Renewal of Application for Stay of Portion of Amended Court Order

     [||87c2f4b4-63a6-4d23-ae7c-03fdc014ea26||] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

JAMES E. SWANN, et al, 

Appellees, 

vs. 

CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG 
BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al, 

Appellants. 

RENEWAL OF APPLICATION FOR STAY OF PORTION 

OF COURT ORDER OF FEBRUARY 5, 1970 

AS AMENDED BY ORDER OF MARCH 3, 1970 

  

  

  

TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT 
OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT: 

The appellants, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 

William E. Poe, Henderson Belk, Dan Hood, Ben F. Huntley, Betsey 

Kelly, Sam McNinch, III and Carlton G. Watkins, respectfully petition 

the Court for a stay of the remaining portion of the order of the United 

States District Court for the Wesierh District of North Carolina dated 

February 5, 1970, as amended by order dated March 3, 1970, and in 

support thereof, respectfully show unto the Court as follows: 

1. On March 5, 1970, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 

entered an order granting a partial stay to the application submitted by 

the appellants as it related to reassignments arising out of pairing and 

clustering of schools with resulting cross-busing. This application 

relates to the portion of the District Court's order directing implementa- 

tion this year, which was not stayed. 

  

 



      

2. The order of the Court of Appeals further directed the District 

Court to hold supplemental hearings to resolve the disagreementas to 

A 
the impact of the order upon the School Board's transportation system 

created by the District Court order. 

3. Thereafter, the United States Supreme Court received applicatid 

; from the appellees seeking to require implementation of the entire order 

of the District Court dated February 5, 1970, as amended by order 

“dated March 3, 1970. The application was denied by the United States 

Supreme Court on March 16, 1970, 

4, The District Court has received substantial information from 

the parties with respect to the general issue of busing and the effect of 

its order with respect to the number of pupils transported, the number 

of buses required, their availability and the additional capital and 

operating cost of transportation. Prosimshly, the findings of the 

District Court will be transmitted to the Court of Appeals in the very 

near future. 

‘should reflect that by reason 5. The findings of the District Court’ 

of the amendment to its order dated March 3, 19170, the number of 

students to be transported will be reduced from 23, 000 to 19, 285 students 

which will require approximately 422 buses, 192 of which would be 

required to implement the portion of the order not stayed. 

6. The District Court's findings should further reflect that the 

Board of Education does not have the funds to acquire additional trans- 

portation equipment during the fiscal year, that state funds are not 

available and that the quantity of buses required could not be acquired 

even if funds were available in the limited time. 

In 

  
 



. 

x ' 

: pe w 

  

7. As noted above, it is estimated that the number of students to 

be afforded transportation who are not affected by the stay order of the 

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit will number some 9, 000 students, 

Additionally, many thousands of students will be affected by immediate 

implementation. It is submitted that the most important reason for 

granting this stay relates to the educational desirability of deferring 

implementation of any plan for desegregation until September, 1970, 

so as to avoid massive disruption and inconvenience. 

8. Attached to this application the Court will find letters by the 

individual Board members (Exhibits 1-9), including those who did not 

choose to appeal, and professional staff (Exhibit 10) specifying their 

opposition to late year desegregation. Again, it is obvious that no 

educational benefit will flow to anyone by immediate implementation. 

9. In its prior submission, the nature and extent of desegregation 

for the current year was not fully expressed. In thorotley of the 

District Court dated April 23, 1969, the District Court noted that the 

system ''achieved a degree and volume of desegregation of schools 

apparently unsurpassed in these parts, and nave exceeded the periormonge 

of any school board whose actions have been reviewed in the appellate 

' There, the District Court was referring to desegre- court decisions.’ 

gation as it existed during the 1968-1969 school year. Substantial further 

desegregation has been achieved, not only in students but in faculty, as 

disclosed on Exhibit 11. It is submitted that by reason of the substantial 

desegregation which exists at the present time, there is no constitutional 

requirement that further desegregation be achieved during the current 

year, Implementation in September of 1970 meets this requirement.       
 



      

10. In recent cases, the courts have noted the difficulty in directing 

immediate implementation of desegregation for urban school systems. 

Attention of the court is directed to urban school systems such as Los 

Angeles, Montgomery, Alabama, Miami, Florida, Memphis, Tennessee, 

and others which have not been required to implement a plan for 

desegregation late in the year. The courts quickly recognize the 

enormous problems which face such urban school systems. 

WHEREFORE, the appellants respectfully petition the Court for 

an order staying all phases of the desegregation plan directed by the | 

District Court pending disposition of this appeal, 

Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of March, 1970. 

Pa 
_.® Nad 4 Pr 

ru 4 - ° 4 

VV. i J 4 
/) vd 4 py a o 

y/, 4 # LA oa pA Wal 
rn é, a ¢ 
  

LL d Sd 

"William J. Waggoner # 
Weinstein, Waggoner, Sturges, Odom 

and Bigger 

1100 Barringer Office Tower 

Charlotte, North Carolina 

  

a | \ 
pA rd ng L 7) Sram [) & ( ¢  . > od </ LD 4 Che re 

Benj. §¢ Horack w 
Ervin, Horack and McCartha 

806 East Trade Street 

Charlotte, North Carolina 

Attorneys for Appellants 

  
 



  

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

This is to certify that I served copies of the foregoing Renewal 

of Application for Stay upon counsel of record for all parties by forwarding 

same to them at their addresses by depositing same in the United States 

mail, first-class, postage pre-paid. 

This 22nd day of March, 1970, 

  

William J. Waggoner 

Attorney for Appellants 

      
 



  

Charlotte, North Carolina 

March 21, 1970 

Honorable Judges of the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 

United States Court House 

Richmond, Virginia 

Re: Swann vs. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, et al 

Gentlemen: 

As a member of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education and 

as an individual defendant in the Swann suit, I am taking the liberty 

of writing to each of you because of my great concern for all the 

children in our county whose educations stand to be badly disrupted 

for the last two months of this school year for what seems to be/fio 

valid reason. Not only am I concerned about our children but I am 

also afraid that our community, which has made tremendous voluntary 

strides in race relations, will, because of a court order which it will 

not accept as being grounded in reason as it relates to implementation 

in April and May of 1970, suffer a setback which will actually create 

a cleavage between the races. 

We have a good chance, given until September of 1970, to resolve many 

troublesome questions now unanswered and which must be answered -~- 

in some instances by courts and others by appropriations of funds either 

by local or state units of government -- before we can proceed with 
some degree of certainty with the reorganization of the school system. 
To make one or more false starts would, in my judgment, do 

irrevocable harm to children and to the community. 

  

 



Judges of United Stas Court of Appeals » 

Page 2 

March 21, 1970 

  

Each member of the Board has committed himself to comply with the 
law as it is finally interpreted and applied to our school system. We 

are committed likewise to the operation of a single school system 

for children of all races without discrimination, We cannot, however, 

obtain the cooperation or support of the citizens of this community 

with a massive and expensive program to create racial balance in 

each of our 107 schools until the law on this subject has been settled. 

You can help us to promote harmony among our citizens of all races 

by giving us a little more time for everyone -- including the federal 

courts -- to understand with more certainty than is now possible 

what, in fact, the Constitution requires of us that we are not’ now : 

doing. y/ 4 

Respectfully and sincey@ly yours, 

    2 /, « le 

“f er &e 
William E., Poe ° 

 



  

3500 Dan Hood Road 

Matthews, N. C, 

March 20, 1970 

The Honorable Judges of the United States Court of Appeals 
for the Fourth Circuit 

United States Court House 

Richmond, Virginia 

Honorable Sirs, 

Long before becoming a member of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Board of 
Education, I had been ddeply concerned with the well-being of the children of 
our county. With other board members I have worked, worried, and prayed over 
our efforts to provide truly useful education for all varieties of our future 
citizens within the limits of our resources. 

At present I see much excellent work negated because of the chaotic pressures 
resulting from our efforts to comply immediately with court orders. Therefore, 
I respectfully request that we be granted until September 1, 1970 to comply 
in full with the wishes of your court. 

This stay would be beneficial to 84,000 children, their parents, and the staff. 
We would all be aided in development of reasonable solutions to our multiple 
problems. Radical readjustment from new assignments mid-year can only further 
upset and confuse citizens who are already distraught. 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg has been justly proud of a school system which pioneered 
in trying to provide quality education suited to the needs of the students. 
We have consistently voted FOR supplementary taxes and FOR bonds as our 
community prospered and grew rapidly, and the holding power of the schools 
increased the numbers registered. 

A stay until September 1, 1970, will help us regain our posture and continue 
to progress. 

Sincerely, 

Dorn Hood 
Dan Hood 

Member Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of 
Education 

  

 



  

CHARLOTTE PEDIATRIC CLINIC 
1700 ABBEY PLACE 

CHARLOTTE, N. C. 28209 

704 - 523-7232 

CARLTON G. WATKINS, M.D. 

WM. BLAIR BRYAN, M.D. 

CHARLES E. WARNER, M.D. 

WILLIAM F. BRYANT, JR., M.D. March 21, 1970 

Honorable Judges of the U,S. Court of Appeals 

4th District Circuit Court 
U.S. Court House 

Richmond, Virginia 23219 

Gentlemen: 

As a member of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School.Board who favors immediate 

desegregation of the school system, I would, nevertheless, like personally 
to petition the Court of Appeals to stay the March 5th order concerning the 
rezoning portion of Judge James B, McMillan's Court Order of February 5th 
in District Court in Charlotte, N.C., pending further clarification. 

The rezoning portion ordered to be placed into effect April lst would 
require busing which would be counter to the 1969 North Carolina legislative 
action known as the Carson Law; therefore we do need clarification, I 

believe it would be most disruptive and disturbing to the children to be 
moved and then possibly reassigned again within the space of a few weeks 
when the Carson bus law issue is settled. 

It is grossly unfair to implement only. part of the plan which still leaves 
the bulk of the southern part of the county untouched by the reassigmment. 

I would prefer to close the schools for a short period ( 2 to 3 weeks) and 
continue later into the summer in order to complete reassignment plans in toto, 
whatever they may be, If clarification has occurred prior to the planned 
May 4th changes for junior and senior high school groups, the entire system 
cauld then be opened on the new basis, 

We do, however, face other barriers if busing is held constitutional: 
1) There is some question whether the money will be forthcoming to purchase 
buses, 2) If the money is forthcoming, whether enough buses could be 
obtained in time. 

Sincerely, . 

Oorblor YH NS) Pl / i 

Carlton G. Watkins, M.D. 

CGW/ jc 

 



  

Post Office Box 1895 

Charlotte, North Carolina 

28201 TE 

March 21, 1970 

Honorable Judges 

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit 

United States Court House 

Richmond, Virginia 23219 

Honorable Judges: 

This is not an appeal for relief from the order of Judge James B. 

McMillan to desegregate all schools in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg 

School System. I am a part of that minority which filed a petition to 

the Court to order complete and total desegregation. 

However, because of the many legal entanglements, financial 
difficulties and apparent physical movement of youngsters, some face 

the possibility of two or three moves in a two-month period, I join 
with other Board members in asking for a change in the time table. 

To comply with the Court's April 1 and May 4 deadline, with 

34 elementary schools, 1 junior high and 1 senior high unaffected 

because of appeal proceedings, would bring unbearable problems to 

the many parents and students involved. 

While my request does not extend to the beginning of next school 

year, I would favor seeing the youngsters physically within the school 

they will be attending for the school year 1970-1971 by the latter part 

of May. 

Sincerely, 

NW Forrgih 
olemon W. I Foes 

™
 \ : 

  

 



  

Charlotte, North Carolina 

March 21, 1970 

Honorable Judges of the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 

United States Court House 

Richmond, Virginia 

Re: Swann vs. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education 

Gentlemen: 

As a member of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 
I have consistently supported further moves for desegregation 

of the school system. I only voted for appeal to satisy the 

wishes of the majority of the community, I serve, I am joining 
my fellow Board members in asking for an extension of time 
in implementing the reorganization of schools due April 1, 

1970. We need some additional time to iron out legal and 

administrative problems. Even a short extension of time 

would be of utmost help at this time. 

Sincerely, 

/3 27) 
Betsey M. Kelly 

  

os ERR 

 



BEN F. HUNTLEY 

  

  

    

| ar 89 20 

> C a 3 IVI] : 

Y « | P. 0. BOX 477 
| > | — PINEVILLE, N. C. 381% | 
  

March 20, 1970 

Honorable Judges 

United Court of Appeals 
Fourth Circuit 

Richmond, Virginia 

Gentlemen: 

This is to respectfully request and urge you to stay, for 
the remainder of this school term, the entire order of the 
Western District Court, North Carolina, dated February £, 
1970. James E. Swann vs Charlotte lecklenburg School Board. 

I, a member of the Charlotte-lecklenburg Board of Education, 
considered a moderate by knowledgeable persons, feel strongly 
that great harm will result by hasty action at this time. My 
request is based on ‘the following reasons: 

le Our Administrative Staff persons are physically exhausted. 

2¢ Our citizens fail to understand the reason why drastic 
changes should be made just a short while before school closing 
time. Consequently, unnecessary beligerency is developinge 

3s Simply, and of paramount importance, we are told by all 
authorative persons that there is no money available this fiscal 
year to finance. the cost of additional transportation. 

Le Frustations among Board of Education members will probably 
disolve if just a little wjjile of deliberation and soul searching 
is permitted. 

I thank you. 

V4     e Huntley 
Vice Chairman 
Charlotte Mecklensurg Board of fducation 

Skiing + Baating 3 Fishing = Health & Happiness 

 



  

Charlotte, North Carolina 

March 21, 1970 

Honorable Judges of the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Cirtuit 

United States Court House 

Richmond, Virginia 

Re: Swann vs. Charlotte- Mecklenburg Board of Education, et al 

Gentlemen: 

I join with all of my fellow Board members in saying to you with 

the utmost sincerity that it would be dangerously disruptive to our 

city and county for us to attempt to proceed with the piece-meal 

measures to create more integration in our schools for the last few 

weeks in this school year. Our citizens are well aware that the 
legal question of whether racial balance in each school is required 

by the Constitution is unsettled and until this question is settled, 

we cannot expect parents here to support even a portion of a court 

order which the Board can implement only partially at best. 

In the interest of racial harmony which has been remarkable in this 

community in the past, we ask you to postpone further impementation 

of Judge McMillan's order for the remainder of this school year or 

until the troublesome questions raised by the lawsuits now pending 

have been settled. We are not simply trying to postpone the inevitable. 

We are trying to gett the point that clear and understandable answers 

can be given to our citizens who have proven up to this time that they 

will accept and promote measures to eliminate racial discrimination 

in our society. 

Sincerely yours, 

—H Ana WY Ro hitomi 

Henderson Belk 

 



  

March 20, 1970 

Honorable Judges of the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 

United States Court House 

Richmond, Virginia 

Gentlemen: 

For all reasons logical and clear and humane, 

I respectfully request, as a member of the 

Charlotte=Mecklenburg Board of Education, 

that you spare our children from interruption 

of their school year, 

Educating children under near perfect conditions 

requires their concentration, 

  

Is the changing of schools and teachers and 

environment for such a short period of time 

worth the loss of their attention? 

Sincerely, ’ 
\ A S77 . ier 

Sol 5 rag ALE 

Sam S. McNincy, I1LX 

 



P.O. Box 2198 

Davidson, N.C. 
March 21, 1970 

Honorable Judges, U.3. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit 
United States Court House 

Richpond, Va. 23219 ’ 

  

4 

Gentlemen: : 
The undersigned is one of two dissenting members of the Charlotte- 

Me~klenburg Board of Education--i.e., one who favpred complying with every 

detail of Judge James B. McMillan's order for total desegregation of our 

schools. I am a resident of that area of the county whose schools were 

totally desegregated by order of the courts in the 1965-1966 school year, 

and speak with first-hand knowledge of both the benefits and difficulties 

involved in bussing and desegregation. I believe whole-heartedly in both 

as a means to the end of quality education for all children. 

Despite the above, I find myself appalled at the prospect of 

virtually throwing away the remainder of the school year for thousands of 

elementary pupils by an April 1st. disruption and reassignment, wiich latter 

event coulda be impermanent in light of subsequent legal decisions. I could 

view the disruption hopefully if there were any degree of certainty that 

no further change or reversal might cause these same pupils $0 be reshuffled 
  

again within this school year. The giant question mark hanging above the 

constitutionality of the N.C. "Carson anti-bussing Law" is involved not 

only in the stayed portion of Judge McMillan's order, but also @&n the imple- 

mentation of the rezoning portion of his order. 

There is no question but that secondary school studies will have 

to end on May 4th for all junior and senior high school students whose 

highly individualized study programs cannot be continued in a different 

school for one month at the tail end of a school year.If the change could 

even be deferred until the final week of May, the whole month would not be 

. lost. 

I therefore most earnestly beseech you gentlemen to stay the 

remaining portion of the District' Court's February 5th order for at least 

two more months; or, prefdrably, until a final decisibn of this entire 

z.ter has been made by the Appellate and/or Supreme Court. The advantage 

crined for integration by having only one disruption, and that a permanent 

one, will be immeasurable. My hope ie that the high court will so decisively 

S ~ 1 : rv 0 ’ 2/ answer the unanswered questions ( what is A uaitary system? and does the eng . ' vy ~ y.- 3 : . 

- 2 C1 
- 

w ¢ 
py, 

 



  

justify whatever means can be used to attain the Constitution's guaratee 

of equality of opportunity for all? ) that no school board can be left 

in doubt as to what it must do to be in comp,iance with not only the 

letter but the inten of the Constitution. 

Sincerely yours, 

 



  

$ # - 

CHARLOTTE - MECKLENBURG SCHOOLS 

EDUCATION CENTER 

POST OFFICE BOX 149 

CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 
28201 

March 21, 1970 

Honorable Judges 

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit 

United States Court House 

Richmond, Virginia 23219 . 

Dear Sirs: 

We, the undersigned, represent the administration of the Charlotte- 

Mecklenburg Schools. It is our primary responsibility to design and 

carry out the administrative plans necessary for the implementation 

of the desegregation orders for our system. We are now, and have 

been, committed to the concept of racial integration of all students and 
staff of the school system, and accept, completely, desegregation as 

the means to achieve this end. 

It is our desire that whatever plan is implemented has all possible 

chances for success. We feel, also, an overriding commitment to 

provide adequate educational experiences for students during this 
period of change. To this end, every administrative effort is being 

made to facilitate changes rather than obstruct them. 

The complexities of the desegregation plan for Charlotte-Mecklenburg, 

however, are such that the implementation of the present court order 

(requiring the implementation of the redrawn attendance lines for 30 

elementary schools on April 1, 1970, and the holding in abeyance moves 

on the 34 schools involved in cross bussing until after your hearings on 

or about April 9, 1970) will produce a number of unusual circumstances. 

For example, the redrawn attendance lines do affect the attendance lines 

of some paired schools. Thus, some students will be moved on April 1 

from their present elementary school by reason of redrawn attendance 

lines and then face the prospect of moving from their new schools later 

in April if the pairing proposal is upheld by your court. This means 

that students in these cases will have attended three different elementary 

schools within a period of several weeks or months. These students will 

be mixed with new classmates and new teachers each time they are 

moved. 

   



  

Similarly, some teachers will, of necessity, be assigned to three 

different schools (and possibly different grade levels) during this same 

brief period. 4 

Also, some schools will be badly overcrowded during the period of time 

between the implementation of the redrawn attendance lines and the 

implementation of the school pairings. It should be noted that this over=- 

crowding will produce no greater degree of desegregation. The added 
financial cost of providing adequate temporary quarters for students 

during this period will complicate even more the financial difficulties of 

the district. 

Furthermore, such moves as those just described will virtually guarantee 

a prolonged disruption of the education of the children involved. 

It is our considered judgment that this community will more nearly accept 

one major upheaval if it can then unify behind the schools in a positive way 

in order to make the new arrangements work. To keep the community 

in an uproar with a series of changes will likely prevent the development 

of positive actions aimed at producing stable school situations. Such 
actions are crucial if the schools of this community are to survive. 

We petition, therefore, the members of this honorable court to delay all 

implementation of the February 5, 1970 order of Judge McMillan until 

the appeal process has been completed. 

Sincerely, 

a7. 2 

William C. Self 

Superintendent of 
| 
—o._ 

Hh 

John W. Phillips 

Assistant Superintendent 

for Elementary Education - 

   

  

Robert C. Hanes 

Assistant Superintendent 

for Secondary Education 

 



  

The -Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools 
A] 

‘Research Report 2-'69 
and /O= c? 

SUMMATION OF INTEGRATION 1965 (MARCH) AND 1968-69 (OCT. 1, '68) 
and 1969-70 (1. 2, 67) 

For Pupils | Professional Staff 

  

Schools Having Inteqration 
  

  

  
  

  

  
  

  

For Ves 1968 . For 1965 1968 Ley 
Pupils I N+ 22 W 16 N + 68 W Staff IN+OW 16 N + 82 W 

= 23 of 109 = 84 of 112,949 \_ = 3 of 109 = 98 of 11 
or 21% or 75% Sik or 3% or 873%G 77x +Ifw 

TTT gi lor /%7) 

1965 1968 TT 1965 1968 vw 

N Ww. N W SiN W +N cs W 

A. Fe Number in 
Minority Ro 

| | (integrated | | : 4; eo ¥ 

Pupils Ow 5. h76N | ys, 9%, 5M GN Ay ay 
1192W  670L4N 130. 208M 1 

7: 
B. : 

’ ~ Number in 
Majority Race 

(integrated) 

. Pupils : To 2517 

343N 16, 446W 3¢S¥  SZO0Wy 143.3 OW 33, Zw 
8697N L47,356W 37UN  2575W 

“Total Involved by 
Integration 

. Predominantly 

Negro Schools ool 

iw om Puplls : on FR ae 

go ou 9889 Staff 149 505 Seo 

a Predominatly 44 
White Schools 00,58 : 
- = Pupils 16,922 5k, 060 Staff: 0’ 2783 3/2 

.. Total nil ear 

- « Pupils 17,274 63,949  !,.. Staff 149 3288 on 100% 

or iE or 3451 of or or , 

24% of =; % of - _5% of 91% of TEE 
i 72,336 4 RAR 92 5/8 is 3140 incl. 3613 “assigned 

Enrolled part assignments at one definite 

i Jaron a ~~, ‘in schools school -“  



    

" RACIAL DISTRIBUTION OF PUPILS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFF 
1965 (Marck), 1968-69 (Oct. 1, '68), and 1963-69 

Professional Staff 
  

  

        
    

  

  

  

  I AY RT TO YT 53 SP WA hr © DN Sr EAN © 8. GUTH GPP NY NTH APN 0 Np Ip— 

  

    than one school 

? 

No. 1965 Pupils No. 1968 Pupils No. 1969 Pupils 1965 1968 1969 
Grade School N Ww School N Ww School N W N Ww N W N W 

1-6 72 9,364 27,6% 76- 13,290 31,545  73- 13,374 31,522 377+ 1I7f 478 1329 499 134k 

7-9 17. 2,478 1,804 "21 "5,93 1,4 20- 6,358 15911 111-533 293 - Ju6 232 634 

10-12 $' 1625-10677 11 4,377 13,313 10-  BMjr. 12,308) 65. Uije} 7B 64 1% 5: 

97 13,64 50,177  108- 23,601 58,599 103- 24,034 59,521 | 553% 2184 884 2679 925 2704 

Other 12 - 6,877 1,818 . Wu 640 271 be, 656 3077 3034 ppm 97 © 23. "3p 

:Kgn. + Trainable 

1-4 1 360 | “15% 
1-7 2. 431 207 17: 9 
1-9 ° 3 729 1611 & 32 68 

> 5=9 1 "505 i : 25% p 

1-12 3 2400 113% : 
S712 2 2452 120 13 

Total 109 20,341 51,995 112 24,241 58,870 107 24,690 59,828| 877 2263 907 2706 947 (gh 

: : a | - Include Not Include 

Part-time Part-time 

AN Among teachers assigned to more 

 



COMPARISON OF PUPILS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFFING BY RACE 

Fe March 6, 1965, 1968-69%, and 1969-70 * : : :     
Professional Staff 

School 1965 Pupils 1968-69 Pupils 1969-70 Pupils 1965 1968-69% 1969-70% 
  

  

  

Elementary N no W Ne coy, Wo N W No N oa W . I Ww 
I : N (other (other) A ~ ny (other) ~: (other) 

Albemarle Rd. Fares ly 17 L499 h IZ 510 6 32% 13 6 75 14 
Alexander Street = 342 it? 257 190 Tc . 1,1 1c? 11 ree? 

~-  Allenbrook : 50 107 452 61 12%: 452 2 2% 18 5 247: 16 

er Ashley Park oo 0% 583 3]. f% | S74 R29 Tm. L 17% 19 
‘1-9 Bain ot 674 25 . 3% 699 33 +7 "735 ¢5 28.2 i} 3p 28 5. 779 25 

le 165 | % : | 
Barringer °% 604 668 8# % 131 859 97% 16 LL o% 2.8 13 427 18 16 +7 2) 

el Berryhill o% 1026 119 157% 685 Ws 12%. 675 239.6 1-2 en 32 8 M7 3) 
Bethune 343 971%. 9: 223 . 99% 3 17.6 100% CA een 
Beverly Woods es 0% 286 68 = 17: 684 ayer ke Tol 2% 12 8 18% 03 

| Biddleville - 43h /ec% on fie ; 17,2 100% 

129 Billingsville 729 1¢0%: 619 too% 2 610 12% ..0 32.1 /00% 25 /leo% 16 ¢x% 10 
"os Briarwood Re 0% 582 8 7% 640 4 /% 680 0% 23.9 3 72% 22 6 217: 2) 

Bruns cova Sotiahg 711%. 4 774 73%. 10 26 Ba 2 21. ET 
: Chantilly Loh lye 2 07 49] 5 1% 437 ~~ 0% 18.8 i 5% 2) 4 477% 19 
1gZ Clear Creek °o% 207 58 20% 225 51 7% 2uh 1 0%.9.6 . 1 4% 12 3 6%. 12 

Collinswood ©% 375 72 13% - L490 111 20%  Lh3 0%16.1 1 5% 2 3 4% 19 
Cornelius o% 21 M9 1% 253 195. FEE 2337 1.3 7 33% 5 240: 14 
Cotswold 0% 631 11 ~ 2% 567 23 #% 537 | o%25.0°  ) $£% 2 L 57 18 
Crestdale : 97 te gl = hele | : 5.0 Joc% : : 
Davidson | 6% 178 101 35% 18 104 3% 186 27.2 ‘} %.1 2 17.4 

Marie Davis 808 /¢c% 705 j00% 691 =. /16c% 0 34.3 rec 29 100% 1b 437 15 

Derita 6 /7% 892 165 19% 728 163 177: 688 o% 35.4 3 7% 32 5 4% 30 
eg: Devonshire 2 o% L474 o7% 889 0 e% 903 e7 19.5 h 7% 37 7 157% 3 

* Dilworth 100 20% 401 223 37% 355 13 29% 336 c% 23.8 4 BL 22 3 4% 19 
2 tec 19. 41% 12 Double Oaks 703 seo 800 seo 838 i jee? 0 28.2 10e% 3 

-     

HH * Does not include staff assigned to more than one school per HEW request. 

- 

te SO A NT J er 82 TW LO NRA BPR Gh A A ln —————— 

   
    



COMPARISON OF PUPILS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFFING BY RACE 

  

  

  

  

March 6, 1965, 1968-69%, and 1969-70 * : . . 

. Professional Staff ; . ‘ 

School 1965 Pupils 1968-69 Pupils ~ 1969-70 Pupils 1965 1568-63+ 1969-70% 

~~ Elementary N W No YT EN W NT, NY N W 
pf p (other) : (other) io ylother) (other) 

? . Druid Hills 520 /00% 504 77% 3 472 11% 3 20.7 treo” 20 rect ERE Te 

Eastover o% 704 49 ¢7% 580 42 77 559 2% 27. 1 - 4% 2 4 11% 20 

Elizabeth 5 +% L48 270 537 194 366 7/%¢ 151 9% 33.9 2° ¥% 2 6 AZT 20 

“Enderly Park o% 368 .2 17: 374 3-572 "3 2% Ww. FY  e% iS 3 172713 

Fairview . 702 100% 363 [00% it 28.0 Ice 19. Joc” 

First Ward 473 fee 74g fe0% 820 + % .0 22.8 re0% 30 rer 17 sc & 

1742 J. H. Gunn 696 1007 : 33.6 tcc 

Hickory Grove o7% 530 80 139% 53] 70 iZ¥.  §33 0% 21.7 1 “Zz 23 3.125720 

Hidden Valley Seat 00.97] 0 o¢% 1100 : G 2 5% 135 7 47%. 35 

Highland Tos 2 1% 273 ky 137% 324 69 jf 7 305 e% 14.0 a 1%, 3 79:13 

Hoskins 4 0% 342 18 67: "261 13 57: 228 e% W.7. 2 15%. 1 3 2:9." ¢ 

Huntersville 07: ~ 553 162 22% 560 154 <7 535 0% 22.9 2 7%. 25 5 iT% 22 

Huntingtowne Farms c% 358 7 7% 695 7 ! = 603 0% 15.1 1 47. 26 h 72% 21 

Idlewild : e%. 592 2 o%. 52] 56 7% 597 of 23.9 . 1 $7 22 6.21523 

\gt Amay James 360 1007: L477 lee | 43. is. 3 15.5 lec? 19 foe 13.2595: 9 

1gZ Ada Jenkins 431 tee % eR © 17.0 rec% 
Lakeview ne B00 269 57% 147 362 757 102 : 0318.5 14 TZ 5 13 «22 8 

| Lansdowne 0% 8633 | ¢% 758 75 7% 802 bo e% 23.9 3% 30 6 /7% 30 

| "Lincoln Heights 783 /ce% 817 160% 2 711 ee % C0 29.1 Jee 30 reo 16 37% 12 

| Long Creek. °% 423 250 35% L66 267 Je L68 c% 17.6 2 1% 26 6 iAl% w 

1. 182 Matthews eZ 937 (1-63; H% Tha 86  r% B02 or 30 1° 94% 32 5 XY: 3 

| : ‘Merry Oaks  o% 538 °%  L69 0 ©o% uh 0% 21.9 1 5% 19 3 4% 16 

i »- Midwood : 0%. 580. 1 ¢% 522 1 as 47] oft 24.9 -.2 "2% 2 4 11% 19 

| "Montclaire / ez 720" °% 722. 0.0% NE av refed) 4% 5 /?7 23 
| Morgan 306 /ce iF NX 14.9 rev \ 

| -- Irwin Ave. (Elem) 315 see 0 10 47% 5 
g    



  

  

  

    

    

    

COMPARISON OF PUPILS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFFING BY RACE 

March 6, 1965, 1968-69%, and 1969-70 * 

  

  

Professional Staff 3 : 

School 1965 Pupils 1968-69 Pupils 1969-70 Pupils 1965 1968-69% 1969-70% 

Elementary N = W N a W N W No Ww N 7. Ww N W 

Nn N (other) (other) AN y (other) (other) 

Myers Park Ok 575 23 “6c 543 22 59: ho ; c% 24.9 i 4% 23 3 Rn 

Myers Street 820 sec’ | F 32.2 1c 

_ Nations Ford o% 513 63 1% 585 47 = 681 07. 21.6 1 +% 25 6. ~1% 22 

Newel eh he 73 yEnc 43 CC Thine 438 Cr e% 183 1 32.48 3 /5% 17 

Oakdale o7 L02 72 137 L480 69 2: 517 o% 17.2 } 3% 2A 6 57% 18 

ah 
% . : 

"Oakhurst o7 548 2 o% 615 5 t% 616 | c% 22.8 1 #% 23 L 17% 

Oaklawn 666 /:xc% 650 lec 7: 613 ec 0 26.0 sce. 2 TY. 20 v0 @ 

Olde Providence 10 27 L434 80 (#% 512 : I e% 17 5 z2¢% 20 

Park Road oc% 583 . e% 55] fy ~~ 7% ‘shi | 07 22.7 }- £%.2) 7 30% 16 

_ Paw Creek’ 0% 793 8} 1%. 86} 27 #9 609 0% 38.3 “1 37 3I 5 229 18 

Pineville o%Z 364 168 3:7 363 146 AS 375 0216.2. 1 2% 3 L i717 19 

Pinewood °% 719 ©% . 707 0: o% 67h o% 28.1 }  ¥%.26 L 15% 22 

Plaza Road e’% 400 99 177% 409 88 Lo 362 oF 17.7 1 57 21 h 7% 17 

Rama Road 0% Lhi2 2 e% I17 1: 0% 315 ten 18.7 2 1%.37 5 179; 2h 

- Sedgefield 3 +% 526 7 I% 545 3 J 70 S48 c% 21.8 29% 20 Lb 179 19 

2&2 Plato Price 505 ‘toe% : Tes Sas ‘25.4 100: v 

~~. Selwyn “iz e% 53) 5 I7% 598 3}: 5% 617 A oh.21.9 1 #%-22 5 117 21 

Seversville 96 30% 229 RAT Sal 0% 14.8 r . 

"Shamrock Gardens 07% 536 © 0% _ 539 0 Oo% 515 0% 21.9 5% 20 4 19% 17 

Sharon e7% 591] o% 519 89 209% 364 0722.9 } 5% 20 L 2c ® 

Starmount 0% 48] 25 3%2 713 2 3% N2 : 0% 20.9 ! 37 28 5 17 %25 

Statesville Road 0% 650 295 3¢7% 534 333 37% 522 0% 25.9 3 972. 8 24% 25 

=. Steele Creek 222 12 2% 531 5" p% 509 2210,7 1.5% 20 4 15% 18 

13¢4 Sterling 33.9 100% -. 
. Thomasboro 885 8% 4705 0 ©°% 60 -o%3h,3. 82 7% 25 5 11% 22 

Paw Creek Annex " i Ic % : 92 10   
  

  

    

      

      

        



COMPARISON OF PUPILS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFFING BY RACE 

  

  

March 6, 1965, 1968-69%, and 1969-70 * : Saat : 

; er : : Professional Staff Fe pty 

| School 1965 Pupils 1968-69 Pupils 1969-70. Pupils ; 1965 1968-69 . 1969-70% 

Elementary N W N x W NM et Noy N Ww oN alos 

| N N (other) Are (other) N % (other) ~ ‘ (other) 

| 1142 Torrence-Lytle 1005 rec: Le. 1 icc” cv k 
| Tryon Hills o% 32h 24 He BE 330 49% 168 215.0 1.75% 20 4 ozs 

Tuckaseegee cit 63] 61 ic: 553 58 2% 578 ¢?% 23.9 Y. 47.23 L 17%. 20 
| University Park 700 /ec® 777  .10c 825 roc e ] 25.8 lect. 30.93%} 23 707: 10 | 
| Zeb Vance 465 sco 257 7ec% 19.5 sec, 11 see % & a 

Wesley Heights 214 jer | FOR 8.3 12%..2.2: ii : 
Westerly Hills de ¢% 569 L6 §: 539 wg 99 4 17% 20 

| Wilmore 6 23-323 145 = 33% 293 228 #9. % 235 0715.4 8. 4e% 12 9 9 13 
| Windsor Park } c% .679 2. iL.e% 137 ] ey 748 ©%25.8 1 ..¥y% 27 6 1:2 24 

| Winterfield 0% 455 c% 689 48 77% 688 0% 18.7 1 ¢% 26 6 07: 2h 
Woodland 360 /oc% 14.8 tec%: kin 
Woodlawn c% 283 214.0 
Isabella Wyche 383 r0¢% 222 ice 18.6 1¢c% 12 700%. 

Child Development a 
(Kgn. Centers) 3 

Davidson, #I £3 417 117 80 Yc 121 3 Hem 70 3 3¢% : 
Pineville, #2 166 4A % 137 163 77%: - 43 2 ze 8B i) 5 % E 
Seversville, #3 174 $7 7% 26 181 cm 2] 8 .5¢7 2 7 9% 3+: 
Morgan, #4 183 777%. 8 187° 7%. 12 8B goo 2 7 8% 2 3 

  
  

    
  

  
 



  

  tg tn. ee a Arabet UR— ————— 

COMPARISON OF PUPILS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFFING BY RACE . 

  

  

  

March 6, 1965, 1968-69%, and 1969-70 * : : ANE SORE pot 

CB Professional Staff : * 

School 1965 Pupils 1968-69 Pupils 1969-7C Pupils 1965 1968-69% 1969-70% 

Yorior High aN — W N ~ W N Ww - N Ww N Ww N : W 

: AN | > (other) (other) 2 other) (other) 

Albemarle Road Tr! 77: 88] 63 oN 995 I 1% 13 5 137% Lo 

Alexander 6% 577 347 24% 755 369 237% 771 eZ 28.9 6 27 Ly 8 KL WL) 

Cochrane c7 872 76 5% hhh 79 - £4 1552 a'% 35.4 6 12% 56 12 7% 54 

~ Coulwood 3 1% sp 119  H% 727 106 2% 370 0% 27. ah oui 3h 6 #x% 32 
Eastway 0% 1046 3. P% 13h 61 FDS 1356 on U3.2 3 Naoussa pe 8 

Alex. Graham 0% 1048 8 /% 1084 113 ,2 1028 en 42.8" 4. I 13 9 it% 1 @ 
Hawthorne 25° 4% 670 492 52% W447 596 s¢% 472 e% 33.9 12 a7 33 15 3% 34 
Irwin Ave. 785 sec Goh et % | k2.7 1007 - 32 712 1 

"McClintock o% 1273 Le 4 71228 93 77 1288 07% 51.5 2 ¢ % 49 10 (7748 

Northwest 773 100% 932 soc % 1052 jee 7% K 33.7 fee Te 39 see 22 522 20 

Piedmont 121 297% 29] L428 97% 53 443 999: 55 0% 26.8 13 5% 12 17 57% 13 

Quail Hollow °7% 766 171 /2 7 1261 155 ce 1421 0235.2 3 $7 61 8 13% 55 
Randolph 272 +» B% 286 27% NO ne 2 9% :38 g 2% 35 

Ranson 9 (9. 658 253 2¢% 586 260 27: 548 c7 30.0 6 /¢% 3] 13 432s 

Sedgefield 6 /% 920 189 7% 802 i67 (7% 809 c% 40.5 5 «#7 39 9 2/7. 3b 

Smi th 0% 1115 ce. 1389 55 +7: 1436 oc 48.6 3 5% §7 9 5% 52 

| Spaugh rok 07.930 186 T7287 287 +57 839 co % 42,5 6 i 43 0. 215 37 
Williams 752 ice 893 sce 1081 wee - OQ 34,9 rece 37 12% 27 23% 16 

| “Wilson 0% 1064 60 5% 1132 NC % aus eZ2l45.6 4 YZ 45 9 S742 

| York Rd.  (7-12)10k1 sce. 727... 97% 6 84 -W% - 9 49.9 sce? 32. 171% 21 £€% 15 
~{Kennedy) | 

Learning Academy - 7th & 8th grades 
: counted in JH, above, 5: 41% 4 A7% 1 

N   
 



COMPARISON OF PUPILS AND PROFESSIONAL STAFFING BY RACE | ’ 

  

  

  

  

March 6, 1965, 1968-69%, and 1969-70% oman? 

Professional Staff ga 

School 1965 Pupils 1968-69 Pupils 1969-70 Pupils 1965 1968-69% 1969-70% 

| Senior High Ei W No W N W No eV N W N We 
| Prog IN (other) : (other) rN - “*fother) (other 

East Mecklenburg e% 1782 ss: 3% 1739 227 HE 19% 02 J9.2° BT 7% 88." 16 15S. Di 
| Garinger 2 O07 2266 202 17 2157 492 17%: 2148 7 100.0 6 ¢% 102 22 7.9] 

Harding 0% 1002 169 ‘7% 814 636 #77: 720 o% 48,0 bh T7 ho 16: xa 56 
Independence 92 97% 962 135. #9 HN) : 6 7% 59 12. /¢%; 62; 

Myers Park 31 2% 1772 158. ¥% 1855 233 12% 1767 cZ 76.7 6 «2.87 17 #5718 

North Mecklenburg 1 ¢% 1155 410 27% 1109 hoo 25% 1185 ci. 51.8 6 7%.63 13 oe | 
Olympic eins 960 TAB 09D 376 #:9 512) 5. 11%.39 10 irk 

_ 1gl% second Ward 111 Ieee 1139 jee % 3 I mown 15 57 157273 = 
South Mecklenburg 30 2¢ 1430 1.06 ¢% 1812 109 $% 2024 ~ en 72.0 § = 57.78 17° 187: 79 
West Charlotte 1560 s¢cc™ 1569 /e<% 1658 vec%. 0 ~65.0 17% 2.0 74 73% 6 "58 67% 29 
West Mecklenburg 1 ©0°%,1270 118 §7 1340 148 79% 1444 o% 61.4" 4 S%.13 13 412% 7) [||87c2f4b4-63a6-4d23-ae7c-03fdc014ea26||]