esb it v. S t a t e s v i l le ,------  F.2d. ------
(December 2, 1969), ordered elimination by January 1, 1970, 
of the racial characteristics of the last black schools in 
Durham, Reidsville and Statesville, North Carolina; and 
in W h itten b erg  v. G reen ville , S ou th  Carolina, the Fourth 
Circuit Court of Appeals, in an opinion by Chief Judge 
Clement F. Haynsworth, Jr., has just last month ordered 
the desegregation by February 16, 1970, of the 58,000 stu­
dents in Judge Haynsworth’s own home town. Judge 
Robert Martin of Greenville, pursuant to that mandate, on 
February 2, 1970, ordered all the Greenville schools to be 
populated by February 16, 1970, on a basis of 80% white 
and 20% black.

In the G reenville opinion the court said:

“These decisions leave us with no discretion to con­
sider delays in pupil integration until September 1970. 
Whatever the state of progress in a particular school

Order dated February 5, 1970



821a

district and whatever the disruption which will he occa­
sioned by the immediate reassignment of teachers and 
pupils in mid-year, there remains no judicial discretion 
to postpone immediate implementation of the consti­
tutional principles as announced in Green v. County 
School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430; 
Alexander v. Holmes County Bd. of Educ., 396 U.S. 19 
(Oct. 29,1969) ; Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School 
B d .,------U.S. -------  (Jan. 14, 1970).”

These decisions are binding on the United States District 
Court for the Western District of North Carolina. Unless 
that were true, the Constitution would mean whatever 
might be the temporary notion of whichever one of 340-odd 
federal judges happened to hear the case. This is a matter 
of law, not anarchy; of constitutional right, not popular 
sentiment.

The order which follows is not based upon any require­
ment of “ racial balance.” The School Board, after four 
opportunities and nearly ten months of time, have failed 
to submit a lawful plan (one which desegregates all the 
schools). This default on their part leaves the court in 
the position of being forced to prepare or choose a lawful 
plan. The fairest way the court knows to deal with this 
situation was stated clearly in the December 1, 1969 order, 
as follows:

“In default of any such plan from the school board, 
the court will start with the thought, originally ad­
vanced in the order of April 23, that efforts should be 
made to reach a 71-29 ratio in the various schools so 
that there will be no basis for contending that one 
school is racially different from the others, but to

Order dated February 5, 1970



822a

understand that variations from that norm may be 
unavoidable.”

T herefore, and in accordance with the specific, detailed, 
numbered guidelines of this court’s order of December 1, 
1969, It Is Ordered:

1. That the defendants discontinue the operation of 
segregated schools.

2. That the defendants take such action as is necessary 
to desegregate all the schools—students and faculty.

3. That desegregation of faculty he accomplished, as 
previously ordered, by assigning faculty (specialized faculty 
positions excepted) so that the ratio of black and white 
faculty members of each school shall be approximately the 
same as the ratio of black and white faculty members 
throughout the system.

4. That teachers be assigned so that the competence and 
experience of teachers in formerly or recently black schools 
will not be inferior to those in the formerly or recently 
white schools in the system.

5. That no school be operated with an all-black or pre­
dominantly black student body.

6. That pupils of all grades be assigned in such a way 
that as nearly as practicable the various schools at various 
grade levels have about the same proportion of black and 
white students.

7. That transportation be offered on a uniform non- 
racial basis to all children whose attendance in any school

Order dated February 5, 1970



823a

is necessary to bring about the reduction of segregation, 
and who live farther from the school to which they are 
assigned than the Board determines to be walking distance. 
Estimates of the number of children who may have to be 
transported have run as high as 10,000 or more. Since the 
cost to the local system is about $18 or $20 a year per 
pupil, and the cost to the state in those areas where the 
state provides transportation funds is about another $18 
or $20 a year per pupil, the average cost for transportation 
is apparently less than $40 per pupil per year. The local 
school budget is about $45,000,000 a year. It would appear 
that transporting 10,000 additional children, if that is 
necessary, and if the defendants had to pay it all, would 
add less than one per cent to the local cost of operating the 
schools. The significant point, however, is that the cost is 
not a valid legal reason for continued denial of constitu­
tional rights.

8. That if geographic zones are used in making school 
assignments, the parts of a zone need not be contiguous.

9. That the defendants maintain a continuing control 
over the race of children in each school, just as was done 
for many decades before Brown v. Board of Education, 
and maintain the racial make-up of each school (including 
any new and any re-opened schools) to prevent any school 
from becoming racially identifiable.

10. That “ freedom of choice” or “ freedom of transfer” 
may not be allowed by the Board if the effect of any given 
transfer or group of transfers is to increase the degree of 
segregation in the school from which the transfer is re­
quested or in the school to which the transfer is desired.

Order dated February 5, 1970



824a

11. That the Board retain its statutory power and duty 
to make assignments of pupils for administrative reasons, 
with or without requests from parents. Administrative 
transfers shall not be made if the result of such transfers 
is to restore or increase the degree of segregation in either 
the transferor or the transferee school.

12. That if transfers are sought on grounds of “hard­
ship,” race will not be a valid basis upon which to demon­
strate “hardship.”

13. That the Board adopt and implement a continuing 
program, computerized or otherwise, of assigning pupils 
and teachers during the school year as well as at the start 
of each year for the conscious purpose of maintaining each 
school and each faculty in a condition of desegregation.

14. That the defendants report to the court weekly be­
tween now and May 15, 1970, reporting progress made in 
compliance with this order; and that they report thereafter 
on July 15, August 15, September 15 and November 1, 
1970, and on February 1 and May 1, 1971.

15. That the internal operation of each school, and the
assignment and management of school employees, of course 
be conducted on a non-racial, non-discriminatory basis.

16. The duty imposed by the law and by this order is 
the desegregation of schools and the maintenance of that 
condition. The plans discussed in this order, whether pre­
pared by Board and staff- or by outside consultants, such as 
computer expert, Mr. John W. Weil, or Dr. John A. Finger,

Order dated February 5, 1970



825a

Jr., are illustrations of means or partial means to that end.* 1 
The defendants are encouraged to use their full “know­
how” and resources to attain the results above described, 
and thus to achieve the constitutional end by any means 
at their disposal. The test is not the method or plan, but 
the results.

17. The choice or approval or partial approval of any
proposed desegregation plan is subject to all the require­
ments and restrictions of the preceding sixteen paragraphs, 
as well as to any later requirements or restrictions set out 
in this order.

18. Subject to the above, the Board’s pupil assignment 
plan for senior high school pupils is approved, with one

1. The following are exhibits to this order:
A. The Board’s map of proposed senior high school atten­

dance zones.
B. The Board’s list of proposed senior high school populations.
C. The Board’s map of proposed junior high school atten­

dance zones.
D. The Board’s list of proposed junior high school popula­

tions.
E. Dr. Finger’s map of proposed junior high school atten­

dance zones.
F. Dr. Finger’s list of proposed junior high school popula­

tions.
G. The Board’s map of proposed elementary school atten­

dance zones.
H. The Board’s list of proposed elementary school popula­

tions.
I. Dr. Finger’s map of proposed elementary school atten­

dance zones.
J. Dr. Finger’s list of proposed elementary school popula­

tions.
K. Dr. Finger’s list of pairing and grouping of elementary 

schools and grades.

Order dated February 5, 1970



826a

exception. This exception is that black students, some 300 
in number, should be assigned from map grids 294D, 295C, 
295D, and 318A, to attend Independence High School.

19. Although the Board junior high school plan is 
inferior in design and results to Dr. Finger’s plan, it is a 
purely “home grown” product and the court would like 
to approve it, if it can be brought into compliance with law 
by desegregating Piedmont Junior High School, and by 
adding transportation as above indicated, and by increas­
ing the black attendance at several outlying schools. The 
Board may if it wishes consider (1) re-zoning; (2) two-way 
transporting of pupils between outlying schools and Pied­
mont; (3) closing Piedriiont and assigning the pupils to 
Albemarle Road, Carmel, McClintock and Quail Hollow. 
Unless the court has been notified in writing by noon of 
February 6, 1970, of an affirmative decision adopting one 
of these choices by formal Board action, the junior high 
schools are directed to be desegregated according to Dr. 
Finger’s plan, as illustrated by exhibits E and F.

20. The Board’s plan for elementary schools, illustrated 
by exhibits G and H, cannot be approved because (1) it 
retains nine schools 83% to 100% black, serving over half 
the black elementary pupils, and (2) it leaves approxi­
mately half the 31,500 white elementary students attending 
schools that are 86% to 100% white; and (3) it promises 
to provide little or no transportation in aid of desegrega­
tion, even though the plan’s zones in some cases are ap­
parently five or six miles long. The Board plan for ele- 
mentaries openly rejects the duty to eliminate all the 
black schools.

The Finger plan uses many of the same basic attendance 
lines as the Board plan; however, it does not stop short of

Order dated February 5, 1970



827a

ERRATA

Order dated February 5, 1970

the constitutional requirements, and by pairing and cluster­
ing groups of schools it achieves full desegregation of the 
elementary schools. The school staff worked out the de­
tails of this plan and are familiar with it. Its attendance 
zones are illustrated on the map, exhibit I; its elementary 
school populations are listed in exhibit J ; and the pairing 
and grouping of the outlying and inner-city schools, grade 
by grade, are shown in detail on exhibit K. Subject to the 
qualifications previously stated, the Board is directed to 
follow the Finger plan with reference to elementary schools.

21. The Time Table: Deadlines to complete various 
phases of the program required in this order are as follows:

Senior High Schools.—Seniors may remain in their 
present schools until the end of the school year; the 
Board may make any decision they deem wise about 
allowing seniors to transfer before graduation to 
schools where their race will be in the minority. Elev­
enth and tenth graders will be transferred to their new 
schools not later than the 4th day of May, 1970.

Junior High Schools (Grades 7, 8, 9).—Complete 
desegregation shall be accomplished not later than the 
1st day of April, 1970.

Elementary Schools (Grades 1-6).—Complete de­
segregation shall be accomplished not later than the 
1st day of April, 1970.

F a c u l t y .— Complete desegregation of the various 
faculties shall be accomplished by the various times 
set out above for desegregation of the student bodies.



828a

22. M odifications.—The intention of this order is to put
on the Board the full duty to bring the schools into compli­
ance with the Constitution as above outlined, but to leave 
maximum discretion in the Board to choose methods that 
will accomplish the required result. However, it is directed 
that leave of court be obtained before making any material 
departure from any specific requirement set out herein. 
The court will undertake to rule promptly on any such 
requests for deviation from prescribed methods.

23. A ppeal.— The court claims no infallibility and does
not seek to prevent appeal from all or any part of this 
order, and will allow the making of any record needed to 
present on appeal any contention the parties desire to 
make, and will do what this court can to expedite such 
appeal. However, in accordance with Whittenberg v. Green­
ville, supra, this order will not be stayed pending appeal,
and immediate steps to begin compliance are directed.

24. All evidence in the cause and all findings and con­
clusions in previous orders which support or tend to sup­
port this order are relied upon in support of this order.

25. Jurisdiction of this cause is retained for further
orders.

This the 5th day of February, 1970.

Order dated February 5, 1970

James B. McMillan 
United States District Judge



R e s ea r ch  Report
J a n u a r y  31,  1970

The C h a r l o t t e - M e c k l e n b u r g  S c h o o l s

DESEGREGATION PLAN f o r  1970-71 E x h i b i t  B

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

S ch oo l 1970-71  
C a p a c 1ty  

Ba se  + 2 0 % B

1 9 6 9 -7 0  

w T B
B oa rd  P lan  

W T %B

E a s t  M e c k le n b u r g 1 700 2040 215 ' 1925 2140 10% 360 17 16 2076 17%
Gar i n ger 1 874 2249 492 2148 2640 18% 721 1914 2635 27%
H a r d in g 1202 1442 612 720 1332 45% 395 692 1087 36%
1ndependence 1047 1256 101 1111 1212 9% 23 1241 1264 2%
M ye rs  Pa rk 1679 2015 224 1767 1991 12% 426 1883 2309 18%

North  M e c k le n b u rg 1158 1390 446 1185 1631 2 8% 440 998 1438 31%
0 1 ymp i c 807 968 351 512 863 4 1 % 201 687 888 23%
S ou th  M e c k le n b u r g 1523 1828 90 2024 2114 5% 482 1846 2 3 28 2 1%
West  C h a r l o t t e 1593 1912 1641 0 1641 10 0% 597 1045 1642 36%
West M e c k le n b u r g 1374 1649 141 1444 1585 9% 494 998 1492 33%

T o ta l 13 ,957 1 6 ,7 4 9 4 , 3 1 3 1 2 ,836 1 7 ,1 4 9 4 , 1 3 9 3 , 0 2 0 1 7 ,1 5 9

829a



Research Report
January 31, 1970

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools

DESEGREGATION PLAN for 1970-71

E x h ib it D

J u n io r  H ig h  S c h o o l s

S c h o o l
1970 -71  

C a p a c it y  
B a se  + 2 0 % B

1 9 6 9 -7 0  

W T %B B
B o a rd  P la n  

W T %B

A lb e m a r le  Road 91*6 1138 63 995 1058 5% 19 753 772 2%
A le x a n d e r 8 7 ^ 10l*9 328 761 1089 30% 303 698 1001 30%
C o ch ra n e 1190 11*28 72 I S M 1616 5% 571 1150 1721 33%
C ou lw ood 702+ 81*5 101 770 871 12% 313 551 861* 36%
E a stw ay 1093 1312 61 1356 11*17 h% 375 971 131*6 28%

A le x a n d e r  Graham 996 1191* 101 1028 1129 8% 261 888 I1 A 9 23%
H aw thorne 850 910 550 1*72 1022 5i*% 276 701* 980 28%
Kennedy 801 961 802 9 811 99% 325 510 835 39%
M c C l1n to c k 923 1100 84 1288 1372 6 % 25 101*8 1073 2 %
N o rth w e st 1068 1282 1032 1 1033 296 675 971 30%

PIedm ont 631 757 1*08 55 1*63 89% 758 81* 842 90%
Q u a il H o llo w 1238 11*86 129 11*21 1550 9% 138 111*1* 1282 11%
R an d o lp h 972 1170 279 710 989 28% 307 683 990 31%
R an son 851 1021 21*6 51*8 791* 31% 295 558 853 35%
S e d g e f ie ld 777 930 167 809 976 17% 231* 612 81*6 28%

Smi th 1093 1312 51 11*36 IA 87 k% 330 957 1287 26%
Spaugh 826 1091 262 839 1101 2U% 31*6 752 1098 32%
W i l l i  ams 801 967 1081 0 1081 100% 336 722 1058 32%
W i1 son 10V * 1253 60 111+5 1205 5% 31*6 795 111*1 30%

Carmel % 558 670 2 555 557 0%
J. H. Gunn (Wi I g r o v i ) 558 670 1*9 1*70 519 9%

T o t a l 1 8 ,7 9 6 2 2 ,5A6 5 .8 7 7 1 5 . ! 8 7 21 ,061* 5 .9 0 5 1 5 . 2 8 0 2 1 ,1 8 5

830a



DESEGREGATION PLAN for CharlOtte-Mecklenburg Schools 

Junior High S c h o o ls

E x h ib i t  F

S c h o o l
1 9 7 0 - 7 1  

C a p a c i t y  
B ase  +20% B

1969

W

- 7 0

T %B

Court C o n s u lt a n t  
Plan

B W T %3

A lb e m a r le  Road 948 1133 63 995 1058 5 A 292 696 988 30%
A le x a n d e r 874 104 S 328 761 1089 30% 335 690 1025 3 3%
Cochrane 119 0 1423 72 1544 1616 5% 370 964 1354 27%
Coulwood 704 64 5 101 770 871 12% 245 56S S13 30%
Eastw ay 1093 1312 61 1356 1417 4% 351 839 1190 30%

A le x a n d e r  Graham 996 1194 101 1028 1129 8% 359 938 1297 28%
Hawthorne 8 5 0 9 10 550 472 1022 54% 290 677 967 30%
Kennedy 801 961 002 9 311 99% 184 606 790 23%
M c C lin to c k 923 1100 04 1288 1372 6% 386 925 1 311 30%
N orth w est 1068 1282 1032 1 1033 336 736 1072 31%

Piedmont 631 757 403 55 4 6 3 89% 243 538 781 32%
Q u a i l  H o llow 1238 1486 129 1421 1550 9% 339 1050 1 3S9 2 5%
Randolph 972 117 0 279 710 989 28% 4 02 S 32 1234 33%
Ranson 851 1021 246 543 794 31% 264 583 847 31%
S e d g e f i e l d 777 930 167 809 976 17% 171 641 8 12 21%

Smith 1093 1312 51 1436 1487 4% 350 929 127 9 27%
Spaugh 8 26 1091 262 339 1101 24% 324 807 1131 29%
W i l l i a m s 801 967 1081 0 1081 100% 308 727 1035 30%
W ils o n 1044 1253 60 1145 1205 5% 230 570 eoo 29%

Carmel 5 58 670 142 444 586 24%
J .  H. Gunn 558 670 49 475 524 9%

T o t a l 1 8 , 7 9 6 2 2 , 5 4 6 5 ,  S77 1 5 , 1 8 7 2 1 , 0 6 4 5 , 9 7 0 1 5 , 2 5 5  21 , 2 2 5



Research Report
January 31, 1970

The Charlotte-Hecklenburg School*

DESEGREGATION PLAN for 1970-71

E x h ib it H, page 1

E le m e n ta ry  S c h o o l *

S c h o o l
B a se

1970-71
C a p a c i t y

♦ 1 2 % B

1 9 6 9 -7 0  *

W T %B B
B o a rd

W
P la n

T %B

A lb e m a r le  Rd. 1*32 1*81* 1* 510 514 1% 4 4 6 9 473 1%
A l le n b r o o k 51*0 605 61 452 513 12% 59 496 555 11%  ‘
A s h le y  P a rk 621 696 27 574 601 4% 155 421 576 27%
B a in 702 786 33 735 768 4% 25 706 731 3 %
B a r r in g e r 1*86 51*1* 843 16 859 98% 203 320 523 39 %

B e r r y h  i 11 836 936 98 6 3 9 737 13% 247 574 821 30%
B e v e r ly  Woods 51*0 605 68 6 8 4 752 5% 8 648 656 1%
B i l l i n s g v i 1 le 591* 665 596 0 596 100% 113 325 438 26%
Br i arw ood 51*0 605 6 680 6 8 6 1% 2 663 665 0%
B ru n s  Ave. 675 756 759 10 769 99% 6 2 4 73 697 90%

C hant i l l y 1*32 i*8i* 0 472 472 0% 142 303 445 32%
C le a r  C re e k 321* 363 1*8 229 277 17% 43 266 309 14%
C o l l i  nswood 621 696 111 443 554 20% 224 448 672 3 3 %
C o r n e l i  us 1*59 511* 181 235 416 44 % 182 265 447 41%
C o tsw o ld 51*0 605 23 537 560 4% 128 4 4 9 577 24%

Dav i d son 324 363 101* 186 290 36% 102 174 276 32%
M a r ie  D a v is 756 847 662 0 662 100% 666 82 748 88°/
D e r i ta 783 877 ISO 678 828 18% 152 595 747 20%
D evon sh  i re 61*6 726 0 903 903 0% 0 925 925 0%
D i 1 w orth 61*8 726 90 317 407 22% 241 376 617 39%

D ou b le  O aks 675 756 836 0 836 100% 825 3 828 100%
D r u id  H i l l s 1*86 544 472 3 475 99% 465 20 485 96%
E a s t o v e r 6A8 726 42 559 601 7% 157 478 635 25%
E 1 i zab e th 1*05 A5A 314 125 439 72% 112 294 406 28%
E n d e r l y  P a rk 513 575 3 371 374 1% 119 238 357 33%

★  N in c l u d in g  S p e c ia l Educa t io n in  s e l f - c o n ta ned c l a s s e *

832a



The Char 1o t t e - M e c k l e n b u r g  S c h o o l s  

DESEGREGATION PLAN f o r  1970-71

E x h ib i t  H, page 2.

E le m e n ta r y  S c h o o l s  1

S ch oo l
1 9 7 0 - 7 1

C ap ac i  t y  
Ba se  + 1 2 % B

1 9 6 9 -7 0  

W T %B B
Boa rd
W

PI an
T %B

F i r s t  Ward -7.02 78 6 805 0 805 100% 7 7 0 7 1 1 1 99%
H i c k o r y  G rove 4 5 9 -514 70 533 603 12% 74 556 63 0 12%
H i dden V a l l e y 648 726 0 1100 1100 0% 1 1077 1078 0%
H i g h 1 and 297 . 333 69 305 3 7 4 18% 76 237 3 1 3 2 4 % '
H o s k i  ns 297 333 , 13 2 1 2 225 6% 124 219 343 36%

H u n t e r s v i  1 le 675 756 145 531 676 21% 130 554 684 19%
H u n t in g to w n e  Farms 594 665 7 60 3 610 1% 3 614 617 0%
1d l e w i 1d 567 635 47 581 628 7% 59 549 60 8 10%
1rw in  Ave. 292 0 292 100% *
A/nay James 378 423 462 3 465 99% 90 169 259 35%

L a k e v i  ew 3 7 8 423 346 89 435 80% 119 285 404 29%
Lansdowne 756 847 75 802 877 9% 79 719 798 10%
L i n c o ln  He i g h t s 6 4 8 726 711 0 711 100% 903 6 909 99%
Long  C re ek 70 2 78 6 267 468 735 3 6 % 259 523 782 33%
Matthews 945 1058 86 802 888 10% 81 837 91 8 9%

M e r r y  Oaks 486 544 0 442 442 0% 0 557 557 0%
M i dwood 4 5 9 514 9 437 446 2% 116 401 517 23%
M c n t c l a i  re 675 756 0 718 718 0% 1 781 782 0%
M ye rs  P a rk 432 484 22 444 466 5% 150 314 464 3 2%
N a t i o n s  Ford 621 696 43 6 6 9 712 6% 177 548 725 24%

Newel 1 594 66 5 74 438 512 14% 64 436 500 13%
O akd a1e 540 605 69 517 586 12% 202 460 662 31%
O a k h u r s t 594 66 5 5 616 621 1% 92 504 596 15%
Oak? awn 594 665 584 0 584 100% 597 3 600 99%
0 1 de P r o v id e n c e 540 605 80 5 1 2 592 14% 83 461 544 15%

♦ d i s t r i b u t e d  to  s u r r o u n d i n g  s c h c o t s

833a



The Cherlotte-Mecklenburg School*

DESEGREGATION PLAN for 1970-71

E x h ib it H, page 3

E le m e n ta ry  S c h o o l *

S c h o o l
197 0 -7 1  

C a p a c it y  
B a s«  + 1 2 % B

1 9 6 9 -7 0  

W T %B B
B o a rd
W

P la n
T %B

P a rk  Road 51*0 605 1*1* 51*8 592 7% 41 571 612 7%
Paw C re e k 594 665 27 609 636 4 % 83 6 0 2 685 12%
Paw C re e k  A nnex 270 302 30 271 301 10%
P i n e v i 1 le A 86 544 136 356 1*92 28% 123 3 7 9 502 25 %
P inew ood 61*8 726 0 671* 6 7 4 0% 0 900 900 0%

P la z a  Road 1*59 511* 80 31*0 4 2 0 19% 181 350 531 3 4 %
Rama Road 61*8 726 1 815 816 0% 3 744 747 0%
S e d g e f ie ld 51*0 605 3 51*8 551 1% 223 3 6 4 587 3 8 %
S e lw yn 1*86 51*1* 31 6 1 7 6 4 8 5% 32 4 5 9 491 7%
Sham rock  G a rd e n s 1*86 51*1* 0 515 515 0% 8 4 496 580 15%

S h a ro n 1*59 511* 72 361 433 17% 91 421 512 18%

S ta rm o u n t 61*8 726 25 712 737 3% 67 833 900 7%
S t a t e s v i l l e  Road 61*8 726 333 522 855 39% 160 553 713 23%
S t e e le  C re e k 378 1*23 5 5 0 9 514 1% 195 475 670 29%
Thom asboro 729 816 0 690 690 0% 135 777 912 15%

T ry o n  H i l l s 1*86 51*1* 309 161* 473 65 % 200 342 542 3 7 %
T u ck a se e g e e 540 605 58 578 636 9% 57 510 567 10%

U n i v e r s i t y  P a rk 61*8 726 825 1 826 100% 735 132 867 85%
V i l l a  H e ig h t s 810 907 902 83 985 92% 877 170 101*7 83%
W e s t e r l y  H i l l s 1*05 1*51* 1*6 539 585 8% 144 332 476 30%

WJ lrro re 378 1*23 222 210 1*32 51% 153 250 1*03 3 8 %
W in d so r  P a rk 61*8 726 1 71*8 749 0% 1 782 783 0%
W in t e r f i e ld 61*8 726 1*8 6 8 8 736 7% 52 653 705 7%

T o ta l W .3 9 1 1*5.239

IE
13,010 31 .2 7 8  1*1*,288 1 2 ,8 8 5  3 1 ,5 2 3 i*i*, 1*08

834a



E x h i b i t  J ,  page 1 .
DESEGREGATION PLAN f o r  C h a r l o t t e - M e c \ l e n b u r g  S c h o o ls

E le m e n ta ry  S c h o o ls

S c h o o l
1 9 7 0 - 7 1

C a p a c i t y
B a ss  + 20% B

1 9 6 9 - 7 0  

W T %B

C ou rt C o n s u lt a n t  
Plan

B W T %3

A lb e m a r le  Rd. 432 4 34 4 510 514 1% 162 3 38 5 0 0 32%
A lle n b r o o k 54 0 6 0 5 61 452 513 12 % 135 341 4 7 6 23%
A s h le y  P ark 621 696 27 574 601 4% 175 426 601 25%
B ain 702 786 33 735 763 4 A 25 706 731 3%
B a r r in g e r 4S6 544 843 16 859 98% 203 320 523 39%

B e r r y h ill 836 936 93 639 737 13% 247 574 821 30%
B e v e r ly  W o o d s 540 6 05 68 684 752 9% 136 446 632 29%
B il l in g s v il le 594 665 596 0 596 100% 113 325 4 38 26%
B r ia r w o o d 540 605 6 6eo 686 1% 256 479 735 35%
B ru n s A v en u e 675 756 759 10 769 39% 252 540 792 32%

C h a n tilly 4 3 2 4 8 4 0 4 7 2 4 72 0% 142 333 4 7 5 30%
C le a r  C r e e k 324 363 48 229 277 17% 43 266 309 14%
C o llin sw o o d 621 696 111 4 43 554 20% 224 406 630 36%
C o rn e liu s 455 514 181 235 4 16 44% 182 26 5 4 4 7 41%
C o tsw o ld 54 0 605 23 537 560 4% 128 4 04 532 24%.

D a vid son 324 363 104 136 290 36% 102 174 276 32%
M a r ie  D a v is  
D e rita  
D e v o n sh ire  
D ilw o rth

756 8 47 662 0 662 100% 193 532 725 27%,
783 8 7 7 150 673 S28 18% 167 625 792 21%,
643 726 0 903 903 0% 333 624 957 35%.
643 7 26 90 317 4 0 7 22% 241 376 617 3SX.

D o u b le  O aks 6 7 5 756 836 0 836 100% 234 496 7 30 32%
D ru id  H ills 4 8 6 544 4 7 2 3 4 7 5 99% 158 303 4 6 1 34%
E a s to v e r  
E liza b e th  
E n d e rly  P ark

648 726 42 559 601 7% 157 445 602 26%,
4 0 5 4 54 314 125 4 3 9 72% 132 304 436 30%.
513 575 3 371 374 1% 150 270 4 2 0 36%



DESEGREGATION PLAN for Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
Elementary Schools

S c h o o l
1 9 7 0 - 7 1  

C a p a c i t y  
B a se  + 20% B

196 9

W

- 7 0

T %B

C o u rt C o n s u lt a n t  
P lan

B W T %B

F i r s t  Ward 702 7 36 805 0 805 100,4 265 6S6 951 2 8 *
h i c k o r y  Grove 4 5 9 514 70 533 603 1 2 * 272 4 3 9 711 38%
Hidden V a l l e y 643 726 0 110 0 1 1 0 0 0 * 310 679 9B9 31%
H igh lan d 297 333 69 305 374 18% 76 237 313 74%
H o s k in s 297 333 13 212 225 6% 139 244 333 36%

H u n t e r s v i l l e 675 756 145 531 676 21% 130 554 634 19%
H u n t ingtow ne Farms 5 94 6 6 5 7 603 610 l ; ; 205 414 613 33%
Id le -w ild 5S7 635 47 531 6 2 3 7% 1 90  . 4 1 0 600 32%
Irw in  Avenue 2S2 0 292 100% *
Amay James 373 4 2 3 4 6 2 3 4 6 5 9S% 105 194 299 3 5 *

Lakeview 378 4 23 346 39 4 3 5 80% 139 2 30 4 1 9 33%
Lansdowne 7 56 347 75 S02 877 9% 207 496 7 03 2 9 *
L i n c o l n  H e i g h t s 648 726 711 0 711 100% 241 4 5 6 697 25%
Long C reek 7 02 785 267 4 6 3 735 36% 239 523 782 33%
Matthews 945 1056 36 302 8 80 10% 31 837 513 9%

Merry Oaks 4 86 544 0 442 4 4 2 0% 106 236 34 2 31%
Midwood 4 5 5 514 9 437 4 46 2% 116 44 G 562 21%
M c n t c l a i r e 675 756 0 7 1 8 718 0% 2 30 504 764 36%
Myers Park 4 3 2 484 22 444 4 6 6 5% 150 44 5 595 25%
N a t i o n s  Ford 621 6 96 4 3 6 6 9 712 6% 177 532 7 59 23%

N e w ell 594 6 65 74 4 38 512 14% 74 546 6 2 0 12%
O akd ale 5 40 6 05 69 517 536 12% 250 4 6 0 710 35%
O akhu rst 594 6 6 5 5 616 621 1% 197 5 34 731 27*
Oaklawn 5 94 6 65 584 0 584 100% 226 594 8 2 0 28?,
O ld e  P r o v id e n c e 540 6 0 5 SO 512 592 14% 145 351 4 9 6 29°,

* Assigned from area to increase desegregation 
Oakhurst 105B 
Shamrock Gardens 901$
Thomasboro 95.-B

836a



School
197071 

Capacity 
Base +2074

Park Road 540 605Paw Creek 594 665
Paw Creek Annex 270 302
Pineville 486 544
Pinewood 648 726
Plaza Road 459 514
Rama Road 648 726
Sedgefield 540 605
Selwyn 486 544
Shamrock Gardena 486 544
Sharon 459 514
Starmount 648 726
Statesville Road 648 726
Steele Creek 378 423
Thomasboro 729 816
Tryon Hill* 486 544
Tuckaeeege# 540 605
University Park 648 726
Villa Heights 810 907
Westerly Hills 405 454
Wilmore 378 423
Windsor Park 648 726
Winterfield 648 726

Total 40,391
45 .239

DESEGREGATION PLAN (Cont'd)
E le m e n ta ry  S c h o o l*

E x h ib it  J , page 3.

B
1969-
W

70
T %B B W T %B

44 548 592 7% 148 359 507 29%
27 609 636 4% 160 395 555 29%
30 271 301 10% 83 209 292 28%

136 356 492 28% 123 379 502 25%
0 674 674 0% 283 697 980 29%

80 340 420 19% 181 350 531 34%
1 815 816 0% 273 493 766 36%
3 548 551 1% 223 364 587 38%31 617 648 5% 150 309 459 33%
0 515 515 0% 174 511 685 25%

72 361 433 17% 123 245 368 33%,
25 712 737 3% 217 441 658 33%,

333 522 855 39% 160 553 713 23%,
5 509 514 1% 195 475 670 29%,
0 690 690 0% 230 770 1000 23%,

309 164 473 65% 107 262 369 29%,
58 578 636 9% 119 300 419 28%.,

825 1 826 100% 260 461 721 36%,
902 83 985 92% 265 668 933 28%,
46 539 585 8% 144 332 476 30%

222 210 432 51% 153 250 403 38%.
1 748 749 0% 272 561 833 33%,

48 688 736 7% 261 537 798 33%c

010 44,288 1.2,964 44,370
31,278 31,386

837a



838a
Exhibit K. page 1.

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS TO BE PAIREO

P r e s e n t  S c h o o l 
.0 C oun t

1 - 
B

u
W

5
B

-  6
w

T o t a l  
Pup i 1s

A lb e m a r le  Road 2 3 3 8 2 1 7<* 5 1 6
A l le n b ro o k 0 3 9 1 0 1 5 6 <*97
B e v e r l y  W oods 1 <*<46 1 2<*9 6 9 7
B r  ia rw o o d 1* <♦ 77 2 2 2 0 70 3
B ru n s  A ve n u e 526 0 2<*6 0 7 7 2

M a r ie  D a v i s <01 59 1 9 3 2 6 7 0 9
O e v o n sh i re 0 62 <* 0 2 7 6 9 0 0

D o u b le  O aks 585 2 2 3 2 0 8 1 9
D r u id  H i l l s 310 2 1 5 8 1 <♦71
F i r s t  W ard 533 0 2 6 2 U 79 5

H ic k o r y  G ro v e 5<* 3 2 9 1 6 2 0 8 6 0 7

H id d e n  V a l l e y 0 6 7 7 0  v 3 0 2 9 7 9

H u n t in g to w n e  Farms 0 <*l<* 0 1 9 5 6 0 9

I d l e w i I d 0 <♦ 10 0 1 6 3 5 7 3

Lan sd ow n e 2 <*96 1 291 7 9 0

L i n c o l n  H e ig h t s <♦ 56 0 2 3 9 0 6 9 5

M e rry  Oaks 0 2 3 6 0 1 1 9 3 5 5

M o n t c la i  re 0 50<* 0 217 721

O aklaw n <♦ 05 0 1 9 3 0 5 9 8

O ld *  P ro v id e n c e 2 3 5 1 1 l<*6 5 0 0

P a rk  Hoad 0 300 0 160 6 6 0

Paw C re e k 16 3 9 5 11 2 1 <* 6 3 6

Paw C re e k  Annex 27 209 3 5 3 2 9 2

Pinewood 0 6 9 7 0 3<*6 10 6 3

Kam a Hoad 3 <*93 0 2<*<* 76 0

Se lw yn 0 28<* 0 188 6 7 2

Sh a ro n 0 2<*5 0 117 3 6 2

S ta rm o u n t 19 <*2*1 6 2 7 8 6 9 6

T ryo n  H i l l s 218 no 91 5<* 6 7 3

T uckase e ge e <♦ 9 300 19 171 5 3 9

U n i v e r s i t y  P a rk 550 0 260 0 8 1 0

V i l l a  H e ig h t s 683 n<* 26<* *♦ 8 1 1 0 9

W in d so r  P a rk 0 515 1 233

W ln t e r f i e l d 0 <*9<* 0 1 9 9 6 9 3

T o t a l <♦ ,876 1 0 ,3 0 3 2 , 2 0 1 <*.998 22,378



839a

The C h n r lo tte -M e c k le n b u rg  S ch oo ls
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS PAIRED

Exhibit K.

Grade 1 -4 Grade 5 -6

Schools
B w T %

S c hools
B W T %

Huntingtowne Farms
Sharon
Starmount

545 1100 164 5 33

Bruns Aven u e 252 540 792 31

Park Road 
Pinewood

431 1056 1437 29

Marie D avis 193 532 725 27

Briarwood
Devonshire

589 1103 1692 35

Double Oaks 234 496 730 32

Hidden V a l l e y
310 679 989 31

D r u i d  H i l l s 158 303 461 34

Beverly Woods
Lansdowne
Olde Providence

538 1293 1831 29

F i r s t  Ward 265 606 951 28

Albemarle Road 
Idlewild  
Merry Oaks

458 984 1442 32

L i n c o l n  H e i g h t s 241 456 697 35

Allenbrook  
Paw Creek 
Paw Creek A nnex 
Tuckaseegee

497 1245 1742 29

Oaklawn 226 594 820 28

Hickory Grove
272 439 711 38

T r y o n  H i l l s 107 262 369 29

Montclaire  
Rama Road

553 997 1550 36
U n i v e r s i t y  Park 260 461 721 36

Selwyn
Windsor Park 
Winterfield

683 1407 2090 33

V i l l a  He i g h t s 265 668 933 28

Total 4 ,876 15,179 2 ,201 7 , 199
10,303 4 , 9 9 0



840a

(Filed February 13, 1970)

On February 5, 1970, this Court entered an order di­
recting the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education and 
the individual members of the Board to proceed immedi­
ately to desegregate the public schools of Charlotte-Meck­
lenburg County. The Court directed that students be as­
signed to the various schools under plans presented and 
adopted by the Board and a plan prepared by the Court’s 
consultant, Dr. John A. Finger. The order provided for 
changing attendance zones of some schools, pairing of 
some schools, and transportation of students living beyond 
“walking distance” from the schools to which assigned. 
The order further directed that the plan be implemented 
for elementary schools no later than April 1, 1970 and for 
secondary schools no later than May 4, 1970. The School 
Board was specifically directed to begin immediately with 
steps to implement the plan.

Prior to the filing of the order on February 5, 1970, Tom 
B. Harris, G. Don Roberson, A. Breece Breland, James M. 
Postell, William E. Rorie, Jr., Chalmers R. Carr, and Rob­
ert T. Wilson, on their behalf and on the behalf of the 
Concerned Parents Association, an unincorporated asso­
ciation, brought a proceeding in the Superior Court of 
Mecklenburg County, by their attorney, William H. Booe, 
to obstruct and prevent the School Board from implement­
ing the orders directed by this Court. They obtained from 
the Superior Court of Mecklenburg County an e x  parte 
order specifically enjoining the Superintendent from im­
plementing the order of this Court directing the Board to 
pay the expenses and fees of the Court consultant.

M otion  to  A dd  A dditional Parties D efendant
and fo r  Further R e lie f



841a

Following the order of February 5, 1970, Tom B. Harris,
G. Don Roberson and others of the Concerned Parents 
Association have sought and are seeking by various means 
to obstruct and prevent implementation of the Court’s 
orders. On February 12, 1970, they obtained from the Hon­
orable William K. McLean, Judge Presiding in the Superior 
Court of Mecklenburg County, an order enjoining the 
School Board from spending any funds to purchase and 
operate school buses as directed by this Court.

The Honorable Robert H. Scott, Governor of the State 
of North Carolina, on February 11 and 12, 1970, objected 
to the Court’s order and directed that no public funds, state 
or local, be expended for the purpose of implementing the 
order. The Honorable Dr. A. Craig Phillips, State Super­
intendent of Public Instruction, and the North Carolina 
State Board of Education, defendants herein, joined with 
the Governor in objecting to the Court’s order and in di­
recting that no public funds be used for the purpose of 
implementing the order.

On February 6, 1970, Honorable James Carson, a mem­
ber of the Mecklenburg Delegation to the North Carolina 
House of Representatives, threatened to and is preparing 
to file similar proceedings in the State Court of North 
Carolina to obstruct and thwart the enforcement of the 
Court’s orders.

These parties, along with divers others, are seeking to 
obstruct and prevent implementation of the Court’s orders 
directing compliance by the school authorities with their 
constitutional obligations.

Despite the Court’s directive to the School Board to pro­
ceed forthwith with all necessary steps to implement the 
order, the School Board, the State Superintendent and the

Motion to Add Additional Parties Defendant and
For Further Relief



842a

State Board o f Education have failed to do so. Plaintiffs 
are advised that no efforts have been made to secure the 
necessary buses for transporting students as directed by 
the Court. Plaintiffs are also advised that such buses as 
may be necessary can be ordered and manufactured by the 
time directed by the Court for implementation of the plan. 
The failure o f the School Board to act now in securing the 
necessary facilities for transportation may prevent deseg­
regation of the schools in the time directed.

Plaintiffs are advised, believe and so allege that the ac­
tivities and conduct of the defendants and each of them are 
pursuant to a design to thwart, impede and prevent deseg­
regation o f the public schools of Charlotte-Meeklenburg 
County and that the acts, activities and conduct of the 
defendants were calculated and intended to incite disobedi­
ence o f the law and the overthrow of law and order and to 
coerce, intimidate, and compel school officials from per­
formance o f their constitutional responsibilities to deseg­
regate the public schools o f this system

In order to insure full implementation o f the Court’s 
order within the time directed, plaintiffs, by their under­
signed counsel, respectfully move the Court that the fol­
lowing parties re auded as parties-defendant in this pro­
ceeding

Hone rime rccert 3L Scott. Governor o f  the State o f 
North Carolina:

"  • ra ne A. C. ?a ? 's . Controller i f  the Stare Cecarr- 
ntenc of Public instruction ,

r.ooorubie William A  Xeuean, ftnop* it die Sumsrcrr 
ClW t ¥  \ecsioobucx C&uncy'

— r.s.'~s> -. Ctnt C rersq*. ^  rre*saE isL
iasefv v "x. ■- • v -..i am j. lorn-, rr. ihsm e-rs-^ Tin—

Motion to Add Additional Parties Defendant and
For Further Relief



843a

Robert T. Wilson, and the Concerned Parents Association, 
an nnincorporated association in the Mecklenburg County;

James Carson and William H. Booe.
Plaintiffs further pray the Court for a temporary and 

permanent injunction dissolving the injunctive orders of 
the Superior Court of Mecklenburg County entered in the 
proceeding of Tom B. Harris, et al. v. William C. Self, et 
al., 70 CVS 1097, and temporarily and permanently restrain 
any further proceedings in the action.

Plaintiffs further pray the Court for a temporary and 
permanent injunction against all defendants and all other 
parties having notice of the Court’s order enjoining all 
parties in this action and all parties having notice of the 
orders of this Court from initiating or proceeding with 
any action in any State Court which has the purpose or 
effect of interfering with outstanding orders in this cause.

Plaintiffs further pray that the Court enter a temporary 
and permanent injunction restraining the Governor, the 
State Board of Education, the Controller of the State De­
partment of Public Instruction, and the State Superinten­
dent of Public Instruction from denying State funds or 
taking any other steps which would prevent or tend to 
prevent the implementation of the orders of this Court.

Plaintiffs further pray the Court for a temporary and 
permanent injunction directing the local Board of Educa­
tion, its members individually, the Governor of the State, 
the State Board of Education, the State Superintendent of 
Public Instruction and all other persons having an au­
thority or responsibility in the administration of the public 
schools in Charlotte-Mecklenburg County to proceed forth­
with with all necessary steps to implement the orders of

Motion to Add Additional Parties Defendant and
For Further Relief



844a

this Court, including the provisions requiring transporta­
tion of students living more than “walking distance” from 
the schools to which they are assigned. Plaintiffs further 
pray the court for a temporary and permanent injunction 
restraining all defendants from taking any steps or action 
which would inhibit or prevent or tend to prevent compli­
ance with the order of this Court.

Plaintiffs further pray the court that they be allowed 
their costs in this proceeding and reasonable counsel fees.

Plaintiffs further pray that the court direct the United 
States Marshal to personally serve a copy of the complaint, 
the amended complaint, and all orders, including the in­
junctive order prayed for herein, upon all defendants 
named herein.

Motion to Add Additional Parties Defendant and
For Further Relief

Respectfully submitted,

Conrad 0 . Pearson

203% East Chapel Hill Street 
Durham, North Carolina

Chambers, Stein, F erguson & 
L anning

216 West 10th Street 
Charlotte, North Carolina

Jack Greenberg 
James M. Nabrit, III 
Norman J. Chachkin 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019



845a

(Filed February 20, 1970)

Several orders, starting April 23, 1969, have been en­
tered by this court dealing with pending motions for de­
segregation of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools. The 
orders of December 1 and December 2, 1969, and February 
5, 1970, are attached as Exhibits A, B and C to this motion.

The December 2, 1969 order appointed Dr. John A. 
Finger, Jr. to assist the court in the preparation of a plan 
for the desegregation of the schools. The February 5, 
1970 order directs the schools to be desegregated according 
to various principles described or referred to in the order, 
including the requirement erroneously advertised as “ in­
voluntary bussing to achieve racial balance” which reads as 
follows:

“ That transportation be offered on a uniform non- 
racial basis to all children whose attendance in any 
school is necessary to bring about the reduction of 
segregation, and who live farther from the school to 
which they are assigned than the Board determines to 
be walking distance.”

A suit has been filed in the General Court of Justice, 
Superior Court Division, Mecklenburg County, North Caro­
lina, No. 70-CVS-1097, entitled “Tom B. Harris, G. Don 
Roberson, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. W illiam C. Self, Superin­
tendent of Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, and Charlotte- 
Mecklenburg Board of Education, Defendants,” and pur­
suant to allegations made in that action, Judge W. K. 
McLean, of the Superior Court of North Carolina, has 
entered an order temporarily restraining the School Board

Notification and Request for Designation of
Three-Judge Court



846a

and the Superintendent from paying Dr. Finger’s bills 
until they have been approved by the Board of Education, 
and ordering that “ the defendant Charlotte-Mecklenburg 
Board of Education and its agents, servants and employees 
be and they hereby are enjoined and restrained from ex­
pending any money from tax or other public funds for the 
purpose of purchasing or renting any motor vehicles, or 
operating or maintaining such, for the purpose of involun­
tarily transporting students in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg 
School System from one school to another and from one 
district to another district.”

The complaint, the amended complaint and the two orders 
of Judge McLean dated February 12, 1970, are attached 
hereto as Exhibit D.

The Governor of North Carolina has made a public state­
ment, Exhibit E, and has written a letter to the Department 
of Administration, Exhibit F.

The State Superintendent of Public Instruction, a party 
to this case, has made a public statement, Exhibit G.

Reports received from the School Board on February 12, 
1970 and February 19, 1970 fail to mention Judge McLean’s 
order, and fail to indicate that the Board have appealed 
or intend to appeal Judge McLean’s order; and these re­
ports also reveal no action by the Board or school staff 
addressed to the transportation problem. It appears that 
whether the action of Judge McLean and the other state 
officials do or do not directly conflict with this court’s 
orders, the practical effect of those actions is or may be 
to delay or defeat compliance with the orders of this 
United States Court.

The plaintiffs have filed a motion to make additional par­
ties, and have requested this court to enter orders dis-

Notification and Request for Designation of
Three-Judge Court



847a

solving Judge McLean’s restraining orders and directing 
the Governor, the State Department of Instruction and the 
“ Concerned Parents Association” and their attorneys and 
others not to interfere further with the compliance of the 
School Board with the orders of this court.

Some of the issues raised by this situation may involve 
the constitutionality of a state statute and others may be 
matters cognizable by a single judge.

It appearing to the court that pursuant to Title 28, 
U.S.C.A., this matter should be heard and determined by a 
district court of three judges.

Now, th erefore , it is respectfully requested that the 
Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for 
the Fourth Circuit designate two other judges, at least one 
of whom shall be a circuit judge, to serve with the under­
signed district judge as members of the court to hear and 
determine the action.

This the 19th day of February, 1970.

/ s /  James B. McM illan 
James B. McMillan 

United States District Judge

Notification and Request for Designation of
Three-Judge Court



848a

Tender of Evidence N u n c  P r o  T u n c  and Objections

(Filed February 24, 1970)

Defendants, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Educa­
tion, and the individual members of the Board of Educa­
tion, pursuant to the oral statements of the Court during 
the hearing on February 5, 1970, and pursuant to the order 
of the Court dated February 5, 1970, hereby tender, nunc 
pro tunc, evidence which would have been offered by the 
defendants for the consideration of the Court which was 
excluded by reason of the time limitations imposed by the 
Court or by formal rejection of the evidence hereby ten­
dered by rulings of the Court. The evidence tendered is 
disclosed in the following affidavits:

1. Affidavit of Dr. William C. Self, Superintendent of 
the Charlotte-Mecklenburg public schools.

2. Affidavit of Mr. J. D. Morgan, Assistant Superinten­
dent of business services of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg pub­
lic schools.

3. Affidavit of Mr. Louis W. Alexander, Assistant Di­
rector of the Division of Transportation of the North Caro­
lina Board of Education.

4. Affidavit of Mr. Herman J. House, Director of Traffic 
Engineering of the City of Charlotte, North Carolina.

5. Affidavit of Mr. Robert L. Deaton, Assistant General 
Manager of Charlotte City Coach Lines, Inc.

In addition to the foregoing, the defendants tender per­
tinent portions of the report and recommendations of the 
Court appointed consultant. Dr. John A. Finger, which re- 

vommendatio-> ; .......avyear o: -ecerd at this



849a

Tender of Evidence Nunc Pro Tunc and Objections

time. Accordingly, these defendants deem it appropriate 
to tender same as a portion of the record in this cause.

The defendants renew their objection to the refusal of 
the Court to permit full evidentiary hearings with respect 
to the two plans presented to the Court and offered into 
evidence on February 2, 1970, and further object to the 
refusal of the Court to consider all evidence prior to entry 
of its order on February 5, 1970.

Respectfully submitted this 24th day of February, 1970.

/ s /  W illiam J. W aggoner 
W illiam J. W aggoner 
W einstein, W aggoner, Sturges, 
Odom and Bigger

1100 Barringer Office Tower 
Charlotte, North Carolina

/ s /  B e n j . S. H orace 
B e n j . S. H orace 
E rvin , H orace a n d  M cCartha 

806 East Trade Street 
Charlotte, North Carolina

/ s /  B roce B arkley 
B roce B areley 

Law Building 
Charlotte, North Carolina



850a

(Referred to in Foregoing Tender of Evidence)

William C. Self, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I am the Superintendent of the Charlotte-Mecklen­
burg public schools and am responsible for the administra­
tion and operation of the school system.

2. At the hearing conducted on February 5, 1970, I 
would have testified as follows in the event the Court had 
permitted more time or had permitted answers to certain 
questions posed by the School Board attorney. Such testi­
mony would have been as follows.

3. The administrative staff explored the possibility of 
pairing one or more of the predominantly black schools 
with neighboring predominantly white schools. This alter­
native was rejected since such a move would have caused 
the paired schools to become predominantly black in a short 
period of time. Pairing of a predominantly black school 
with an adjoining desegregated school would produce a 
predominantly black school body in both schools. Many 
schools in the system have quickly changed from white to 
black. Since 1954-55 school term, eleven (11) schools have 
experienced such a turnover. Schools which have changed 
from all white to predominantly black during this period 
are Barringer. Bethune, Elizabeth. First Ward. Lakeview, 
Seversville. Zeb Vance. Villa Heights, Wesley Heights, 
Hawthorne and Piedmont. These schools or their suc­
cessors experienced a more rapid shift to predominantly 
black once their racial ratio reached approximately 35 to 
hi per cent hiacs. Any pairing arrangement between eon-
xguottss 'Choc is v-nm: exceed tins tierce a tasK.

Affidavit of William C. Self, Superintendent of
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Schools



851a

4. The Board of Education plan for further desegrega­
tion represents utilization of racially gerrymandered lines 
to the greatest extent possible in seeking maximum racial 
balance and at the same time preserve a bare semblance 
of the neighborhood school concept.

5. Further desegregation of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg 
public schools should take into account the educational 
advantages to be gained. As an educator, I  cannot justify 
an abrupt mid-year desegregation move on educational 
grounds for the amount of disruption, inconvenience, and 
hardship to the educational processes would nullify such 
advantages for the vast majority of black and white stu­
dents. A better procedure would be to schedule the moves 
near the end of the regular school term. This would allow 
the school administration to bring one school year to a 
close and to plan the new operation as if it were the begin­
ning of another school term. Such a move would allow for 
general orientation of students and teachers to their new 
surroundings and would also have the effect of relieving 
uncertainty about next year’s school assignment. Such 
change should not take place earlier than the last two weeks 
of school which is ample time to complete orientation.

6. As a professional educator, I am quite aware of the 
fact that opinions of children, parents and the community 
with reference to an educational program often offer posi­
tive or negative contributions to such programs. Their 
opinions may so affect the educational system that the 
benefits to be derived from a particular program will be 
submerged and thereby impaired to the point that the pro­
gram offers a negative value because of the absence of

Affidavit of William C. Self, Superintendent of
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Schools



852a

Affidavit of William C. Self, Superintendent of 
Charlotte-MecJclenburg Public Schools

popular support or acceptance. This would apply with 
equal force to the opinions of parents, students and the 
community to further desegration or to the time for imple­
mentation thereof. In any event, substantial efforts will 
be made to gain community acceptance of any action which 
must be taken.

This the 24th day of February, 1970.

William C. Self 

(Sworn to February 24, 1970)



853a

Affidavit of J. D. Morgan, Assistant Superintendent for 
Business Services of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg 

Public Schools

(Referred to in Foregoing Tender of Evidence)

J. D. M organ, being dnly sworn, deposes and says that:

1. I am Assistant Superintendent for Business Services 
of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Schools, and am re­
sponsible for the administration and operation of the school 
bus transportation system of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg 
Schools.

2. All statistical data and information attached hereto 
or referred to herein were prepared by me or under my 
direct control and supervision, are incorporated as a part 
of this Affidavit and correctly set forth the facts and esti­
mates to which they refer.

3. I am thoroughly familiar with the bus transportation 
system for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools as it is 
presently being operated and with the Board Plan and the 
Finger Plan for desegregation which were in evidence at 
the February 5, 1970 hearing and referred to in the Court’s 
Order of the same date. I have made a careful, detailed 
analysis of both of those Plans and alternate proposals, 
particularly with reference to their effect upon transporta­
tion of students, bus routes and schedules, transportation 
costs, availability of facilities and related matters.

4. Under North Carolina law and applicable regulations 
as they apply to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School System 
any school child is entitled to free transportation to and 
from the school he attends if he resides more than 1% miles



854a

from his school and (a) if he resides in the part of Meck­
lenburg County located outside the Charlotte city limits as 
they existed immediately prior to the 1957 annexation or 
(h) if he resides in the City and attends a school located 
within that portion of the County. Based on December 1, 
1969, records, 22,545 children were being transported pur­
suant to the State law by a fleet of 267 school buses. In 
addition, the System is presently furnishing with local 
funds 13 buses to transport the 738 black students who ac­
cepted assignments to outlying white schools when certain 
inner city schools were closed last year. In the aggregate, 
the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools has a fleet of 280 buses 
which now transport daily 23,283 students.

5. The Board Plan proposed to provide transportation 
for those children who are eligible under the present State 
law. The Finger Plan proposes to provide transportation 
for all students not within walking distance of their school, 
regardless of the location of their residence or the schools 
they attend. The Board has accepted the State standard 
for walking distance as being less than 1% miles. Either 
of the proposed plans for desegregation will require buses 
and expenditures in addition to the 280 buses presently be­
ing used to transport 23,283 students. A  summary of perti­
nent data, including the additional children, buses and costs 
which would be required under each desegregation pro­
posal is as follows:

Affidavit of J. D. Morgan, Assistant Superintendent for
Business Services of the Charlotte-Meclclenburg

Public Schools



855a

Affidavit of J. D. Morgan, Assistant Superintendent for
Business Services of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg

Public Schools

No. of Children Bussed
No. of Buses
No. of Trips Daily
Aver. No. Trips Daily
Aver. No. Pupils Per Trip
Aver. No. Miles Daily
Total Mileage Daily
Aver. Per Pupil Cost Annually
Cost of Buses
Cost of Parking Lots, Etc.
Cost of Operating
Cost of Personnel

B oard  Plan

4,935
104
104

1
47 
30 

3,120 
$ 29.29
$589,889.56

56.200.00 
175,627.92
42.960.00

F in g er  Plan  

23,384 
526 
526 

1 
44 
30 

15,780 
$ 31.26
$2,947,048.94

337.400.00 
888,271.98
177.120.00

Total Cost $864,677.48 $4,349,840.92

From the foregoing it will he observed that, compared with 
existing transportation, the Finger Plan adopted by the 
Court will double the number of children bussed (an in­
crease from 23,283 to a total of 46,667) and almost triple 
the number of buses required (an increase from 280 to 
806). Supporting details for this summary are shown on 
attached Schedules Nos. 1 and 2. In each instance the addi­
tional requirements tabulated above are based upon the 
System’s experience regarding the number of students 
who actually use such transportation—rather than the 
much larger number who are eligible therefor.

6. For the most part, the school buses are driven by high 
school students recruited by the high school principals and 
are paid the $1.60 per hour minimum wage prescribed by



856a

State law for student drivers. Student drivers are pres­
ently in very short supply as are also the extra substitute 
relief drivers which we must have in case of the illness or 
absence of regular drivers. A student driver parks his bus 
at his home overnight. In order to minimize unnecessary 
mileage, wherever possible a student driver is assigned a 
bus route that begins near his home. On the morning of 
each school day he starts his student pick ups near his home 
and continues on his route until he deposits the children 
at the school served by the route. All buses, by State law, 
must he routed within a mile of a student’s home. In most 
instances, it is necessary for a bus to be routed off main 
streets and roads to pick up points less than a mile for two 
reasons: First, to insure safety in loading and unloading 
students and secondly, to provide for better traffic safety 
and flow for the general public. If a bus route is not too 
long, the driver will be assigned a second route or trip. 
This trip begins after unloading at the first school so that 
he can pick up a second load of children for another school. 
At present, the daily trips per bus providing State trans­
portation average 1.8, reflecting the double use of about 
four fifths of the buses. If the route distance is too long 
or requires a long time because of congested or city traffic, 
a bus may be able to make only one trip. At the end of his 
morning run the student driver will park his bus and pro­
ceed to his high school. After school, the process is re­
peated in reverse. At present each bus averages about 40.8 
miles per day, which includes both the morning and after­
noons runs. In order to complete their runs most student 
drivers miss one instruction period.

Affidavit of J. D. Morgan, Assistant Superintendent for
Business Services of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg

Public Schools



857a

7. J3us routes are arranged to make maximum use of the 
capacity of the buses. However, in spite of our best efforts, 
sometimes the children on a route destined for a particular 
school are insufficient in number to utilize the full capacity 
of a bus. State regulations allow the rated seating capacity 
of a bus to he exceeded by not more than 25%. When the 
full capacity of a bus is utilized on a particular route, 
normally the children on the morning run who cannot get 
a seat are those who board the bus last. This is normally 
within a short distance of their school. On the afternoon 
run at the close of school the same is true in reverse. For 
the sake of the safety of our children, we try to minimize 
the need for standing in the aisles—particularly by ele­
mentary children. The risk of student injury is substan­
tially increased when the children are required to stand 
up for long periods or in heavily congested traffic.

8. Due to senior high schedules, length of time required 
on some routes and point of bus route termination, we are 
unable to use student drivers. Therefore, we employ some 
adult drivers who are paid the prescribed minimum wage of 
$1.95 per hour. Even greater difficulty is experienced in 
finding and retaining competent and reliable adult drivers. 
Because the system is responsible for the welfare of its 
students (particularly young children and girl students) 
great care must he exercised in screening candidates and 
investigating their moral character and past records as 
well as their driving abilities. Since adult employment is 
not provided on a full workday basis (hut only for the few 
hours in the morning and afternoon) and because of the 
low pay, reliable adult drivers are hard to find and keep.

Affidavit of J. D. Morgan, Assistant Superintendent for
Business Services of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg

Public Schools



858a

Unlike student drivers who park their buses at school, 
substantial additional bus mileage is incurred when at the 
end of a morning or afternoon run adult drivers must 
return empty buses to the central bus depot until they are 
picked up for the next run.

9. Both student and adult drivers must obtain a special 
school bus driver’s license. At least five days are required 
to obtain such a license and to train the prospective drivers 
for the operation of their buses, instruct them in safety 
and operating rules and regulations and familiarize them 
with their bus schedules and routes.

10. Safe, convenient parking areas must be provided for 
the loading and unloading of bussed children and the park­
ing of these buses during school hours in order that they 
may be serviced with gas, oil and minor repairs. The Char- 
lotte-Mecklenburg System is already hard pressed to pro­
vide such areas. School buses load and unload through a 
door at the right front of each bus. Safety of children is 
the key consideration. Parking areas must be arranged so 
children alighting from or boarding a school bus can do 
so without being endangered by the movement of other 
buses or traffic. Attached Schedule No. 3 explains the perti­
nent considerations, layouts, traffic flow, areas and other 
matters involved in providing these necessary bus parking 
areas. Parked school buses are not permitted to block 
dedicated or public streets and rights of way. Safe ingress 
and egress must be provided for buses entering and leav­
ing public streets and roads. Bus parking areas should pro­
vide sufficient space to allow maintenance and service trucks

Affidavit of J. D. Morgan, Assistant Superintendent for
Business Services of the Charlotte-MecMenburg

Public Schools



859a

to gas and oil the parked buses during school hours. De­
pending upon the length of the bus route, some buses re­
quire servicing every day and some every other day. 
Because of terrain, limited school sites and similar factors, 
some schools cannot accommodate bus parking areas. In 
such situations, parking areas must be purchased or leased 
or the buses must be taken back to a central bus depot 
until needed for the next run. Playgrounds cannot be used 
for bus parking areas without curtailing the physical edu­
cation program and without likely damage to the parked 
buses. Attached Schedule No. 1 shows school by school 
the students to be transported and the buses and parking 
areas required to provide the additional State law trans­
portation prescribed under the Board Plan and the attached 
Schedule No. 2 shows the same information under the 
Finger Plan. In each instance, these schedules show 
whether the required parking area is presently non existent 
(N), unsatisfactory (U) or satisfactory (S). Attached 
Schedule No. 3 documents the costs involved in providing 
bus parking. Apart from the cost of any needed land 
acquisitions, a $56,200 capital outlay will be required to 
provide additional bus parking under the Board Plan and 
$337,400 additional under the Finger Plan for those schools 
where bus parking areas are available. 11

11. Among the 23,384 additional students that must be 
transported under the Finger Plan will be 5,150 white 5th 
and 6th graders bussed into, and 5,150 black 1st, 2nd, 3rd 
and 4th graders bussed out of, the center city to eliminate 
the 9 predominantly black elementary schools which re­
main under the Board Plan. Also included are the students

Affidavit of J. D. Morgan, Assistant Superintendent for
Business Services of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg

Public Schools



860a

which must be bussed under the Finger Plan to eliminate 
Piedmont Junior High as a predominantly black school. A 
careful evaluation has been made of the bus trips and routes 
which would be required to achieve these objectives of the 
Finger Plan or any alternate plan which has as its purpose 
the elimination of these ten predominately black inner 
city schools. This evaluation reveals that bus trips to and 
from the center city schools will average 15 miles one way 
(30 miles round trip) and many of them will require a 
travel time of 1% hours one way (2y2 hours round trip). 
A  child involved in 2y2 hours daily bus travel will spend 
452.5 hours in a school bus during his 181 day school year. 
Prolonged travel is not only costly in terms of dollars and 
cents, but in terms of the time expended by children, par­
ents, teachers, principals and other school administrative 
personnel, which will most definitely affect the instructional 
programs and the on-going operation of the school system. 
The tranportation of students into and out of the center city 
will necessarily involve bus routes through the heavily con­
gested parts of the inner city and perimeter areas. From 
a safety standpoint this is undesirable. Under North Caro­
lina law, traffic going both ways must come to a halt when 
a school bus stops. The stop-and-go schedules of school 
buses transporting 23,384 additional children will seriously 
clog the already over burdened city and perimeter thorough­
fares.

12. The average 15 mile trip (30 miles per day) into and 
out of the center city to eliminate these predominantly black 
schools under the Finger Plan wll preclude the use of stu­
dent drivers, because the trips will be too long and too time- 
consuming to permit them to operate the buses and main­

Affidavit of J. D. Morgan, Assistant Superintendent for
Business Services of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg

Public Schools



861a

tain their own class schedules at the high schools they 
attend. As a practical matter, adult drivers will have to 
be employed to do the job. The estimated operating costs 
documented in attached Schedules Nos. 1 and 2 are based 
entirely on the use of student drivers. As indicated above, 
reliable and competent adult drivers are already in short 
supply and involve much more empty bus mileage than do 
student drivers. Even if adult drivers could he found, it is 
estimated that the operating costs of providing the trans­
portation required by the Finger Plan would exceed the 
amounts shown on those Schedules by 40% to 60%, mainly 
because of the increased salaries and the additional mileage 
that would he required.

13. School buses for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools 
(as well as those for the other North Carolna school sys­
tems) are procured through the State Board of Education’s 
Division of Transportation. Under State law, when an ad­
ditional bus is purchased it must be paid for entirely with 
local funds. At present the average cost of a school bus is 
$5,387.64, but it is anticipated that there soon will be a 
significant increase in this figure. Assuming student 
drivers, the maximum life of a school bus is about 12 to 15 
years. If adult drivers are used the life of a bus is much 
less because of the increased mileage. The wear and tear 
on a school bus is greater than that of most buses because 
of the roads they travel, the stop-and-go driving involved 
in student pickup routes and the hard usage occasioned by 
the young children they transport. The State pays for re­
placement buses. When school buses are retired they are 
either junked or sold at public auction. There is very little,

Affidavit of J. D. Morgan, Assistant Superintendent for
Business Services of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg

Public Schools



862a

if any, use left in a bus that has been retired. The repair 
and upkeep of such buses is prohibitive and usually they are 
unfit and unsafe for the transportation of school children.

14. Contingent upon availability of funds, at the present 
time only 75 additional new buses could be procured from 
the State and of these, 27 are required as past-due replace­
ments for our existing fleet. If the State has other new 
buses on hand they have been allocated to some or all of 
the 99 other North Carolina County school systems which 
also need overdue replacements. March 27, 1970, is the 
earliest date that State cotnracts can be let for the pur­
chase of additional buses. As stated above, 104 additional 
buses will be required under the Board Plan and 526 under 
the Finger Plan. Spring and summer is a rush time for bus 
manufacturers because this is when schools all over the 
country customarily place their orders for new buses. Un­
der normal conditions it takes about 120 days before the 
first bus chassis is delivered to the body fabricator and 
about 45 days thereafter before the completed bus is de­
livered and ready for use. With the exception of the 75 
buses referred to above, the first of the buses needed to pro­
vide the transportation required by either of the Plans 
would not be delivered to our system until the Fall of 1970 
and it is expected that an order placed to satisfy the re­
quirements of the Finger Plan would not be completed un­
til the Spring of 1971. In the meantime, we will have a con­
tinuing need for replacements.

15. Some suggestion has been made that, in order 
to meet the proposed demands of the Finger Plan, the

Affidavit of J. D. Morgan, Assistant Superintendent for
Business Services of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg

Public Schools



863a

Gharlotte-Mecklenburg Schools could use some or all 
of the several hundred retired obsolete buses that are 
stored in various areas of the State pending the arrival 
of new buses. These old buses are either junk or near junk. 
On average, they have been used 12 to 15 years and are 
unserviceable for school purposes or they would not have 
been declared obsolete and scheduled for replacement in 
the first place. With coaxing and care some of them can 
be made to run, but they are totally unsuitable for use to 
transport school children in a system as large and as 
complex as ours. Their performance would be completely 
unreliable—even with maximum attention to repairs and 
maintenance. They would not hold up under the strain and 
requirements of the long routes and urban congestion 
involved in our system. Quite apart from the mechanical 
unreliability of these resurrected replacements, many of 
them are unsafe. We cannot afford to put our children 
on buses which are discards and whose reliability and 
safety are suspect.

16. We have investigated the possibility of working out 
contract arrangements with Charlotte’s public transit 
system, Charlotte City Coach lines, Inc., to provide some 
of the transportation that will be required under the 
desegregation proposals. City Coach Lines is willing to 
help the schools in any way it can, but is able to provide 
only 5 buses to assist any desegregation effort. These 
buses can carry an average of 65 children each—making 
a total of 325. This total could be increased to some degree 
if the schools went on staggered schedules to make greater 
use of the available equipment.

Affidavit of J. D. Morgan, Assistant Superintendent for
Business Services of the Gharlotte-Mecklenburg

Public Schools



864a

17. It is observed that 280 buses are now being used 
to transport 23,283 school children but that 526 more buses 
will be required for the additional 23,384 pupils who must 
be transported under the Finger Plan. There are very 
obvious reasons why this is so. The existing 280 bus fleet 
now transports the 28,283 predominantly County children 
on comparatively short runs, allowing many of the buses 
to serve more than one school by making more than one 
trip—the buses now averaging about 1.8 trips daily. By 
way of contrast, the Finger Plan requires massive cross­
bussing and satelite bussing to and from the center city 
and outlying areas. Under the Finger Plan the average 
one-way run will be about 15 miles (much of it in congested 
city and suburban traffic) and some of the routes will 
involve travel time of approximately I 14 hours—too far 
and too long to permit the multiple use of buses to serve 
several schools as is frequently possible under our existing 
setup. The initial capital expenditure for buses required 
to implement the Finger Plan could be reduced by 35% 
to 50% if schedules for the opening and closing of the 
various schools were staggered. However, as previously 
noted, this would necessarily require the use of adult 
drivers—which would increase operational costs by 40% 
to 60%, due mainly to increased drivers’ salaries and addi­
tional mileage. The extensive staggered school schedules 
that would be necessary to minimize the number of buses 
required under the Finger Plan give rise to many practical 
problems—causing inconvenience and hardship for children 
and parents and disruption of school activities. It is 
anticipated that under any program of staggered school 
openings and closings (that significantly reduce bus re­

Affidavit of J. D. Morgan, Assistant Superintendent for
Business Services of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg

Public Schools



865a

quirements) some children would have to leave home as 
early as 6:40 a.m., and others would not get hack home 
until 5 :00 p.m.

18. As already observed, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg 
School System is now operating a complex and costly 
transportation system as required by State law for about 
27% of its total 84,000 students. Under the Court’s Finger 
Plan almost 55% of these students will be bussed daily. 
This will serve only to compound drastically the burden, 
expense, hardship, inconvenience, hazards, expenditure of 
unproductive time and the added administrative problems 
occasioned by any bussing program. The extra costs of 
the Finger Plan will make serious inroads upon our ability 
to finance and maintain quality facilities and instructional 
programs for our youngsters.

19. The implementation of the Finger Plan presupposes 
not only the availability of the buses, but also the avail­
ability of the funds (either locally or from the State) with 
which to finance the capital outlay and operational costs 
occasioned by the additional transportation necessary to 
effect the racial balances that the Plan seeks to achieve. 
We have no indication that these funds will be forth­
coming—either locally or from the State.

20. Neither the Finger Plan nor any other plan which 
has as its objective the elimination of the predominately 
black 9 elementary and 1 junior high schools in the center 
city can be implemented without a massive bussing 
program. It is unrealistic to assume that any such plan

Affidavit of J. D. Morgan, Assistant Superintendent for
Business Services of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg

Public Schools



866a

Affidavit of J. D. Morgan, Assistant Superintendent for 
Business Services of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg 

Public Schools

can be put into effect during this school year. We do not 
have the buses and we cannot get them. Even if we had 
the buses, we have no reasonable prospect of recruiting 
and training the student and adult drivers to operate 
them. Even if the buses and drivers were available, we 
have no prospects of obtaining the necessary financing.

/ s /  J. D. M organ 
J. D. M organ

(Sworn to July 13, 1970.)



867a

BOARD C ? i;ITCATION PLAN 

CHARLOTTC-.'ZC I'LAN BURG SCHOOLS

1 . C o s t  o f  B a s e s $ 5 8 9 ,8 8 3

2 . C o s t  o f  P a r k in g  A r e a 5 6 ,2 0 0

3 . C o s t  o f  O p e r a t io n 1 7 5 ,6 2 7

9 . P e r s o n n e l 112,960

5 . T o t a l  C o s t  F i r s t  Y e a r $ 8 6 9 ,6 7 7



868a

. $5,337.6-4 $ 161,623.20
750.CO

h i cbs
j c .<s  -  2 5, cco :cj
eli /ery Tracks - 1 5,COO.CO

2. Co g : Operation
Dai 1 y Annua 1

1. Cri/ers1 Salaries 
2A Gas, oil, crease, anti-freeze 
3 J'.ac'-.ani cs 1 Salaries 

fie pair Farts 
*r3 Tires and Tubes

5153. SO 
27.50 
33.70 
7.20

5 27,855.30 
5,095.30 
7,GCA.70 
1,303.20

TOTAL 5230.7-0 • 5 91,702 .<-0

Depreciation .055 cer nils 99.50 8.959.50
G.VvN'j TOTAL 5273-50 5 50,661.50

5. Personnel

A. Lure', scry - 1 S 6,2 CO.OC 
6,= 2C.CC



869a

BOARD CF 23 JCAT i ON FLAN 
JUNIOR HIGn SCr.COL

1. Capital Cjtlay

A. 33 Bases C- $5,5S7.cA
c. £c_ i p.T.en i j 
3 . Se r .■ ■ ce \h.', ic 1 eS 

Service Truc<s - 1 
3. Gasoline -eiivery Traces - 1

$177,7 j2 . i 2
c25 .CD 

2,3CO.CO

Ccst cf Operation
J£.ii y p-r- J

1. ur i vers * Sg Ier i es
2A. Gas, oil, grease, anti-freeze
3. Mechanics Saiaries
AA F.epai r Farts
A3 Tires ar.d Tubes

^163.25 
3 C . 65
A2.57
7.52

5 jO.Cil.ii5 
5,55:..33 
7,705.17 
1,1*33.52

TOTAL
Depreciation^ .055 per (nile

$255.AA 
5A.A5

* $-.5,672.64 
S.-&55 .A5

GRAND TO TAL 53C7.£3 $55,723.05

Fersonne i
A. Supe rviscry - i
B. Clerical - 1

$ £,2co.c;
6, 12C.CC



870a

SCAP.D CF £J JCA7 i C.’i > LA.'; 
ELEf’.EiiTAr\Y SCHOOL

Capital Outlay 

A. A) Buses 5- Sp,3-7 

C. Ser/ice Vehicles

$220 d37.2-f 
5CC.CO

Ser/lce Truc*s - 2 
Gasoline Delivery Trucks -  i

5 . 0 C C . C 0 
5 , c : o . o o

Cost cf Operation
Daily Annual

. Drivers' Salaries 5210.33 3 3 8 , 0 6 3 . 7 3
2A Gas, cii, grease, e.nd anti-freeze 33.13 6 . 9 0 1 . 5 3
3 Mechanics1 Salaries p 2  .i s 3 . 5 7 3 . 0 3

AA.Repair Parts 9  • 1 , 7 3  i . 0 6

Tires and Tubes - ~

Total S3lA.cS $ 56.933-28

6 .  Depreciation^ .05 5 p e r  n i l e 67.65 12,266.65

GPA'.’D TOTAL 5362.53 5 69.267.93

Personnel

A. Super.i sor/ - 1 C 8, 200.CC 
fc, 12C.C0



871a
BOARD OF EL'U CATION PLAN Cl' DESEGREGATION 

SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS

SCHOOL
NO. STUDENTS TO 
EE TRANSPORTED

NO. BUSES 
REQUITED

BUS
‘ P A R K IN G  ARE. C O S T

E a st  M ecklen burg 2 7 3 7 S

G a rir .g er 7 8 2 N $  3  ,4 0 0  .

H ard in g N

In depen den ce S
M yers Park r  n

N orth  M ecklen burg s
O lym pic s
Second Ward

South M ecklen burg 6 0 0 15 u S 6 , 0 0 0 .

W est C h a r lo t t e 5 3 2 u S 8 0 0 .

U e stH e ck le n b u rg 1 9 8 5 u $ 2 , 0 0 0 .

C h a n q e  i n  A t t e n d a n c e  / x e a s 10
I

T o t a l  1 2 0 2 4 1 $ 1 2 , 2 0 0

L ess r e d u c t io n  t o  p r e v e n t •X
d u p l i c a t e  u se  o f  s c h o o l  b u se s 1 1

N et number o f  b u se s 30



872a
: vc a i i o : : I'LUN Cr DCS:

JUNIOR 1 !IC l SCHOOLS

NO. STUDENTS TO NO. DUSES J BUS C O ST
school BE TRANSPORTED REQUIRED PARKING

lb e m a r le  Road
~ ~ ! S

Ii s

ochrar.e 534 10 u $4,000.

Sj o k c s S :!  R a n d o lp h 59 1 s

Ic u lv e o d 220 4 s

E a s  t v  ay !____U_______
Y lexar.der Graham • U
Hawthorne • N

Irwon Avenue

ic C l in t o c k s
lo r L h v e s t N
Piedm ont N
> u a il H ollow S
Ranscn

' s
S e d ,e r i e l d

j
N

400 8 s
1 |

N

1 1 N

i 1 6 4 3 i u $1,200

Y o rk  Road i i N

Change in  Attendance Areas 12

T o t a l  1 3 8 8  38
L ess  r e d u c t io n  t o  p r e v e n t  

d u p l i c a t e  u se  o f  s c h o o l  b u s e s  _______5

N et number o f  b u s e s  33

$ 5 , 2 0 0 .



873a
ADDITIONAL TRANS tj- ' u z r .ID

BOARD OF EDUCATION ? uAN o f  desf.gef. c a : i c : ;

ELEJ&STAa i  SCHOOLS

SCHOOL
i KOo STUDENTS TO j 
I BE TRANSPORTED 
1 !

LO. BUSES 
REQUIRED

1 B u g  j~  
P a r k i n g C O ST

A lb e n a r le  Road i i s  !

A lle n b ro o k !■■ | i
i S

A sh le y  Park
!': i

N

Bain U

B a r r in g e r 1 9 7 4
■

N j $ 4 , 2 0 0 .

B e r r v h i l l 2 7 4 5 s

B ev e rly  Woods | ;
D i

3 i l l i n g s v i l e 2 5 9  ? 5 N ! $ 4 .G O O .

3 r ia r v o o d i U 1

Bruns Avenue i
_____________________________ !______________

C h a n t i l ly j 77 !

C le a r  Creek i u  !

C o llin s v o o d
: I

2 3 3

----------------------- :----

5 s  !

.C o rn e liu s '  ! i
17 |

C ocsv old 1 9 5 A „  - r $ 4 , 2 0 0 .

Davidson
N

D e r ita •

D evon sh ire

D ilw o rth

Double Oaks i

Druid H i l l s
----------------------------------- -- ---------_ i 1

|

E a sto v e r 6 2  j i  i it j $ 3 , 0 0 0 .

E liz a b e th
1 1

!

Er.derly Park
i

F i r s t  Hard
1
1

’ r

II



874*

EOAHD Or EJECAiICX FILL" Or E E S iC n S G ii'iC I  

ELEKSJTAIS SCHOOLS

1:0 .  s t u d  E rr s  to n o . BUSES ; • U u .! ' A ■)- . .C O S T --
SCHOOL BE TRANSPORTED REQUIRED - p a n t i n g

■iidden V e l ie v

-

/

!

j

;

4 7 i N $ 3 , 0 0 0 .

Ilarie. D avis

K e rry  Oaks ..

3 5 i U $ 4 0 0 .

! 3 £

I

1 0 5 2 N $ 3 , 4 0 0 .

.

O ld s  P ro

Peed

l-~7  Creak |

I i |

Vr.r.7.: Ik::--: : . ________ _____ ___ „ .



875a
A3D17 1 ONAL TRANSI 01 ' . T A T R L Q t  1 illD  

EOAPJD OF EDUCATION PI AN OF DESEGREGATION' 

‘ ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

SCHOOL
KO. STUDENTS TO 
BE TRANSPORTED

KO. BUSES 
REQUIRED

L u c
P a r k i n g CO ST

i
Ratr-H Road l

t
S e d g e f ie ld 1

; j 1
Selw yn : 1 i

Shamrock G ardens
1 i 

Sharon •

Starxaount i

S t a t e s v i l l e  Road
!

S t e e le  Creek s

Th onasboro 3 5 3 7 W $ 5 , 4 0 0 .

Trvon H i l l s

T u ck a se eg ee 3 0 1 17 S 3 . 0 0 0 .  '

U n iv e r s it y  Park

V i l l a  H e ig h ts ■

W e s te r ly  H i l l s 1 5 6 3 N S 3 . 8 0 0 .
|

W iln o r e  *
i
i

i

W in dsor Park 1 i

W in t e r f i e ld 1 4 0 3 N S 3 . 8 0 0 .

P in evood  1

T o t a l 2 3 4 5
i

4 8 $ 3 8 , 8 0 0 .

L e ss  r e d u c t io n  t o  p r e v e n t  
d u p lic a t e  u se  o f  s c h o o l  b u se s  ______ 7

4 lN e t  number o f  b u se s



Sen2chile 2'

876a

DR. JO till rliCGER PLA;\

CiiARLOjlT E - i-Z C iX-ENi3URG SCHOOLS

X. Cost o f  Buses $ 2,547,043.91!

2. Cost o f Perking Area 337,400 .00

3 . Cost Operation £55,271 .98

<4. Personnel 177 ,120 .00

5 . Total Cost F irs t  Veer* $ 9 ,3 4 3 ,5 4 0 .9 2



877a

c..., i

S~ ilC ?. lii 'C i SC

0 v353?ocj
LL I l r i e r r r i i

. v\’.C:0 V c l i c l c s

L illvery

2. Core

D r iv e r j  D c l - r r ic c  G-reli:.Op oil, C-c^oP I'celrnicJ Ddcrioj
lir e 3 6 leir3

cr.ui-i recro

E l l e r ^ c  G e c t

- o i l
Lot .„_rCO

12 i ; l l . I j
i'- —  w'-'

i r i ly

Or- r >12 Crlr i O ->• -1
l i i . ■„ .r IS ;11?.62
-i-'j .30 ^ s -
2?. 3 J 1,932.31

. Ci33s0 . r
263.10 32.c:-5.1:

i»053.c; 3192,313,12

Co E re  L i  e r r  i c i e r  - 1  7 ,1 1 1 ,0 1



878a

12. i-li.V„A.'
Hati.! SC.iCCIS

l u c o o  0  $ 3 3 3 ? - i i  i '2 . $ 0^1 1̂ 1 7 .1 6
LI 2 ,* ? p .C 0
C. L - : \ l c j  V 'c i. ic lo  □

i o o v i c o  ‘i-.-v.ci:3 1 2 ^ 1 1 * 0 0
2 L o l i v e ,  y  T rucks 1C _ 0_  1 1 CO

COJl CLOlwciO.!
l - i  ly

Lvivo70 i„_c:iee 61iX.,Lv?.07Ccs5 c__„ r.ccsoj tir.d-ircozo I1G.C7
Celeries 133.*1 27j7cr.llt.cizi:- Ir'c-.- yj 25.3>8 3,035.35Vires £; Vices

$Jii.52 $163,005.32tc-cej,: Ciits 193.3? 55.?;9.33
C:.o3 lOrAisS $1,110.27 $200,5?$.67

r e :

A r . e u a i

A . S u . O i - . i c o i v -  0 t $  3 2  ,r C-j.C-j
L . C l c i - c C -  2 1  <? • 2  1: J : C .
C , ~ ~  . . . c r . ;  . : - - 1'  -  1 7 , £ 0 0 . C O



879a

i -----;2.i i'lAIJ

e i i a h y a ;.i  s c .^ o n

1. Ca.ieal Caelay

-- -> 2 A j> i>35C3 0 ĵpao’/lCa ta, c * •' ■:'. .1

12 £ piaicc irarla 
i> Eo..ive:y 2 mr.; j

2. Gear Gr e la t io n
E a ily

1= D ravcr? Sr.lc.ric3 c : , : i r , i , z i r . z : :
Gc3 ; c : 1 j ^ rcaao, a n a i-r ra o ra Z h : .L ? <-■ ' i - - -G - )
Fr: a u ric  3 G a ic i ic a 3 7 . .  W C23i*..2«3“
E ca a ir Far-to 73.32 1 2 V <  .ye
l i r e 3 £c T a lc3

$ 2 so 3 . 2 r
F i l e 3^3 ..  i ••

c :i .:;d i g i a i C3•733,C5 c i : i , 7 * 7 . c ;

3. Farrr.a.oi
Aar.

Sar^rrlra: .- .. 3 t a . e e :
lo C_c:-:.ca.2 - 3 - - -■ r  - c _:
V - j 113parraer -• 1 1 1 1 ,

Aral: rrai la 3 Hera A ara •■ 2 r  *



v .a e .3 .\m t . :;m l >

id?.. j o :-:;; f t -m i p . - s  f l a .-; o ?  rz3zo F > :G ..r :o .;

SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS

SCHOOL
NO. STUDENTS TO 
RE TRANSPORTED

NO. RISES 
REG!'IKED

BUS PARKING 
1 AREA

E a s t  M eck len bu rg 323 8 S

C -aringer , 862 22 N 1 1 ,4 0 0

H arding 420 11 U 7 ,1 1 0

In depen den ce 270 - S

M yers Park 776 20 N 1 0 ,6 0 .0

N orth  M ecklen burg S ;

O lym pic !
! S

Second V.'ard
_ j  _ _ _ _  !

Sou th  Meck1 enb urg 4SS 12 0 7 .4 0 1

'v e st  C h a r lo t t e 810 u i o .  c m

U es tM eckler.burc - A u U

Changes ir. A tte n d a n c e  Are as 10

TOTALS- H ig h  S c h o o l k ,1 0 5 11 1 5 1 ,2 3 0

T O TA LS-Junior High 6 ,1 2 9 11 9  !
i

I 7 2 ,  O'M

TOTALS -E le r a r . i a r y 1 3 ,1 U 9  | 
........................... ........... . i

2 1 3  : ! 21 M ,2 0 0

3 HAND TOTALS 2 3 ,3 6 1 : 526 : ! 33 7  , ' :0 0

S s t - ir a te d  d a i l y  r . i l c u g e  i s  f r c n  l r  t o  5>2 r i l e s  p e r  b u s .  I t  i s  e s t im a te d  th ar th e  
a v e ra g e  d a i l y  i ; : l c s  u c u ld  c s  a p p rcy  i r a t e l y  30 r i l e s  p a r  b u s .

E s t ir .a ie d  t r a v e l  a v e r a g e s  12 r i l e s  p e r  h o u r .  T h is  w ou ld  r e q u ir e  a r  e s i i r a t c d  
a v e r a g e  t r a v e l  t i r e  o f  2 - 1 / 2  h e a r s  p e r  day p e r  b u s .



3 T L A ? . ’
881aJu>.; :-i

DUN'IOR I!If.Li SCHOOLS

SCHOOL
NO. STUDENTS TO 
BE TRANSPORTED

NO. BUSES 
REQUIRED

ELo PARLIAJ 
AREA

-------------------- ----------------

'J.bemai'le Road 267 5 s

•.le xar.de r - s

icchrar.e . 270 5 u 4,600

.“ "a- :Lar.colon 90 2 s

ulvocc 126 3 s

i = = iv ay 6 0 3 12 u 7 ,M00

%] e:-:and;-r Graham 732 14 N 8,200

•avthorr.e 468 _ 9 N 6,200
j |

icClintock 325 6 ! u 5,000
.'orthvest 747 14 N  ' 8 ,200
iecr.ont 424 8 N 5,800
uail Hallev ISO 4 U 4.200
'r.son !

S
ac20fie ld 252 5 N
:".i th 360 s
3 “ ’-ah 290 6 N S. 000
-H i  a ms 630 12 N 7 ,M00
ilson S

ark Road 365 7 N 5,400
TOTALS 6,12 9 119 72,000



ELEMENTARY

LAN OF L BS 

SCHOOLS

8 8 2 a

SCHOOL
KO. STL DENYS TO 
BE TRAINS PORTED

NO. BUSES 
REQUIRED

Elio PAIOaJU'.G 
; \ AREA

A lb e m a rle  Road 176 4 u M, 2 0  J

A lle n b r o o k 156 ! 3
<

s

A s h le y  Park

—
197 4 N M ,2 0 0

B ain
/

• S

B a r r in g e r 292 6 N 5 , 0 0 0

B e r r y h i l l S

B e v e r ly  '.,'oods 2 7 ? ; S

B i l l i n g s v i l e 259 5 N 4 ,6 0 0

B ria rv o o d 222 5 U 4 ,6 0 3

B runs Avenue 528 12 N 7 , MOO

C h a n t i l ly

-----------------------------------“ I

s

C le a r  Creek \  s
C o llin s v o o d 16 8 3

".o r n e liu s
r

■ s

G otsw old 195 L N M ,2 0 0

D avid son S

D e r it a s

D evon sh ire 276 6 s

D ilw o rth 25 1 u 3 ,0 0 0

D ouble Oaks 5E7 12 N 7 ,4 3 0

Druid H i l l s 312 6 N 5 ,0 0 0

l a s t  o v e r 23 7  i 5 N 4 ,6 0 0

E liz a b e th 9 5  ; 2 K 3 ,4 0 0

,
in d e r ly  P ark !

!  s

l i s t  i'ard 5 33 t T .
H 7 .4 0 0

ic k o r y  Grove s



883a

SJLmL
I NO. STih'HHTS TO 
* TR.-wksri'.nTHh

i:o. dills
KHQDIULi)

D‘J3 P-HLHLILG
. _ .. .

Li idea Vn 12 ay 342 7 H 5 ,i;oo

Highland i
: s i

Hoskins : s

Huntersville S •

Hurtintttvne Karrs 220 5 N M ,600

Zy.evil d H-f « * 8  _ a U 4,200

.-“.ay Jar:as vS

I.akeviov S

lanadorna 354 7 N 5,400

Lincoln Heights . 456 9 N 6 , 2 0 0

Long Creek S

Marie Davis 473 1 C N 6,600

Hat the-.;5 s

Harry Cans 149 3 11 3,800

Hidvood 4 i N 3,000

Her. tcla i re 252 = K 4,600

Hyers Park IS 3 4 N M , 2 0 0

tier.s Lord E
Ho-rail S
Oak laic S
Jakhr.rst s
Iriilav-T, 405 ; 9 K 6 , 2 0 0

3“ S ?-:v-C r.iro 175 4 : U 4,200

:̂ -k  ?.r-;.3 755 ! 5 »  ; 4 , 5G0
Creak 2 72 5 u M ,600

-v illa S

Dead - •} s
-'Jr a:-a ad J 13 3,200



884a
dr. fihger’ s plrej or  lees eg re gat to:;

i'. Li'..'-HT NT ART SCHOOLS

i:o stfor .::IS  70 MO. BUSES i bus pa r r ie s
SCHOOL BE TILTHS PORT ED REDPIKED 1 1 AREA

Racia Road 27 7 6 1 5 .0 G 0

Sadgefield 198 4 4 , 20 0

Selwyn 391 S N 5 ,8 0 0

Shamrock Gardens 213 L N 0 ,2 0 0

Sharon 230 b N 4 ,6 0 0

S Ha mount 256 6 N 5 ,0 0 0

S ta te s v ille  Read S _ .. .
Steele Creek S

Ihonasboro ’ 258 5 N 4 ,6 0 0

Trvon H ills 95 !
o N 3 ,4 0 0

Tuckaseegee 265 i 6 N 5 ,0 0 0

U niversitv Park 562
:

12 ' N 7 ,  MOO

V i l l a  Heights 728 i 15 N 8 ,6 0 0

W esterlv H ills 137 | 3 N 3 ,8 0 0

Wiln.ore 55 1 N 3 ,0 0 0

Windsor Park 304 7 U 5 , MOO

W interfield 35 S 7 Is1 5 ,  M00

5th & 6th grace students 140 3
uiCScC  acnoois

Changes in  Attendance Areas 17

TOTALS
- 3 .3 0 ! :? 2 9 3 2 1 4 ,2 0 0



cn r
>

885a



886a

Ba a I nr 'ah:g c  t  £ c k eela

lersrel dee or s d n t io m

1 .  S a f e t y  c f  p u p H u  sk e-a ld  b a  t h o  p r  si array c o n s a d o r a t io n  i n  l o c a t i n g  v a h i c a l e r  c l r o n l n -  

t i s n  c n  t h o  s c h o o l  s i t o .  C o n v e n i e n c e d i n a  s t r e s s  end o c o n s s y  e r a  s e c o n d a r y

s e n s  i c e r s t i  cris .

2 .  f r o  b en  p a r k in g  a re a  sh oe .Id  be  d e s ig n e d  in  c c m c o t i c n  in ith  t h o  u n lo a d in g  end  len d in g

sc-noo I t  sh ea  Id  bo in d e p e n d e n t  c f  e t h e r  d r iv s v a y s  and s o  d e s ig n e d  t h a t  b a ck in g  c f

t h o  b a s e s  car. be  a v o id e d *

3 .  t h e  ban p a r k in g  a r e a  sbc-a ld  re  sc- p la n n e d  t h a t  th e  c o v e n a n t  c f  b a s e s  cn t h o  s c h o o l  

s i t e  w i l l  b o  k e p t  t o  a r l a i a a n .

4 .  ‘rh o  ba .3 p a r k in g  a r e a  s h u i ld  b-o c f  s u f f i c i e n t  s i a o  t o  n ee  c m  s c a t  0 ,  a t  cn o  t i n o ,  a l l  

b a s e s  c o in r in g  t h o  c c h o o l*  A d d i t i o n a l  s p a c e ,  pea s i l l y  n n d c v n lc p c d  s p a c e ,  f o r  antra 

h a r a s  e h  s a id  b o  r e s e r v e d  f a r  f a t  a r e  g r  earth«

5>. f r o  h u e p a r k in g  a r e a  sh ea  I d  b o  l o c a t e d  n r e y  f r e e  p l r y g r c a a d  a r e a s ,  en d  s h e a ld  he 

s e p a r a t a  f r e n  e l l  e t h e r  v e h i c l e  p a r k in g  areas*,

6 .  idae ca n  p a r k in g  a r e a  a l e a  Id  bo c  e ra  t r e a t e d  on  c  l e v e l  l e t *  I t  eh  s a id  b o  ire 11

dm . farad and e l l - n e a t  h e r  s a r i s e c d »  D e s ig n a te d  s p a c e s  card c o n t r o l  c i g : i 3 a r o  c c s ir a o lo o

7 .  T h o ban  p e a k in g  a r e a  c  Lea I d  bo  p la n n e d  i n  s a c k  a Cannes’  t h a t

2 . Pap 11 s  a n lc e d in g  f r e e  t h e  bas  d o e r  a  i l l  m l k  a v a y  f r e e  t h e  b a s  terra rd  t :.o  

s c h o  elds c a s e  e n t r a n c e  s

bo  F r a i l s  w i l l  n e t  c r o s s  a n y  e r a  v en a  y  cn  e h  l e a  e t h e r  v e h i c l e s  m y  bo  r.cvsngo 

Co B a s e s  e ra -iv  l a g  cn  th e  l e t  r i l l  n e t  c a t  t  h r  e rg  a  t h o  l i r e  c f  p a p i l s  r a ld r la g  t o  tho

8 . I h n U ^ - y s

9 . D r l — - 7  •:

l a g  r e d h a :

2 0 . O - , ,--- 1

h o  h a s  p a r k in g  l e t  sh r-a ld  n e v e r  c i r - e l o  t h e  s  eh s e lls  eras o «

7  t m  error srh ich  s c h o o l  l a c e s  r i l l  t r a v e l  eh  s a i d  h o  l a i d  c a t  s o  t h e  '•'■.an-



887a

t t g a  i o  p ^ c £ c i z d l o  t o  r.zzzz

i i ig  lon.clo it-g o  I f  : :e r o  r e a d i l y  t o  I c e d  It: 3  cr.d

u i t l l  gCSC'liUO Cl.i  lUGTing b-lGCG G it  c f  l l n 0 o

; p̂ pilo,

x io  Uiicn th o  t'UG — —COG 070 JlITJ G7.G t- L-V.3 CHCOC-iO t-CTG t o  t ’.TOlvO buSOS ;  tlJO COgUTCitO pG_'l£- 

tTlg L1-QZ3 ICCCX-CC oG~i‘G 1 1071 C7.-3 o l '.c th o r  VTl'Ch S O p u m to  62ltr£r.C3S w ould  c o n s e r v e  

t i n s  in  r e c e i v i n g  and d i s m s s i r g  b u ses  end  pruT er.o  undue c o m  u n io n  in  le n d in g  r-.-i 

c n l c e d i r g  p u p i l s .

Surge5ted I-ngcuto

i.'GX) GCGCGGGG.j'-tti 0 -  r.g_7UUG CGI t-OG x O llw ilG g  S h o o t s  i2.2jGGtrr.tO SUggCStl-CUS fc i*  I c y -

in g  t - u  cid -V cu n gs en d  xm ru in g  e r n e s  fen* L ig c g ,

xi:o s u g g e s te d  m e n  in v e n t  tuny bo  u s e d  c m u l l y  c e  . u e l l  f e r  c lc iu n n tc r y ,

unf.cn5 p u n ie r  h ig h  c r  e e r i e r  h ig h  c c h c o l s o

lggoo t n n t  undo coccu u i t r i e s  s h o u ld  c o  p u r le d  in  p o s i t i o n  r.OOreGt th e  p e r i l in g  

m e n  u n i t  t o  p m u d t  i - c c d o n  c f  p u l l i n g  c u t  x r itV .u t  n o t in g  th ro u g h  t h o  l i n e s  c f  

pupils union ding cr lending.

un no r  e cu  L ess  *cc- c o y  t i n t  w h ile  purlin  c.ro  le n d in g  c :  

cu 'c c o v in g  cn  o r  c f f  t h o  m e n ,  th e  c r o r e t l o n  r u n t  bo 

m eu gn n n  e e l .e e l  p e r s o n n e l  t o  in s u r e  s u f  c i y .

1  e n d in g ; c r  I ' i H e  bor e r  

=v c l o s e  e n r e e i i o n  c f



JV

I I'A'UUlWiS■ t.or W'fluiKkS

/(Oi, ,a/. ak i-*''OTii o p //0'

i
i

SfMtOOl-
!_
i i ‘•vo' AM;V. i

!

I - i i
?R£ rE.R 

^  sc .pap.Arc. ucivp .



f lo a n in g  n:v' nuvj.ng 
: uiT n c iic i ’ L RmundM f o r

PuMic hirjrny



, . - Trr JO'VliOO
T W fls^ srss

cuo-iu ;cd CWl KAV'l'-OAt-Ul





MEILEN PRESS INC. —  N. Y. C. 219