NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. v. Harrison Petition for Rehearing

    GImtrt nf %  Mmtzb States
October T erm , 1971 

No. ...............

I n  th e

A lice L ove, et al.,

v.
Petitioners,

D ade Cou nty  S chool B oard, et al.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

J ack  G reenberg 
J ames M. N abrit, III 
N orman  J. C h a c h k in  
D rew  S. D ays, III

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

J ames W. M atth ew s
5022 N.W. Seventh Avenue 
Miami, Florida 33127

I rm a  R obbins F eder 
R ichard Y ale F eder

11th Floor, Roberts Building 
28 West Flagler Street 
Miami, Florida 33130

Attorneys for Petitioners



I N D E X

PAGE

Opinions Below .................................................................... 1

Jurisdiction .......................................................................... 2

Question Presented ............................................................  2

Constitutional Provisions Involved ................................. 2

Statement of the Case ..............    3

Introduction....... ..........................................................  3

The Proceedings B elow .... .......................................... 4

Beasons for Granting the W r it ........................................  6

Conclusion  ......................................................................................  13

A ppendix—

Order Dated June 14, 1971 ....................................... la

Order Dated June 18, 1971 ....    5a

Order on Motions For Evidentiary Hearing .......  8a

Opinion of United States Court of Appeals For 
the Fifth C ircuit......................................................

Exhibit 1(b)
10a

11a



11

T able oe Cases

page

Bradley v. Board of Public Instruction, 431 F.2d 1377
(5th Cir. 1970) ................................................................ 10

Bradley v. School Board of Richmond, 382 U.S. 103
(1965) ...............................................................................  7

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) .....  3

Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School Board, 396 
U.S. 290 (1970) .............................................................. 7

Davis v. School Commissioners of Mobile County, 430 
F.2d 883 (5th Cir. 1970), reversed, 402 U.S. 33 (1971) 10 

Davis v. School Commissioners of Moble County, 402 
U.S. 33 (1971) .................................. 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,10,12,13

Ellis v. Board of Public Instruction, 423 F.2d 874 (5th 
Cir. 1970) .......................................................................... 10

Goss v. Board of Education of Knoxville, 403 U.S. 956 
(1971) ................................................................................ 7

Green v. County School Board of New Kent County,
391 U.S. 430 (1968) .........................................................  3

Mannings v. Board of Public Instruction, 427 F.2d 874 
(5th Cir. 1970) ............... .......... ............. ........................  10

Northcross v. Board of Education, 397 U.S. 232 (1970) 7

Pate v. Dade County School Board, 434 F.2d 1151 (5th 
Cir. 1970) cert, denied, 402 U.S. 953 (1971) .........3,10,11

Rogers v. Paul, 382 U.S. 198 (1965) ................................  7

Swann v. Charlotte-MecMenburg Board of Education,
402 U.S. 1 (1971) ............................ 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9,10,12,13



(Burnt of iljp #>iatpa
O ctober T erm , 1971 

No..................

I n the

A lice L ove, et al., 

v.

Petitioners,

D ade County  S chool B oard, et al.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Petitioners pray that a writ of certiorari issue to review 
the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the 
Fifth Circuit entered in the above-entitled cause on Septem­
ber 3, 1971.

Opinions Below

The opinions of the courts below directly preceding this 
petition are as follows:

1. The District Court order of June 14, 1971 is un­
reported and is printed in. the appendix hereto, 
infra, p. la ;

2. The District Court order of June 18, 1971 is un­
reported and is printed in the appendix hereto, 
infra, p. 5a;



2

3. The District Court order of June 30, 1971 is un­
reported and is printed in the appendix hereto, 
infra, p. 8a;

4. The Court of Appeals order of September 3, 1971 
is unreported and is reprinted in the appendix 
hereto, infra, p. 10a.

Jurisdiction

The judgment of the Court of Appeals was entered on 
September 3, 1971 (appendix, p. 10a, infra). On Novem­
ber 24, 1971, Mr. Justice Stewart extended the time for 
filing the petition for certiorari until January 15, 1972. 
The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 
Section 1254(1).

Question Presented

Whether the courts below erred by approving a desegre­
gation plan for Dade County which leaves one-fourth of the 
black pupils in all-black schools without holding a hearing 
or making findings with respect to the issues framed in 
this Court’s recent decisions in Swann v. Charlotte-Meck- 
lenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1 (1971) and Davis 
v. School Commissioners of Mobile County, 402 U.S. 33 
(1971), creating a presumption against one-race schools.

Constitutional Provisions Involved

This case involves the Equal Protection Clause of the 
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States.



3

Statement of the Case
Introduction

This is a school desegregation case involving the public 
education system of Dade County, Florida. Petitioners seek 
review by this Court of the extent to which the desegrega­
tion plan currently in force in that school system meets 
the constitutional requirements established in Brown v. 
Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), Green v. County 
School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430 (1968), and 
Swann v. Charlotte-Mechlenburg Board of Education, 402 
U.S. 1 (1971). In the rulings below which petitioners here 
challenge, the district court permitted the Dade County 
School Board [hereinafter, “ the Board” ] to continue operat­
ing its system during 1971-72 essentially in accordance with 
a desegregation plan which the Fifth Circuit Court of 
Appeals ordered implemented at the commencement of the 
1970-71 academic year.1 2

The Dade County system was segregated by law at the 
time of Brown, supra and continued to operate schools in 
which no significant desegregation was achieved for many 
years thereafter. As recently as the 1969-70 academic year, 
the Board was administering 217 schools enrolling 262,295 
students of which 25.8% were black. At that time approx­
imately 57.9% of the total black enrollment attended 85- 
100% black schools.8 Though the court of appeals order 
of August, 1970 reduced the number of virtually all-black

1 The Fifth Circuit’s exhaustive decision setting out a desegrega­
tion plan for Dade County schools is reported in Pate v. Bade 
County School Board, 434 F.2d 1151 (5th Cir. 1970), cert, denied, 
402 U.S. 953 (1971). Earlier proceedings in the same case are 
reported at 303 F.Supp. 1068 (S.D.Fla., 1969) ■ 307 F.Supp. 1288 
(S.D.Fla., 1969) remanded for further proceedings, 430 F 2d 1175 
(5th Cir., 1970); 315 F.Supp. 1161 (S.D.Fla., 1970).

2 “Final Desegregation Plan” (March 31, 1970).



4

schools in the system, statistics on the progress of deseg­
regation for the 1970-71 and the 1971-72 academic years 
point np the substantial degree to which vestiges of the 
state-imposed dual system are still present in Dade County. 
In September, 1970, black students constituted 25% of the 
total population of which 29% were enrolled in 85-100% 
black facilities.3 For the 1971-72 academic year, black stu­
dents represent 26% of the total enrollment in Dade County 
Schools. Twenty-three percent (23%) of this total black 
enrollment attend 85-100% black facilities.4

Proceedings Below

On May 26, 1971, the Board filed with the district court 
a set of proposed modifications, for the 1971-72 academic 
year, of the desegregation plan mandated by the Fifth 
Circuit Court of Appeals in August, 1970. By order of 
June 14, 1971, the district court indicated that it had re­
tained jurisdiction of the Dade County case only “to assure 
that the school system was continually maintained in a 
unitary manner.” Since, in its view, the system had been 
declared unitary, the court saw its only responsibility as 
that of assuring that the school system did not revert to 
a state-imposed dual system. It granted all parties an 
opportunity to file responses to the Board’s proposed modi­
fications and to be heard at a hearing set for June 18, 1971. 
On June 16, 1971, petitioners filed objections to the Board’s 
proposals, arguing that the Court should reject suggested 
modifications which: (1) sought to increase the ratio of 
white students in three schools which enrolled children of 
both races in 1970-71; and (2) established boundaries for

3 Report to Court (December 4, 1970).
4 Report to Court (November 10, 1971). These statistics were not 

available to the Courts below during the most recent proceedings in 
this case. However, data from the November, 1971 report is set-out 
in the appendix hereto, infra, p. 11a for this Court’s benefit.



5

five or six new schools in such a way as to assure all-white 
or virtually all-white enrollments. Petitioners approved of 
the Board’s proposal to reduce substantially predominantly 
black enrollments in four schools. However, the objection 
noted that, since boundary changes for 27 of the 40 schools 
considered made no significant alteration in the degree of 
desegregation in those facilities, the Board’s proposals con­
stituted “nonaction” .

After the June 18, 1971 hearing, the district court imme­
diately entered an order rejecting petitioners’ objections 
and approving the Board’s modifications for 1971-72. Fur­
thermore, the court held that thereafter the Board would 
not be required to petition the court for approval of any 
proposed modification in its desegregation plan. In the 
future, the burden would be upon the petitioners and other 
intervenors to demonstrate to the court a prima facie case 
of the Board’s failure to maintain a unitary school system. 
On June 22, 1971, petitioners and another intervenor, the 
Dade County Classroom Teachers’ Association (C.T.A.),5 6 
filed motions with the district court for an evidentiary 
hearing at which the Dade County system could be re­
evaluated in light of new guidelines established by this 
Court in Swann, supra and, Davis v. School Commissioners 
of Mobile County, 402 U.S. 33 (1971). The motions of peti­
tioners and the C.T.A. set out in great detail, among other 
matters, the extent to which the Board, the Florida School 
Desegregation Consulting Center (HEW ), the district court 
and the court of appeals (1) had rejected the use of non­
contiguous pairings and groupings of schools and “ cross­
busing” in attempting to desegregate the Dade County 
system; (2) had failed to use the system-wide black-to-white

5 Although the C.T.A. does not join in this petition for a writ of
certiorari, it was co-appellant with the petitioners herein before the 
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in case No. 71-2338.



6

ratio as a starting point in fashioning a desegregation plan; 
and (3) had not entertained a presumption against the 
continued operation of one-race schools, in evaluating in 
1970 alternative methods for desegregating the Dade 
County system. The motions asserted that Swann, supra 
and Davis, supra, now required the district court to em­
ploy the criteria it rejected in 1970 to determine whether 
the Dade County system was truly “unitary” . Such a re­
consideration, petitioners contended, would establish: first, 
that existing black schools in the system were vestiges of 
the state-imposed dual system; and, second, that each of 
these black schools could be desegregated fully in a feas­
ible manner using techniques approved by this Court in 
Swann, supra. It was submitted that, in any event, the 
burden was upon the Board to show why the remaining 
black schools could not be desegregated based upon Swann 
guidelines.

On June 30, 1971, the district court denied motions of 
petitioners and the C.T.A. for an evidentiary hearing. Peti­
tioners duly filed Notice of Appeal to the Fifth Circuit 
from the June 18 and June 30 orders of the district court. 
On September 3, 1971, without oral argument, the court of 
appeals summarily affirmed the district court’s denial of 
an evidentiary hearing.

Reasons for Granting the Writ

This case merits review on certiorari because the courts 
below have permitted one of the ten largest school systems 
in the nation to continue operating numerous segregated 
schools without applying the legal principles announced 
by this Court in Swann v. Charlotte-Meclderiburg Board of 
Education, 402 U.S. 1 (1971), and Davis v. School Commis­
sioners of Mobile County, 402 TJ.S. 33 (1971). Indeed, the 
desegregation plan in effect in Dade County is explicitly



7

premised on the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning in the Davis case 
which this Court has reversed. There has been no recon­
sideration of the details of the Dade County plan by either 
court below since Swann and Davis, and there are no find­
ings and conclusions which address the important doctrines 
enunciated by this Court in those decisions. We think that 
the matter presents so plain a conflict with this Court’s 
recent decisions, and the time available to prepare a new 
plan for next year is so short, that this Court should grant 
certiorari and summarily reverse, directing further pro­
ceedings conformable to Swann and Davis*

The decisions of the courts below approve a desegrega­
tion plan for Dade County, Florida under which a substan­
tial proportion of black student population will remain in­
definitely in virtually all-black schools. Court sanction was 
given to the desegregation plan in force based upon legal 
theories that pre-date and clearly conflict with doctrines 
articulated by this Court in Swann and Davis. Neverthe­
less, the courts below have summarily rejected petitioners’ 
contention that these most recent pronouncements estab­
lish new constitutional standards against which all prior 
efforts to dismantle dual, segregated school systems must 
be measured.

Official Board reports for the 1970-71 and 1971-72 aca­
demic years reveal that substantial numbers of students 
are continuing to attend one-race schools in Dade County. 
In September, 1970, the Board operated 218 schools, en­
rolling 239,218 students. Of that total, 179,318 students 
were white and 59,000 were black (75% white, 25% black).

6 This Court has found such disposition appropriate in several 
recent school desegregation cases. Carter v. West Feliciana Parish 
School Board, 396 U.S. 290 (1970) ; Northcross v. Board of Edu­
cation, 397 U.S. 232 (1970) ; Bradley v. School Board of Richmond, 
382 U.S. 103 (1965) ; and Rogers v. Paul, 382 U.S. 198 (1965). 
Cf. Goss v. Board of Education of Knoxville, 4.03 U.S. 956 (1971).



8

During that year, 83 schools had 99-100% white enrollments 
and seventeen (17) schools had enrollments between 85- 
100% black. Ten of these seventeen schools were 99-100% 
black, three were 90-94% black and four had between 85- 
89% black enrollments. These virtually all-black schools 
enrolled 17,131 or 29% of the total black student population 
of Dade County.7 In this current academic year, 1971-72, 
the Board is operating 218 schools in which a total of 
245,242 students are enrolled. Of that number, 182,029 stu­
dents are white and 62,213 are black (74% white, 26% 
black). There are 69 schools which have between 99-100% 
white enrollments and fifteen (15) schools with between 85- 
100% black enrollments. Ten of these schools have 99-100% 
black student bodies, three are 91-95% black and two have 
87% and 89% black enrollments. Approximately 14,686, or 
23% of the black enrollment of Dade County attend these

7 The 17 virtually all-black schools operated 
as follows:

Grades Black
School Served Students
North County 
C.R. Drew 
L.C. Evans 
Holmes 
Liberty City 
Olinda
Orchard Villa 
Poineiana Park 
C.R. Drew 
Miami-Northwestern 
Allapattah 
Earlington Heights 
Floral Heights 
F.S. Tucker 
Miami- J ackson 
Pine Villa 
Goulds

K-6 970
K-6 951
K-6 991
1-3 607

K-6 820
1-6 863

K-6 1273
K-6 1208
7-9 1247
9-12 2265
6 231

K-6 892
1-6 745

K-3 490
10-12 2267
1-6 1039
1-6 272

Total 17,131

during 1970-71 were

White
Students % Black

134 88
0 100
4 99

38 94
0 100
1 99
0 100
0 100
0 100
2 99

18 93
2 99
0 100

84 85
282 89
69 94
47 85

681



9

fifteen schools.8 The schools that are virtually all-black in 
1971-72 were all over 95% black in 1969 when the first sig­
nificant steps were taken to dismantle the state-imposed 
dual system in Dade County. And it is reasonable to as­
sume that substantial numbers of black students will attend 
one-race schools in the future. For, if the Board’s May 26, 
1971 proposal is any guide, prospective modifications of the 
current plan, at best, will have no impact upon desegrega­
tion. At worst, such alterations will create additional one- 
race schools. Furthermore, the district court has so circum­
scribed its own authority to require further desegregation 
that it cannot be expected to take any initiative in reducing 
the number of one-race schools in the Dade County System.

However, this Court’s decisions in Swann and Davis pro­
vide guidelines for evaluating the constitutionality of de­
segregation plans like Dade County’s which envision the 
continued existence of one-race schools. First, “having 
once found a violation, the district judge or school authori-

8 The following fifteen schools have virtually all-black enrollments'
for 1971-72:

Grades Black White
School Served Students Students % Black
North County K-6 1105 111 91
C.E. Drew K-6 902 0 100
L.C. Evans K-6 1018 0 100
Holmes K-3 706 34 95
Liberty City K-6 829 0 100
Olinda, K-6 884 0 100
Poinciana K-6 1141 0 100
Orchard Villa K-6 1274 0 100
C.E. Drew 7-9 1217 0 100
Miami-Northwestern 9-12 2187 4 99
Allapattah 6 301 45 87
Darlington Heights K-6 889 8 99
Floral Heights K-6 843 0 100
Goulds K-6 318 41 89
Pine Villa K-6 1072 68 94

Totals 14,686 311



10

ties should make every effort to achieve the greatest pos­
sible degree of actual desegregation, taking into account 
the practicalities of the situation.” Davis, supra, at 37. 
Second, in attempting to achieve maximum desegregation, 
school boards and courts should recognize the existence of 
“a presumption against schools that are substantially dis­
proportionate in their racial composition.” Swann, supra, 
at 26. And finally, Swann holds that:

Where the school authority’s proposed plan for conver­
sion from a dual to a unitary system contemplates the 
continued existence of some schools that are all or 
predominantly of one race, they have the burden of 
showing that such school assignments are genuinely 
nondiscriminatory. The court should scrutinize such 
schools and the burden upon school authorities will be 
to satisfy the court that the racial composition is not 
the result of present or past discriminatory action on 
their part. (Id. at 26)

Neither of the courts below has ever addressed itself to 
these issues framed by Swann and Davis. In its August, 
1970 decision which outlined what it viewed as a constitu­
tional desegregation plan for Dade County,9 the court of 
appeals explicitly relied upon its Davis decision10 (later re­
versed in this Court), and three similar cases.11 In each of 
those cases, the court of appeals reduced the percentage of 
black children in virtually all-black schools to between 20-

9 Pate v. Dade County School Board, 434 F.2d 1151, 1152 (5th 
Cir. 1970).

10 Davis v. School Commissioners of Mobile County, 430 F.2d 883 
(5th Cir. 1970), reversed, 402 U.S. 33 (1971).

11 Ellis v. Board of Public Instruction, 423 F.2d 874 (5th Cir. 
1970); Mannings v. Board of Public Instruction, 427 F.2d 874 (5th 
Cir. 1970) ; and Bradley v. Board of Public Instruction, 431 F.2d 
1377 (5th Cir. 1970).



11

25% through the use of equi-distant zoning or contiguous 
pairing and grouping of schools without doing violence to 
what it denominated “the neighborhood school concept.” 
Non-contiguous groupings and “cross-busing” were rejected 
as incompatible with the neighborhood concept; respect for 
district lines was necessary to maintain a viable neighbor­
hood school system; and the presumption was not against 
the continued existence of one-race schools but in favor of 
their existence where disruption of a “neighborhood” would 
be required to desegregate such facilities. The court of 
appeals strictly adhered to identical principles in this case. 
For example, it determined that the desegregation of six 
north central district virtually all-black schools was infeas­
ible because:

the attendance zones of all six of these schools are 
bordered by attendance zones of schools which are 
either already paired with outlying substantially white 
schools or are all-Negro themselves. (Pate, supra, at 
1155).

The court gave no consideration to the possibility of non­
contiguous groupings of the six schools with predominantly 
white schools in the northeast district. And, without making 
any findings on the times or distances related to student 
transportation, the court of appeals determined that the 
Drew Junior High could not be desegregated because it 
was:

situated in the northern part of that concentration of 
the Negro elementary schools in the center of the City 
of Miami discussed above and is also over three miles 
from the nearest predominantly white junior high. 
(Id. at 1157.)

As a consequence of these arbitrary limitations imposed 
upon what techniques could be used to achieve greater



12

desegregation, the court of appeals decision left approx­
imately 24% of the black student population in virtually 
all-black schools.

It cannot be denied that Swann and Davis forthrightly 
rejected and overruled the “neighborhood school concept” 
standards articulated by the 1970 Fifth Circuit decisions 
in this case and other cases. In Davis, this Court held:

A  district court may and should consider the use of 
all available techniques including restructuring of at­
tendance zones and both contiguous and non-contigu- 
ous attendant zones. (Davis at 37.)

# # *

On the record before us, it is clear that the Court of 
Appeals felt constrained to treat the eastern part of 
metropolitan Mobile in isolation from the rest of the 
school system and that inadequate consideration was 
given to the possible use of bus transportation and 
split-zoning. (Id. at 37.)

And Stvann pointed out that objection to increased trans­
portation based upon opposition to “cross-busing” per se 
was constitutionally irrelevant. Valid objection to trans­
portation could be raised only “when the time or distance 
is so great as to either risk the health of the children or 
significantly impinge on the educational process.” Swann, 
supra at 30-31.

Yet, in the most recent proceedings in this case, the 
courts below failed once again to address themselves to the 
issues raised by Swann and Davis with respect to the con­
tinued existence of one-race schools. Petitioners’ motion 
and that of the C.T.A. for an evidentiary hearing not only 
correctly pointed up the fact that the Dade County system 
was presumed unconstitutional in light of this Court’s 
discussion of one-race schools in Swann and Davis. It



13

alleged, in addition, that feasible means existed for de­
segregating all of the remaining virtually all-black schools 
in the system. Armed with this presumption of unconstitu­
tionality and with allegations that the “greatest possible 
degree of actual desegregation” had not been achieved in 
Dade County, petitioners were properly entitled to an evi­
dentiary hearing before the district court. Petitioners sub­
mit that until the Dade County system has been subjected 
to and has met the standards established by Swann and 
Davis, neither the Board nor the courts below can legiti­
mately claim to have eradicated all vestiges of the dual 
system.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully submitted 
that this Court should grant certiorari, summarily reverse 
the judgment below, and direct further proceedings con­
formable to Swann and Davis.

Respectfully submitted,

J ack  Greenberg 
J ames M. N abrit, III 
N orman  J . C h a c h k in  
D rew  S. D ays, III

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

J ames W . M atthew s
5022 N.W. Seventh Avenue 
Miami, Florida 33127

I bm a  R obbins F edeb 
R ichard Y ale F edeb

11th Floor, Roberts Building 
28 West Flagler Street 
Miami, Florida 33130

Attorneys for Petitioners



APPENDIX



Order Dated June 14, 1971 

I n  the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

I n  and F oe th e  S outhern  D isteict oe F lobida 

M ia m i D ivision 

No. 69-1020-Civ-CA

H ebbebt P ate, et al.,

v.
Plaintiffs,

D ade C ou nty  S chool B oaed, et al.
Defendants.

By order dated June 26, 1970, as modified by order dated 
July 24, 1970, this Court found the Dade County school 
system to be a unitary school system in which all vestiges 
of a state-imposed dual school system had been eliminated. 
Pate v. Dade County School Board, 315 F. Supp. 1161 
(S. Dist. Fla. 1970). On August 12, 1970 the Fifth Circuit 
Court of Appeals, after affirming all of the changes in the 
School Board plan made by this Court and ordering several 
further changes, stated that “Implementation of these 
modifications effectively desegregate the Dade County 
School system.” Pate v. Dade County School Board, 434 
F.2d 1151, 1154 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. den. 39 U.S.L.W. 3487 
(U.S. May 4, 1971). This Court retained jurisdiction to 
assure that the school system was continually maintained 
in a unitary manner.

la



2a

Once having disestablished the dual school system and 
eliminated racial discrimination through official action from 
the system, there remains vested in the authority of this 
Court only the responsibility to assure that the school sys­
tem does not revert to a state-imposed dual school system. 
See, Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 
39 U.S.L.W. 4437 (U.S. April 20, 1971).

The Court is aware, from the proposed plan as well as 
from letters from concerned parents, that there are serious 
problems which must be overcome before the approved plan 
can be improved to meet everyone’s approval. Some of the 
more obvious problems revolve around the withdrawal of 
white students from court-ordered desegregated schools 
and the fear of both violence and the loss of educational 
quality in these same schools. These problems and others 
do not present Constitutional issues within the Court’s 
jurisdiction. It is not the Court’s responsibility nor its 
authority to compel or guide the school system into an 
easier transition. The School Board has the responsibility 
to make the unitary plan work realistically to the end that 
quality education is made available to every child in every 
school of the system. It is the Court’s duty to see that this 
responsibility is met and met in good faith with the dedica­
tion necessary to make it work. Without prejudging what 
may  come before the Court in the future, the Court may 
find that the failure to act by the School Board to correct 
the deficiencies is prima facie evidence of an attempt to 
reestablish the dual school system through official action or 
inaction.

The Biracial Committee, appointed by this Court with 
the imprimatur of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, has 
strenuously and diligently advanced the cause of making 
the unitary system work realistically. Its role in the transi­

Order Dated June 14, 1971



3a

tion process gains greater importance and prominence. 
The Committee is the Court’s Committee to the extent that 
it shall continually review the School Board’s attempts to 
improve the operation of the plan and to assure that racial 
discrimination does not reappear in the school system by 
official state action. The Committee is the School Board’s 
Committee for the purpose of continually reviewing the 
operation of the plan and giving the School Board the 
benefit of their findings and recommendations. The School 
Board may use the services of the Committee in any way 
they deem most helpful. The Court has found the Commit­
tee’s recommendations and insight into the school system 
to be extremely intuitive and immensely helpful and has 
every confidence in their dedication and competency. The 
School Board is especially urged to keep the Committee 
fully informed well in advance of (a) proposed acquisition 
of school sites and construction plans, and (b) contemplated 
changes in attendance zones.

With this in mind, while awaiting receipt of the mandate 
from the United States Supreme Court, this Court will 
hold a hearing on June 18, 1971 at 3 :00 p.m. to determine 
the procedure to be utilized for the future conduct of this 
cause. All Intervenors not making an appearance through 
counsel at this hearing will be dismissed from the cause 
and no further pleadings shall be served upon them. Those 
Intervenors who desire to be heard at the hearing shall 
file either their objections to the proposed 1971-72 School 
Board plan, to the extent that it embodies changes from the 
modified plan approved by the Fifth Circuit Court of Ap­
peals, (all intervenors having been served by mail on May 
26, 1971) or a statement of position on or before 12:00 noon 
June 17, 1971.

Order Dated June 14, 1971



4a

The Court wishes to advise all counsel that appeals in 
this case will be processed in accordance with Part III of 
Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School District, 
419 F.2d 1211 (5th Cir. 1970). No extensions of time are 
to be allowed except by order of the panel of the Fifth 
Circuit Court of Appeals to which the case is assigned. 
While the record does not have to be reproduced by print­
ing or other similar process, three legible copies shall be 
filed for the use of each of the members of the panel cover­
ing all matters pertinent to the issues raised on the appeal 
including oral or deposition evidence, exhibits, maps, charts, 
plans, proposed plans, and all such other matters as are 
relevant to the issues presented. Counsel are entrusted with 
the responsibility to collaborate to assure that unneeded 
or unwanted portions of the record are not included. All 
questions should be directed to Edward W. Wadsworth, 
Clerk, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals by referring to his 
letter of May 26, 1971.

D one and Ordebed at Miami, Florida this 14th day o f  
June, 1971.

Order Dated June 14, 1971

C. Clyde A tk in s  
United States District Judge

cc. All counsel of record
All members of the Bi-Racial Committee



5a

Order Dated June 18, 1971

In th e

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

In and F oe th e  S outhern  D istrict oe F lorida 

M ia m i D ivision  

No. 69-1020-Civ-CA

H erbert P ate, et al.,

v.
Plaintiffs,

D ade Co u nty  S chool B oard, et al.
Defendants.

By order dated June 14, 1971, this Court established a 
housekeeping requirement that all Intervenors desiring to 
remain as parties to this cause were required to appear 
through counsel at 3 :00 p.m. June 18, 1971. The following 
are those parties and their counsel who appeared at the 
aforesaid hearing and are therefore entitled to remain as 
parties to this action:

(1) Dade County Classroom Teachers Association 
Tobias Simon, Attorney

(2) Alice Love, Carswell Washington, Margaret 
Washington and American Civil Liberties Union 
of Florida, Inc.
James W. Matthews and Richard Yale Feder, 
Attorneys



6a

(3) Dade County Education Association 
Fred Davant, Attorney

(4) Florida Board of Education 
Charles Minor, Attorney

It Is T herefore Ordered and A djudged as follows:

(a) That all other Intervenors are hereby dismissed 
from this cause and shall be stricken from the roll of those 
entitled to service;

(b) That the Motion to Intervene and Objection and 
Prayer for Opportunity to Prepare and Challenge of 
Wellington Rolle is denied without prejudice to make a 
detailed factual presentation which would constitute a 
prima facie case of the School Board’s failure to maintain 
a unitary school system;

(c) That the objections of Intervenors Alice Love, Cars­
well Washington and Margaret Washington and the 
American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, Inc. are denied 
without prejudice;

(d) That the Statement of Position of the Intervenor, 
Classroom Teachers Association, is noted and rejected but 
its thrust is commended to the consideration of the School 
Board;

(e) That the 1971-72 Pupil Assignment Plan of the Dade 
County School Board, as adopted by the Board at its meet­
ing of May 19, 1971 and filed in this cause on May 26, 1971 
is hereby approved;

(f) That hereafter the School Board shall not be re­
quired to petition the Court for approval of any proposed 
changes in its Pupil Assignment Plan by which it desires

Order Dated June 18, 1971



7a

to improve the effectiveness of the Plan. The burden shall 
be upon the present intervenors, or any other persons here­
after permitted to intervene, to demonstrate to this Court 
a prima facie case of the School Board’s failure to act in 
accordance with the principles outlined in this Court’s 
order of June 14, 1971. Jurisdiction is retained for this 
limited purpose.

D one and  Oedeeed at Miami, Florida this 18th day of 
June, 1971.

Order Dated June 18, 1971

C. Clyde A tkin s  
United States District Judge

cc. George Bolles, Esq.
Tobias Simon, Esq.
James W. Matthews, Esq.
Richard Y. Feder, Esq.
Fred Davant, Esq.
Charles Minor, Esq., Florida Board of Education 
Mr. Wellington Rolle



8a

Order on Motions For Evidentiary Hearing

I n  th e

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

I n and F oe the  S outhern  D istrict oe F lorida 

M ia m i D ivision  

No. 69-1020-Civ-CA

H erbert P ate, et al.,

v.
Plaintiffs,

D ade C ou nty  S chool B oard, et al.
Defendants.

The Dade County Classroom Teachers Association (CTA) 
and certain Intervenors have moved this Court for an evi­
dentiary hearing de novo to determine whether or not the 
Dade County School system is unitary. In so doing, the 
movants contend that Swann v. CJiarlotte-MecMenburg 
Board of Education, 39 U.S.L.W. 4437 (U.S. April 20,1971), 
dictates guidelines not previously considered in earlier 
rulings by this Court and the Court of Appeals for the 
Fifth Circuit in which the Dade County Schools were found 
to be unitary. The Supreme Court, after Swann, supra, de­
nied certiorari by which the Dade County School Board 
challenged these orders. 39 U.S.L.W. 3487 (U.S. May 4, 
1971).

The Court has carefully considered the Swann opinion 
vis a vis the orders of the district court and the Fifth Cir­
cuit Court of Appeals. While no cross-bussing was ordered



9a

Order on Motions■ For Evidentiary Hearing

in the prior approvals of the plan under which the Dade 
County School system is operated, there is no doubt but 
that the effect of the district court order as modified by the 
appellate court was to require the extensive use of bus 
transportation to achieve the results directed. This Court 
being of the opinion that an evidentiary de novo is not re­
quired, the above motions are denied.

The Court reaffirms its earlier direction that the Biracial 
Committee “ shall continuously review the school board’s 
attempts to improve the operation of the plan and to as­
sure that racial discrimination does not reappear in the 
school system, by official state action.” Additionally, the 
School Board is requested to file semi-annual reports dur­
ing the school year similar to those required in United 
States v. Hinds County School Board, 433 F.2d 611, 618-619 
(5 Cir. 1970).

E ntered at Miami, Florida this 30th day of June, 1971.

C. Clyde A tk in s  
United States District Judge



10a

Opinion of United States Court of Appeals 
For the Fifth Circuit

I n  t h e

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
F ob t h e  F if t h  C ircuit 

No. 71-2338

H erbert P ate , et al.,
Plaintiffs,

v.

D ade C ou nty  S chool B oard, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,

v.

A lice L ove, Carsw ell W ashington , et al.,
Intervenors- Appellants,

D ade C ou nty  Classroom T eachers ’ A ssociation, I n c .,
Intervenor-Appellant.

A P PE A L  FROM  T H E  U N IT E D  STATES D ISTR IC T COURT 

FOR T H E  SO U T H E R N  D ISTRICT OF FLORIDA

(September 3, 1971)
Before:

B ro w n , Chief Judge,
M organ and I n graham , Circuit Judges.

P er C u r ia m :
A ffirm ed . See Local Rule 21.1 

[No separate judgment was entered.]

1 See NLRB v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, 
5 Cir., 1970, 439 F.2d 966.



11a

DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 
Racial Composition as of September 27, 1971

Exhibit 1(b)

Northeast District—Elementary Schools
School Grade White Black Total %White %Black
Bay Harbor K-6 416 0 416 100 0
Biscayne K-6 508 5 508 99 1
Biseayne Gardens K-6 761 16 777 98 2
Bryan, W. J. K-6 801 4 805 99 1
Fienberg, L. D. K-6 464 6 470 99 1
Fulford K-6 502 79 581 86 14
Gratigny K-6 643 4 647 99 1
Greynolds Park K-6 635 0 635 100 0
Hibiscus K-6 611 1 612 99 1
Highland Oaks K-6 669 4 673 99 1
Ives, Madie K-6 678 1 679 99 1
Natural Bridge K-6 289 66 355 81 19
Norland K-6 890 0 890 100 0
North Beach K-6 680 22 702 97 3
North Miami K-6 587 37 624 94 6
Norwood K-6 581 1 582 99 1
Oak Grove K-6 562 34 596 94 6
Ojus K-6 372 20 392 95 5
Parkway K-6 563 5 568 99 1
Sabal Palm K-6 958 2 960 99 1
South Beach K-6 457 12 469 97 3
Treasure Island K-6 433 3 436 99 1

Total (K-6) 13,055 322 13,377 98 2

Northeast District—Secondary Schools
School Grade White Black Total %

White %Black
Ctr. for Spec. Inst.-NE 7-12 2 9 11 18 82
Fisher, Ida M. Jr. 7-9 585 182 767 76 24
Jefferson, T. Jr. 7-9 920 147 1067 86 14
Kennedy, J. F. Jr. 7-8 1347 153 1500 90 10
Miami Beach Sr. 10-12 2005 327 2332 86 14
Miami Norland Sr. 10-12 2215 413 2628 84 16
Nautilus Jr. 7-9 1205 188 1393 87 13
Norland Jr. 7-9 1494 169 1663 90 10
North Miami Jr. 7-9 1172 149 1321 89 11
North Miami Sr. 10-12 2711 205 2916 93 7
North Miami Beach Sr. 9-11 2510 281 2791 90 10

Total (7-12) 16,166 2,223 18,389 88 12

District Total K-12 29,221 2,545 31,766 92 8



12a

DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 

Racial Composition as of September 27, 1971

Exhibit 1(b)

Northwest District■—Elementary Schools

School Grade White Black Total %White %Black
Bunche Park K, 5-6 248 370 618 40 60
Carol City K-6 875 164 1039 84 16
Crestview K-6 703 8 711 99 1
DuPuis K-6 559 8 567 99 1
Earhart, Amelia K-6 644 18 662 97 3
Flamingo K-6 871 2 873 99 1
Golden Glades K-6 401 400 801 50 50
Lake Stevens K-6 612 95 707 87 13
Meadowlane K-6 789 6 795 99 1
Miami Gardens K-6 425 279 704 60 40
Miami Lakes K-6 737 0 737 100 0
Milam, M. A. K-6 550 0 550 100 0
Myrtle Grove K-6 864 195 1059 82 18
North Carol City K-6 508 429 937 54 46
North County K-6 111 1105 1216 9 91
North Glade K-6 1113 78 1191 93 7
North Hialeah K-6 781 4 785 99 1
North Twin Lakes K-6 512 0 512 100 0
Opa-loeka K-6 621 317 938 66 34
Palm Lakes K-6 579 2 581 99 1
Palm Springs K-6 799 11 810 99 1
Palm Springs N. K-6 1147 0 1147 100 0
Parkview K-4 319 226 545 59 41
Pilot House, The 1-6 27 18 45 60 40
Rainbow Park K-6 238 389 627 38 62
Scott Lake K-4 439 239 678 65 35
Twin Lakes K-6 701 0 701 100 0
Walters, Mae K-6 1064 33 1097 97 3

Total (K-6) 17,237 4,396 21,633 80 20



13a

Exhibit 1(b)

DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Racial Composition as of September 27, 1971

Northwest District—Secondary Schools
School Grade White Black Total 70White _  70Black
Carol City Jr. 7-9 1642 649 2291 72 28Filer, Henry H. Jr. 7-9 2011 189 2200 91 9Hialeah Jr. 7-9 1153 124 1277 90 10Hialeah Sr. 10-12 3494 9 3503 99 1
Hialeah-iViiami Lakes Sr. 9-11 1830 189 2019 91 9
Miami Carol City Sr. 10-12 1940 680 2620 74 26North Dade Jr. 7-9 232 928 1160 20 80Palm Springs Jr. 7-9 1789 0 1789 100 0Parkway Jr. 7-9 1214 456 1670 73 27Youth Oppor. Sch. No. 7-9 65 53 118 55 45

Total (7-12) 15,370 3,277 18,647 82 18
District Total K-12 32,607 7,673 40,280 81 19

North Central District—Elementary Schools
School Grade White Black Total %White %Black
Areola Lake K-3 408 538 946 43 57Blanton, Van E. K, 4-6 350 475 825 42 58Bright, James H. K-5 768 179 947 81 19Broadmoor K-3 543 485 1028 53 47Curtiss, Glenn K, 5-6 164 221 385 43 57Drew, C. R. K-6 0 902 902 0 100Edison Park K, 3-4 363 522 885 41 59Evans, L. C. K-6 0 1018 1018 0 100Franklin, Benj. K-6 661 3 664 99 1
Gladeview K, 5-6 122 291 413 30 70Hialeah K-4 522 307 829 63 37Holmes K-3 34 706 740 5 95J ohnson, J. W. 6 115 30 145 79 21King, M. L. Prim. K-2 139 200 339 41 59Lakeview K-6 680 19 699 97 3Liberty City K-6 0 829 829 0 100Little River K, 5-6 338 702 1040 33 67Lorah Park K-4 145 500 645 22 78
M. Edison Middle 6 189 231 420 45 55Miami Park K-6 878 307 1185 74 26
Miami Shores K-6 986 8 994 99 1
Miami Springs K-6 493 43 536 92 8
Morningside K-5 480 15 495 97 3
Olinda K-6 0 884 884 0 100Orchard Villa K-6 0 1274 1274 0 100Poinciana Park K-6 0 1141 1141 0 100



14a

DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Exhibit 1(b)

Racial Composition as of September 27, 1971 
North Central District—Elementary Schools (continued)

School Grade White Black Total %White %Black
Primary School “ C” K-2 106 287 393 27 73
Shadowlawn K-5 317 592 909 35 65
South Hialeah K-6 1252 6 1258 99 1
Springview K-6 588 1 589 99 1W. Little River K, 4-6 394 615 1009 39 61
Westview K-3 286 246 532 54 46Young, Nathan K, 4-6 190 279 469 41 59

Total (K-6) 11,511 13,856 25,367 45 55
North Central District—-Secondary Schools

%WhiteSchool Grade White Black Total %Black
C.O.P.E. Center 7-12 1 84 85 1 99Drew, C. R. Jr. 7-9 0 1217 1217 0 100MacArthur, D. Jr./Sr. 7-12 266 37 303 88 12Madison Jr. 7-9 642 641 1283 50 50Mann, Horace Jr. 7-9 810 357 1167 69 31Miami Central Sr. 9-12 1830 1343 3173 58 42
Miami Edison Middle 7-8 341 577 918 37 63Miami Edison Sr. 9-12 1237 1055 2292 54 46
Miami Northwestern Sr. 9-12 4 2187 2191 1 99Miami Springs Jr. 8-9 530 861 1391 38 62
Miami Springs Sr. 9-12 2977 531 3508 85 15
Westview Jr. 7-9 897 374 1271 71 29

Total (7-12) 9,535 9,264 18,799 51 49

District Total K-12 21,046 23,120 44,166 48 52
South Central District—Elementary Schools

%WhiteSchool Grade White Black Total %Black
Allapattah K, 3-5 180 888 1068 17 83
Allapattah Jr. 6 45 301 346 13 87
Auburndale K-6 915 10 925 99 1
Bethune K-3 209 432 641 33 67
Buena Vista K-2 287 135 422 68 32
Carver, G. W. K-2 281 274 555 51 49
Citrus Grove 1-6 1291 1 1292 99 1
Coconut Grove K-6 201 294 495 41 59
Comstock K-3 938 322 1260 74 26
Coral Gables K, 3-6 346 115 461 75 25
Coral Way K-6 1524 16 1540 99 1
Dade K, 4-6 253 326 579 44 56



15a

DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Exhibit 1(b)

Racial Composition as of September 27, 1971 
South, Central District—Elementary Schools ( continued)

S ch oo l G rade White B lack T o ta l
%

W h ite
%

B lack
Douglas K-3 407 898 1305 31 69
Dunbar K, 4-6 298 601 899 33 67
Earlington Hts. K-6 8 889 897 1 99
Flagler, H. M. K-6 721 16 737 98 2
Floral Heights K-6 0 843 843 0 100
Kensington Park K-6 1258 15 1273 99 1
Key Biscayne K-6 627 3 630 99 1
Kinloch Park K-6 712 22 734 97 3
Melrose K, 4-6 386 384 770 50 50
Merrick K, 3-6 358 91 449 80 20
Miramar K-3 268 303 571 47 53
Pharr, Kelsey K, 4-6 439 493 932 47 53
Riverside K, 4-6 861 608 1469 59 41
Santa Clara K-2 204 427 631 32 68
Shenandoah 1-6 1103 0 1103 100 0
Silver Bluff K-6 724 3 727 99 1
Southside 1-6 382 5 387 99 1
Sunset K, 3-6 484 147 631 77 23
Tucker, F. S. K-3 96 463 559 17 83
West Dunbar K-3 323 463 786 41 59
W. Laboratory K-6 311 91 402 77 23
Wheatley, P. 3-6 441 528 969 46 54

Total (K-6) 16,881 10,407 27,288 62 38
South

S ch oo l

Central District-— 
G rade W h ite

■Secondary Schools 
B la ck  T o ta l

%
W h ite

%
B lack

Allapattah Jr. 7-8 377 768 1145 33 67
Brownsville Jr. 7 241 612 853 28 72
Carver, G. W. Jr. 7 311 218 529 59 41
Citrus Grove Jr. 8 893 439 1332 67 33
Coral Gables Sr. 10-12 2488 489 2977 84 16
Kinloch Park Jr. 7-9 1652 27 1679 98 2
Lee, Robert E. Jr. 8-9 406 598 1004 40 60
Merrit, Ada Jr. 7 721 474 1195 60 40
Miami Jackson Sr. 10-12 430 2142 2572 17 83
Miami Sr. 10-12 4741 264 5005 95 5
Ponce de Leon Jr. 8-9 909 385 1294 70 30
Shenandoah Jr. 7-9 1928 4 1932 99 1
Washington, B. T. Jr. 9 745 447 1192 62 38

Total (7-12) 15,842 6,867 22,709 70 30

District Total K-12 32,723 17,274 49,997 70 30



16a

School
Banyan 
Blue Lakes 
Coral Park 
Coral Terrace 
Cypress 
Emerson 
Everglades 
Fairchild, D. 
Fairlawn 
Flagami 
Greenglade 
Kendale 
Kenwood 
Lee, J.R.E. Ctr. 
Leewood 
Ludlam 
Martin, F.C. 
Olympia Heights 
Roekway 
Royal Palm 
Seminole 
Silver Oaks 
Snapper Creek 
South Miami 
Sunset Park 
Sylvania Heights 
Tropical 
Village Green 
Vineland

Exhibit 1(b)

DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Racial Composition as of September 27, 1971

Southwest District-Elementary Schools

Grade White Black Total %White %Black
K-6 704 0 704 100 0
K-6 1041 0 1041 100 0
K-6 898 0 898 100 0
K-6 802 2 804 99 1
K-6 841 0 841 100 0
K-6 942 0 942 100 0
K-6 875 1 876 99 1
K-6 542 78 620 87 13
K-6 831 0 831 100 0
K-6 811 2 813 99 1
K-6 738 1 739 99 1
K-6 558 1 559 99 1
K-6 799 4 803 99 1
K- 1 59 60 2 98
K-5 733 210 943 78 22
K-6 401 248 649 62 38
K-6 581 355 936 62 38
K-6 840 2 842 99 1
K-6 818 1 819 99 1
K-6 966 6 972 99 1
K-6 972 2 974 99 1
1-6 2 7 9 22 78

K-6 797 0 797 100 0
K-6 475 171 646 74 26
K-6 851 8 859 99 1
K-6 741 6 747 99 1
K-6 1014 12 1026 99 1
K-6 906 2 908 99 1
K-5 525 159 684 77 23

21,005 1,337 22,342 94 6Total (K-6)



17a

Exhibit 1(b)

DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Racial Composition as of September 27, 1971

Southwest District—Secondary Schools

School Grade White Black Total %White %Black
Ctr. for Spec. Inst.-S.W. 7-12 1 2 3 33 67
Glades Jr. 7-9 2013 4 2017 99 1
Miami Coral Park Sr. 10-12 2711 0 2711 100 0
Miami Killian Sr. 9-12 2709 734 3443 79 21
Richmond Heights Jr. 7-9 943 910 1853 51 49
Riviera Jr. 7-9 2095 5 2100 99 1
Rockway Jr. 7-9 1838 0 1838 100 0
Silver Oaks 7-12 23 54 77 30 70
South Miami Jr. 7-9 1023 246 1269 81 19
South Miami Sr. 10-11 1306 126 1432 91 9
Southwest Clinical Sch. 7-9 48 3 51 94 6
Southwest Miami Sr. 10-12 3132 75 3207 98 2
West Miami Jr. 7-9 1894 0 1894 100 0

Total (7-12) 19,736 2,159 21,895 90 10
District Total K-12 40,741 3,496 44,237 92 8

South District—Elementary Schools

School Grade White Black Total %White %Black
Air Base K-6 1170 101 1271 92 8
Avocado K-6 700 18 718 97 3
Bel-Aire K-4 285 237 522 55 45
Caribbean K-6 1092 51 1143 96 4
Colonial Drive K-6 530 216 746 71 29
Cooper, N. K. K-3 272 364 636 43 57
Coral Reef K-5 764 188 952 80 20
Cutler Ridge K-6 1018 19 1037 98 2
Florida City K-2 154 336 490 31 69
Goulds K-6 41 318 359 11 89
Gulfstream K-6 592 22 614 96 4
Howard Drive K-5 556 171 727 76 24
Leisure City K-6 1066 9 1075 99 1
Lewis, A. L. K, 4-6 142 394 536 26 74
Miami Heights K-6 884 80 964 92 8
Moton, R. R. K, 5-6 180 314 494 36 64
Naranja K-6 281 304 585 48 52
Palmetto K-5 559 179 738 76 24
Perrine K-4 248 145 393 63 37
Pinecrest K-6 859 0 859 100 0



18a

Exhibit 1(b)

DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Racial Composition as of September 27, 1971

South District—Elementary Schools (continued)

School Grade White Black Total White Black
Pine Villa K-6 68 1072 1140 6 94
Redland K-6 676 97 773 87 13
Redondo K-6 471 17 488 97 3
Richmond K-6 177 488 665 27 73
South Miami Hts. K-6 877 41 918 96 4
West Homestead K, 3-6 216 569 785 28 72
Whispering Pines K-6 779 1 780 99 1

Total (K-6) 14,657 5,751 20,408 72 28

South District—Secondary Schools

S ch o o l G rade W h ite B lack T ota l
%

W h ite
%

B lack

Cutler Ridge Jr. 7-9 1535 417 1952 79 21
Homestead Jr. 7-9 1007 650 1657 61 39
Mays Jr. 7-9 1189 701 1890 63 37
Miami Palmetto Sr. 10-12 3228 419 3647 89 11
Palmetto Jr. 7-9 1677 33 1710 98 2
Redland Jr. 7-9 619 180 799 77 23
South Dade Sr. 10-12 1593 923 2516 63 37

Total (7-12) 10,848 3,323 14,171 77 23

District Total K-12 25,505 9,074 34,579 74 26

SYSTEM-WIDE TOTAL K-12 182,029 63,213 245,242 74 26



ME1LEN PRESS INC. —  N. Y. C. 219