Keyes v. School District No. 1 Denver, CO. Appendix Vol. 3
Public Court Documents
January 1, 1970
Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Keyes v. School District No. 1 Denver, CO. Appendix Vol. 3, 1970. c0745805-ba9a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/df0d4b9b-30d3-459e-ab3a-f11b7f9de5ac/keyes-v-school-district-no-1-denver-co-appendix-vol-3. Accessed May 03, 2025.
Copied!
APPENDIX
Volume 3— Pages 1033a to 1514a
Supreme Court of the United States
OCTOBER TERM, 1971
No. 71-507
WILFRED KEYES, ET AL.,
PETITIONERS,
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,
DENVER, COLORADO, ET AL
ON W R IT OF CERTIORARI TO T H E U N ITE D STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR T H E T E N T H CIRCUIT
CERTIORARI GRANTED JANUARY 17, 1972
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED OCTOBER 8, 1971
INDEX TO APPENDIX
Volume I
PAGE
Docket Entries .................................... ........... .......... la
Complaint for Permanent Injunction and Declara
tory Judgment ........ 2a
Exhibits annexed to Complaint:
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3—Resolution 1520 ......... 42a
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 4—Resolution 1524 ... 49a
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 5—Resolution 1531 .... 60a
Motion for Preliminary Injunction.......................... 71a
Answer of Defendants Amesse, Noel and Voorhees,
J r ............................................................................... 73a
Hearing on Preliminary Injunction July 16-22, 1969 85a
T estimony
(M in u tes of H earing on P relim inary I n ju n c t io n
J uly 16-22, 1969)
Plaintiff s’ W itnesses:
Rachel B. N oel-
Direct ........... 85a
Redirect ....................................................... 104a
A. Edgar Benton—
Direct ..................... 108a
Cross ..... 121a
Redirect ..... 123a
11
Paul 0. Klite—
Direct .... .............. ....
Voir Dire ..................
Cross .........................
Redirect ....................
James D. Voorliees, Jr.'—
Direct .......... .............
G-eorge E. Bardwell—
Direct --------- ------ „
Voir Dire ..... ............
Cross - ........................
Robert D. Gilberts—
Direct ........................
Cross .........................
Redirect ................. .
Defendants’ Witnesses:
Gilbert Crater—
Direct .......................
Voir Dire ..................
Cross ...... ..................
Howard L. Johnson—
Direct .......................
Cross .........................
Recross ......................
Robert Gilberts—
Direct ........................
Cross ........................
Redirect ..... ............. .
Recross ......................
126a, 133a
.... 132a
... . 139a
....... 142a
PAGE
143a
151a,191a
..... 185a
... . 193a
227a
252a
255a
208a, 214a
..... 213a
..... 216a
256a
302a
369a
376a
393a
408a
414a
Richard Koeppe—
Direct ..... ...................................... .......-419a, 437a
Voir Dire ..................... ................... ............ 436a
Cross ............................................ ................ 438a
Preliminary Injunction ..... .......... ............ ................. 452a
Memorandum Opinion and Order of District Court 454a
Opinion of Court of Appeals dated August 5,1969 — 455a
Supplemental Findings, Conclusions and Temporary
Injunction by District Court .............. .......... ......... 458a
Opinion of Court of Appeals dated August 27, 1969 459a
Order ..................................................................... 463a
Opinion by Brennan, J. on Application for Vacating
of Stay ........................ ................... .... .... .............. 464a
Opinion of Court of Appeals dated September 15,
1969 ______ _______ _____ _____ ____ _________ 467a
Answer ....... 470a
Memorandum Opinion and Order............. 475a
I l l
PAGE
Volum e 2
(M in u tes oe T rial on M erits,
F ebruary 2-20, 1970)
PAGE
Minutes of Trial on Merits, February 2-20, 1970 .... 481a
Plaintiffs’ Witnesses:
Paul Klite—
Direct ................................. 481a, 493a, 502a, 523a,
530a,533a, 537a
Voir Dire .....................................491a, 502a, 522a,
528a, 532a, 536a
Cross ............................................................ 564a
Redirect ....................................................... 621a
Lorenzo T ray lor-
Direct ........................................................... 579a
Cross ............................................................ 607a
Redirect ....................................................... 621a
Gerald P. Cavanaugh—
Direct .................................... 626a
Cross ............................................................ 646a
Redirect ....................................................... 652a
Recross ......................................................... 655a
Mary Morton—
Direct ........................................................... 656a
Cross ........................................................... 660a
Marlene Chambers—
Direct ..................................................... 665a, 671a
Voir Dire ..................................................... 670a
Cross ............................................................ 676a
Redirect ....................................................... 681a
Recross ......................................................... 682a
V
Palicia Lewis—
Direct ...................................... 684a
Cross ..... ....................... -.............................. 693a
Redirect ................................................ 696a
Recross ........................................................- 696a
Mildred Biddick—
Direct ........................................................... 697a
PAGE
George E. Bar dwell—
Direct ......................
Voir Dire ..............
Cross .......................
Redirect ................
George L. Brown, Jr.—
Direct ....................
,700a, 703a, 707a, 716a, 727a,
757a, 769a, 790a, 798a
..........702a, 707a, 715a, 726a,
755a,767a, 786a, 791a
................................. 800a
................................. 818a
857a
Dr. Dan Dodson—
Direct ........ ..................... ..................... ....... 1469a
Cross .............................................. .............. 1493a
Defendants’ Witnesses:
Robert L. Hedley—
Direct ................. .
Voir Dire .......
Lois Heath Johnson-
Direct .................
Cross ...................
Redirect ..............
Recross ...............
820a, 834a
..... 833a
893a
922a
955a
956a
VI
Palmer L. Burch—
Direct ............
Cross ...............
Redirect .........
Recross ..........
PAGE
..... 963a
........ 978a
1023a, 1030a
....... . 1025a
Volume 3
William Berge—
Direct ......................
Cross ....... .............. .
James C. Perrill—
Direct .......................
Cross ........................
Redirect ...................
Recross ...... ..............
John E. Temple—
Direct ......................
Voir Dire .................
Cross ............ ............
Jean McLaughlin—
Direct ......... ............ .
Cross ........................
Redirect ...................
Dr. Harold A. Stetzler—
Direct ......................
Cross ....... ................
Redirect ...................
Lidell M. Thomas—
Direct ......................
Cross ........................
Redirect ...................
Recross .....................
1033a
1051a
1076a
1083a
1100 a
1101a
1101a,1115a, 1129a
.......... 1112a, 1128a
.................... 1131a
.................... 1131a
.................... 1146a
.................... 1150a
1150 a
1189a
1210a
1214a
1239a
1252a
1253a
Charles Arm strong-
Direct ........................................................... 1254a
Cross ............................................................ 1289a
Kenneth Oberholtzer—
Direct ........................................................... 1299a
Cross ............................................................ 1393a
Redirect ..................................................... 1463a
Memorandum Opinion and Order of District Court .. 1514a
V ll
PAGE
Volume 4
(M in u tes op H earing on R e l ie f , M ay 11-14, 1970)
Hearing on Relief, May 11-19, 1970 ......................... 1515a
Plaintiffs’ Witnesses:
James Coleman—
Direct ................ .................................1516a, 1526a
Yoir Dire ................................................... 1520a
Cross ....... 1552a
Redirect ....................................................... 1561a
Neal Sullivan—
Direct .......................................................... 1562a
Cross ............................................................ 1588a
Redirect .............. 1598a
George Bardwell—
Direct ....... 1602a
Cross ............................................................ 1664a
Redirect ......... 1683a
William Sm ith-
Direct .............. 1688a
Cross ............................................................ 1698a
Vlll
Robert O’Reilly'—
Direct ..................................................1910a, 1925a
Voir Dire ..................................................... 1920a
Cross ........................................................... 1942a
Redirect „..................................................... 1968a
Defendants’ W itnesses:
Robert D. Gilberts—
Direct .......................................................... . 1706a
Cross .......... ............................................. .... 1763a
Redirect ........................ ..................... ......... 1834a
Recross ................... ..................................... 1842a
James D. W ard -
Direct ....... ................................................... 1844a
Cross .......................................... ............. . 1868a
George Morrison, Jr.—
Direct ..................................................... . 1874a
Cross ........................... ................................. 1892a
Redirect ................ ................................... 1896a
Albert C. Reamer—
Direct ........................................................... 1897a
Cross ............................................................ 1905a
Decision Re Plan or Remedy by District Court...... 1969a
Final Decree and Judgment....................................... 1970a
Defendants’ Notice of Appeal................... .......... ..... 1978a
Plaintiffs’ Notice of Appeal.............. ........................ 1979a
Decision by Court of Appeals on Motion for Stay,
etc............................................................................. 1981a
PAGE
IX
Decision by TJ. S. Supreme Court on Stay, etc.......... 1984a
Opinion of Court of Appeals dated June 11, 1971 .... 1985a
Judgment of Court of Appeals dated June 11, 1971 - 1985a
Decision by Court of Appeals for “Clarification of
Opinion” .................................................................. 1986a
Order Granting Certiorari ..................................... 1988a
I ndex to E x h ibits A ppears in E x h ib it V olume
PAGE
1033a
[1197] W illiam B erge, a w itn ess ca lled b y an d on b eh a lf
of d e fen d an ts , h av in g been f irs t du ly sw orn , w as exam ined
a n d tes tified as fo llo w s :
Direct Examination by Mr. Ris:
The Court: Please give us your name, address
and occupation.
The Witness: William Berge, 500 Capital Life
Building, Denver, Colorado. Lawyer.
By Mr. Ris:
Q. Mr. Berge, your race is Anglo, is it not? A. Yes.
Q. How old are you? A. Forty-six.
Q. Are you a native of Denver? A. No. I was born in
Cleveland, Ohio; moved out here when I was five years old
and have been a native since 1928.
Q. Did you attend Denver Public Schools? A. Yes.
Q. What schools? A. Dora Moore, Park Hill, Aaron
Gove, and East High School.
Q. What year did you graduate from East? A. 1941.
Q. Where did you go to college? [1198] A. Dartmouth
College.
Q. And law school? A. Universitj^ of Denver.
Q. Graduating what year? A. 1950. Dartmouth Col
lege, 1948.
Q. Are you married? A. Yes.
Q. Have children? A. Yes.
Q. How many? A. Three boys.
Q. Are they all in the Denver Public Schools? A. Yes,
two are at Thomas Jefferson and one at Jessie Hamilton.
Q. What other schools have your boys attended? A.
Pitts.
William Berge—for Defendants-—Direct
1034a
Q. Since you have been married,what— A. Excuse me.
Pitts and University Park.
Q. Since you have been married, what areas have you
lived in Denver? A. When we were married we lived
at 1414 Marion and then we moved to 2830 South Monroe
and then we moved to our present residence at 3098 South
Jasmine.
Q. How long have you been at that address? A. Since
1962.
[1199] Q. Are you presently a member of the Board of
Education, School District Number One, Denver, Colorado?
A. Yes.
Q. When did you become a member of that group? A.
In May of 1967.
Q. You were elected to the post? A. Yes.
Q. In the May 1967 election? A. Yes.
Q. Had you ever had any special education or employ
ment in school administration? A. No.
Q. What was your first basic contact with the Denver
Public Schools, either P-TA level or whatever it may have
been? A. I think the primary introduction to school mat
ters was with the advisory council at Pitts Elementary
School.
Q. About what year was that? A. About 1963.
Q. Wfiat type of advisory council or committee was that?
A. Each school in the district was requested to form an
advisory council to make recommendations to the Board of
Education as to what that particular advisory council felt
that particular school needed. And it had to do primarily
with the needs of each individual school in the district.
[1200] Q. Did you actually participate in that council?
A. Yes.
William Berge—for Defendants—Direct
1035a
Q. For what period of time! A. Two years.
Q. And then what was the occasion of your first having
any citywide position in connection with the school dis
trict? A. I was appointed chairman of the advisory coun
cil on equality of education opportunities, which was a
council appointed by the Denver Board of Education in
1966.
Q. Now the members of the board were selected by the
Board of Education? A. Yes.
Q. And by whom were you designated as chairman? A.
The Board of Education.
Q. Who was the vice-chairman? A. Bernard Yaldez,
Q. What is his position? Or what is his job, do you
know, at the moment? A. To the best of my knowledge,
he is director of welfare.
Q. Of the City and County of Denver? A. Of the City
and County of Denver.
Q. Could you describe generally the composition of the
commission or council? A. The council was composed of
31 members and was [1201] representative of all districts
in the school district. It had minority representation. It
had the representation from certain designated groups
such as the Park Hill Action Committee, CORE, N A A CP,
LARASO (?).
Q. What is LARASO? A. Latin American—
Q. A Latin American group? A. Yes.
Q. Representing the Hispano community as we have
discussed it in this trial? A. Yes.
Q. Did the advisory council act basically as a full group
or did you split it up into subcommittees or one job pri
marily, or— A. We divided it into subcommittees and
each subcommittee had a program, and when that subcom
mittee had finished its objectives, why, then the entire
William Berge—for Defendants—Direct
1036a
committee met and formulated the report which was even
tually submitted to the board of education.
Q. How often did the full committee meet? A. Oh, an
average of once a week, usually every Tuesday night.
Q. Was that your regular meeting night? A. Yes.
Q. At what hour? [1202] A. Usually the meetings
began at 7 :00 or 7 :30 and continued indefinitely. Some
went way into the early morning hours and we made—we
attempted to adjourn by 11:00 or 11:30 but that was not
always possible.
Q. Where were these meetings held? A. Some meetings
were held at Baker Junior High School. Most of them
were held in the board room of the Capitol Life Building.
Q. East 16th Avenue and Grant Street? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were these meetings open to the public? A. All
meetings were open to the public except when the council
went into executive session.
Q. How often was that? A. Not very frequently. It
occurred more at the latter part of the schedule when we
were attempting to formulate our plan and put it together
in a written form.
Q. At the open meetings did people appear to present
their positions on various facets of the educational pro
grams? A. Yes.
Q. Did you have both members of the white community
and the black community? A. Yes.
Q. What was the basic purpose of your committee? What
were you charged to do? [1203] A. Well, basically we
were given a charge to determine whether or not the
school policy No. 1222-C, which dealt primarily with neigh
borhood schools, should be kept in effect so far as the
construction of new buildings was concerned in northeast
Denver.
William Berge—for Defendants—Direct
1037a
Q. Of course, the Voorhees report had already been
published before you were appointed? A. Yes, that’s cor
rect.
Q. That was your point of departure, really; the Voor
hees Committee? A. Yes.
Q. Now, you say there were 31 members? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How active was your committee? How many would
attend an average meeting, would you estimate? A. The
committee for the most part was very active. I believe
the average attendance was somewhere between 18 and 23
of the 31 members for each meeting.
Q. And were the members of the public at virtually
every public meeting you had; to express their views? A.
I would say at the majority of the meetings members of
the public attended. There were a few where no public
people attended or participated.
Q. Now, at the conclusion of your deliberations was a
report then drafted? [1204] A. Yes.
Q. What was the basis for doing that? A. A drafting
committee was formed and the chairman of that commit
tee, Minoru Yasui, and they drew a rough draft of the
report based on the findings and recommendations of the
subcommittee and then they presented it to the entire
advisory council. Each council member or each member of
the council had the opportunity to read it and evaluate
and make any suggestions, changes or criticisms which
the particular member deemed necessary.
Q. Were there some changes made from the rough draft?
A. Yes.
Q. Were they as to form or substance? A. Mostly of
form.
Q. Was the report adopted unanimously? A. No.
Q. Could you tell us how many dissents there were?
A. I believe there were three—three or four.
William. Berge—for Defendants—Direct
1038a
Q. Was there a minority report also drafted! A. Yes.
Q. Is that also in the report or appendix or part of it?
A. Yes.
Q. What was done with the report when it was finally
concluded? [1205] A. It was submitted to the Board of
Education.
Q. Now as to the report itself, Mr. Berge, did you make
some preliminary finding’s, both fact and legal considera
tions— A. Yes.
Q. —that you felt were in existence or applicable to this
particular case? A. Yes.
Q. And could you summarize those for us? A. Well, I
think some of the preliminary findings were that de facto
segregation did exist in certain districts in the city. But,
to the best of our knowledge, neither the Board of Edu
cation nor the administration had taken any active part
either directly or indirectly in promoting de facto segre
gation.
Q. With regard to the neighborhood school concept, what
position did your council take? A. The council basically
endorsed the neighborhood school concept as such.
Q. Did you make some specific recommendations? A.
Yes.
Q. And were these based on some specific conclusions as
to what should be done? A. Yes.
Q. And would you summarize those for us, please?
[1206] A. Yes, one of the basic recommendations was the
establishment of a cultural arts center which would be a
school or group of schools designated by the administra
tion which would concentrate primarily in music apprecia
tion, art appreciation, and perhaps other forms of appre
ciation, depending upon the acceptance of the program.
William Berge—for Defendants—Direct
1039a
Eight schools at the primary level I believe were selected
at random, but with the selection made so that the children
who went from these eight schools to the cultural arts
center would receive in exchange cultural and racial ex
perience. In other words, the schools were selected so that
there would be Hispanos, Negroes, and Anglos in atten
dance at the same time. I believe it was the sixth grade
students from the elementary schools chosen to participate
and were given the option of attending the cultural arts
center. In other words, the purpose of the program was
explained to the parents and then the parents were given
the option of enrolling their students in the cultural arts
program.
Q. What other recommendation? A. Another recommen
dation was for a superior school program for Smiley Jun
ior High School and Baker Junior High School.
Q. What did that contemplate generally? A. That con
templated basically going into these schools, making evalu
ation of what was needed in each school to make [12073
that particular school a superior school.
Q. And another recommendation, the educational cen
ter? A. Oh, yes, there was—that was a third one. There
was a recommendation that an educational center he estab
lished on a pilot study basis to determine whether or not
this would be a step in the right direction as far as im
provement in quality of education was concerned.
Q. And what was contemplated to being encompassed in
an educational center? A. Well, basically, as we envi
sioned it, there would be an area somewhere between 50
acres and 250 acres to which could be established multiple
purpose building which could be used for varying pur
poses such as an advanced science center, multi-lingual
buildings, special purpose buildings whereby students from
William Berge—for Defendants—Direct
1040a
all over the city could attend for the specific purpose in
which they were interested.
Q. This also contemplated vocational education! A.
Definitely.
Q. And a centralized library! A .Yes.
Q. Did you also recommend a further school capacity
study! A. Yes.
Q. Now, did you make any other recommendations or
come to any conclusions concerning the northeast Denver
area [1208] with respect to new schools! A. Yes, I be
lieve the recommendation was that there should be no new
construction made in northeast Denver until such time as
the particular paragraph of Policy 5100 could be imple
mented. In other words, to the best of my recollection,
that particular paragraph says that in the neighborhood
school concept there can be some concentrations of racial
and ethnic groups which are not necessarily in the best
interests of those particular groups.
So the recommendation was that no newT construction be
made in northeast Denver until some formal alleviation
could be made to comply with this requirement. I t’s either
paragraph 1222-C, subparagraph (b)6, or 5100 of the same
paragraph.
Q. With respect to 5100, did you make a specific rec
ommendation as to what should be done or attempted in an
attempt to make it workable! A. Yes.
Q. What did you have in mind in that regard? A. Well,
I think the basic recommendation was that a voluntary
open enrollment plan be established and that this be sub
mitted and explained and advanced with the idea being
that you could explain it to members of the community
and to the parents and by getting community acceptance
William Berge—for Defendants—Direct
1041a
for this plan you would be able to accomplish some realistic
integration.
£1209 2 Q. Why was community acceptance considered of
consequence by the council? A. Well, if you don’t have
community acceptance for any plan, it just won’t work.
Q. Now, with regard to the recommendation you made
—I’m jumping a little ahead now. I’m sorry. I’ll come
back to that.
Mr. Ris: Will you strike that, please, Wayne.
(Addressing the reporter.)
Q. After your report was in, then did you retain any
further interest in the school district and its problems!
A. Yes.
Q. What did you do about it? A. I decided to run for
the Board of Education.
Q. And what was your basic program upon which you
ran? A. I think this can be boiled down to three primary
reasons. I was interested in attempting to establish qual
ity education to establish equality of educational oppor
tunity and the basic retention of the neighborhood school
concept as best it could be implemented in achieving inte
gration.
Q. After you became a member of the Board then in
May of 1967, did you see whether some of the recommen
dations that your council had made had been implemented
or were you instrumental in seeing that some were imple
mented? A. Basically the recommendation of the—
[12103 Q. First, I should say, accepted by the board,
rather than being implemented. I am jumping ahead here.
I am sorry. A. They were accepted by the board.
William Berge—for Defendants—Direct
1042a
Q. All right. What was done with respect to the cul
tural arts center? A. The cultural arts center was estab
lished and was put into operation and it was well received
by the parents and the students who were involved in it.
Q. And what was done with respect to the superior
school program. A. The superior school program encom
passed, as I recall, approximately 159 recommendations.
These recommendations were submitted to the staff and
faculty and to the administrative people involved in each
school and in the central administration. A priority was
established for each of these 159 recommendations, and
within budgetary limitations and based upon the priorities
as established, a number of these suggestions were put into
actual operation.
Q. And what if anything has been accomplished on the
educational center? A. A substantial effort was made to
obtain land at Lowry Air Force Base, which we learned
was to be declared surplus. We went to a great deal of
effort through Congressman Rogers’ office and Senator
Allott’s office and Senator [1211] Dominick’s office in an
attempt to obtain these for the board. We were unsuccess
ful in doing this. We felt this would be a logical site be
cause of the location.
When we learned that this was unavailable, we at
tempted to get some land in the Platte Valley area, and
we also recommended that Montbello be considered as a
possible site for a central center, such as this.
Q. Has that land actually been acquired to date? A.
No, sir.
Q. Do you have capital funds to go out and buy that
much acreage in the open market? A. No.
Q. Since you have been on the board, have any new
William Berge—for Defendants—Direct
1043a
schools been opened? A. Yes, Traylor Elementary School
was opened.
Q. When was it opened? A. I believe Traylor was
opened in the beginning of the school year in 1968. I am
not sure about that.
Q. All right. A. And Jesse Hamilton School was also
opened.
Q. Prior to the opening of those schools, had children
been bused from the subdistricts where those schools were
located to other districts? A. The children who eventu
ally ended up attending Traylor were bused primarily to
University Park School, which [1212] is a substantial
distance across town. University Park School, I believe,
is located at approximately East Iliff and about South
Fillmore.
Q. After Traylor opened, then that left some openings
at University Park? A. Yes, approximately 200 vacan
cies existed in University Park School after Traylor
opened.
Q. Did the board take any action with respect to filling
that space? A. Yes.
Q. What was that? A. Students from, I believe it was
Smith and Fallis School and possibly Philips, I am not
sure, were moved to University Park.
Q. Was this on a voluntary basis or mandatory? A.
To the best of my knowledge, it was a voluntary basis.
I am not sure of that, but at least that was my intention
at the time, that the advantages be explained to the par
ents who would be going from the sending school to the
receiving school, and they would be urged to allow their
children to make this change, since the vacancies existed.
Q. Who proposed this bus movement in the board? A.
I believe I did, sir.
William Berge—for Defendants—Direct
1044a
Q. Was this plan intended to have any integrating effect
racially? £1213] A. Oh, definitely.
Q. Do you know when that plan went into effect? A.
It either went into effect with the opening of Traylor or
at the beginning of the semester immediately following
the opening of Traylor.
Q. When you became a member of the board, was LOE
then the policy with respect to open enrollment? A. Yes.
Q. And that’s without—the district furnished transpor
tation and, regardless of the integrating effect on either
the receiving school or the sending school, right? A. Yes.
Q. Was that changed during your term of office? A.
Yes.
Q. And how was that changed? A. It was changed
from a limited open enrollment program to a voluntary
open enrollment program, in which the district would pro
vide the transportation for the pupil who was making the
move, and the requirement was also that in order to make
the change from the sending school to the receiving school
there had to be an improvement in the racial composition
of the receiving school.
Q. Do you know when the resolution was adopted au
thorizing this plan? A. I believe it was in—I believe in
November of ’68.
£1214] Q. To become effective when? A. With the
opening of the second semester in 1969.
Q. That would be January, ’69? A. January of ’69.
Q. Was that long enough to educate the public and to
get community acceptance of that plan? A. No.
Q. Now, during the period roughly from April of 1968
to April, 1969, Resolution 1490, the so-called Noel Resolu
tion, was adopted, and there was considerable activity.
Can you just briefly tell us what the chronological pro
William. Berge—for Defendants—Direct
1045a
gression of this was? A. I believe the Resolution No.
1490 was introduced April of 1968, was tabled until May
of 1968, at which time the resolution was passed. Numer
ous public hearings were held on this resolution.
Q. Where? A. Mostly at South High School.
Q. Were they well attended? A. They were extremely
well attended.
Q. Many people expressed their views? A. Many, many
views were expressed and many differences of opinion as
to policies and procedures and programs were stated.
Q. By both blacks and wThites? [12153 A. Yes.
Q .And Hispanos? A. Yes.
Q. And then following the adoption of 1490 in May, ’68,
then what happened? What was the development? A. Dr.
Gilberts went to work on the plan which 1490 encompassed.
I don’t recall exactly when it was submitted to the board.
I know—I believe the original resolution required that it
be submitted no later than September of ’68, but I don’t
believe he was able to complete it by that time and I think
it was submitted to us in October or November of 1968.
Q. And is that report called “Planning Quality Edu
cation,” which is marked as Exhibit D? A. Yes.
Q. Were there some very novel features in this plan,
Mr. Berge? A. Yes.
Q. Now, during this period, was there apparent a sub
stantial difference of opinion and philosophy between var
ious members of the board? A.Yes, I think the board
was united in two things. I think all members of the
board were interested in quality education and equality
of educational opportunity for each pupil in the district,
but there was a substantial divergence [12163 among the
board members as to how this should be accomplished.
William Berge—for Defendants—Direct
1046a
Q. So there was a common, end in which everyone was
in agreement, hut the difference as to means? A. Yes.
Q. Now, with respect to the three resolutions, 1520, 1524
and 1531, was this difference in philosophy apparent
during the consideration of those resolutions? A. Yes.
Q. And during the period of time that these resolutions
were under consideration, were they hotly debated? A.
Yes.
Q.Were members of the public heard on them or was
this basically a board matter at this point in time ? A. As
best I recall, I believe members of the public were heard.
I’m not positive on that point, but I knew they were
vigorously discussed among the board members.
Q. And the three resolutions were adopted by what
vote? A. I believe it was a five-two vote.
Q. Now, prior to the three resolutions, do you recall
approximately how many students were already being
bused in the school district? A. I believe approximately
10,000.
Q. Was it within the contemplation of the board that
this was a permanent busing arrangement for that many
students? [1217] A. No, it certainly wasn’t in my con
templation and I don’t believe it was within the contempla
tion of the majority of the school board members, but I
may be in error on that.
Q. Where were these students being bused? What
categories did they fall in? A. They were being bused
primarily from the newly-annexed areas where there were
no schools to schools where vacancies existed, and it was
my understanding that that would be on a temporary basis
and would not be on a permanent basis.
Q. Were there some students being bused within their
own subdistricts because they lived beyond a certain dis
William Berge—for Defendants—Direct
1047a
tance from the schoolhouse? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And then there were some being based oat. of the
Northeast Denver area? A. Yes, and, of coarse, those
who were physically handicapped.
Q. Special edacation, yoa had varioas categories in that
regard? A. Yes.
Q. What aboat the Montbello area? A. Yes, as far as
the junior high school and senior high school level students
were concerned, they were being bused, and I don’t believe
any of the elementary students [1218] at Montbello were
being bused at that time, because I believe the cottage
schools were able to accommodate them.
Q. What was the reason that yoa did not provide actual
classroom space for the pupils in the newly-annexed areas?
A. Simply there were not funds available for capital con
struction.
Q. Was there a capital bond submitted to the people
recently? A. Yes, sir, in November, 1967.
Q. Now, how big a bond issue did that contemplate? A.
As I recall, it was approximately 35 million.
Q. It was not passed, is that correct? A. No, again, as I
recall, I believe it went down to defeat, approximately seven
to three.
Q. Then came the May, 1969, election, and you had two
new members on the board, right? A. Yes.
Q. What now happened with respect to the members of
the board and their philosophical concepts as the means
by which these goals were to be achieved, or the new board?
A. Well, the philosophy of the board changed in that those
who were proponents of the voluntary plan now constituted
the majority of the members of the board.
[1219] Q. So, the previous minority now became the
majority? A. Yes.
William Berge—for Defendants—Direct
1048a
Q. Then 1520, 1524 and 1531 were revoked, I believe, on
June 9, 1969? A. Yes.
Q. Before those three resolutions were revoked, had any
child under the program contemplated by those three reso
lutions actually, physically changed his school subdistrict
or become subject to mandatory busing? A. Not to my
knowledge.
Q. When was it contemplated that the three resolutions
would go into effect? A. I believe it was the fall of 1969.
Q. The opening of the September term, 1969? A. Yes.
Q. And then immediately following the revocation of
1520, 1524 and 1531, Resolution 1533 was, adopted? A,
Yes.
Q. Could you state for us what policy is enunciated by
1533? A. Well, 1533 is basically the same resolution as
1531, with one phrase added, which phrase appears at the
bottom of Page 3 of Resolution 1533, and that phrase is,
“And that participation by individual families shall be
optional.”
[12203 Other than that. Resolution 1533 is identical with
1531, to the best of my knowledge. In other words, the
complexes contemplated in 1531 are the same as 1533.
Q. Now, can you briefly summarize what 1531 contem
plated? A. 1531 contemplated the pairing of certain
schools into what would be known as complexes and the
participation in these pairings and in these complexes by
the individual schools which were so named. This was to
be done under the direction of the administration and it
was to be done after consultation with members of the
community and with parental representation in the form
of PTA groups and others.
Q. Was this to have a stabilizing effect on the ethnic and
racial composition of the schools? A. I am sure this was
one of the hoped for results.
William Berge—for Defendants—Direct
1049a
Q. That was one of the recitals in the resolution itself,
was it not? A. Yes.
Q. All right, did 1533, the new resolution, retain this
complex grouping idea? A. Yes.
Q. Or concept? A. They are identical.
Q. Were the schools to be involved listed in the initial
resolution? [1221] A. Yes.
Q. Is a resolution of this nature, Mr. Berge, intended to
set out all the details of the plan? A. No.
Q. What is required following an adoption of a resolu
tion setting forth a policy of the district? A. Well, a great
deal more further work is involved. You have to do all the
administrative detail which is necessary to put the resolu
tion into effect. The resolution itself would more or less
or could more or less be described as the skeleton in the
work that’s necessary to make a complete entity out of
what follows after the resolution is adopted.
Q. And then, of course, this litigation came along and
the July hearings and the Court’s injunction followed that?
A. Yes.
Q. All right, now, so far as the four members presently
constituting the majority of the board are concerned, has
there been an opportunity to implement and determine
whether 1533 would achieve its desired end? A. No.
Q. Does the board recognize there is a problem here that
needs some attention, Mr. Berge? A. Oh, there is no
question about that. All of the [1222] board members are
cognizant of many of the problems which exist and I think
all are very sincere and very dedicated and very motivated
in attempting to reach a realistic solution, but the majority
of the board feels that until you can get a plan which the
majority of the people involved will accept and back, then,
regardless of any plan which the board adopts, you are
not going to be able to make it work.
William Berge-—for Defendants—Direct
1050a
Q. Do you think there is a reasonable probability of 1533
succeeding, if given an opportunity! A. Yes.
Q. When—
Mr. Greiner: We object to the witness speculat
ing, Your Honor.
The Court: Overruled.
A. I believe that there is a reasonable possibility of 1533
succeeding, and the reason I make that statement is because
of the tremendous success which the voluntary plan on the
cultural arts program obtained. It is my hope that you
could take a plan such as the cultural arts center, enlarge
it as far as the high schools are concerned. In other words,
you might have certain classes at East High School which
students from Thomas Jefferson and George Washington
could attend, maybe twice a week or three times a week,
or maybe full time, and by getting it started this way, then
people would realize the advantages which can be [1223]
obtained by communicating and by attending classes with
people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds, and would,
therefore, be willing to pursue it on a more intensive basis,
but at least at this level it would receive the backing of
the students and the parents who are directly involved, and,
therefore, would have community support, even though it
might be on a limited basis at the embryo portion of the
program.
Q. Would this require a great deal of public education
and orientation? A. In my opinion, yes.
Q. There has been testimony of one witness, Mr. Berge,
that one of the members of the administrative staff made
the remark that it was the policy of the district with respect
to VOE that they had caused the VOE program to be
formed but they were under no obligation to promote it.
William Berge—for Defendants—Direct
1051a
Is that the policy of the district, or was it? A. It cer
tainly is not, not to my knowledge.
Mr. Ris: Thank you.
Cross-Examination by Mr. Barnes:
Q. Mr. Berge, the genesis of the 1967 advisory council
was concern in the community about race relations, was
it not? A. I don’t think that was the primary genesis of
the council, no. That was certainly one facet of it, in which
we [1224] were all concerned.
Q. There was a great deal of talk about mixing of races
in the schools at that time, wasn’t there? A. Yes.
Q. And a great deal of consideration of how it could
best be done? A. There was some consideration and some
discussion as to how best it could be done. I am not try
ing to quarrel with you, Mr. Barnes. I am trying to be as
factually accurate as I can. I don’t think there was a great
deal of it.
Q. But the term “equality of educational opportunity”
is one which is generally connected to the problem of how
to improve the education of minorities, isn’t it? A. Well,
as I understand the term “equality of educational oppor
tunity,” it is to put each pupil in the district in an educa
tional environment which will enable that particular pupil
to achieve to the best of his potential. Now, that’s the
way I understand the term.
Q. By each pupil is generally meant including minority
pupils who are thought to have been previously not get
ting an equal education, is that right? A. Well, certainly,
minority pupils are definitely considered, yes.
Q. Mr. Berge, does the advisory council’s report state
[1225] anywhere the conclusion that you mentioned that
William Berge—for Defendants—Cross
1052a
the school board had not had any responsibility in the cre-
tion of the de facto segregation in the city? A. I believe it
is on Page 31. “Nonexistence,” and I am quoting from Page
31, “Objective evidence is nonexistent that the Board of
Education or the school administration of the Denver Pub
lic Schools deliberately intended to create such de facto
segregation in certain schools within the district.”
Q. Did the council, to your knowledge, consider the
changes in the Columbine-Harrington-Stedman boundaries
in 1951 and ’52? A. To the best of my knowledge, I be
lieve these were considered in subcommittee meetings, Mr.
Barnes, but whether the full council considered these, I
don’t recall.
Q. Well, do you recall receiving any report about those
optional zones in 1951 and 1952? A. We may have re
ceived them, but I do not recall receiving them or seeing
them.
E1226 3 Q. Did you receive any reports from any sub
committee concerning the boundary changes enacted in
1955 and 1956 from Manual and East, and Cole and Smiley?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Do you recall any substantial study on those changes?
A. Not by the entire council. It may have been by one of
the subcommittees but not by the entire council.
Q. There may have been but you’re not aware that there
was in fact? A. That’s right. I didn’t participate in all
of the subcommittee meetings.
Q. Did the council or any of its subcommittees to your
knowledge study the desirability of construction of Bar
rett in 1959 at the location it was constructed in? A. No,
not that I recall.
Q. Did it consider the boundary changes between Morey
and Byers in 1962? A. I don’t believe so. But again, I’m
not positive.
William Berge—for Defendants—Cross
1053a
Q. Who was the author of the minority report for the
council? A. Stephen Knight.
Q. And he is now a member of the board? A. Yes.
Q. You spoke briefly about the cultural arts program,
[12273 Mr. Berge. How many hours a day does a child
who participates in that program attend wherever it is he
attends? A. As best I recall, I believe the child goes for
—it’s a sixth grade level program. And the child goes
either in the afternoon or the morning for two days a week.
Q. And. it’s optional? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And are there any courses there in math or science?
A. Not that I— There may be now, but when it was origi
nally proposed it was primarily for music, for arts, and
one other factor which I don’t recall at the moment.
Q. I t’s a program designed for non-college preparatory
kinds of subjects, isn’t it? A. Well, I don’t know whether
you would consider music—I think the answer to your
question is yes.
Q. As I have a description here in Defendants’ Exhibit
F, which was introduced last summer, which indicates that
they do such things as making silk screens and play auto
harps and act in plays—that isn’t designed to overcome the
achievement gap, is it, in minority schools? A. No, I think
it’s primarily to attempt to get the children to learn to
work together and play together and understand each other.
Q. Was the superior school program which you described
ever put into effect at Smiley Junior High School? [1228]
A. Certain portions of it were. I believe I stated—let me
clarify it—that within budgetary limitations and based on
the priority as established of approximately 159 recom
mendations which were made a part of our study, the
superior school program was put into effect at Smiley and
at Baker.
William Berge■—for Defendants—Cross
1054a
Q. Can you say specifically how many of the 199 things
were actually done, was different! Ten? Fifteen? Was it
a hundred? Can we get any idea of the proportion? A.
I don’t recall. I believe if my memory is correct that ap
proximately $600,000 was spent on this program.
Q. Let me ask it this way. Has there been any measur
able evidence of improvement of achievement at Smiley
Junior High School or Baker Junior High School as a
result of this program? A. I believe there is some. The
exact extent, I don’t know. I think right after this program
was put into effect some boundary changes were instituted
whereby some of the pupils at Smiley were taken out of
Smiley and sent to other schools, and I think that had some
bearing on the results of the superior school program at
that particular school.
Q. That would have been boundary changes since 1967
at Smiley? A. Yes.
Q. Can you describe them any further? [12293 A. With
the opening of Jessie Hamilton, some of the children in
attendance at Smiley were sent to Jessie Hamilton I be
lieve—
Q. When was that? A. I think that was when Jessie
Hamilton opened, which I thought was in 1968.
Q. Was there a change in the attendance district at
Smiley in 1968? A. I don’t recall.
Q. I don’t mean to be leading you into this. I am not
aware of any such change, and if there is one I would like
to know about it. A. The only one I can think of—what I
thought was the opening of Jessie Hamilton. I may be in
error. It might have been in 1967.
Q. Were there any differences in the implementation of
the superior school program at Baker and Smiley to your
knowledge? A. The composition of the families at Baker
William Berge—for Defendants—Cross
1055a
enabled us to qualify for supplemental funds from the
government under one of the programs and I believe it
was determined that basically there were different needs
at each school, and I’m sure that some of the programs
that went into effect at Baker were not put into effect at
Smiley, and vice versa. Although the particular differen
tiation, I don’t know.
[1230] Q. Let me turn your attention to educational cen
ters which you mentioned. Was it conceived that these
centers would be the location of the advanced or unusual
courses in math and aeronautics and other such subjects?
A. As I recall, and my understanding was that these cer
tainly were considered. But, we had hoped that you would
have multi-purpose buildings so that if you did want to go
into a high school or a junior high school or an elementary
school, then the buildings could be definitely used for these
purposes as well as those which I have identified.
Q. Would they be centers where a child came to study
all day or to study for part of the day? A. Well, I think
it was hoped that they would come there all day. Maybe
not in the beginning, but eventually they would definitely
come there all day.
Q. Did the advisory council recommend that an interim
center be established in the Montbello area? A. It did.
Q. Did it not? A. Yes.
Q. Would it have required bussing of most of the school
children in Denver to get out to Montbello? A. Yes.
Q. Montbello is way out—of north—on the northeast
corner of town beyond the airport, is it not? [1231] A.
That’s right. As I recall we figured that with the annexa
tion of Montbello it was an ideal opportunity to establish
an educational park on an experimental basis and with the
growth of Montbello, you get an area big enough, as I said,
William Berge—for Defendants—Cross
1056a
50 to 250 acres, and in the area—as the area grew, building
schools, which would encompass the educational park. I
don’t believe it was contemplated to bus the children as
such at the inception.
The idea was that with the growth of the area, the area
which was designated as the school area or the educational
park area could grow.
Q. Well, in 1967 when you campaigned for the school
board, was the issue of educational parks discussed? A.
Definitely.
Q. Was it discussed by you? A. Yes.
Q. Were you in favor of it? A. I wanted to try an edu
cational park on an experimental basis, yes.
Q. I would like to turn your attention, Mr. Berge, to
page 129 of Exhibit 21, the 1967 council’s report, and you
will see there a statement of philosophy by the advisory
council. And there are three paragraphs in the center
which I’d like to have you read. These three here. A. “We
therefore hold that the council’s concern is to [1232] im
prove the educational opportunity of all children in all of
the areas of the city and in all of the levels within the
systems. We hold that the neighborhood school principle
is educationally sound for elementary schooling so long as
it does not interfere or impede the quality of education.
We hold that desirable education for our children can best
take place in a school system that is actively involved in
furthering the racial and cultural integration of our school
community.”
Q. Now, isn’t there something of a contradiction in the
recitation of the neighborhood school policy and the same—
the statement as to the recitation of the desire for cultural
integration, racial and cultural integration? A. I don’t
believe so.
William Berge-—for Defendants—Cross
1057a
Q. How can the neighborhood school policy be strictly
maintained and cultural and racial integration be achieved?
A. By the use of a system such as the cultural arts center.
Q. And does racial and cultural integration achieve its
ultimate in the cultural arts center? A. Not achieve its
ultimate, but it’s a step in the right direction.
Q. Has it done anything to improve the achievement test
results in the schools? A. In my opinion it definitely did.
It certainly has [1233] motivated my boy.
Q. Have you got any indication or any analysis of the
effect of the cultural arts program or participation in it—
that it has had on minority children back in their—in the
minority schools? A. I don’t know.
Q. With the music and autoharp playing—that isn’t go
ing to help much on English and literature, is it? A. No,
with the possible exception that it might motivate the child
to exert himself in a more concentrated way on those other
subjects.
Q. Is there any evidence that it has in fact had that moti
vational result; any substantial evidence? Any statistical
evidence? A. I don’t know, Mr. Barnes.
Q. Is there any other way that the conflicting concepts
of neighborhood school policy and the cultural racial inte
gration can be resolved? A. Yes.
# # * # #
[1235] * * *
B y Mr. Barnes:
Q. Mr. Berge, referring then to the report of the advis
ory council on superior schools, was there not a request
by the council that the results of the superior schools pro
gram be reported on? A. Yes, I believe there was such a
request.
William Berge—for Defendants—Cross
1058a
Q. Was such a report ever compiled? A. I don’t recall.
Q. And turning' your attention to the statement that
you made about the advisory council’s recommendation on
voluntary open enrollment, did in fact the advisory council
address itself to that program? A. I don’t—here, again,
now, it has been quite some time, Mr. Barnes, and I don’t
—on reflection, I don’t believe we did. I believe this came
later. I don’t think that was one of the recommendations
of the advisory council. I am not sure, however.
Q. On page 47 of the advisory council report, there is a
list at the bottom of the page of five general recommenda
tions. No one of those includes voluntary open enrollment,
does it? A. That’s correct.
Q. Is there any other place in the report where [1236J
recommendations might be contained? A. Not to my
knowledge.
The Court: Well, all of the three programs re
main recommendations? These were on a voluntary
basis, Mr. Berge? In other words, this would be
optional?
The Witness: I don’t understand your question,
Your Honor.
The Court: Well, you described on your direct
testimony three main purposes or recommendations,
rather. One was to have a cultural center concentrat
ing on art and music. Two, a superior school pro
gram for Smiley and Baker. Three, an educational
center, campus idea. Participation in these was to
be optional, I assume.
The Witness: Not on the superior school concept,
no.
The Court: Well, I mean the educational center
and the cultural center?
William Berge—for Defendants—Cross
1059a
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: So, then yon would have a home room
or home school and then movement to these centers
on an optional basis, is that right!
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: So you would really be operating two
systems, a home or neighborhood school, and then
you would be bussing to these centers on the side,
is that right?
[12373 The Witness: If there were enough people
in agreement who wanted to participate in such a
program, yes.
The Court: But you wouldn’t expect it to be 100
percent, anyway, I don’t suppose?
The Witness: No, and I would anticipate that the
participation would be very small at the inception.
The Court: Thus, this is not unlike the program
suggested by Superintendent Gilberts, I guess, only
his was not voluntary. I think it contemplated that
everybody would participate in this campus idea,
when he testified here at the preliminary injunction.
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: He said that this was one approach,
but I don’t believe that he considered it to be an
optional or voluntary program. His idea was that
the neighborhood school would be the home base
but that you would have a center, a campus, where
special courses would be taken, and he called this
the cluster program, I believe.
The Witness: Yes, I think that’s correct, Your
Honor.
The Court: But you would operate this on a vol
untary basis? I mean, this would be an essential
aspect from your standpoint?
William Berge—for Defendants—Cross
1060a
The Witness: Definitely, just the way the cultural
arts center was operated.
[1238J The Court: There would be no compulsion
about it?
The Witness: That’s correct.
Q. Mr. Berge, turning your attention to page 135 of
the advisory council report, do you see a paragraph there
beginning with the words, “The advisory council,” in the
middle of the page? A. Yes.
Q. Would you read that paragraph for us, please? A.
This is under Appendix 11, School Capacities?
Q. Yes. A. “Thinking Behind Recommendation on
School Capacities” ?
Q. Yes. A. “The advisory council in giving orderly con
sideration to matters affecting the quality of educational
opportunity found that wherever there is a concentration
of any minority racial or ethnic group, this fact, in correla
tion with other social and economic factors usually ad
versely affects the quality of educational achievement.”
Q. So, the council was aware even at that time of the
educational disadvantages of concentrations of minority
students, wasn’t it? A. In some instances, yes.
Q. And in the charge cited on page 102 and 103, at the top
of page 103, there is another reference to the adverse
[12393 effect on educational opportunity on children living-
in areas of concentration of racial and ethnic minorities,
isn’t there? A. Yes.
Q. You came on the board in May of 1967? A. Yes.
Q. And from that time you have been aware of the edu
cational disadvantages of being in or having racial con
centrations in certain schools? A. For some people, there
may be a disadvantage. For some others, it may be an ad
vantage.
William Berge—for Defendants—Cross
1061a
Q. Well, the statement on page 135 of the report of which
yon are the chairman of the committee says it usually ad
versely affects the quality of educational achievement. A.
Yes, there are some results exactly as stated in that para
graph, but that doesn’t mean all the results are that.
Q. Turning your attention, Mr. Berge, to Plaintiffs’ Ex
hibit 29, which is in evidence, on page 10, which are the
minutes of a board meeting that was held June 29, 1967, do
you see at the bottom of page 10 a reference to a statement
made by you, third line from the bottom? A. “There was
lengthy discussion about the implications of the motion and
the amending motion. Mr. Berge contended his motion was
intended to respect to the utmost [12403 degree the freedom
of choice of individuals and to accommodate all of the chil
dren in the city, those whose parents want neighborhood
schools and those who believe that a better education could
be obtained outside of their area. He submitted that the
harmful effects of segregation could not be changed with
enforced integration.”
Q. Now, even at that time while on the board you were
willing to talk about the harmful effects of segregation,
were you not? A. For some people, yes.
William Berge■—for Defendants—Cross
# # # # #
[1241] * * *
Q. All right, considering the neighborhood school policy
to which you have referred, Mr. Berge, the School Dis
trict does not always act consistently with that policy, does
it? A. I think for the most part it does, yes.
[1242] Q. Well, for example, looking at what we have up
here on the easel as the 1956 boundary map, but which will
give us a rough approximation of the location of the schools
1062a
in the district, there is now Montbello district which would
be out here off the edge of the map, would there not? A.
Yes.
Q. And the children from that district and the—from the
junior high school have been transported up until the
Court’s order last summer, up to Lake Junior High? A.
Yes.
Q. And that is in pursuit of the neighborhood school
policy? A. No.
Q. And the Barrett Elementary School which was built
on Colorado Boulevard was built right adjacent to its
boundaries, was it not? A. I don’t know, Mr. Barnes. I
wasn’t on the Board at that time. And I don’t know.
Q. Well, some elementary schools are sometimes built
adjacent to their boundaries? You wouldn’t contest that,
would you? A. No.
Q. And that would be contrary to an idea of the school
surrounded by subdistrict boundaries which are an equal
distance away from it? [12433 A. Not necessarily.
Q. So it would be a modification—probably a modifica
tion which is followed in order to achieve some educational
advantage, isn’t it? A. Again, not necessarily.
Q. What other reason would there be? A. For example,
when Thomas Jefferson was built, it was built at the edge
of the boundary of the city at that time. And then with the
annexations, the city just mushroomed out in that area so
that now Thomas Jefferson, instead of being at the edge of
the boundary, is now in the middle of the district, or the
area.
Q. Well, though, that would not apply to Barrett, would
it, located on Colorado Boulevard? Will you take my word
for it that it is located on Colorado Boulevard? A. Are
William Berge—for Defendants—Cross
1063a
you sure it’s located on Colorado Boulevard! It isn’t. It’s
on Jackson.
Q. Its playground is between Josephine and Colorado
Boulevard?
Mr. Bis: That’s incorrect. Josephine is down near
York Street.
Mr. Barnes: Through this trial I have been saying
Josephine.
Mr. Bis: We have been aware of it.
The Court: We will take not that Jackson is one
[12443 block west of Colorado Boulevard, and it was
at all times. It was never Josephine.
Q. In addition, Mr. Berge, has there not been in the past
while you were on the Board transportation from the south
west Denver, southwest corner of the city all the way
across University Park? You testified to that earlier, didn’t
you? A. Yes.
Q. And that is a good ten miles, isn’t it? A. Yes.
Q. And that is a modification of the neighborhood school
policy? A. Yes, because there were no schools in the neigh
borhood.
Q. Well, there were schools in the neighborhood, some
of which may have been—may have had empty spaces and
some of which may not have? A. Well, they didn’t.
Q. Are you sure of that? A. Yes.
Q. So you transferred the children all the way to Uni
versity Park in order to take advantage of space there? A.
Yes.
William Berge—for Defendants—Cross
1064a
Q. An expense in order to take advantage of an educa
tional purpose, isn’t it? [1245] A. Yes.
Q. Well, is the transportation from Traylor to Univer
sity Park consistent with the neighborhood school policy?
A. I don’t understand your question. Would you repeat
it?
The Court: What he’s saying is—I think we can
save time here, Mr. Berge. The neighborhood school
policy hasn’t been carried out in its very purest form.
There have been some compromises in various ways
in order to utilize the physical plan. As a matter of
fact, your program as a member of the advisory
council would compromise it, wouldn’t it? I mean,
if you had a school and you had other institutions
where you took special classes—this would not be
pure adherence to neighborhood school policy, would
it?
[1246] The Witness: It would be a modification
of it on a voluntary basis.
The Court: Right. So there are many compro
mises with it. I mean, it’s not possible to maintain it
in its purest form, I don’t suppose.
Isn’t this about all you want to develop?
Mr. Barnes: Exactly, Your Honor.
Q. The next question, Mr. Berge, is why if the policy
can be modified or compromised in some instances, it was
not and has not been modified or compromised in order to
promote—in order to overcome the disadvantages which
you noted on the page 135 and 103 of the advisory council
report? A. Because the advantages which are noted in
the pages which you suggested cannot be accomplished
William Berge—for Defendants—Cross
1065a
without community acceptance and participation. And un
til you can get a plan which the majority of the community
will get behind and make work, it’s just not going to be
feasible to put it in operation.
Q. Community acceptance of integration? A. Commun
ity acceptance of modification of the neighborhood school
concept.
# * • • •
[12483 * * *
Q. Well, let’s look at the concept of voluntary integration
for a minute, Mr. Berge. Do you allow children in [1249]
your school district to decide voluntarily whether to go to
public schools? A. Mo.
Q. As a representative of the state or through the—you,
through the school board, you enforce the educational de
cision on the child, do you not? A. Yes.
Q. And whether or not the child perceives the advantages
of this education, he is forced to go to school, isn’t he? A.
That’s correct.
Q. And whether or not the parents perceive these ad
vantages, the child is forced to go to school? A. Yes.
Q. And you don’t leave the educational decision to the
child or to the parent in this case, do you? A. No.
Q. Well, perhaps you’re referring then to the right to
voluntarily choose a school. Is that what you consider to
be important in the—as a voluntary choice ? A. A portion
of it, yes.
Q. There are modifications of that policy, too, aren’t
there? A. Yes.
Q. As a general rule, the child must go to the school in
which he lives, the subdistrict in which he lives, isn’t [1250]
that the case? A. Yes.
William Berge—for Defendants—Cross
1066a
Q. So that child doesn’t have a voluntary choice to go
to any school he wants to in the district? A. That’s true.
Q. And if a child happened to live in the area of the
Traylor School before that school was built, he didn’t have
a choice whether or not to go to University Park? A. That
I believe is substantially correct. I think there were ex
ceptions to that, but basically your statement is correct.
Q. And these limitations on the absolute freedom of
choice are done for the educational advantage of the child,
aren’t they? A. For the most part, yes.
Q. If we modify this voluntary principle on the choice of
schools for the educational advantages of the child and we
do it in this instance I have mentioned, why don’t we do it
again in order to achieve integration? A. You can if you
get the acceptance of the community, the acceptance of the
parents, and those who are going to be involved. But, until
you get that acceptance and that participation and that
backing, you’re not going to make it work. They just won’t
accept it.
Q. Bo you have acceptance of parents and the children
[12513 in having them go to school if they don’t want to go
to school? A. For the most part, definitely yes.
Q. Do you suppose that when public schools were first
instituted everybody wanted to go to school? A. I don’t
know what happened when they were first instituted. I
presume not.
* # # # #
[12683 * * *
Cross-Examination by Mr. Brega:
Q. Mr. Berge, as a result of your being chairman of the
advisory council, did you and the council have occasion to
William Berge—for Defendants—Cross
1067a
study various educational proposals that existed through
out the country? A. Yes.
[1269] Q. And did you have people who were attempting
to determine the answer to this educational opportunity
question that you were confronted with? A. Yes.
Q. And in this regard, did you study states and cities
outside of the State of Colorado? A. Yes.
Q. Was there any answer that was found by the com
mittee that was a complete answer to educational opportu
nity for all people? A. No.
Q. Did you find in your study that the forced busing
that occurred in other cities created an educational opportu
nity that was equal and worked with the people of those
communities? A. No.
Q. What in fact did the council find in regard to forced
busing in other areas? A. Mr. Brega, I don’t recall that
the council made any specific finding as such, but I think
the limited access which we had to the busing which was
done in other areas against the will of the people resulted
in a departure of the whites from the core area to the
outlying and surrounding suburbs and a concentration of
the minority groups in the core area.
[1270] Q. In other words, it was your opinion that the
forced busing aspects of this would leave even a worse
problem than might exist at that time? A. Yes.
Q. Now, in consideration of your voting against 1520,
1524 and 1531, did you take these things into consideration?
A. Yes.
Q. I want to call your attention to a provision of Resolu
tion 1520, and I will read from it, if I may. It is in the
middle of the opening paragraph: “. . . which changes are
ones of the steps designed,” and then it says, “by revising
William Berge—for Defendants—Cross
1068a
and thereafter stabilizing the racial and ethnic composition
of pupil memberships in such schools.”
Do you see that in the opening paragraph right towards
the end? A. Yes.
Q. Was it your opinion that this proposal would in fact
stabilize the racial and ethnic composition of pupil mem
berships over a long period of time? A. No.
Q. Why not? A. Well, because this plan was not pre
sented to the people. It was not explained. It required
mandatory busing of students from a particular area for
the sole purpose of attempting to achieve racial and ethnic
balance and without [1271] any regard to the wishes of the
parents and the pupils involved. Secondly, for the reasons
which I described to Mr. Barnes concerning the imple
mentation of the transportation of senior high school people
for the first time and limiting that to one area and not pro
viding it for all students who were similarly situated. I
didn’t feel that it was worth the attempt to put it into
operation.
Q. Now, turning to Page 5 of Resolution 1520, it talks
about, in Paragraph 1, to recommend further changes in the
boundaries of Smiley so that approximately 850 pupils
who would otherwise attend Smiley will go to other junior
highs beginning in September of 1969. Now, was that on
strictly a racial composition? Was that the purpose of that
paragraph? A. I think it was certainly the major con
sideration of that paragraph, yes.
Q. In other words, what was proposed by 1520 was taking
850 black students out of Smiley and moving them to other
junior highs on a racial balancing basis? A. In my opin
ion, that was the primary consideration, yes.
William Berge—for Defendants—Cross
1.069a
Q. Now, in looking to the bottom of Page 6 of Resolution
1520, the paragraph begins, “It is further resolved that
those pupils entering' their senior year of high school in
September of 1969 and who reside in the senior [12723
high attendance areas changed shall have the option of at
tending the senior high where they previously attended.”
Now, in your opinion, was this a good, valid provision to
put in a resolution for attempting to treat all of the students
equally and fairly? A. Well, it gave special consideration
to the senior high school students. I didn’t feel that it went
far enough. I didn’t feel that the taking of the children in
the sophomore and junior years was fair. I thought it
should have started, if it was going to start at all, with the
beginning of the students when they entered the high
school. In other words, having graduated from the school
which was in an attendance area at East and in an area
which was to be designated as a transfer to South, I thought
it was better that the students graduating from the junior
high school then attend South High School, rather than
disrupting those who were already in attendance, unless
they voluntarily wanted to make the disruption or the
change.
Q. And are these reasons also in addition to the ones
you stated for voting against Resolution 1520? A. Yes.
[12733 Q. Turning your attention, if you will, to Reso
lution 1531, do you have a copy of that before you? A.
Yes, I do.
Q. Down at the third paragraph beginning, “Whereas,
this .Board of Education, having heard the views of citizens
on the said proposal of superintendent, having considered
the racial and ethnic composition, traffic patterns, distances
and memberships, pupil achievement data. . . .”
William Berge—for Defendants—Cross
1070a
Did the Board in fact have all of that information pre
sented to it in its consideration of Resolution 1531? A.
Mr. Brega, I don’t recall that all of these items listed were
actually presented to the Board. I feel that all of these
items were considered by the staff in making its recom
mendations to the Board. But I don’t recall whether all
of these were actually presented to the Board.
Q. Isn’t your opinion that Resolution 1531 in its effect
was merely an experiment?
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, I believe we will object
to the leading nature of counsel’s question to this
witness. I think it is now apparent that there is
no adverse interest between the intervenors and this
witness. There has been no demonstration that this
is a hostile witness. And it seems to me that lead
ing questions are inappropriate. We would object.
The Court: Well, if they are within the scope of
the other examination, why, I think that he is within
his [1274] rights.
I would say this: that they are extra-leading.
They’re not only leading— In other words, I think
you’re doing most of the testifying. But I guess
you’re entitled to if you wish. I don’t think it has
much probative value, though, when you conduct an
examination in this fashion because it is the witness
under oath who really counts, you know. What he
has to say.
Q. What, in your opinion, was the purpose of 1531, the
purpose why it was passed? A. My opinion, and I believe
it was so stated by the superintendent, that this was an
William Berge—for Defendants—Cross
1071a
experimental program and was concerned to some extent
with sociological experiences.
Q. Was it for the purpose of achieving some racial bal
ance? A. I ’m certain that element entered into it, yes.
Q. Did the reasons for your voting no on 1520, 1524 and
1531 differ from the reasons why you voted against it on
June 9 of 1969, at the time it came up for consideration
again? A. No, I don’t believe so.
# ^ * # #
[1283] * * *
The Court: Does the board have any long-term
plans for Manual, Cole; these other schools in the
near east side so as to bring them into equality from
the standpoint of—I mean, for furnishing quality
education ?
That isn’t even a separate but equal system from
what I have heard.
The Witness: Well, I would disagree with that
statement as far as Manual is concerned and partially
as far as Cole is concerned. The board—to answer
your question specifically—does not have any specific
plan other than 1533, which we feel we have not had
and opportunity to really put into effect the way we
would like to do it.
The Court: What’s going to be the eventual an
swer, do you think?
[1284] The Witness: Well, I think the eventual
answer, Your Honor, is basically this: that you’re
only going to get some meaningful realistic integra
tion in this city when you can adopt a plan which
the majority of all segments—and by that I mean
William Berge—for Defendants—Cross
1072a
the majority of the Hispano community, the majority
of the Negro community, and the majority of the
Anglo community—will get behind and sponsor. To
me, it’s totally unrealistic to say to members of a
minority community that you are—
The Court: Well, this isn’t— Certainly, I recog
nize that we have always functioned in political areas
on the basis of government by consent of the gov
erned. That’s desirable. I mean, particularly if
you’re in public office, you know.
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: It’s almost essential. I mean, there
is no problem there. I mean, you don’t have to sell
me that.
The Witness: I ’m not trying to sell you.
The Court: I mean, as a feature. I can see the
value of it. But then I take it that you’re going to
wait until the public accepts the necessity for inte
grating these schools, or the housing patterns change,
is that right?
The Witness: Well, that would certainly enter
into it, yes.
[1285] The Court: Meanwhile, there is just not
going to be any basic change except what you might
work out on a voluntary open enrollment basis, is
that right?
The Witness: That’s the only way in our opinion
that you will accomplish any realistic integration;
is when you get a plan which the majority—and by
majority I mean the majority of the minority areas
will get behind. It’s very revealing, Your Honor,
to get the comments from the Hispano community
William Berge—for Defendants—Cross
1073a
and the Negro community to the effect that they want
to live together, they want to stay there and they
don’t want their children moved out of that partic
ular area. And using this as a major premise, we
feel that the way to get it accomplished on a real
istic basis is to affor to those who don’t agree with
that major premise, the opportunity to transfer their
children to a school which would be a predominantly
minority school. And there are others in the Anglo
community that feel exactly the same way; to afford
them the opportunity to do this.
The Court: Well, I think I have expressed myself
a few times here to the effect that I don’t suppose
that black parents relish the idea of having their kids
go to some far-away school, per se, just for the
ride. Why should they? They’ve got the same ap
prehension that any other parent has.
The Witness : That’s right.
E12863 The Court: They don’t know what’s going
to happen, and they’re going into the unknown. They
don’t know who they’re going to associate with and
they might get into a hostile environment when they
get there.
The Witness: That’s right. That’s been one of
our major concerns.
The Court: I don’t think—I say, that’s their con
cern. But, I’m sure they have concerns. But, un
doubtedly, most of them would be willing to run the
risk in order to get a better education for their
children. You don’t think this is true?
The Witness: Oh, I think they ought to have the
opportunity to do exactly that. That’s the position
William Berge—for Defendants—-Cross
1074a
of the board. And that’s the plan that we’re attempt
ing to foster.
The Court: Now, let me get this straight. Are yon
giving everybody who wants a chance to go to an
other school in, say, the Manual area, the right to
do so, unconditionally?
The Witness: If the transfer would improve the
racial balance to the receiving school.
The Court: And, if there is an opening in the
receiving school. Eight ?
The Witness: Yes, sir, that has to be an element
entered into.
The Court: Well, there is not going to be any
E1287J opening from GW to Manual. Do you think?
I mean, there is just not going to be transfers on
that basis, are there?
The Witness: I don’t know. You would be sur
prised at the interest that’s been displayed. I can’t
answer your question specifically yes or no. We
would like to attempt to explore that possibility. I
know this, Your Honor, that of the 1,543 applications
which we received on a voluntary basis, we were
able to process and implement approximately 687,
if my memory is correct.
The Court: This is at the elementary level?
The Witness: I believe that’s at all levels, Your
Honor.
The Court: When was this? This year?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: This was because you had that many
openings in pure Anglo schools?
William Berge—for Defendants—Cross
1075a
The Witness: And because people were— Well,
for example, at the meeting at East High School
there were two parents, one a doctor and one an
other individual who got up and expressed gratitude
to the board for allowing their children to go from
George Washington—I believe one went to East and
one went to Manual.
The Court: You anticipate, then, that there will
be a large number of people who will pursue this
route from, say, GW or Thomas Jefferson to Manual
or Cole?
£12381 The Witness: Not a large number at first
on a total school day, but I think you will have a
substantial number at first either for certain courses
or for certain days of the week. And when people
do it on this basis and see the advantages, just like
they did with the cultural arts program, others will
follow and then you will be able to magnify the
program and by so doing you will get acceptance
of all portions of the community which are involved.
The Court: Well, coming back once again to this
other problem of improving the standards in minor
ity schools—you don’t have a top-to-bottom program,
a head start and so on, whereby you’re going to bring
these culturally and economically deprived people
into a place where they can compete and truly take
advantage of an educational opportunity?
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: Do you have a program of this kind?
The Witness: Eesolution 1533, Your Honor.
William Berge—for Defendants—Cross
1076a
Jam.es G. Perrill—for Defendants—Direct
[12923 * # #
J ames C. P errill, called as a witness by the defendants,
being first duly sworn, on Ms oath testified as follows:
The Court: Will you take the witness chair? Give
us your name and address.
The Witness: My name is James C. Perrill. I live
at 1324 Birch Street, Denver, Colorado.
Direct Examination by Mr. Ris:
Q. Mr. Perrill, how long have you lived in Denver? A.
Twenty years.
Q. You are an attorney by profession? A. Yes.
Q. You are Anglo? A. Well, I am English, Scotch,
Irish, German, French and Dutch.
Q. Anglo within the context we have discussed it here.
A. I don’t know what that means.
Q. All right, you are Caucasian then? A. Yes.
Q. Plow old are you? A. How old?
[12933 Q. Yes. A. Forty-five.
Q. Are you married? A. Yes.
Q. And have children? A. Yes.
Q. Are they in the Denver Public Schools? A. Yes.
Q. What schools have they attended? A. We have a
daughter who is a senior at East High School in Denver
and a daughter who is an eighth grader at Gove Junior
High School.
Q. How long have you lived at 1324 Birch, or in that
area? A. We have lived fourteen years within a block.
We lived six years in the 1200 block on Birch and eight
years at our present address.
1077a
Q. Where did you live before that! A. At East Tenth
Avenue and Madison Street.
Q. You are now a member of the School Board, having
been elected in May of 1969! A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you held other public office! A. Yes.
Q. What office and when! [1294] A. This may be a
little more than you asked for, but I served as an Assistant
U. S. Attorney for Colorado from 1956 to 1959. I served as
a Denver Municipal Judge in 1959 and ’60, and as Chief
of Staff of the Mayor of Denver from 1960 to 1962, and I
was elected to the Colorado Senate in 1964, took office in
1965, January, and served until January of 1969.
Q. In the service that you had in the State Senate, did
you have occasion to familiarize yourself with any matters
pertaining to education, education finances or minority
problems in general? A. During the four years I was in
the senate there were a number of problems. Of course,
education was an ongoing problem from the legislature,
both in terms of state participation in the formulation of
program and in finances. There were certain minority ori
ented, I think you could say, issues that did come before the
legislature.
Q. Were you in the legislature when the open housing
legislation wTas first enacted? A. Yes, that was my first
session, in 1965.
Q. All right, did you vote for that bill? A. Yes.
[1295] The Witness: Excuse me. I think I know
which bill you’re referring to. Would you please
make sure that I understand what you’re asking me ?
Q. Well, I am referring to the bill that Senator Brown
referred to the other day as being the first open housing
James C. Perrill—for Defendants—Direct
1078a
bill in Colorado. A. Well, no, that was in 1959. I wasn’t
in the legislature.
Q. Was that amended then? A. Well, the amendment
to the existing law—and I was present when he testified—
in the 1965 bill to which he referred to was the one I voted
for.
Q. That was the broadening amendment he referred to
then? A. Yes, it was.
Q. Now with respect to the Denver Public Schools, School
District No. 1, at what point in time and what capacity did
you first become interested in the problems of either the
district itself or any of the component schools ? A. I think
as a parent, we became—our family became involved in
1957 when our older daughter commenced public school.
But, shortly after that—and I don’t recall exactly the year
—our older daughter attended Teller Elementary School
which is at East 12th Avenue and Garfield Street, and I
served on the lay advisory committee of Teller for two or
three years, [1296] probably in the early 1960’s.
Q. Was that advisory committee the same that Mr. Berge
testified concerning yesterday, that he served on? Did you
hear that? A. Yes, I ’m sure it was, because the purpose
of them was rather uniform throughout the School District.
Q. And then with respect to Gove, did you serve in any
similar committee at that school? A. Yes, I served on the
Gove lay advisory committee, although the record will show
that my wife’s name was listed for several years. But, she
never did serve. It was I. She does now, incidentally. But,
I served on that committee from 1964 to 1969.
Q. Were you active on that committee and in parent-
teacher work during that period of time? A. As active as
James C. Perrill—for Defendants—Direct
1079a
I could be. I think it’s fair to say I was active. I was
chairman for, I think, two years.
James C. PerriU—for Defendants—Direct
# * % * #
[1310] * # *
Q. Then at one point in time you made the decision to
run for the board? A. Yes, I did.
Q. You were elected? A. Yes.
Q. And then after you were elected were you the mover
to rescind the three resolutions, 1520, 1524 and 1531? A.
Yes.
Q. And then 1533 was enacted? A. Yes, all the same
evening.
Q. The same agenda? A. Yes, June 9th, 1969.
Q. Now, with regard to 1533, can you explain to the
Court exactly what your position and the position of the
majority of the board was with respect to that particular
plan and what you contemplated by that plan? A. That’s
quite a question.
The Court: Do you want him to break it down?
The Witness: No, no. If I can just be a little bit
deliberate in my answer.
The Court: Okay. Help yourself.
[1311] A. Well, first of all, I had said during the cam
paign that the most basic problem facing the community
and facing the matter of effective operation of the Denver
school district was that prior to the election of last year,
May of last year, the board had—-this is what I said, the
board had created a chasm between itself and the commu
nity. And that, in order for the board to make lasting
1080a
progress and lasting decisions, it had to get back together
with the community.
Now, the reason—the reason I moved to rescind the three
resolutions, 1520, 1524 and 1531—the reason 1533 was of
fered all at the same time was to clear the air in the
community to demonstrate to the community that we were
making a new start, that we were making a genuine effort
to reestablish credibility with the community and soliciting
the trust in the community in what we intended to do in
the community, all of the community, not certain portions
of it; all the community. This is a neat trick today in
Denver or anywhere else. But that’s what we wanted to do.
We felt we had to do this first.
Now, 1533 went with the Gilberts report—planning qual
ity education report at the elementary level as far as we
felt we could do consistent with the framework that I have
just discussed with respect to working with and for the
community. The Gilberts report almost placed participa
tion [1312] in the pairing of schools, in the complex ap
proach to schools, on a voluntary basis, but not quite. In
the instance of participation in the complex approach,
whether transportation that would be necessary from school
to school for specific courses, I don’t recall was ever stated
in the Gilberts report. This is one of the many things left
unanswered, purposely. So that the community feedback
could help determine what these details should be.
With respect to the pairing of schools, the ultimate deci
sion as to whether and to what extent schools should be
paired and participate reciprocally was left to committees
who were to work together from each of the schools in
volved. The committee, if the report were implemented,
the committee could tell the members, the parents and the
James C. Per rill—for Defendants—Direct
1081a
teachers and the youngsters in each school whether they
would pair or not. It would not he shifted to the judgment
of the entire school community whichever school it might
be. And we felt that those resolutions—1531, which was
basically looking down the road to working on the problem
of understanding and the lack of understanding between
ethnic and racial groups in the community, had some good
ideas, but that we had to clarify the fact that no one would
be forced to subscribe to a program, would be forced to
understand somebody else. Because we felt you don’t gen
erate understanding in that atmosphere. So we went as
[1313] far with 1531 as we could, and called it 1533. We
went one step further. Item No. 2 on the agenda was a
motion. It wasn’t a resolution. And it referred to—well,
it was a direction to the staff to get busy on the concept
of voluntary open enrollment program with transportation
provided in each case where the child’s transfer or the
high school and secondary school student’s transfer from
one school to another would improve the ethnic or racial
composition in both the sending and receiving schools.
And this is what I had high hopes for. And I had a speech
prepared June 9th, 1969, which never came off because the
atmosphere was such that anything I said would have been
voted down so to speak by the people Avhose understanding
and cooperation would be needed. But, the design of Item
No. 2, which is really part of 1533 and really part of the
new policy thrust initiated that night—that board meeting
night, was to get the high school youngsters involved in
helping to convince their parents that learning to under
stand people from other backgrounds was a useful thing.
And that, if they could learn this very important considera
tion of life generally in school and then.—then these people
James C. Perrill—for Defendants—Direct
1082a
could learn to live better and more productively and more
harmoniously as adults. And this is not my idea. This is an
idea probably generating from people whose ideas over
the broad spectrum I would probably disagree with to some
extent, but this is a [1314] part of their thinking processes
with which I do agree.
Now, we did not ever propose, and I would never pro
pose that high school youngsters volunteer to go to a
school against the wishes or even will of their parents.
They’re going to have to talk their parents into the advis
ability of this. We’re not in the business of splitting fam
ilies. But, if they can talk their parents into the usefulness
of this kind of experience and helpfulness of this kind of
experience, then we felt the youngsters take the lead on
this and really generate a thrust to make YOE work on a
secondary school level particularly.
Q. And do you feel this had any relationship to either
quality education or offering equality of educational op
portunity? A. Well, I think—your question addresses it
self to two different but important considerations in public
education. They’re both important. One is—Quality edu
cation would presuppose the best opportunity available
for each child to achieve. That’s one thing. And I think
quality education would also—this is my view, which I can
not impose upon the entire community by legislative action
—in my view quality education also encompasses offering
and participating in the case of our own children, in an
experience of learning to know people from other back
grounds. They are both important. They are both part
[1315] of quality education. One is the proper subject of
legislative determination, in my view. That is formulating
the best educational program that will make and achieve
James C. Perrill—-for Defendants—Direct
1083a
the best achievement atmosphere possible and the other
is something that the district has to offer and encourage
and furnish leadership and hope that support will be gen
erated within the community for this business of voluntary
involvement in the social, ethnic, racial problems of the
community. This business of voluntary open enrollment,
offering the children part-time or full-time opportunity of
going to school under another social atmosphere; another
social environment, another ethnic environment, if you will,
as part of their educational process. I think it’s useful.
I’m glad our children go to school within this atmosphere
because you cannot impose this legislatively, inflexibly upon
the entire community.
Mr. E is: Thank you.
Cross-Examination by Mr. Greiner:
[1319] Q. You mentioned that a boundary change at
Gove—-that was in 1964! A. Yes.
Q. That was at a time, was it not, when all of the optional
zones in the school district were terminated, is that right!
A. I really don’t know.
Q. You don’t recall that.
Q. Now, as I recall, one of the areas that was picked up
into the Gove area by that boundary change was the area
served by Barrett Elementary School, is that [1320] cor
rect? A. Yes.
Q. Do you know whether or not the children from that
area were bused into Gove after that boundary change?
A. I know an awful lot of them got there by automobile
and public transportation. I don’t think they were. They
James C. Perrill—for Defendants—Cross
1084a
may not still be bused. I really don’t know. I suppose I
should.
Q. You don’t recall what the distance is from Gove to—
A. I can compute it. I t’s far enough to be bused, I think.
Well, yes.
Q. They are bused, aren’t they? A. Yes, I guess they
are bused if they want to be bused, but a lot of them don’t
choose to be.
Q. And that resulted from a boundary change, a change
in attendance area, is that right? A. Yes.
Q. And those children up in the Barrett area then, by
reason of the change, were required to change schools, were
they not? A. Well, offhand I can’t think of any other
options they would have unless they would move or some
thing like that.
Q. Those children used to go to Smiley, did they not?
[13211 A. I think so.
Q. And then they were mandatorily assigned to Gove,
is that right? A. Boundaries were changed. The word is
yours.
Q. Well, my point, of course, Mr. Perrill, and I think
you recognize it, is that that’s the same kind of activity
contemplated by 1520, 24 and 31, was it not; mandatory
busing? A change in attendance area., and integration?
A. Yes.
[1322J Q. And it worked, according to your testimony,
is that right? A. I think so. I think it worked pretty
well.
& * # * «:
[13363 Q. Now, between January of 1969 and April of
1969 you will recall that there were a series of public meet
ings held throughout the district, were there not, for the
purpose of explaining the three resolutions that were then
James C. Perrill—for Defendants—Cross
1085a
under consideration? A. You had better refresh me a
little bit more. Are you talking about school board meet
ings or other meetings?
Q. School board sponsored meetings. Meetings where
the public was invited to come and give its views on the
proposed resolutions. A. Where?
Q. Oh, was there one at South High School? A. Yes.
Q. Now, do you know what I’m talking about? A. Yes,
I do.
Q. And there were a whole series of those meetings,
were there not? A. There really were not.
Q. How many were there? A. 1969?
Q. Yes. A. Well, the one—I missed a couple because
I was campaigning. The one in January was televised, well
publicized, and I think fits the description.
[1337] Q. What was the subject of that meeting? A.
1520.
Q. 1520 pertains to what level of education? A. Senior
high. And I ’m not entirely sure when 1524 was presented.
I think it was March. I think they had a breather, but I ’m
not sure. I think the board asked for a recommendation
at the junior high level for February but the administra
tion wasn’t able to cut it and they had to put it off until
March—until—anyway, it’s close, if it isn’t right. And
it seems to me that it was April, and this was a month
before the election, a meeting at South High, and I’m pretty
sure, where 1531 was passed. And I think the February
or March meeting on 1524 was at South High and I know
the January meeting was. There were a great number of
people at those meetings that I attended although I didn’t
attend the one in April because I had a conflict.
Q. All right. Now, was one of the reasons, if you know,
for those meetings to explain the plans in order to rally
James C. Perrill—for Defendants—Cross
1086a
community support in their favor? A, That really wasn’t
the way it took place. I think by that time the community
was really polarized.
Q. By what time? A. January, 1969. Polarized spe
cifically on the issues of the approach embodied in 1520
and 1524 and not so much in [1338] 1531, although it got
tainted by the brush in the earlier amendments. There
was one-way communication only and the administration
wasn’t saying anything. 1520 was explained in a closed
type program. It was almost a board conference with
out public participation on January 16th over Channel 6
by Dr. Gilberts. That’s when 1520 was explained. Whether
he went any further and indicated what he felt might be
done a little later with respect to junior high and ele
mentary schools, on January 16, 1969, I ’m not sure. But
that was the only real explanation on 1520.
The night people got up and screamed at the board
on one side of the thing or the other—that would be the
night of January 30, 1969—there must have been some
explanation on 1524, because there wasn’t a special tele
vised meeting over Channel 6, in either this instance or
1531. So there had to be a brief explanation.
But the kind of communication that took place in re
sponse on the part of both sides, people on both sides of
the issue wasn’t very constructive. Nobody listened to
anybody else, unless they agreed with them.
Q. I take it that you recognized, at least as early as
January of 1969, that something was going to have to be
done if these resolutions were to be successful, to rally
community support behind them, did you not? A. I didn’t
think they were good policy in the first [1339] place, good
public policy on the part of an elected legislative body.
Q. Well, I take it then that you would agree that your
James C. Perrill—for Defendants—Cross
1087a
campaign for the school board was not at all designed to
rally community support behind the resolutions, was it?
A. The reason for my campaign was to be elected to the
school board. Part of my campaign was that, if elected,
I would vote to rescind these resolutions.
Q. So you were, in effect, campaigning against them,
weren’t you? A. Well, I felt my candidacy was a little
more important than these three resolutions. But cer
tainly, speaking for the recision of them was part of my
campaign. The rest of it was semantics, I think, isn’t it?
Q. And during the course of that campaign, Mr. Perrill,
did you recognize that there might be these other educa
tional benefits of the resolutions which you described
earlier? A. What other?
Q. The fact that achievement might be raised, aside from
the nice social experience? A. Yes, these are possible
benefits.
Q. I am asking if you mentioned them during your
campaign? A. I mentioned the lack of achievement as a
very important problem in the community. I probably
also mentioned [13403 that I doubted lasting and sig
nificant improvement in achievement deficiencies could be
achieved for the children to go somewhere on a bus to
school away from their own locality.
Q. Well, it’s fair for me to say, is it not, Mr. Perrill,
that during your campaign, the thrust of your approach
to the resolutions was to emphasize their inconvenience,
the fact that children, as you have said, would be trans
ported at distances from their immediate neighborhood;
the fact that extracurricular activities of these children
might be curtailed; the fact, if the children got sick, the
parents would be just minutes away from the school?
These were the things you emphasized, was it not? A.
James C. Perrill—for Defendants—Cross
1088a
Yes, but you’re misstating it, and it may be minor but
it’s kind of important. The way this issue was stated by
me in my campaign was that people felt this way, and
that is an important difference. People felt that the con
venience aspect was an important thing, that availability
for extracurricular activities was an important thing;
the safety factor.
* # * # *
[13423 Q. Now, one of the items which you campaigned
on was the idea of building schools where the children
were, is that correct? A. Yes.
Q. Now, I take it that when you build schools where
the children are in Northeast Denver, those become black
schools, do they not, for example ? A. Mr. Greiner, if you
build the schools where the children are, they are popu
lated by the children in the midenvirons. Northeast Denver
is substantially black. So that’s the answer to your ques
tion.
Q. Right. Now, I take it that you haven’t abandoned
hope, Mr. Perrill, of eliminating all-black schools, is that
right? You think voluntary open enrollment would achieve
that purpose, is that correct ? A. I don’t know that all
black schools ever will be or should be abandoned. I don’t
have quite that much insight because I don’t think we have
the same definition of that term integration.
Q. Well, you understand what an all-black school is?
[13431 That’s pretty clear, isn’t it? A. You don’t really
expect an answer to that, do you?
Q. Yes. A. I understand what an all-black school is.
Q. Of course. And the idea of voluntary open enroll
ment means, as I understand your direct testimony, was
that it would be a device which might eliminate racial
James C. PerriU—for Defendants—Cross
1089a
concentrations; concentrations of minority students in
these minority schools, is that not right? A. No .
Q. No? A. Absolutely not.
Q. You don’t look upon YOB then as a device which
might in fact change a minority school to one which is
predominantly Anglo ? A. Well, look—
Q. Can you answer my question? A. Yes, I can. I can
answer your question. You don’t promote understanding
by mixing people. This in itself doesn’t do it. Integration
—the definition of integration—or integration exists when,
through resources, equal ability to generate resources and
through a complete destruction of resistive-type attitudes,
people are able to live wherever they really and truthfully
want to live. Then you’ve got integration in the community.
I t’s up here. It’s [1344] a community attitude. Now, if
people—if that atmosphere and attitude—if people then
still want to live in somewhat—to some extent in a cluster
situation, then, I’m not going to be for telling them they
have to. I t’s what the atmosphere, the community attitudes
reveal. Now, when you send school kids to another school
for the purpose of helping improve that attitude, that’s
what you’re doing. You’re not sending them to that school
so that you’re going to break down and diffuse minority
school kids throughout the community, because that won’t
do it. They’re going to go back home after they get out of
school.
Q. Well, I take it then that the answer to my question
is that you don’t think—you do not think that voluntary
open enrollment will change a predominantly minority
school to a predominantly Anglo school? A. I don’t
know. I don’t know. I am just saying that that isn’t neces
sarily the objective to be achieved.
Q. Now, when you build the schools for the children
James C. Perrill—for Defendants—Cross
1090a
where the children are—or when you huild additions where
the children are, then—and those happen to he located in
all-black neighborhoods, doesn’t that increase the number
of children, Mr. Perrill, Avho then become located in these
minority schools! A. Well, it certainly does if the people
attending them are the kids within the mid-subdistrict,
yes.
[1345] Q. And that every time you build one of those
additions or build one of those new schools in a minority
neighborhood you create more concentration which then
has to be corrected by some measure, is that right? You
magnify the problem? A. Correct by some measure?
What would be corrected by some measure?
Q. Well, if I have understood some of the other people
who testified here in behalf of the school board, that they
had hopes this program such as voluntary open enroll
ment might in effect desegregate these minority schools,
change them into Anglo schools— Now, I take it you
don’t comport with that view, if I understand you. A.
Well, gee, it just isn’t quite that simple. I think that, if
that could be achieved with respect to any particular school
it would be very much a help. But again, that’s not the
end. This is a means to an end, and maybe that’s where
you and I are a little hung up on that.
Q. Well, I take it the end that you’re talking about is
this cultural understanding, is that right? A. That’s as
good a word as any; as a good a term.
Q. I don’t say that’s the end. But I’m also talking about
another end, namely, for the improvement of the edu
cational opportunity for these minority children. And you
understand that? [1346] A. All right. There are other
ways to do that.
Q. Well, let’s talk about some of those other ways.
What are they? A. I think I just stuck my neck out a
James C. Perrill—for Defendants—Cross
1091a
little bit. I don’t know the entire answer to that question.
And nobody else does. And I ’m not an educator. And so
I ’m really at a disadvantage. But another alternative to
improving the achievement of disadvantaged kids in pub
lic schools generally as it has been presented to me by
educators is that probably—and there is a developing
body of experience and evidence being accumulated on
this point—but probably individualized instruction; dif
ferential staffing, modular construction, even, modern
day techniques of presenting education will do so much to
enhance the achievement opportunity of individual chil
dren as anything else, maybe more. Maybe this is the best
way to go. But at this point in time, nobody knows any
thing conclusively, ironclad, unrebuttable conclusions in
this regard. But I’m beginning to be persuaded that in
dividualized instruction is a very important factor to con
sider in improving educational opportunities for disad
vantaged kids.
Q. Does that mean, Mr. Perrill, that we’re going to
reduce the pupil-teacher ratio to one-to-one!
The Court: I doubt that.
A. That’s not my understanding of individualized [1347]
instruction.
Q. What is your understanding? A. Well, you don’t
hang that up in and by itself. As I understand, it’s part
of the modular concept of education generally. And within
this whole context of education you have kids learning in
all sorts of group compositions, maybe one in a high
school—the wffiole school will learn something, if you can
get them there in one place, through a movie or something
like that. There may sometimes be several classes; maybe
all the English classes at the fifth-grade level at a par
ticular school will learn something together, if you have
James C. Perrill—for Defendants—Cross
1092a
room and yon don’t have too many partitions and yon
can get them together. Maybe all the class in a traditional
sense will take some courses together. But children who
have deficiencies in their production, in their achieve
ment, will be given special attention in terms of attacking
that deficiency at a realistic level.
For example, if you have a seventh grader who is read
ing at a third-grade level, you don’t pretend that child
can read at a seventh-grade level. You have to have a
teacher who is interested in and qualified in attacking
that kid’s problem of reading improvement. So, hopefully,
that kid’s reading ability will proceed from the third-
grade level to the seventh-grade level or at the same level
of [1348 3 whatever grade they’re in at the time they win
the battle. And whatever problems require a one-on-one
situation or really a three-on-one situation, because in
dividualized instruction, I think, presupposes that you’ve
got one teacher, almost always certified, here, and about
three kids in a semicircle around them, and a one-on-three
situation.
A one teacher to three kids, attacking a particular prob
lem that those kids have. Now, the most reoccurring prob
lem is reading, reading deficiencies, but there are others;
mathematics, emotional—lack of ability to get along with
other kids, and whatever their problems are, individualized
instruction attacks the problems that the kids have, par
ticularly when they are deficient and tries to bring them
up at their grade level as fast as possible.
# # # * *
£13943 Cross E xam ina tion by M r. B rega:
Q. Mr. Perrill, would you look at Exhibit B, which is
the blue exhibit that you have before you there? If you
James C. Perrill—for Defendants—Cross
1093a
will, would you turn your attention to page 15 of that
exhibit? This involves the Hallett plan. A. All right.
Q. Does the exhibit indicate to you the change in per
centage of the racial and ethnic backgrounds of the stu
dents in Hallett between 9-27-68 and 9-27-69* A. Yes, 9-
26-69.
Q. What was the Anglo percentage at the school in
September of ’68? A. 10.1 percent.
[13951 Q. What had it become in September of ’69? A.
38.2.
Q. Now, in reg’ard to the number of Anglo students in
volved in that program, would you look at page 16 of that
exhibit? A. All right.
Q. And under the last column, “Participation, Septem
ber of ’69,” as I understand it the participation would only
be Anglos moving into Hallett because they need to im
prove the racial balance, so would you look at the last
number and tell the Court how many Anglo students -were
brought in, in September of ’69? That would be voluntary
open enrollment to Hallett, the last column. A. Well, the
numbers present in September of ’69 were 221.
Q. All right, and how many participated in leaving?
How many of the black students at that time participated
in leaving Hallett? A. 205.
Q. Do you have any feeling as to whether the present
court action and the injunction have any affect on the
efficiency of the Hallett program at this time or the VOE
program itself?
Mr. Greiner: That’s a double question, Your
Honor, and I object to it.
£1396] The Court: Overruled. He may answer.
James C. Perrill-—for Defendants—Cross
1094a
A. I think that community attitudes as such are having
an effect upon the success of the Hallett and other VQE
programs. I do think that there has been a continuation
of the historical attitude not to settle for anything less
than some kind of non-discretionary—that’s not even a
word—mandatory program for mixing children up, and
that as long as there is a chance that this may be the
outcome of legal action, that no one is willing to think
about anything different or new.
In other words, the community is still largely hung up
on the same issues that were generated a year ago, because
there still remains a chance that the policy made by the
Board prior to the election will be sustained judicially.
[1397] Q. Now, in consideration of your presenting to
the Board Resolution 1533 and also the agenda item 2,
I would like to call your attention to the transcript at page
633 when Dr. Gilberts testified, and I would like to just
read a portion of this to question you about 1533, He said:
“That is, as a part of the changing attitude of
the community, a certain amount here of involvement
in salesmanship in terms of the schools’ part is go
ing to be necessary. I believe the participation of
people who do this willingly will be a lot more pro
ductive in terms of definition of integration than
those who are put into situations who feel person
ally they are not acceptable to them.”
And then one other—“Question: Dr. Gilberts,
you’re telling me that mandatory integration is bad!”
And his answer: “No, I’m not saying that. I am
saying that the other approach . . .” 1533—“. . . I
think has some real merit and something that needs
to be tested.”
James C. Perrill—for Defendants—Cross
1095a
Now, when you created 1533, would you tell the Court
whether this was done in conjunction with and upon the
advice of Dr. Gilberts and the administration? A. We
certainly consulted with him. We determined that in sub
stance we were in agreement as to the thrust of the ideas
incorporated in 1533. 1533 was not all some board [1398]
member’s idea. There was input from the administration,
specifically from Dr. Gilberts.
Q. And he also was consulted with the agenda to the
VOE program that you were talking about and instituted?
A. Yes. We were quite optimistic about the motion em
bodied in Agenda Item 2.
Q. Well, did they indicate—did Dr. Gilberts indicate to
you that he thought this would work or could work? A.
Yes. In fact, we had more discussion than that.
Q. Well, I ’d like to bring that out so we’ll know what
went behind this. What was your thinking in 1533? A.
Well, I referred to this I think earlier in my testimony,
but the idea of getting students involved in generating
interest and participation in voluntary open enrollment,
particularly at the high school level, he thought was a good
idea, and he had had thoughts on this technique himself
using student councils, using officers of classes at the perti
nent high schools, and getting the children interested in
helping to change community attitudes, not in opposition
to their parents, but each of them being responsible for
convincing their parents that participation in VOE was a
useful thing and a useful part of their education.
And we even proceeded to the point of starting to
work out some of the mechanics of trying to get students
[1399] together over the summer months of 1969, and it
was about that time that the litigation was filed and sort
of preempted many things.
James C. Perrill—for Defendants—Cross
1096a
Q. Well, what is the Board doing at the present time
for the educational achievement at the Cole School? Are
they doing anything? Do they have anything on the plan
ning board? A. Well, first of all, Mr. Brega, the Denver
Board of Education is a part-time, non-paid board. That’s
a statement of fact, not complaint. We have to rely heavily
upon the efforts and the recommendations and judgment in
educational matters on our administration. Whatever the
administration does can be said vicariously to be action
of the board, to be sure. But it’s primarily the administra
tion that is involved in educational programs with our
encouragement and hopefully our understanding and so
forth.
Now, there are some new things going on at Cole Junior
High School. I ’m not as familiar with them as I should
be. And I’m not even certain how new they are, except
I think they are new as of last September.
One is that there is a new approach to dealing with the
child who is emotionally distraught, for whatever reasons
—maybe he brought the problem with him from home or
maybe he didn’t—from the classroom at Cole Junior High.
[1400] Q. Does this program have a name or do you
call it a name? A. Well, the principal has a name for
the room where these kinds are sent—
Q. What’s that? A. —on a non-disciplinary basis. It’s
called the crisis room.
Q. What happens there? A. “What happens there—well,
I think there is about a—about a ten-to-one relationship
between staff and youngsters in the room. And they try to
get them to settle down, to redirect their interest and their
attitudes towards education and they send them back
to their next hour, regular class, if they have been success
ful.
James C. Perrill—for Defendants—Gross
1097a
The details of what this process involves would depend
upon the situation, depend upon the child and the problem.
Rather than—this is as opposed to just suspending a child.
A lot of these children who end up in the crisis room
might have done something that would serve as a basis
for suspending them, sending them home. But, this is felt
not to be a thoughtful alternative in many cases at that
school by the teachers and the staff. So that this is an
additional tool—a tool in addition to the rather abrupt
and arbitrary decision of suspending a child, keeping
them [1401] there and getting them reoriented.
Q. Are they using additional educational studies for
some of these pupils in this approach! A. Well, in a
sense. There is also another program called the Cole ex
tension, which is not immediately on the school grounds,
and I’m not sure exactly how far away from the school
grounds it is. I think it’s several blocks away—where chil
dren are sent who are terribly far behind in terms of
achievement with respect to their grade level. I spoke of
this briefly earlier in my testimony.
And this example has been given to me by the principal
of Cole Junior High, of a twelve-year-old seventh grader
who was achieving in reading at the level of the fourth
grade; simply was not benefiting from the educational
process at the seventh grade level. As an example, this
child was and has been sent to the extension center and an
attack made upon the educational deficiencies with respect
to that child at the level he or she needs to be picked up.
If the child reads at the fourth grade level and you
start them at the fourth grade level and bring them up
to grade level as soon as possible.
The alternative to this, when a child—and this is some
thing that is in—I think it’s fair to say pilot stage. It’s
James C. Perrill—for Defendants—Cross
1098a
in the development stage as an educational technique and
approach. The thought is that this needs to [1402] be
extended to the high school level. More involved and com
plicated, I am sure, at the high school level.
But, the point being, where the children reach the legal
age where they no longer have to go to school, if they are
reading at the age of 17 at the fifth grade level, that’s a
major contributing factor to the youngster dropping out.
They can’t relate to the school. They can’t relate to
what’s being offered in terms of educational opportunity.
And the only feasible alternative to that child in that
situation too often seems to be just to drop out and forget
the whole thing.
So the approach is, rather than using the absolutely
rigid, uniform, sterotype approach to education so that
everything is taught to the same kids, the same age, in
each school in the city, is to relate what is taught and
how it is taught to the needs of each child as nearly as
we can.
Now, this is in the development stage.
For example, the modular approach to both construction
and education is a new idea in Denver. We have bids let
on the Cheltenham School in which modular education
which would provide the physical means for implementing
a modular type approach to education. This is new in
Denver. But, it’s something we’re moving toward, we’re
moving to ; with starts.
[1403] Q. How about the Board? Has it attempted to
bring in the administrators or teachers? You mentioned
you got this from the principal at Cole. How did you talk
to him? Did the Board bring him in? Or— A. Yes. I hap
pened to sit in on a committee meeting of the Colorado
State Senate Education Committee where a presentation
was made on the success of Senate Bill 174 funds, funds
James C. Perrill—for Defendants—Cross
1099a
to be used for kids in a disadvantaged position in terms
of their education. And the Education Committee of the
Senate wanted to know, “Okay. $2 million was appropriated
by the state for use in local school districts in this area.
And the Denver School District received 800-some-thou-
sand. Now, what are you doing with this?” They made a
presentation.
And Mr. George Morrison, the principal at Cole, made
a presentation of the things that I had been discussing,
what they’re doing at Cole.
Jefferson County made a presentation, and so forth.
I listened to Mr. Morrison’s presentation and a teacher
by the name of Eamona McHindry. Then about—as a
matter of fact, two nights ago, the Board had sort of a
running commentary over several meetings in several
months and had concerns with respect to disciplinary prob
lems and standards in the schools this fall and this winter.
And we were not sure that we understand the nature-—-
the extent of discipline problems that are being realized
or that are generating in schools [1404] generally, but par
ticularly schools where there is transportation involved as
a result of the court order.
So we asked to come in—Mr. Mackie, the principal at
Thomas Jefferson High School, which is incidentally nine
through twelve. We asked Mr. Morrison to come in. We
didn’t personally do it. These were the people who came
in. It was an administration decision, as to personnel.
Mr. Morrison; Mrs. Taylor, the dean of Kepner; the
AP—the assistant principal—at Hamilton Junior High
School whose name escapes me; and the assistant principal
at Merrill Junior High, Mr. Astuno; and in a give-and-take
two-way communication situation for several hours the
Board I think gained tremendous insight into both prob
lems and discipline at the school level on the line, so to
James C. Perrill— for Defendants—Cross
1100a
speak, and problems in scholastic achievements and in
grading.
This we intend to continue to do at the teacher level so
we can gain more insight and perspective of operating
problems, line problems, because it’s almost impossible for
board members who are part time and who can’t possibly
know all the problems and have all the information that’s
available within the district.
But we think that differentiated levels of communication
will be helpful in the operation of the district and in the
formulation of better policy, sound [14053 policy.
Q. I only have one other question. Mr. Greiner asked
you whether you had carried the predominantly black
precincts. Could you tell us whether you carried the pre
dominantly Hispano precincts! A. Yes. On the average—-
well, the so-called Hispano areas to the west, the near west,
the Platte Valley area, I carried approximately three to
one. And, there is something of a Hispano area in the
Harrington Elementary School neighborhood, which is
37th and Cook, I believe, northeast Denver. I carried sev
eral precincts there. And that was an area where former
Smiley Junior High youngsters commenced going—who
lived within the Harrington subdistrict, commenced going
to Hamilton Junior High when it was opened in January
of 1969. And, we carried that.
We carried that area, and I had considerable discussion
with some people up there as to why.
[1406] Mr. Brega: No further questions.
R ed irect E xa m ina tion by M r. R is:
Q. Mr. Perrill, you read from the exhibit to the Agenda,
Item Number 2, which you could not find at the moment
James C. Perrill—for Defendants—Redirect
1101a
any reference to there in the Board minutes of June 9,
1969, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 6. Have you had occasion during
the noon recess to re-examine Exhibit 6? A. Yes.
Q. And do you find the motion set forth in that exhibit?
A. Yes, on page 10. I had forgotten the Interveners’ Ex
hibit Number X, I believe, is incorporated in Exhibit 6 to
the June 9th meeting, on page 10. It is the same thing.
Mr. Ris: All right, that’s all.
jRecross Examination by Mr. Greiner:
Q. I take it that there has been no evaluation of these
programs at Cole ? They are still in the preliminary stage ?
A. Yes, but I think that the staff at Cole is very encouraged
with results and in that sense there has been an evaluation.
No final lasting conclusions have been drawn yet, because
it is new.
Q. Have children been tested for achievement in this
114075 program? A. If they have, I am not aware of it.
Mr. Greiner: No further questions, Your Honor.
The Court: This program is initiated by the staff
at Cole, I guess?
The Witness: Your Honor, I don’t know, but I
think probably the initial idea did come from the
staff at Cole.
# # # # #
James C. Perrill—for Defendants—Recross
J o h n E. T e m ple , ca lled as a w itn ess b y th e d e fen d an ts ,
b e in g f irs t d u ly sw orn , on h is o a th tes tified a s fo llo w s :
The Court: Please give us your name and ad
dress.
1102a
The Witness: John E. Temple, 6036 South Eliza
beth Way, Littleton, Colorado.
D irect E xa m ina tion by M r. C reightons
Q. Mr. Temple, are yon employed by the Denver Public
Schools! E1408] A. Yes, sir.
Q. And when were you first employed! A. January,
1949.
Q. What was your first assignment! A. Teacher of
mathematics at South High School.
Q. And how long were you at South in that capacity?
A. I was at South until January of 1968, with the excep
tion of one year, the school year of 1963-64, when I at
tended the University of Tennessee on a National Science
Foundation Scholarship and obtained a master of mathe
matics degree.
Q. And what was your assignment after South High?
A. I was assigned as a teacher on special assignment to
the Title 3 Art Research Project as an evaluater of that
project.
Q. And how long did that last? A. Til August 18th of
1969.
Q. And then where were you assigned? A. I was as
signed to the Office of Planning Research and Budgeting of
the Denver Public Schools as a coordinator.
Q. Now, is that department the present form of what
was formerly called the Department of Budgetary Ser
vices? A. Yes, this department now includes the Depart
ment of Budgetary Services, yes.
Q. And can you tell the Court what the Department of
[1409] Budgetary Services has done over the years in
connection with pupil membership data? A. Well, the
principals send reports to the administration building con
John E. Temple—for Defendants—Direct
1103a
taining all the membership figures, and these are compiled
in the Office of Planning and Research and Budgeting, which
was formerly Budgetary Services.
Q. And you are still in that office! A. Yes.
Q. And since going there last August, have you par
ticipated in the preparation and assembling of certain ex
hibits for this trial! A. Yes.
* * * * *
[14123 Q. Mr. Temple, I hand you Defendants’ Exhibit
DA, which is now in evidence, and as Mr. Greiner has
pointed out, this shows the percentage of new teachers
employed in the schools during the period 1962 to ’68 with
previous teaching experience. Would you tell the Court
just generally over that period of seven years what per
centage of teachers in the schools have had experience!
[14133 A. Well, about the—
The Court: This will be the percentage of new
appointees!
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: To the system.
A. (Continued) About the lowest percentage was in 1964
when it was approximately 37 percent; during this period
the highest percentage of new teachers with previous teach
ing experience was about 50 percent, and for the other
years it ranges between around 37 percent and 50 percent.
The Court: So, 37 to 50!
The Witness: Yes, Your Honor.
The Court: Are the figures.
Q. Now, then, Mr. Temple, I hand you Defendants’ Ex
hibit DB, which, as has been said, shows the percentage
John E. Temple—for Defendants—Direct
1104a
during those years new teachers in the system with three
or more years’ teaching experience. Now, is three years
the period of time in the Denver Schools which leads to—
which must be served to lead to tenure? A. That’s correct.
Q. How do those percentages run in those seven years?
A. From a high percentage in 1966 and ’67 of approxi
mately 24 percent down to the lowest on this chart shows
about 17 percent in 1968.
Q. And finally I hand you Defendants’ Exhibit DC,
[1414] which shows the percentage of teachers in the
years wTe have mentioned, new teachers, having master’s
degrees, and what are the highest and lowest there again?
A. The low was in 1962.
Q. The first year of that series? A. Yes, and it was
approximately I would say three and a half percent, and
the high year was 1965 and it was approximately ten and
a half percent.
Q. What was the second high year? A. Second high
year was about a tie between 1966 and ’68, when it was
approximately 10 percent.
Q. And what has been the general trend in that regard?
A. Well, it has been steadily upward.
Mr. Creighton: All right, does the Court wish to
see them?
The Court: These all start out as probationary
appointees, I guess, just as if they were coming into
the system?
The Witness: Yes, for the first time in Denver.
The Court : So, having no seniority, they must
accept whatever assignment they are given?
The Witness: To the best of my knowledge, yes.
John E. Temple—for Defendants—Direct
1105a
The Court: They have no right to request any
particular one?
The Witness: No, sir.
# * * * *
[1421] Q. In terms of numbers in the elementary schools
over the period in question, what has been happening to
the absolute number of Anglo pupils? A. The absolute
number of Anglo pupils has decreased [1422] from ap
proximately 41,000 in May, 1962, to approximately 32,500
in September of 1969.
Q. In the meantime, what has been happening to the
Hispano category? A. In May of 1962 there were ap
proximately—I’d say—9,000 Hispano students. In Sep
tember, 1969, approximately 13,000.
Q. And the Negro category? A. In May of 1962 there
were approximately 6,000 Negro elementary school pupils
and in September of 1969 approximately 8,000.
Q. And then, showing you Exhibit EE, Mr. Temple,
does this show that same data in terms of percentages ? A.
Yes.
Q. Similarly, has the percentage of Anglo membership
declined during that period in elementary schools? A,
Yes.
Q. And similarly has the percentage of Hispano and
Negro membership increased in the schools as a whole?
A. Yes.
The Court: But not to a commensurate degree?
The overall population is decreasing? Everybody?
The Witness: Yes. Well—
The Court: The decrease in the Anglo—
The Witness: The total number of membership,
[1423] though, has increased to some degree.
John E. Temple—for Defendants-—Direct
1106a
The Court: Oh, has it?
The Witness: In the period, I believe. Hasn’t it?
From 1962 to 1968 or ’9?
The Court: You said the Anglo pupils decreased
from 41,000 to—
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: —32,000.
The Witness: I thought you said, Your Honor,
that the total membership for all races had decreased
over the years.
The Court: Well, I meant the total overall popula
tion in the elementary schools.
The Witness: Oh, in the elementary schools?
The Court: On the decrease?
The Witness: I would have to check this record.
I think it has, though.
The Court: Would you say so?
Mr. Creighton: Well, the Exhibit D, Your Honor,
shows it’s leveled off.
The Court: We may be gaining some seats then,
you think?
Mr. Creighton: Well, the record is that generally
speaking, Your Honor, memberships have leveled
off. It is somewhat different as among the three
levels. I think the [1424] best evidence we have in
this case is the Exhibit D, the Gilberts report, which
has a graph to that effect.
Mr. Brega: Your Honor, the total school popula
tion—we do have the figures in the exhibit. In 1962
it was 96,370. And in 19—in September, 1969, it’s
96,534. An increase of maybe some odd—
The Court: That includes every level?
The Witness: Yes.
John E. Temple—for Defendants—Direct
1107a
The Court: We’re just talking about—-
Mr. Brega: I have to say the figure I read for
1962—excuse me—was a projection for 1962 esti
mate. 96,370.
The Court: Well, that undermines it somewhat.
(Whereupon, Defendants’ Exhibits EA, EB, EC,
ED, EE, EF, EG and EH were received in
evidence.)
Mr. Creighton: Our next offering, Tour Honor, is
Exhibits EM, EN and EQ, all of which—
Mr. Greiner: No objection.
The Court: They will be received.
(Whereupon, Defendants’ Exhibits EM, EN and
EQ were received in evidence.)
Q. Mr. Temple, let me just show you as an example of
these three exhibits, EM. Is that a bar graph? A. Yes,
sir.
[1425] Q. What does it show? A. That shows the ex
penditures of federal project funds in the elementary
schools from the period of September 1968, to August 31st,
1969.
Q. And does it give us the total amount at the elementary
level? A. Yes, it shows in the left-hand side—the bar
shows the total amount of federal project funds that were
spent in all the elementary schools in Denver.
Q. About how much was that? A. Nearly $600,000.
Q. And then have you selected two categories of schools
for your next two bars? A. Yes.
Q. What were those categories? A. The second cate
gory-—those are the schools the plaintiffs had selected as
minority schools and I think there were 20 schools in that
group.
John E. Temple—for Defendants—Direct
1108a
Q. And the next bar? A. Those were the elementary
schools that the plaintiffs had selected as Anglo schools.
Q. Then the final and fourth bar shows what? A. That
shows the amount of federal project funds that were spent
in all of the other elementary schools in Denver during that
same period.
[1426] Q. During that period how much of these funds
was spent or received by the so-called 21 selected Anglo
schools? A. I believe at that particular level it was zero.
Q. And how much was spent at the so-called selected
minority schools? A. A little over $500,000.
Q. And the other two categories show the same data,
arranged the same way for the junior and senior high
school levels? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Creighton: Next, Your Honor, we offer Ex
hibits CG and Cl.
Mr. Brega: Your Honor, could I correct that fig
ure now? I do have the totals in 1962. I t’s 90,438,
as opposed to the present 96,000 some.
The Court: You were right in principle, though.
Mr. Brega: Well, I didn’t want it to be said I was
trying to mislead the Court intentionally.
The Court: Well, that never occurred to me as a
possibility.
Mr. Greiner: We have no objections, Your Honor.
The Court: CG and Cl will be received.
(Whereupon, Defendants’ Exhibits CG and Cl
were received in evidence.)
Q. Placing before you, Mr. Temple, Exhibits CG and Cl,
[1427] do they both relate to the same general subject
matter? A. Yes.
John E. Temple—for Defendants—Direct
1109a
Q. What is that? A. The people participating in limited
open enrollment in the Denver schools from 1965 through
1968.
Q. The first of the two, Mr. Temple, Exhibit CG, shows
what? A. That shows the actual number of pupils by
ethnic group now participating in limited open enrollment
program and also the total number of pupils participating
in the limited open enrollment program during those four
years.
Q. And what are the three ethnic groups! A. Hispano,
Negro and Anglo.
Q. Does the total of the line graph indications for those
three groups then equal the total shown near the top of
the graph of the overall total. A. Yes.
Q. Can one tell from that then in 1968 how many pupils
in the Denver schools were participating in limited open
enrollment? A. Approximately 970.
Q. And how many of that group were Negro? A. Ap
proximately 470.
Q. And the other two groups are similarly shown, is that
right? [14283 A. Yes.
Q. Then, turning to Exhibit Cl, Mr. Temple, what does
that show about limited open enrollment? A. This shows
the percent of the total Anglo, Negro and Hispano groups
that were participating in limited open enrollment pro
gram during the same years.
Q. Is that a percent of the group itself?
The Court: This is from 1965 to 1968?
The Witness: Yes, Your Honor.
Q. And the percentage appears—for example, the Negro
percentage—is that for all the Negroes in the city who
participated in LOE? A. That’s correct.
John E. Temple-—for Defendants—Direct
1110a
Q. Taking, for example, 1968, Mr. Temple, does that in
dicate what percentage of Negro students in the Denver
schools were participating in LOE? A. That is correct.
Q. What is that percentage, approximately? A. The
average is over three and a half percent of all the Negro
pupils in Denver schools in 1968 that were participating
in limited open enrollment program.
Q. How does that compare with the Hispano category?
A. Of all the Hispano pupils—about—I would say one-
half of one percent were participating in limited open
enrollment.
[1429] Q. How about Anglos that year? A. That would
be a little bit less than—probably—less than one-half of
one percent. About four-tenths of one percent.
Q. Mr. Temple, you previously indicated you had worked
up enrollment figures. Have you had occasion to study the
kinds of figures the school district uses in its enrollment
projections for planning purposes? A. Yes, I have.
Q. First of all, where does the data come from? A. It
comes from—once again, the principals to the office of
planning, research and budgeting.
Q. And do the principals send in that at certain inter
vals? A. Yes, they do.
Q. Is any particular data selected for planning and tab
ulation purposes? A. It seems to me that the end of the
fourth week, that is really the second report there, there is
usually one report sent in about the end of the first week of
school and the second one is sent in at the end of the
fourth week of school, and that seems to be the one that is
used quite often for future planning.
Q. Mr. Temple, I show you Exhibit 20, which is the
Voorhees report, and particularly in its appendices, [1430]
John E. Tem.ple—for Defendants—Direct
1111a
beginning at Page 21 of the appendix, where membership
data for the various schools is given, what date is used
there? A. 9/28/62, and 9/27/63.
Q. And I show you Exhibit 405, which is the 1962 plan
ning study. Are you familiar with this document? A. Yes.
Q. Have you studied it—the sources and nature of the
1961 actual membership shown on the various tabulations
there? A. Yes, I have.
Q. What principals’ report was used for that? A. I’m
sure that this was the late September report, the one after
the fourth week of school.
Q. Now, the plaintiffs have used average daily member
ship, Mr. Temple, from time to time, in discussing mem
berships. Can you tell the Court how average daily mem
bership is determined by the schools? A. Well, they take
the membership for all of the days of the school year when
their pupils are in school. They take that sum and divide
it by the total number of days that the pupils are in school.
Q. When can that tabulation be made? A. At the end
of the school year.
Q. Is it made in the summer? [14313 A. Yes.
Q. Could that figure ever be available during the school
year? A. No.
Q. I also show you Exhibit CF, which is the sequel to
405. What membership figures does it use for its current
actual membership? A. 9/28/62.
Q. Is that, again, the fourth-week-in-September report?
A. Yes.
[1432] Q. Now, Mr. Temple, have you studied pupil
memberships in the various schools for other years than
the years mentioned in 20-405 and CF I just mentioned?
A. Yes, I have.
John E. Temple—for Defendants—Direct
1112a
Q. And have yon made a study of how capacities of
schools are determined in the planning documents I just
mentioned, Exhibits 20-405 and CF? A. Yes.
Q. At the elementary school, Mr. Temple, during those
years covered by those exhibits just mentioned, which
would be 1961, ’62 and ’63, how were capacities of elemen
tary schools figured? A. The number of classrooms, in
cluding libraries but not gymnasiums, was multiplied by
30, and that is with the exception of rooms that are desig
nated as kindergarten rooms are given a capacity of 60
and rooms designated as special education rooms are given
a capacity of 15 pupils.
Q. Now, have you studied the capacities and member
ships at Columbine, Harrington, Park Hill, Stedman, and
Barrett in the years 1958, 1959 and 1960? A. Yes, I have.
Q. And I show you an exhibit marked for identification
Defendants’ Exhibit CA, and ask you if you compared
that? A. Yes, I did.
[1433] Q. And is that prepared from official School Dis
trict records? A. Yes.
Q. And the analysis you have just described? A. That’s
correct.
John E. Temple—for Defendants—Voir Dire
Mr. Creighton. Exhibit CA is offered.
Mr. Greiner: I would like to examine the witness
briefly, if I may, Your Honor.
The Court: All right.
V oir D ire E xam ina tion by M r. G re in er:
Q. What was the formula used to show or to determine
the capacity reflected on Defendants’ Exhibit A for Colum
bine in 1958? A. In 1958, for the room counts, I used
some room tabulations reports that have been in use in
1113a
Planning Services, and then I used—I took that number of
rooms, multiplied it by 30, and also from the membership
reports at the end of the fourth week, 1958, I found the
number of pupils that were at Columbine in kindergarten
classes, and also the number if any that were in special
education.
Q. Now, is it true, Mr. Temple, that in 1958 the School
District was using a formula different from the one that
you have just described that you used? A. I don’t think
so in 1958. There have been other [1434] formulas used,
different formulas used. For example, I know the formula
used in the planning report in 1955 and the one for 1962
used different formulas than mine, but I believe from
about ’58 on I didn’t see any reports just telling me what
the formula was.
Q. Well, do you recall what the ’62 planning report
showed for the capacity of the schools listed on the ex
hibits ?
John E. Temple—for Defendants—Voir Dire
Mr. Creighton: Is counsel referring to Exhibit
405?
Mr. Greiner: Yes.
Mr. Creighton: Will you show it to him?
Q. I just wanted to see if we can confirm that the same
formula was used. A. Columbine, the adjusted capacity
they say was 1185. Now—-
Q. Pardon me, but what do you show the capacity—of
course, that spoke as of what date? 1962, and the only
other planning report we have is 1955, is that right? You
don’t have the subsequent planning reports between ’55
and—- A. No.
Q. Do you have those back at your office? A. No.
1114a
Q. Were there some? [14353 A. Not to my knowledge.
This stated the capacity. The ones that I have used are
these actual room counts, this ’62 report, and I have also
looked at ’55 and ’62 reports.
Q. I notice that Exhibit 405 shows that the capacity of
Columbine as of February, 1962, was 1185 students, yet
Defendants’ Exhibit CA shows the capacity at Columbine
to be 570. Now, was part of that differentiation due to an
addition built on Columbine? A. That’s correct.
Q. When was that addition? A. Well, there were two
additions, one in 1959 of seven rooms and one in 1961 of
fifteen rooms.
Q. Now, is there also an addition built to Harrington
between—that’s another of the schools listed on CA— be
tween 1958 and 1962? A. These room count sheets show
that there were six additional rooms added on to Harring
ton in 1963.
Q. But not in 1962? A. No.
Q. Well, I note that Exhibit 405 shows Harrington with
a capacity of 570 from the published data of the School
District, and Defendants’ Exhibit CA shows it at 450. Now,
can you explain that difference?
Mr. Creighton: Counsel, if you are reading from
[14363 page 9, you get 570, but if you read from
page 8 you get 450.
Mr. Greiner: I am sorry. Am I reading from the
wrong page?
Mr. Creighton: A different page.
Mr. Greiner: It just says adjusted building capac
ity on page 9.
A. Harrington shows a capacity of 450.
Q. 450. Park Hill— A. Park Hill, 660.
John E. Temple—for Defendants— Voir Dire
1115a
Mr. Greiner: Park Hill, 660, and the next school,
Stedman, 630. Very good. Then we have no fur
ther questions as to this exhibit, Your Honor.
The Court: We will receive it.
(Defendants’ Exhibit CA was received in evi
dence.)
The Court: I have to call a halt, and I am sorry
it worked out this way. I don’t know whether I made
it clear last night that we were going to have a short
session this afternoon.
Mr. Greiner: Yes.
Mr. Creighton: We understand, Your Honor.
The Court: We will take up Monday at 1:30, be
cause I have arraignments Monday morning, the
criminal arraignments, and I think we will be able
to finish next
* # # * #
[1440] * * *
The Court: Mr. Temple, you have been sworn. So,
just be seated.
D irect E xam ina tion by M r. Creighton (Cont’d ) :
Q. Mr. Temple, when we broke off last week you had
just testified regarding Exhibit CA which is now in evi
dence. Have you prepared a bar graph with respect to
the data shown on Exhibit CA? A. Yes.
Q. I hand you an exhibit marked for identification Ex
hibit CB. And I ask you if that exhibit shows the data in
tabular form on Exhibit CA. A. Yes.
Mr. Creighton: Exhibit CB is offered.
Mr. Greiner: No objection, Your Honor.
John E. Temple—for Defendants—Direct
1116a
Mr, Brega: No objection.
The Court: CB will be received.
(Whereupon, Defendants’ Exhibit CB was re
ceived in evidence.)
Q. Now, Mr. Temple, I have before you Plaintiffs’ [14413
Exhibit BA and BB, which show the elementary bounda
ries respectively in 1959 and 1960. Now, the Barrett School
was opened what year? A. 1960.
Q. In Exhibits CA and CB, Mr. Temple, you have shown
Columbine, Harrington, Stedman and Park Hill for all
three years and then Barrett, finally, in 1960, the year it
was opened. What is the relationship among these schools?
A. Well, the relationship is that Stedman, Columbine and
Harrington are all adjacent to where the new school was
constructed in 1960.
Q. Drawing your attention to Exhibit BA, is there an
optional area in the vicinity of the Barrett site? A. Yes.
Q. And what is that optional with? It’s Code I. Can you
read from there?
The Court: Now, let’s see—you’re talking about
Columbine, Harrington and Stedman?
Mr. Creighton: Yes, sir.
The Court: You remember, we have been out of
action for a few days, and so if you will just slow
down a little bit, I think we can get organized here.
A. I believe it’s optional between Columbine and Harring
ton, isn’t it?
Q. Well, the code reads Columbine and Park Hill. [1442]
A. Yes.
Q. All right, Mr. Temple. Your Exhibits CA and CB
then relate to Columbine School, Harrington School, Sted-
John E. Temple—for Defendants—Direct
1117a
man School and Park Hill School; is that correct? A.
That’s correct.
Q. And you testified that Columbine, Harrington and
Stedman are adjoining the Barrett site, and Park Hill’s
relationship with that site is what again? A. A little bit
southeast.
Q. And is it within an optional area covered by the Bar
rett site? A. Yes.
[1443] Q. Now, would you just summarize for the Court
the capacity utilization situation among Columbine, Har
rington, Stedman and Park Hill two years before Barrett
opened in 1958? A. 1958, Columbine’ capacity utilization
was 148; Harrington, 141; Park Hill, 128; and Stedman,
113.
Q. Now, the nest year, was there a change in Colum
bine’s capacity utilization?
The Court: Are you talking about percentages?
Mr. Creighton: Yes, sir, these are percentages.
The Witness: Yes.
A. Yes, there was a change in Columbine’s capacity.
Q. What brought that about? A. It was an addition.
I believe it was about seven rooms.
The Court: What year was this?
The Witness: 1959.
Q. So what happened to Columbine’s capacity utiliza
tion between 1958 and 1959? A. Well, it decreased from
148 in ’58 to 161 in ’59.
Q. Meanwhile, between those two years, ’58 and ’59, Mr.
Temple, what was happening to Harrington’s capacity
John E. Temple—for Defendants—Direct
1118a
utilization? A. Well, Harrington kept increasing the next
year from 141 in ’58 to 153 in 1959.
Q. And where was Park Hill’s capacity utilization in
[1444] these two years, ’58 and ’59? A. It stayed pretty
much the same. It was 128 in 1958 and 130 in 1959.
Q. And those are percentages are they? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How about Stedman’s for those two years, 1958 and
1959? A. Well, Stedman decreased a little bit from 113
in 1958 to 109 in 1959.
Q. And were all four schools you have been testifying
concerning overcapacity in 1959? A. Yes.
Q. Now, in 1960, do you show the situation among those
four schools plus Barrett? A. That’s correct.
Q. And were all five schools overcapacity in 1960? A.
Yes, Park Hill was very slightly over.
Q. What happened to Stedman between 1959 and 1960?
A. It increased from 109 percent to 121 percent.
Q. Was some relief given to Harrington, which had been
153 the previous year? A. Yes, from 153 in 1959 to 121
in 1960.
The Court: You skipped over that optional area
between Park Hill and Columbine. Wasn’t that the
one you spoke of, you asked him about a few
moments ago ?
[14453 Mr. Creighton: Yes, I asked him—
The Court: That was before the building of Bar
rett, is that right?
Mr. Creighton: Yes.
The Court: Of course, that went as soon as Bar
rett was built, is that right?
Mr. Creighton: Yes.
Q. Mr. Temple, following the opening of Barrett as
shown on Exhibit BB, was the optional area formerly he-
John E. Temple—for Defendants—Direct
1119a
tween Columbine and Park Hill still in existence? A. No,
it wasn’t.
Q. And, Mr. Temple, have you examined the School Dis
trict records to determine approximately bow many—•
The Court: We grappled with that problem in the
preliminary injunction, remember?
Mr. Creighton: Yes.
The Court: And we found some fault with the
decision to build Barrett and to change these stu
dents from Park Hill to Barrett.
Mr. Creighton: Yes, these two exhibits, Your
Honor, are specifically being offered in connection
with the Barrett findings of last summer.
The Court: Eight, okay.
Q. Mr. Temple, did you check the School District rec
ords to determine the approximate numbers of pupils going
[1446] from the Option Area I on Exhibit BA, which was
in the Columbine area that year, to Park Hill? A. Yes.
Q. About how many in 1959, the year before Barrett?
A. I think t was about 200.
Q. And do you know whether they were going by bus?
A. Yes, I believe they were being bused.
Q. Now, Mr. Temple, let me show you two exhibits put
in evidence by the plaintiffs, being Exhibits 215 and 215-A.
The Court: Your point is that this was the neces
sity, the crowding of the situation produced this
decision, is that right?
Mr. Creighton: Yes, Your Honor, we think the
last two exhibits show that all the schools having a
relationship to the Barrett site were overcrowded,
John E. Temple— for Defendants—Direct
1120a
that the planning of Barrett achieved exactly what
it was designed to do, namely, to equalize the capac
ity utilization of the related schools, and further to
show that Stedman in the year after the change
actually increased in its capacity utilization.
The Court: To a point where it was impossible
to accommodate everybody at that school?
Mr. Creighton: Yes.
Q. Mr. Temple, I am showing you Exhibits 215 and
215-A, which taken together are capacity utilization tables
at the junior high level from 1951 to ’63. Have you exam
ined those [1447] exhibits? A. Yes, I have.
Q. Now, Exhibits 215 and 215-A shows, does it not, a
major addition at Smiley effective in 1952? A. Yes, ac
cording to that exhibit.
Q. I hand you Exhibit 24, Mr. Temple, a Plaintiffs’ Ex
hibit, and directing your attention to page 53, I will ask
you if that shows the date of construction and the date of
additions to Smiley. A. Yes, it does.
Q. And what was the date of construction? A. 1928.
Q. And what was the next addition? A. 1950.
Q. Have you checked the room count figures and data
of the School District in connection with Smiley? A. Yes,
I have.
Q. Does it show an addition in 1950? A. Yes.
Q. Does it show an addition in 1952? A. No, it does not.
Q. Have you recomputed the capacity utilization per
centage for Smiley for 1951, using the same capacity as
1952? A. Yes.
Q. And I hand you two exhibits marked for identifica
tion, [1448] Defendants’ Exhibit 215-B and 215-C and ask
you if you prepared those. A. Yes.
John E. Temple—for Defendants—Direct
1121a
Q. And what have yon done in preparing those two ex
hibits? A. 1 just changed the capacity of Smiley back
to 1447, clear back to 1951, instead of 1952, as it was.
Q. And have you used copies of the plaintiffs’ original
exhibits for that purpose? A. Yes.
Q. And what is the corrected percentage capacity util
ization for Smiley in 1951? A. I computed it to be 85
percent.
Mr. Creighton: Defendants’ Exhibits 215-B and
215-C are offered.
Mr. Greiner: No objection.
The Court: They will be received.
(Whereupon, Defendants’ Exhibits 215-B and
215-C were received in evidence.)
Q. Mr. Temple, I show you Exhibit marked Plaintiffs’
Exhibit 210, received in evidence, which is the capacity
utilization table for Manual-East during the period 1951
to 1961. Have you examined that exhibit ? A. Yes, I have.
Q. Does Exhibit 210 show that certain years are missing
£14493 for the computations? A. Yes, I believe there are
three years that are missing.
Q. And what would those be? What years? A. 1955
and 1957 and 1959.
Q. Now, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 210 uses what figure for
their memberships? A. They use the average daily mem
bership.
Q. And that is computed at what time of the year? A.
During the summer after the completion of the school
year.
Q. Do you know what membership figure is used for
staffing purposes at schools? A. It’s my understanding
John E. Temple—for Defendants—Direct
1122a
that it’s the membership figure at the end of the fourth
week of school, in the fall.
Q. Is that membership report regularly reported to
budgetary services? A. Yes, it is.
Q. Is it available for all years shown on Exhibit 210?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you made a determination what the capacity
utilization figures would be for the years covered by Ex
hibit 210 if the fourth week in September membership
figures were used? A. Yes, I do.
[1450] Q. And does this change the capacity utilization
figures from those shown on Exhibit 210? A. Yes.
Q. In general, what direction does the change occur?
A. Well, for Manual—
Q. Just in general, Mr. Temple. Is it hig’her or lower?
A. I t’s generally higher.
Q. And this is because you use the September figure
rather than the average for the whole year? A. Yes.
Q. I hand you an exhibit marked for identification, De
fendants’ Exhibit 210-A, and ask you if you prepared that.
A. Yes.
Q. What do you use for your base document? A. Plain
tiffs’ Exhibit 210.
Q. And have you added anything to that? A. Yes, sir,
I have.
Q. What have you added, Mr. Temple? A. Well, I added
the membership for all of the years using the fourth week
of school membership, and I also computed it for the miss
ing years, 1955, 1957, and 1959. And I computed a revised
percent capacity utilization.
Mr. Creighton: The defendants offer Exhibit
210-A.
John E. Temple—for Defendants—Direct
1123a
Mr. Greiner: No objection.
The Court: It will be received.
[14513 (Whereupon, Defendants’ Exhibit 210-A
was received in evidence.)
Q. Mr. Temple, you testified generally that capacity fig
ures were increased. More specifically, can you tell the
Court from Exhibit 210-A what the low figure is for Manual
during that period? A. Using my new—
Q. Yes, using your data based on the fourth week in
September figures. A. 1953 was 71 percent for Manual.
Q. And what does that percentage at Manual do for the
next few years? A. I t generally increases.
Q. Now, in the meantime at East in 1953, what was your
recomputed capacity utilization? A. 101 percent.
Q. What does it do during the next three years? A. It
increases also.
Q. Is there a sharp break in the capacity utilization of
East at any time later in that decade? A. Yes, between
1959 and 1960 there is quite a break.
Q. Do you know what caused that? A. The opening of
the three senior high schools in 1960.
Q. Mr. Temple, is teacher data available from the same
[1452] source which you get pupil data for the various
schools? A. Yes.
Q. Have you examined the files in budgetary services
with resepct to teacher data at the various schools? A.
Yes, I have.
Q. Have you determined pupil-teacher ratios first of all
at secondary level and specifically Cole, Smiley and Morey
during the decade of the 50’s? A. Yes, I have.
Q. Taking Cole, Mr. Temple, what is the range of pupil-
John E. Temple—for Defendants—-Direct
1124a
teacher ratio during- the period 1950 to 1959! A. From a
high of 23 to a low of 21.
Q. Now, would you tell the Court what that number
means? A. Well, it means the number of pupils and mem
bership at that school not including special education pupils.
That number is divided by the number of classroom teachers
assigned to that building.
Q. Do you include such special ed. teachers? A. No, we
did not. I did not.
Q. So the range at Cole is from 21 to 23 during the decade
of the 50’s, is that correct? A. Yes, that’s correct.
Q. What was the range of pupil-teacher ratio at Smiley
during that same ten-year period? A. From a low of 23.9
to a high of 26.2.
[14533 Q. Does that mean, Mr. Temple, that there are
during the ten-year period you have mentioned—there are
relatively more pupils per teacher at Smiley than at Cole?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And similarly, Mr. Temple, at the senior high level
have you studied pupil-teacher ratios at Manual and East
during the decade of the 50’s? A. Yes, I have.
Q. And what is the range at Manual during that ten-
year period? A. From a low of 22.3 to a high of 24.7.
Q. And similarly at East during that period what was
the range? A. From a low of 24.5 to a high of 25.6.
The Court: May I have that again!
The Witness: From a low of 24.5 to a high of 25.6.
Q. Mr. Temple, let me show you Exhibit marked Plain
tiffs’ Exhibit 406 which has been received in evidence. This,
Mr. Temple, is labeled Capacity Utilization, Negro Popula
tion, at Columbine, Harrington and Stedman from 1949 to
1954. Have you studied that exhibit? A. Yes, I have.
John E. Temple— for Defendants— Direct
1125a
Q. Now, Mr. Temple, have you also looked at Plaintiffs’
Exhibit 371, being the board minutes of a meeting on Jan
uary 16, 1952, and particularly pages 12 and 13 thereof re
lating £14543 to the three schools just mentioned in that
year! A Yes.
Q. Now, Mr. Temple, turning back to Exhibit 406, is the
capacity table for Stedman for the four years involved in
complete? A. Yes, it is.
Q. And what years are missing? A. 1949 and 1950.
Q Now, were you present in court when Mr. Klite was
testifying with respect to this exhibit? A. No, I wasn’t.
Q. That was the first day of the trial, was it? A. Yes.
Q. Have you studied the sources of Dr. Elite’s capacities
and memberships with respect to Exhibit 406? A. Yes, I
have.
E1455J Q. Do you understand that he used average daily
membership for the first semester in all eases for his en
rollment? A. Yes.
Q. Do you understand that he used the capacity state
ments in a 1952 bond planning study for the elementary
schools for these years? A. Yes.
Q. Now, then, was there a change in capacity at Harring
ton effective in 1950? A. Yes, there was.
Q. Now, you will notice Exhibit 406 says that the ca
pacity was 450 in 1950, the year of the edition, and Exhibit
406 also asserts that the capacity the previous year was
300. Do you see that? A. Yes.
Q. Now, have you studied the room count tabulations of
Harrington for those three years, 1949 and ’50? A. Yes.
Q. Using the standard applied in 1950, what would be
the—what have you determined to be the capacity of Har
rington in 1949? A. Well, Harrington had seven rooms
John E. Temple—for Defendants—Direct
1126 a,
in 1949, and there was a kindergarten session, so I deter
mined the capacity of Harrington to be 240 in 1949.
Q. And applying Dr. Klite’s average daily membership
[1456] figure, what do yon get as a percentage of capacity
utilization for Harrington in 1949? A. 146.
Q. And turning back to Stedman, where the figures are
missing, have you determined the capacity utilization for
Stedman for those two years, using Dr. Klite’s average
daily memberships and the capacity figures that, you deter
mined.? A. Yes.
Q. And what have you determined to be the percentage
capacity utilization for Stedman, first of all, in 1949? A.
168.
Q. 1950? A. 139.
Q. Now, turning back to Exhibit 371, being the Board
minutes, Mr. Temple, do those Board minutes disclose what
the enrollments were in January, 1952, immediately prior
to the optional area changes made that year? A. Yes.
The Court: What page are you on?
Mr. Creighton: This would be, Your Honor—
The Witness: Page 13.
The Court: This is Exhibit 371?
Mr. Creighton: Yes, sir, and specifically page
13.
Q. Now, Mr. Temple, have you taken the capacities at
Columbine, or, rather, the enrollments at Columbine, [1457]
Harrington and Stedman at the time of this Board meeting?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And have you applied that to the same capacities
that Dr. Klite used that year? A. Yes.
Q. And what do you get? Have you computed these
capacity utilizations ? A. Yes.
John E. Temple—for Defendants—Direct
1127a
Q. For that point in time? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Let me hand yon, Mr. Temple, an instrument marked
for identification Defendants’ Exhibit 406-A, and ask you
if you prepared that in the light of your testimony a mo
ment ago regarding- capacities and utilization at the schools ?
A. Yes.
Q. What have you used for your base instrument in pre
paring-those? A. Defendants’ Exhibit 406—I mean Plain
tiffs’ Exhibit 406.
Q. And have you added certain changes and figures to
that? A. Yes.
Mr. Creighton: Defendants offer Exhibit 406-A.
Mr. Greiner: No objection, Your Honor.
The Court: It will be received.
[14583 (Whereupon, Defendants’ Exhibit 406-A
was received in evidence.)
Q. Mr. Temple, would you point out to the Court then
what the capacity utilization computations would be for
these three schools at the time immediately prior to the
Board action in January, 1952? First of all, as to Colum
bine, what was its utilization? A. 122.
Q. Had that increased since the previous fall? A. Yes,
from 114.
Q. And, meantime, what had happened to Harrington
and Stedman? A. Well, Harrington remained at 104 and
Stedman at 95.
Q. All right, Mr. Temple, were you here in the court
room the other day when Senator Brown was testifying
reg’arding a school site out near the Hallett area? A. Yes,
I was.
John E. Temple—for Defendants—Direct
1128a
Q. Have you checked the School District site index rec
ords to determine where sites have been owned by the
School District in the northeast part of Denver? A. Yes.
Q. I show you an instrument marked for identification
Defendants’ Exhibit HB, and ask you if that’s a record you
have taken from the School District files. A. Yes.
[1459] Q. And what is it, Mr. Temple? A. It is the
school property sites in numerical index.
Q. As of what date? A. April 18, 1968.
Q. And does it show in numerical order all of the School
District sites owned up to that time? A. Yes.
Q. Does it show even those that have been disposed of
and sold prior to the date of the exhibit? A. Yes.
Mr. Creighton: Offer Exhibit HB.
Mr. Greiner: I don’t believe we have seen this
before, have we?
Mr. Creighton: I handed it to you the other day.
The Court: "What’s the purpose of this?
Mr. Greiner: May I briefly examine, Your Honor?
The Court: Let me ask Mr. Creighton, what’s the
object of this?
Mr. Creighton: I will be happy to explain, Your
Honor. This exhibit will show there was indeed a
site about six blocks from the airport and about 26
blocks from Colorado Boulevard, a little east of
Hallett, which was purchased in 1948 and which was
sold in 1952.
V oir D ire E xam ina tion by M r. G reiner:
[14603 Q. Mr. Temple, what is the time period covered
by Exhibit HB? A. I am not sure just what the total
John E. Temple—for Defendants—Voir Dire
1129a
time period is on this. I know that this particular one was
issued April 18, 1968.
Q. Did you prepare this? A. No, it came from Mr.
Geer’s office in the Denver Public Schools.
Q. Do you know how often such tabulations are prepared?
A. No, I don’t know.
Q. And you don’t know the time period that purports
to be covered by the exhibit? A. Not specifically.
Mr. Greiner: Well, Your Honor, subject to that
infirmity, we have no objection.
The Court: It will be received.
(Whereupon, Defendants’ Exhibit HB was re
ceived in evidence.)
D irect E xam ina tion by M r. C reighton (Cont’d) :
Q. Mr. Temple, Exhibit HB does show all the numerically
numbered sites, beginning with Site No. 1, does it not? A.
Yes.
Q. Now—
The Court: I think you ought to put a mark on the
[1461] site that you referred to.
Mr. Creighton: Yes, I will ask the witness to.
The Court: An “X” or cross. There is not point'—
I think when you are offering something for pinpoint
purposes, it ought to be pinpointed.
Mr. Creighton: I am going to ask him to pinpoint
it for the Court and for all of us.
Q. Turning* to page 2 of Exhibit HB, Mr. Temple, do
you have a copy before you? A. Yes.
John E. Temple—for Defendants—Direct
1130a
Q. And specifically to Site 104. Where is that site said
to be located on the exhibit? A. From Magnolia to Niag
ara, from 30th to 32nd Avenue.
Q. That’s consecutively numbered immediately after the
Barrett site, is that correct? A. That’s correct.
Q. What was the Barrett site number ? A. 103.
Q. Do you know when the Site 104 was purchased? A.
It was purchased July 30, 1948.
Q. Now, does Exhibit HB show that it was sold? A.
Yes, it was sold October 21, 1952.
Q. And the exhibit itself says what in that connection?
A. It shows that it was—■
Q. Does it give the full date of the sale? [1462] A. No,
it just says “Sold in 1952.”
Q. And your investigation shows it was sold on a specific
date that year? A. Yes.
Q. Mr. Temple, I am putting before you a copy of Ex
hibit 402, which is a plaintiffs’ exhibit, being a map in Oc
tober, 1951. Can you describe so that the Court can follow
it on the original copy of this exhibit where Site 104 is ? A.
Site 104 is approximately seven blocks to the east and I
think two blocks north of the Hallett site.
Q. And where is it with respect to the airport ? A. That
would be about—I think it is about—looks on this map like
it wmuld be about six blocks west of the boundary of the
airport.
Q. And what street again was that on, Site 104? A.
From Magnolia to Niagara—
Q. That would be about how many blocks from Colorado
following the alphabetical rotation? A. Probably be around
26, wouldn’t it? Something like that.
John E. Temple—for Defendants-—Direct
Mr. Creighton: All right.
1131a
The Court: That’s close enough.
Mr. Creighton: You may examine.
C ross-E xam ination by M r. G reiner:
[ 1464] * # *
Q. Now, is it fair to say, Mr. Temple, that the original
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 210 showed that throughout this period,
at least up until 1958 that Manual was underutilized while
East was either at or over capacity; is that coi'rect? A.
Yes.
Q. That picture is exactly the same as depicted on your
exhibit, is it not, on 201-A? A. Yes.
* * * * *
[14723 * * *
Q. Now, turning your attention back to Exhibit 215-C,
I take it then that the only change that you made in plain
tiffs’ exhibit was this adjustment to the Smiley capacity
back in 1951, is that correct? A. That’s correct.
Q. Would you agree that between the years 1952 and
through say 1958—Let’s take it up until 1956 as depicted on
Exhibit 215-C—that Cole throughout that period was un
derutilized; is that correct? A. That’s correct.
Q. And Smiley throughout that period was either close
to or over capacity? A. Yes.
Q. Is that right? A. That’s correct.
Q. And Morey was also underutilized during that time
period? A. That’s correct.
# # =£ # #
[14853 * * *
M rs. J eax M cL a u g h lin , ca lled as a w itn ess b y the de
fe n d a n ts , b e in g f irs t d u ly sw orn , on h e r o a th tes tified as
fo llo w s :
Mrs Jean McLaughlin—for Defendants—Direct
1132a
The Court: Will you please take the witness chair?
State your name and address, please.
The Witness: I am Mrs. Jean McLaughlin. I live
at 634 South Galena.
D irect E xam ina tion by M r. C reighton:
Q. Mrs. McLaughlin, are you presently employed by
School District No. 1, the City and County of Denver? A.
Yes, I am.
Q. And when were you first employed by the School Dis
trict? A. In 1945.
* * * * ^
[14873 * * *
Q. Then, after Eagleton, what was your next principal-
ship? A. I went to Stedman Elementary School.
Q. What was the date of that change? A. I went to
Stedman in February of 1958.
Q. Would that be the commencement of the second semes
ter of that year? A. It was right after the beginning of
the second semester.
Q. And then what was your next principalship ? A. My
next principalship was at Philips School in 1963.
Q. Commencing that fall? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And after that assignment, Mrs. McLaughlin? A. I
went to Cory School in 1967.
Q. Is that where you are now? A. Yes, sir.
[1488] Q. Did you grow up in Denver? A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you go to the Denver Public Schools? A. Yes,
I did.
Q. Where did you do your college work? A. I went to
the University of Denver.
Q. Mrs. McLaughlin, where were you residing during
Mrs Jean McLaughlin—for Defendants—Direct
1133a
the forties and fifties? A. In 1948 we bought a home at
2945 Albion.
Q. And how long did you live there? A. We lived there
thirteen years.
Q. Until when? A. Until 1960.
Q. And then where did you move? A. To 6015 Mont-
view Boulevard.
Q. And you lived there until when? A. Until 1968.
Q. And then did you move to your present address? A.
Yes.
Q. Mrs. McLaughlin, your Albion Street address, where
you lived until 1960, is that near Colorado Boulevard? A.
Yes, sir, it was a block.
Q. How far? A. One block.
Q. Do you recall the widening of Colorado Boulevard in
[1489] the late 1950’s? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you in a position to observe the traffic on the
street after the widening? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How would you characterize the traffic on Colorado
Boulevard after it was widened?
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, I don’t believe the
witness has been qualified as a traffic engineer.
The Court: No.
Mr. Greiner: I believe she is now being asked to
give an opinion for which there is no foundation
laid.
The Court: I don’t think she needs to be an expert
to express herself. It will save us time.
A. It was a dangerous situation.
Q. Was the traffic heavy? A. Yes, it was.
Q. You were principal at Stedman at that point in time?
A. Yes.
Mrs Jean McLaughlin—for Defendants—Direct
1134a
Q. Were there shopping" facilities on Colorado Boulevard
opposite your address in the 2900 block! A. Yes.
Q. On both sides of the street! A. Yes, sir.
[1490] Q. Did you patronize those shops and stores!
A. Well—
Q. Did you! A. Yes.
Q. Did the opening of the widened Colorado Boulevard
have any effect on your ability to use those shopping facili
ties! A. Yes.
Q. What was that! A. Well, it was difficult to get
across the street.
Q. To which side! A. To the west.
Q. And you resided on the east side! A. That’s right.
The Court: Probably equally difficult to get by on
the other side!
The Witness: That’s right.
Q. Did you have trouble getting back! A. Yes.
Q. Was anything done about it! A. Yes, they installed
some lights.
Q. And where was that! A. In the 2900 block.
Q. Can you give us any time that that was done! A. No.
[1491] Q. Later, after the widening! A. After the wid
ening, yes.
Q. Now, as an elementary principal at that time, Mrs.
McLaughlin, would you have an opinion as to the hazard
of that street for elementary pupils!
The Court: She has already testified, hasn’t she,
that it was dangerous! She gave that right off the
bat.
Mr. Creighton: Well, that was, Your Honor, as
Mrs Jean McLaughlin—for Defendants—Direct
1135a
to herself and adults. I am trying to focus in on
elementary kids now.
The Court: Well, a fortiori—
Mrs Jean McLaughlin—for Defendants—Direct
Q. All right, Mrs. McLaughlin, what year again did you
move from the 2945 Albion Street address! A. 1960.
Q. Were you familiar with the neighborhood, specifically
the block in which you lived at that time, in I960? A. Yes.
The Court: Was that at 30th and Albion!
The Witness: 29th and Albion.
Q. Do you recall anything about the racial makeup of
those residing in your block, in the 2900 block of Albion
Street, in 1960! A. Yes, our neighborhood was changing.
Q. And specifically in 1960, could you estimate the—well,
first of all, were there Negro families living in your block!
[1492] A. Yes.
Q. Could you estimate the proportion of Negro families
living in your block? A. There were more Negro families
in our block than white families in 1960.
Q. Now, could you say anything about the racial propor
tions in blocks in, say, the block immediately east of you?
A. Well, there were more Negro families in our block and
on Ash than farther east at that particular time.
Q. Now, that particular year, 1960-61 school year, Mrs.
McLaughlin, you were principal of Stedman that entire
year? A. Yes.
Q. Even though you moved during 1960, is that right?
A. Yes, that’s right.
Q. Were there Negro children in Stedman School in
1960-61? A. Yes.
Q. Do you know what part of your school subdistrict
1136a
they lived in! A. Well, they lived in the area where I was
residing.
Q. And was that on the extreme west side? A. That
would be on the west side of Stedman.
[1493] Q. That year, 1960-61, were Negro pupils coming
from other parts of your Stedman subdistrict? A. No,
not a lot of Negro children, no.
Q. Could you tell us where the bulk of the Negro students
at Stedman that year were coming from within your sub
district? A. In 1960 we had children coming from the
Hallett area.
Q. No. Now, I ’m just—I’m. asking you about the Negro
children in your school in 1961, and what part of your sub
district they were coming from. A. I would say they were
coming in from the west side.
Q. Now, Mrs. McLaughlin, moving ahead to the school
year 1962-63, do you recall whether your school, Stedman,
was crowded that year? A. In 1962-63? Yes, we were
crowded.
Q. Were any students being bussed into your school? A.
Yes.
Q. Where were they coming from? A. From the Hallett
district.
Q. How did that come about? A. There had been an
arrangement with a previous principal at Hallett and Sted
man and the Administration Building, that children from
the Hallett area should be bussed [1494] to Stedman be
cause there were children on the waiting list in the Hallett
area.
Q. For what? A. Kindergarten.
Q. And that was made prior to your arriving there in
February of 1958? A. That’s right.
Mrs Jean McLaughlin—for Defendants—Direct
1137a
Q. About bow many children in 1961 school year were
coming in from the Hallett area to Stedman? A. A bus
load of children.
Q. How many would that be? A. Approximately 70
youngsters.
Q. And this had gone on for how long? A. Well, for a
good many years, because we had children from kinder
garten through the sixth grade when I was at Stedman that
were coming from the Hallett area.
Q. Now, later in that school year, in 1961—
The Court: Are you maintaining these were white
students who were being bussed into Stedman from
Hallett ?
Q. Can you tell us about the racial characteristics of the
busload of kids coming in from Hallett? A. The majority
of these children were white youngsters.
The Court: I thought that was what you were try
ing to put over.
Q. Now, later that year, in 1961-62 school year, [14951
Mrs. McLaughlin, were there discussions regarding bound
ary changes? A. Yes.
Q. At the elementary levels? A. Yes.
Q. Were there any meetings in that regard? A. Yes.
Q. What meetings were there? A Well, in the early
part of 1962 I was called to a meeting.
Q. Where was that? A. In the administration building.
Q. Anyone else called there? A. Yes.
Q. Who? A. Yes, there were other principals called at
that time and we were told they were contemplating some
proposed— these were proposed boundary changes.
Mrs Jean McLaughlin—for Defendants—Direct
1138a
Q. About how many principals do you recall were at
that meeting? A. About thirty.
Q. And where was it held again ? A. The Administration
Building.
Q. Where in particular ? A. In the board room.
£1496] Q. And were you told anything about these pro
posals at that time at that meeting? A. Well, we were
given some materials and they said that these were proposed
boundary changes.
Q. What were you supposed to do about it? A. Look at
them, study them, and if we had any information that would
be pertinent to changes, we were to communicate with the
administration.
Q. Were you asked at that time for any racial data to
your school? A. No.
Q. Now, did you comment on these changes? A. I did
not.
Q. Were you told what the purpose of the changes were?
A. To relieve overcrowded conditions.
Q. Did you believe the changes under discussion—well,
first of all, were there any changes at that time under dis
cussion for Stedman School at that meeting? A. Yes.
Q. Did you believe those changes were necessary in light
of your numbers of pupils? A. Not at that particular time,
no.
Q. Do boundary changes, Mrs. McLaughlin, have any
effect on the kids involved? [1497] A. Oh, yes. They’re
very disruptive.
Q. Were you aware of the enrollment situations in the
schools adjoining you and in particular, first of all, Hallett?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you in touch with the principal there? A. Yes.
Mrs Jean McLaughlin—for Defendants—Direct
1139a
Q. Did you have frequent conversations with these prin
cipals in your area? A. Yes.
Q. At the time of these early 1962 boundary proposals
and discussions, did you have any information on the rela
tive crowded conditions of, say, Hallett! A. Well, I knew
from talking to the principal at Hallett that they were
crowded.
Q. How about the Park Hill School? A. Yes, sir. We
were aware of the overcrowded condition in that particu
lar area.
Q. And does this apply to Smith School? A. Yes.
Q. Now, later that year, Mrs. McLaughlin, were the
boundary changes under discussion early in the year made
with respect to Stedman School, later that year, in 1962?
A. Were they made?
Q. Yes. [1498] A. No, they were not.
Q. Did you believe they should have been made? A. No,
I did not.
Q. Now, let’s see, Mrs. McLaughlin—you went to Philips
in the fall of 1963, did you not? A. Yes.
Q. And when you got to Philips in the fall of 1963, how
was the enrollment situation there with respect to your
facilities? A. We were not overcrowded. We were at
capacity but we were not overcrowded.
Q. And Mrs. McLaughlin, were there some boundary
changes affecting Philips the following year, 1964? A.
Yes.
Q. Now, Mrs. McLaughlin, in front of you is the defen
dants’ Exhibit BP which shows the elementary boundary
lines effective in the fall of 1964 and also shows with
arrows and lines the changes made that year. Now, also I
want to show you in that connection Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 71.
Mrs Jean McLaughlin—for Defendants—Direct
1140a
First showing you Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 71, Mrs. McLaughlin
—have yon seen that before? A. Yes.
Q. Have yon seen this particular exhibit? A. Yes.
Q. This was introduced in evidence last summer, Mrs.
[1499] McLaughlin, in connection with this case. Do the
changes shown there on 71 reflect what happened that fall
at your school, Philips? A. Yes.
Q. Now—please take a look at Defendants’ Exhibit BF.
Does that showT the same changes that year? A. Yes.
Q. Now first calling your attention to the change in the
southeast corner of your district—that represented a change
to what school? A. That’s Ashley School.
Q. Was a part of the Philips subdistrict changed to
Ashley? A. Yes, that’s right.
Q. Are you familiar with that part that was put in the
Ashley district? A. Yes.
Q. Can you describe to the Court what the north half
of that district consists of? A. That’s Temple Buell Col
lege.
Q. Are there any elementary children coming out of that
district? A. No.
Q. Do elementary children come out of the south half of
that Ashley change? £1500] A. That’s right.
Q. And are you familiar with the geography and the area
there involved? A. (Nods affirmatively.)
Q. Can you tell us the comparative distances between the
middle of the south half of the area changed to Ashley and
the distance to Philips itself? A. If was about the same.
Q. The same distance? A. Yes.
Q. Now, Mrs. McLauglhin, take a look at the area that
was moved into your district from PXallett. Do you see that
on Exhibit BA? Is that in the southeast corner of the Hal-
lett district? A. Yes, that’s right.
Mrs Jean McLaughlin—for Defendants—Direct
1141a
Q. How does the distance from the center of that Hallett
change compare as between its distance to Hallett School
and the distance to your school and Philips? A. It was the
same.
Q. Was that distance such that the children from that
area were entitled to a bus ride? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Ho you know whether they were being bussed the
previous year, 1963 (’64) to Hallett School? A. Yes, sir.
Q. After the change were they bussed to your school?
[1501] A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many busses? A. One.
Q. Do you know what its capacity was? A. 72 passen
gers.
Q. Now, was that bus filled, the bus that came in from
the former Hallett area to your school in 1964? A. There
were approximately 70 children.
Q. Now, Mrs. McLaughlin, have you studied enrollment
cards at Philips School made at the time you were there
as to the children coming out of the former Hallett area?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What kinds of study did you make? A. Well, I went
over the registration cards for that school year.
Q. And that was what year again? A. That is in 1964-
65.
Q. And did you find the cards the children who came from
the former Hallett area? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you know those children well enough to know
by their name what their race would be? A. Yes.
Q. Did you make a determination of the race of the chil
dren who came out of the former Hallett area ? [15023 A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know how many of them were Negro? A.
Approximately 50.
Mrs Jean McLaughlin—for Defendants— Direct
1142a
Q. Out of how many? A. 70.
The Court: I believe this will be a convenient time
to take our afternoon recess.
Mr. Creighton: Very well, Your Honor.
(Whereupon, the trial recessed at 3:13 p.m.)
[1503] (After a recess, the court reconvened at
3:35 o’clock p.m.)
The Court: I expect we are ready to continue.
Mr. Creighton: I believe we are, Your Honor.
Mrs. McLaughlin, will you come forward?
B y Mr. Creighton-.
Q. Mrs. McLaughlin, we found during the recess Plain
tiffs’ Exhibit 76. Showing you this exhibit, Mrs. McLaugh
lin, this exhibit was admitted into evidence last summer
in the preliminary hearing.
The Court: Isn’t it any good, Mr. Creighton?
Mr. Creighton: We are going to discuss that, Your
Honor.
The Court: All right.
Q. (Continued) This was prepared, Mrs. McLaughlin,
by a mathematician and it is the map of your Philips
subdistrict showing the changes in 1964, and the mathe
matician declared that the area shown as being detached
from Hallett and put into your district contained 20 per
cent Negro pupils. Now, is that a correct estimate of the
percentage of Negro pupils coming from the Hallett area
in 1964?
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, I object. I believe
that mischaracterizes Dr. Bardwell’s testimony at
Mrs Jean McLaughlin—for Defendants-—Direct
1143a
the summer hearing. It was that the population of
that area was 20 percent Negro, not the student pop
ulation.
Mr. Creighton: I have to differ, Your Honor. The
record itself at page 215 of last summer’s transcript
has [15043 this exchange:
Question to Dr. Bardwell: “All right, then, tak
ing your example, the Hallett-Philips area, you fig
ure that 20 percent of those moved were Negro!”
Answer: “That’s right, sir.”
The Court: Well, you can ask her whether 20
percent were moved. Wouldn’t that suffice?
Q. Mrs. McLaughlin, based on your study of the pupil
records and what you have previously testified concerning
the racial identity of the children coming from the Hallett
area in 1964, what percentage did you find of those moved
were Negro? A. Approximately 70 percent.
Q. Now, Mrs. McLauglhin, that same year, 1964, did
your school, Philips, experience an increase in membership ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was it a large increase? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you crowded that fall? A. Yes.
Q. At the beginning of that year, how many pupils did
you have in some of your classes? A. Over forty.
Q. Did you have adequate staffing at that point? A. Yes,
because we had two teachers assigned to these [1505]
rooms that were so overcrowded.
Q. Was anything done later in the school year to deal
with this increase in membership? A. Four mobile units
were constructed.
Q. When did they get in operation at your school? A.
The latter part of November.
Mrs Jean McLaughlin—for Defendants—Direct
1144a
Q. Did this permit you to reduce the class size within
the building? A. Yes.
Q. What age level did you put in the mobile units? A.
Second and third grade children.
Q. Now, what was your planning behind that? A. Well,
I felt that it was better to have the kindergarten and the
first graders in the main building and the second and third
grade youngsters out in the mobile unit. Younger children
were in the building, the very youngest.
Q. All right, in addition to relieving the large class
room size in the biulding, did the use of the mobile units
have other effects within your building? A. Well, it was
a very practical situation because it relieved the hall situ
ation, the lavatory situation, because our mobile units had
drinking facilities, lavatory facilities. It was a much bet
ter situation.
Q. Now, as a principal in a school where there are and
were mobile units used, Mrs. McLaughlin, have you E15063
observed the teaching situation within the mobile units as
compared with the brick and mortar classroom? A.Yes.
Q. How would you compare the teaching situation in a
mobile unit classroom? A. Well, it is the same, because
they are very adequate. As I mentioned they have their
own lighting system. They are connected—the fire alarm
is connected to the main building. It is just another room.
Q. Now, Mrs. McLaughlin, in connection with this crowd
ing situation, does crowding in elementary schools occur
uniformly throughout the K-6 grades when it occurs? A.
No.
Q. Specifically, in connection with back at Steelman in
1961-62, you mentioned crowding. Where was your crowd
ing that year? A. In the primary grades, in the first and
second grades.
Mrs Jean McLaughlin—for Defendants—Direct
1145a
Q. How did you deal with crowding that year at Sted-
man? A. I went on double session.
Q. For all classes! A. Only for the first and second
grades, because that’s where our enrollment was the heavi
est.
Q. Mrs. McLaughlin, as elementary principal this year,
£15073 were you asked to make an estimate of the ethnic
proportions within your elementary school this year? A.
This year?
Q. Yes. A. Yes, sir.
Q. You have been doing that as principal for a number
of years? A. Yes.
Q. Have you always done this as a principal? A. As a
principal ?
Q. Yes, in recent years. A. In recent years, yes.
£15083 Q. Did this request for ethnic information begin
back in the sixties? A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall when you first got a request for ethnic
information as a principal? A. It was in 1962.
Q. And how did you handle that request? A. Well, I
asked my secretary to go into each one of the classrooms
and to make a count.
Q. An announced visit or— A. No, I didn’t want any
fanfare. I did not want the teachers involved.
Q. Why didn’t you want the teachers involved? A. Be
cause I think that teachers should not think of children in
terms of their racial background.
Q. Now had this ethnic estimate requested—had this
existed prior to your teaching career? A. Well, when I
first started teaching school in our class register, we were
asked for this information.
Q. And you entered it in the class register as a teacher
at that time? A. Yes, sir.
Mrs Jean McLaughlin—for Defendants—Direct
1146a
Q. Now, Mrs. McLaughlin, you have been a principal at
Stedman and Philips and Cory. And, as a principal of a
school, do you determine your needs as to materials and
[1509] supplies at your school? A. I don’t. I work with
my teachers in determining our needs and supplies.
Q. Are there limitations on how much you can get in
the way of materials and supplies? A. It’s figured on a
membership.
Q. How is that figured, Mrs. McLaughlin? A. You are
given so much money for each child in your building.
Q. Is that based entirely on—is the amount based en
tirely on the number of children? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is it the same for all elementary schools? A. Yes.
Q. And then given that amount, Mrs. McLaughlin, how
do you determine which materials and supplies you get
with that budget amount? A. Well, you confer with your
teachers, your staff.
Q, And then where do you request your materials and
supplies? A. To the Administration Building.
Q. Have you ever experienced as a principal, Mrs. Mc
Laughlin, any difficulty in getting materials and supplies
you requested at the schools where you were principal?
A. No, sir.
[15301 * * *
C ross-E xam ina tion Toy M r. Brega-.
Q. Mrs. McLaughlin, you went to Stedman in 1958? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. You stayed until 1963? A. Yes, until spring of
1963.
Q. All right, during that period of time you were prin
cipal at Stedman? A. Yes, sir.
Mrs. Jean McLaughlin—for Defendants—Cross
1147a
Q. All right. During that period of time were there any
boundary changes at Stedman? You will have to answer.
A. Wait. Oh, no, I am sorry. I shook my head.
Q. And also I presume that during that period of time
[1531] the boundary of Stedman was well publicized so
that the people in the area knew where it? A. Yes.
Q. Could you tell us now when you first went to Sted
man, I presume it was predominantly Anglo or white?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. At the time you left in 1963, had it changed predomi
nantly to black? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you tell the Court how rapid that transition was?
That may be awfully difficult to do, hut I mean instead of
slow, was it— A. No, it was a fast movement.
Q. All right. At the time in 1960 that Barrett was built,
I presume that in 1960 Stedman was still predominantly
white? A. Yes.
Q. All right. Had the boundaries been put across to,
let’s say, Ash, the second street over on the east of Colo
rado Boulevard, what predominantly would that have taken
in as far as black or white students? A. It would have
taken in the Negro children.
Q. In other words, the Stedman area which was still
predominantly white would have had less black in it, had
the boundary been across? [1532] A. Yes, sir.
Q. And I presume likewise the black students then would
have gone to Barrett? A. Yes, sir.
Q. At the time the 1962 proposal was delivered or men
tioned or discussed, were the principals and teachers
allowed to comment to the superintendent about the pro
posals involved? A. Yes, sir.
Q. They were allowed to express their opinions on the
needs of the school and the capacity? A. Yes.
Mrs. Jean McLaughlin—for Defendants—Cross
1148a
Q. The utilization? A. Yes.
Q. During this discussion, were there any discussions
about race or ethnic background of any of the students
involved? A. No, sir.
Q- In other words, what you were talking about is pu
pils and how best to handle the number in the school? A.
That’s right, overcrowded conditions.
Q. Now, during the period of time that you taught in
Stedman when it was changing from predominantly white
to black, was there an influx of black students from out of
the city or out of the state? [15333 A. Yes.
Q. How do you know that? A. Well, from the registra
tion cards and the information on the registration cards.
Q. Well, did these black students present any unique
problems to the teaching of students at Stedman? A. Many
of these youngsters were lacking in opportunities and ex
periences, yes.
Q. They had come from out of state? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And in other words, the education that they had re
ceived prior to coming was not on the same level that we
have here? A. Yes.
Q. Is that a fair statement? A. I think that’s a fair
statement to make.
Q. And did you have then to try to bring these children
up to the norm of the children in the school that they were
in, in Stedman? A. We tried, yes.
Q. Did you recommend—excuse me. A. That’s a teach
er’s challenge.
Q. Did you recommend as you went along during this
period of time and as you went from Stedman to Philips
any special teaching programs for children? [15343 A. My
advisory committee recommended a reading improvement
center, a mobile unit, when I was at Philips School.
Mrs. Jean McLaughlin—for Defendants—Cross
1149a
Q. What was the purpose of that recommendation? A.
To help children with reading difficulties.
Q. Now, at the time that you were at Stedman, I believe
that there were some mobile units placed at that school?
A. No, not when I was at Stedman.
Q. At Philips? A. At Philips.
Q. All right. Did you have any discussion with the
parents on the mobile units that were placed there? A.
Yes, they wanted the mobile units.
Q. Did you show the teachers or the students the mobile
units along with their parents? A. Oh, yes.
Q. How did you do that? A. Well, we had our back-
to-school nights when we opened our mobile units, for our
parents, hut we watched—the faculty and I watched the
mobile units being built and put together right there on
the school ground, but our parents were anxious to have
these mobile units because they knew that it was going to
relieve an overcrowded condition.
Q. And they saw these on the parent-teachers night or
[1535] something? A. Yes, at back-to-school night in
November.
Q. What was it? Four units that you had? A. Four
units.
Q. Did you find any obstruction to giving the same type
of teaching equality in a mobile unit that you saw in the
classroom or the regular building? A. No.
Q. In your opinion, is there any difference between the
quality of education that one can obtain in a mobile unit?
A. No.
Q. Were these mobile units air conditioned and self-
sufficient? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Brega: No further questions.
The Court: Mr. Creighton?
Mrs. Jean McLaughlin—for Defendants—Cross
1150a
R ed irect E xam ina tion by M r. C re igh ton :
Q. Mrs. McLaughlin, at that meeting down in the hoard
room in early 1962, were principals there from all over
town? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Not just from the Park Hill district! A. Oh, no.
[1536] Q. And do you remember at all how many boun
dary changes were under discussion at that time over the
city? A. Well, there were approximately thirty of us
down there, so it must have been at least thirty.
Q. Now, Mrs. McLaughlin, you were asked something
about the racial movement in Park Hill. In 1960 and ’61,
at that time, did you feel you could predict ahead as to
the size of the movement? A. No, sir.
Q. Could you at that time predict the geographic extent
of the movement? A. No, sir.
Q. And again, regarding that movement, could you at
that time have foreseen how fast it would take place? A.
No.
Dr. Harold A. Stetzler-—for Defendants—Direct
Dr. H a r o l d A. S t e t z l e r , called as a witness by the de
fendants, being first duly sworn, on his oath testified as
follows:
The Court: Please take the witness stand. Please
[1537] give us your name and address.
The Witness: I am Harold A. Stetzler. I live at
1436 South Yates.
D irect E xam ina tion by M r. J a c k so n :
Q. Hr. Stetzler, would you review for us briefly, please,
your educational background. A. My teaching experience?
1151a
Q. No, your own educational background. A. Ob, I
went to Denver Public Schools, graduated from West High
School, attended Denver University to the Bachelor’s and
Master’s degrees, and I have a Doctor of Education degree
from Indiana University.
Q. And are you at present employed by School District
No. 1? A. Yes.
Q. And what is your present position! A. I am director
of elementary school personnel.
Q. And would you explain to the Court briefly what your
duties are in that position? A. My duties have changed
somewhat over the years. I first became—came into the
position in 1964. At that time, the primary duty was the
recruitment, assignment, transfer of teachers, concern with
their grievances. I also had the duty of recommending
pupil assignments. I did deal [1538] with parents in terms
of complaints. I also made recommendations concerning
transportation of the elementary schools.
Q. Now, you have been in this position, you say, since
1964? A. Since January of 1964.
The Court: Are you able to hear the doctor?
Mr. Greiner: I t is a little marginal, Your Honor.
The Court: I think it would be helpful if we
moved that lecturn behind counsel’s table. There
would be no problem of blocking anybody out and
there would be some assurance that the witness
would speak up at least loudly enough so that his
voice carries to that place.
(Counsel moved lecturn.)
The Court: Is that any better, do you think? We
will try it out, anyway.
Dr. Harold A. Stetzler—for Defendants—Direct
1152a
Mr. Jackson: As long as I don’t need glasses,
Yonr Honor, I think we will get along all right.
Q. Dr. Stetzler, at the time you took over your job in
1964, did you receive any special instructions regarding
your responsibilities and duties at that time? A. Yes, I
received a number of instructions relating to the duties.
The most pertinent one here would be related to the as
signment and employment of minority teachers. At this
time the Assistant Superintendent for Personnel requested
that we reduce within existing policies as much as we could
[1539] any concentrations of minority teachers.
The Court: What year was this?
The Witness: In 1964, and that we assign minor
ity teachers throughout the district to a great ex
tent.
Q. Now, at that time you were concerned primarily with
elementary school personnel? A. Only elementary school
personnel.
Q. Do you know whether or not the policy was the same
for the secondary schools as you have just described it?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. Now, do you know, Dr. Stetzler, whether or not the
same general recommendations were made by what has
been referred to here as the Voorhees Committee, which
reported in 1964 regarding the concentration and transfer
of minority teachers? A. I recall that it touched this
subject in the same vein.
Q. And you took over your responsibilities in January?
A. Right.
Dr. Harold A. Stetzler—for Defendants—Direct
1153a
Q. I will hand you that Yoorhees report, which is Ex
hibit 20. Does that bear a date on the front of it? A. This
is March 1, 1964.
Q. Some three months after you assumed your job? A.
Yes. Actually, I had gone to the position for orientation
in late November, so I did have some opportunity [15403
to observe the operation of the position during the month
of December.
Q. Now, Dr. Stetzler, you had some responsibility, I
believe you indicated for hiring new teachers? A. Yes.
Q. And what generally is the method of hiring new
teachers? A. Either through interviews, application in
terview in our office or the applicant arranges for an inter
view after they have submitted an application and com
pleted it through references and transcripts, or through
our visiting colleges arranging through placement officers
to interview interested applicants.
Q. And did you perform any of the interviewing func
tions when you took over this job in 1964? A. Yes.
Q. And what generally did you do in the interviewing
field? A. Interviewed teachers primarily for the elemen
tary schools. However, at other colleges I would interview
for elementary and secondary both.
Q. Did this involve any traveling? A. Yes.
Q. And generally what area did you visit? A. My out-
of-state area was Minnesota, Wisconsin, [1541] Michigan,
Indiana, Ohio, Illinois.
Q. Did you also interview within the State of Colorado?
A. And then we visited the colleges in Colorado, Boulder,
Greeley, Fort Collins, of course, Denver University, Lo-
retto Heights, Temple Buell.
Q. During this period of 1964 to the present, how many
interviewers have there been generally at one time that
Dr. Harold A. Stetzler—for Defendants—Direct
1154a
have been performing this one function? A. This has
ranged from probably four or five up to over twenty.
Q. Now, does the interviewer, as he is talking with the
teachers, have any authority to enter into contracts f A.
Recently, yes, in the last two or three years. Prior—
Q. Are these then subject to any further action by the
administration? A. These are just subject to school board
approval.
Q. They all must be approved by the board itself? A.
Yes.
[1542] Q. Now, during this same period, Dr. Stetzler,
has there been any change in emphasis on the recruiting
of teachers? A. We made continually greater efforts to
recruit a larger number of minority teachers. In fact, this
has probably been the greatest change in our efforts in
recruiting during the period of time I’ve been in the posi
tion.
Q. In addition to the emphasis on minority teachers,
have there been any other changes in terms of the quali
fications or types of individuals that you are seeking as
teachers? A. Increasingly, we discuss with our applicants
our diversification. We have 92 elementary units to which
we assign teachers. A number of those units are in neigh
borhoods where we would have numbers of minority stu
dents. And we have increasingly tried to find out at the
interview the qualifications of these people to deal with
minority students; their empathy for education of these
youngsters; their general feeling about teaching in this
kind of neighborhood.
Q. Has there been a corresponding change in emphasis
in the curriculums offered by the various colleges in this
area? A. The colleges have made efforts to educate teach
ers for this position. There hasn’t been a tremendous
Dr. Harold A. Stetzler— for Defendants—Direct
1155a
number of teachers available through these programs. It
is increasing.
[1543] Q. Has there been a corresponding change in em
phasis regarding teachers with advanced degrees or pre
vious teaching experience? A. No, we have not set any re
cruiting quotas for teachers either with experience or with
Master’s degrees.
The Court: When you say minority teachers that
you are recruiting, I guess you mean Spanish as
well as Negro?
The Witness: And oriental.
The Court: Do you have any difficulty finding
Spanish origin teachers?
The Witness: This is the most difficult of our
jobs.
The Court: Are you able to hire very many of
them?
The Witness: No, again, this number is increasing
as we learn some things to do to find them.
B y M r. Jackson:
Q. Dr. Stetzler, I hand you Defendants’ Exhibit DA,
which has already been admitted into evidence and ask you
if you can explain to the Court what that shows regarding
the percentage of teachers employed from the years 1962
through 1968 that had prior teaching experience? A. This
ranges from a low of about 37 or 38 percent to a high of
approximately 50 percent. The average probably is, I
would guess, 40 some percent; a little over 40 percent.
Q. So then, from the period 1962 until 1968, approx
imately [15443 40 percent of all teachers hired by the
district had prior experience? A. Yes.
Dr. Harold A. Stetsler—for Defendants—Direct
1156a
Q. Now, directing' your attention to Defendants’ Exhibit
DB, which has already been admitted into evidence, would
you tell the Court, please, what that shows with regard to
the percentage of new teachers with three or more years’
teaching experience? A. This ranges from a low of about
18 percent to a high of approximately 24 percent.
Q. And again-— A. An average would be about 20—21
percent.
Q. And what is the time period, again, covered by this
exhibit? A. 1962 to 1968.
Q. So approximately 19 percent then of all the new
teachers have at least three or more years’ teaching ex
perience? A. Yes.
Q. Now, handing you, Dr. Stetzler, Defendants’ Exhibit
DC, can you tell the Court what that shows with regard to
the new teachers with advanced degrees? A. It shows that
we employed teachers wtih Master’s degrees from 1962
through 1968, a range of approximately four percent to
ten percent. The last few years show [1545] an average
of about nine percent or better.
Q. So, although there has been no specific emphasis on
obtaining teachers with prior experience, the record indi
cates that a great percentage of teachers do have prior
experience? A. Yes.
Q. Now, Dr. Stetzler, in connection with your duties re
garding the assignment of these new teachers, when do you
do the bulk of the assignments for the new teachers? What
point in the year? A. Well, of course, our greatest num
ber of vacancies occur for September, so we begin to make
assignments in late June, early July. The largest number
would be made, I would say, within the two or three-week
period of late June until mid-July.
Dr. Harold A. Stetder—for Defendants—Direct
1157a
Q. Now, at the time that you make these assignments,
what do you have before you in the way of information re
garding the teachers who are available for an assignment?
A. We use primarily a summary on the interview card.
Of course, we do have the other references and transcripts
available to us. We rely on the summary from the inter
viewer and the indications he has made on the interview
card. Of course, we have the list of vacancies.
Q. Now, does this information on the interview card
always show the race of the individual? [1546] A. Re
cently, almost always. Up until very recently, almost never.
Q. So there was a period of time during your tenure
when you had no racial information on all teachers? A.
That’s right.
Q. How do you determine or how is it determined, Dr.
Stetzler, the number of vacancies that you have to fill within
the school system? A. This is a result of resignations,
leaves of absence, and the transfer process would also enter
into this where the vacancies would finally occur.
Q. Dr. Stetzler, I hand you what’s been marked for identi
fication as Defendants’ Exhibit HH and ask you if you can
identify it? A. This is a report put out by the Department
of Personnel Services concerning resignations as—and
there shows the number of jrnars’ experience the person
has had and the reason for the resignation and also shows,
by sex, men and women.
Q. What period of years is reflected in Exhibit HH? A.
This is September, 1960, through October, 1969.
Mr. Jackson: At this time we offer Defendants’
Exhibit HH.
Mr. Greiner: No objection.
The Court: It will be received.
Dr. Harold A. Stetzler—-for Defendants—Direct
1158a
[1547] (Whereupon, Defendants’ Exhibit HH
was received in evidence.)
Q. Is this within that exhibit, Dr. Stetzler, the total each
year of the resignations throughout the district? A. Yes.
Q. Would you thumb through this and indicate to the
Court, please, what that total is for the various years. A.
In 1962 the total would be just over—510.
In 1963, it’s 445.
In 1964, it’s 445.
In 1965, it’s—
Mr. Brega: Doctor, I believe there is a total in
the top right-hand corner.
The Witness: I ’m looking in the wrong place.
Here we go.
•—418. They changed the place of the totals over the
years.
In 1966, 420.
In 1967, 523.
And in 1968, 595—’69. There is no 1967 figure here.
Q. How are those reports received by the central admin
istrative officer, Dr. Stetzler, regarding vacancies? A.
Through a resignation card. You mean—
Q. Are they sent in by the principals—the vacancies
[1548] in the schools? A. The individual teacher—Well,
the individual teachers, of course, must send in resignation
cards, requests for leave of absence or whatever. We do in
the elementary schools get from each principal in about
February of each year—we call it a request for faculty—
Dr. Harold A. Stetzler—for Defendants—Direct
1159 a
and it does show their needs for the following year and
has the teacher listed and any changes that they contem
plate.
Q. Now, after you have determined what the number of
vacancies you have to be filled in any one given year are,
do you have certain priorities on the assignment of teachers
to those vacancies? A. Well, the first thing that happens
to the vacancies of course, is that we must—
Q. I ’m speaking now, Doctor, only of those assignments
where you are assigning a new teacher to a vacancy. A.
When the vacancy list is final in September, yes, I always
assign the minority teachers and the men teachers before
I make any other assignments.
Q. Why is that? A. They’re both priority items. We
employ very few men teachers or fewer than we would like
to for the elementary schools, and we have employed fewer
minority teachers than we wished to in the past, so we must
make these assignments with extreme care.
[1549] Q. Where, for example, would you assign a man
teacher? A. Probably where there were no men teachers
or where a man teacher might have been lost through resig
nation or transfer.
Q. Where, for example, might you assign a minority
teacher? A. In the same fashion; where there probably
had been no minority teachers or where a minority teacher
has—Well, this would be different. We would not assign
minority teachers in those schools that had some concentra
tions of minority teachers. So, we would look for schools
that have not had a minority teacher or may have had one
or two and that has decreased.
Q. Are there any other priorities on the assignment of
these new teachers? A. We would then begin to look for
those teachers who could probably function best in schools
Dr. Harold A. Stetzler—for Defendants—Direct
1160a
with minority youngsters, what may be described as dis
advantaged neighborhoods, culturally deprived. There are
a number of terms for it. And determine on a tentative
basis which of our new teachers might do a fine job in
those neighborhoods. Our next step there is to invite the
principals of those schools to come in and review those
assignments with us. Usually this happens about late
June.
[1550] Q. How do you identify, in the first instance, a
teacher that you feel might do well in one of these impact
areas? A. From the summary at the interview, but this
would be indicated through either a special program in
their college work; prior experience, or experiences outside
of school, Vista, Head Start, Peace Corps. These kinds of
things that have given these people some experiences with
these kinds of youngsters.
Q. And you indicated, I believe, that this was always
reviewed with the principal before the assignment was
actually made. A. The principals are invited to come re
view this assignment before it’s final.
Q. Are there any other priorities in the teacher assign
ments that you take into consideration in assigning the new
teachers? A. Once we have this group of schools taken
care of, then it is a matter of—Well, we look, of course, at
the teachers’ experience and backgrounds. They apply for
certain grade levels. And so we would assign them—they
usually give us three choices so that this wTould become a
priority of a—of assigning teachers to where—into the
positions that they have applied.
Q. Is there an attempt on your part to assign the [1551]
new teachers with previous experience to schools with the
greatest number of new teachers? A. This would mark
Dr. Harold A. Stetsler—for Defendants—Direct
1161a
that new teacher as a prime consideration at least for as
signment to a minority school.
Q. Now, you indicated earlier that—
The Court: You don’t pay any attention to teacher
requests at that stage, I take it?
The Witness: As teachers are employed, it is in
dicated to them that at the time they sign the con
tract we have no way of assigning them to a specific
school. And so, they will be assigned in the best
interests of the school system with the vacancies that
exist.
The Court: But, later on, a teacher can pretty
much write his own ticket, can’t he?
The Witness: Later on, the teacher would have
the privilege of requesting transfer through our
regular transfer procedure.
[1552] The Court: If a vacancy existed, why, he
would be entitled to it?
The Witness: On a seniority basis.
The Court: All right, that’s all I have.
B y M r. Jackson:
Q. You indicated earlier, Dr. Stetzler, that you attempted
to assign new teachers either by their previous experience
or upon the recommendation of the interviewer were those
who you felt would do well in areas that you described
I believe as culturally disadvantaged areas or impact areas.
Are these areas identified in any other way, as, for example,
through any federal programs? A. Yes, through the var
ious titles these schools receive either additional personnel
or additional materials through the supplementary appro
priations of the federal g*overnment.
Dr. Harold A. Stetzler—for Defendants—Direct
1162a
Q. And it is into these schools that you are attempting
to place these teachers? A. Right.
Q. Now, are you always successful—
The Court: These are what you call culturally de
prived areas of the city, or these schools?
The Witness: Yes, these schools are identified by
the federal government through such things as stu
dent mobility, the number of youngsters that would
be on Aid to Dependent Children, these kinds of
criteria.
[1553] The Court: Co ahead.
Q. Are you always successful in making your assignments
as you indicated? A. No, you finally may run out of
people who have had the kind of experience that would be
preferred either through their prior teaching or through
their college experiences, and then you must go on to a
group of people through the interviewing process that
you feel would adjust well to these kinds of situations and
again be successful.
Q. What about the situations in the individual schools,
Dr. Stetzler? You testified that one of the requirements of
your job from the beginning was to break up the concentra
tion of minority teachers wherever they existed in terms of
being consistent with the then current policies. What prob
lems if any do you have in terms of the existing minority
teachers in these schools?
The Court: You mean in transferring them?
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: To move any teachers ? Schools which
do not have a concentration? Go ahead.
Dr. Harold A. Stetsler—for Defendants—Direct
1163a
A. To move any teacher, once they are assigned, unless
there is an administrative reason concerned with either their
performance or a change in pupil population, we just don’t
move them without their request, so although minority
teachers have the same procedure for requesting transfer,
not very [1554] many of them have requested transfer
unless it would be between levels, but, generally, in the
same area of the City.
Q. Generally, what is the transfer policy that, now pre
vails within the school district, Dr. Stetzler? A. This was
changed. As it exists now, we publish a list of known va
cancies in April.
Q. I mean, is this embodied in any written document1?
A. We have a negotiated agreement concerning the trans
fer policy, yes.
Q. And do you know or recall when that agreement first
became effective? A. The first negotiated agreement would
have been in—’65 or -6.
Q. I hand you Defendants’ Exhibit E and ask you if you
can identify that. A. Yes, this is the agreement between
the School District No. 1 and the Denver Classroom Teach
ers Association.
Q. And is this the agreement to which you refer? A.
This is November 1, 1967.
Q. Prior to the negotiated agreement, was there any
written transfer policy within the school district? A. Yes,
I believe Policy 1617A was the policy.
Q. And you indicated that you experienced some diffi
culties in minority teachers transferring out of their present
school? [1555] A. Not very many request such transfer,
right.
Dr. Harold A. Stetsler—for Defendants—Direct
1164a
Q. Was there any special effort put forth on your part
or on the part of others to encourage these minority teach
ers to transfer from those schools with concentrations of
minority teachers? A. Yes, from time to time I have asked
the director or the executive director of our school commu
nity relations office if they could encourage minority teach
ers to transfer out of the culturally deprived or minority
schools, and, if so, to let me know their names or help me
make appointments with these people to discuss this pos
sibility with them.
I have also had occasion from time to time to have an
opportunity to discuss this with a minority teacher on my
own.
Q. You mentioned the director of the community rela
tions division. Who is that at the present time? A. Mr.
Kruder.
Q. Do you know who preceded him in that office? A.
Miss Mildred Biddick.
Q. Did you have this same conversation in contact with
both of them? A. Yes.
, Q. And what success did this bring about in terms of
minority teachers transferring away from minority schools ?
A. Almost none. I can recall only one or two [15562 con
versations as a result of this with minority teachers.
Q. Had there been during this period of time minority
teachers who had transferred into schools with existing con
centrations of minority teachers? A. Yes.
Q. Have you had any occasion to discuss with these
teachers their applications to transfer? A. From time to
time I have asked the person to reconsider this, yes, this
transfer.
Q. And have you met with any success in that program?
A. No.
Dr. Harold A. Stetsler—for Defendants—Direct
1165a
Q. Now, Dr. Stetzler, yon indicated that yonr charge
was to attempt to reduce the concentration of minority
teachers in certain schools and to further the placement
of minority teachers throughout the system. At the time
you assumed your duties in 1964, how many elementary
schools were there with one or more Negro teachers to your
knowledge? A. Approximately 15,
Q. And do you know where these were located? A. In
the central part of the city.
Q. And in 1970, today, how many elementary schools
are there in the city with one or more Negro teachers? A.
About 70.
Q. Pardon me? A. About 70. It varies from time to
time.
[15573 Q. So, from 15 elementary schools in 1964 to 70
today? A. Yes.
Q. Where were these schools located. Doctor? A. They
are all over the city.
The Court: I would assume that means qualified
minority teachers are on the increase? There per
haps is also competition to get their services?
The "Witness: It is a very competitive thing to
recruit a minority teacher.
Q. Dr. Stetzler, I am handing you what’s in evidence as
Defendants’ Exhibit DG and ask you if you would tell the
Court, please, generally what that describes. A. This is
the percentage of Negro teachers from 1964 until 1968 in
elementary schools with faculties 20 percent or more Ne
gro as of September 1964.
Q. What are the schools noted on that exhibit, Dr. Stetz
ler? A. These are for Barrett, Columbine, Crofton, Ebert,
Dr. Harold A. Stetzler—for Defendants—Direct
1166a
Fairview, Gilpin, Harrington, Mitchell, Stedman, Whittier
and Wyatt.
Q. And what does that exhibit show regarding the per
centage of Negro teachers in those schools for the years
indicated, ’64 through ’68! A. Let’s see, in every case
other than Barrett Elementary School, the percentage of
Negro teachers has [1558] decreased.
Mr. Greiner: I am sorry, Your Honor, I can’t
quite hear.
The Court: He says that in every single school
except Barrett the number of Negro teachers has
decreased according to that exhibit. What’s the
number of that one?
Mr. Jackson: DG, Your Honor.
The Witness: It has remained—well, the ’64-’68
percentage for Stedman is the same. The others
have decreased except Barrett.
# # # * = #
[1561] * * *
B y M r. Jackson:
Q. I believe yesterday, Dr. Stetzler, you testified that
when you assumed your duties there were approximately
fifteen elementary schools with one or more Negro teach
ers. A. Bight.
Q. And these were again located where within the city?
A. Primarily in the central area of the city.
Q. And what are the comparable figures for 1970? A.
We have approximately 70 elementary schools that have
one or more Negro teachers, and these are spread through
out the city.
Q. Now, Dr. Stetzler, directing your attention once again
Dr. Harold A. Stetzler—for Defendants—Direct
1167 a
to Exhibit DD, and I believe you have a copy of that ex
hibit before you, do you not? A. Yes,
Q. You testified yesterday of the general decline in
those particular schools of the percentage of Negro teach
ers. £1562] Did you in the course of your investigation
make a detailed analysis of the situation at Barrett School,
which is shown on that exhibit? A. Yes, I did.
Q. And would you recite again, please, for the Court
the trend which is shown on that exhibit for Barrett and
the years indicated? A. In 1964 Barrett was approxi
mately 39 percent Negro teachers. It rose to a high of
about 58 percent in 1967 and dropped back to about 52
percent in 1968.
The Court: In 1967 it was what?
The Witness: In 1967 it was approximately 58
percent
The Court: And what else?
The Witness: And in 1968 it dropped to 52 per
cent approximately.
Q. And do you know what that percentage is today? A.
As of now, I believe it’s right at 50 percent exactly.
Q. And do you know how many teachers there are on
the staff at Barrett School? A. I do. I guess I do not.
There are—•
Q. I believe there are eighteen, are there not? A. Yes,
there are eighteen teachers.
Q. And what did your investigation regarding the 11563]
situation at Barrett disclose, Dr. Stetzler, during this
period? A. During this period we made assignments of
twenty-six teachers. There were twenty-six vacancies at
Barrett School. Nine of the twenty-six teachers were Ne
Dr. Harold A. Stetder—for Defendants—Direct
1168a
gro. The remainder of them were Anglo; one Hispano. Of
the nine Negro teachers assigned, five of them were as
signed by their own request for transfer or by their re
quest when they returned from leave. Four teachers then
were—Negro teachers were assigned initially to Barrett,
but upon receiving their first contract during that period.
Of the four assigned on initial contract, one of them had
come to Barrett through the first semester as a substitute
teacher.
When a vacancy occurs after the beginning of a semes
ter, we do appoint a teacher on a long-term substitute
basis to complete that semester. That person was recom
mended by the principal to remain at Barrett and recom
mended for contract, and so we did that.
One other teacher would have been a fine gift for any
school. He was a man who could teach fifth and sixth
grades and also could teach music. This is a difficult com
bination to find. And in addition to that—at the time we
did not have identification. I did not know this person was
Negro. A third person, assigned to Barrett, had been a
Denver Public School employee; had resigned; had done
[1564] a considerable amount of work in reading and
reapplied for contract, and we placed that man there to
do a reading maintenance and improvement job. This is
a special program.
Then the fourth teacher had twenty-one years’ experi
ence prior to coming to Denver; had quite a background
in reading and was assigned in the teaching in reading
program at Barrett.
Q . I believe you testified, Dr. Stetzler, that one you did
not realize was a Negro at the time of the initial assign
ment, is that correct? A. That’s right. We have had some
considerable difficulty over the years in identification. When
Dr. Harold A. Stetsler—for Defendants—Direct
1169a
I first assumed this position there was quite a force to not
identify teachers and not identify persons prior to employ
ment because of possible discriminatory practices. Conse
quently, the practice of requiring a photograph with an
application was stopped. We were requested a number of
times to be sure that no separation of applications or any
of this kind of thing was done.
Two or three years ago—I believe it’s two years ago—
we were even required to remove the birthplace from our
application so that no identification of race might be gained
from that. With this, we had concern that if we identified
applicants by race, even after we had seen them, on our
interview card or in any other way, we might be [15651
held to be discriminatory.
So during most of the time that I have been in this
position, we have had a difficult time making sure as we
placed people what their race was.
[1566] Q. Was this impetus for taking off the birthplaces
and not utilizing photographs—did this come from, the
Denver Public Schools or from outside agencies? A. This
came from outside agencies, as either requests or direc
tives, I believe, from the Colorado Civil Rights Commis
sion.
Q. Now, are you continuing to receive requests for
minority teachers from those schools which have a high
percentage of minority students in them? A. For trans
fer?
Q. For initial assignment or for transfer, yes. A. Yes,
as we interview minority teachers they quite often indi
cate that their preference would be assignment to minority
schools because they believe they have something to offer
there. They often summarize it, “And I want to go back
and help the youngsters where I grew up.” Also, teachers
Dr. Harold A. Stetder—for Defendants—Direct
1170a
assigned initially outside of the minority schools frequently
after a year or so request transfer to minority schools.
Q. Dr. iStetzler, we have had quite a bit of testimony
regarding teacher experience and percentages of new teach
ers versus teachers with three years or ten years of ex
perience. How would you consider the new teacher of
today with the new teacher of, say, five years ago? A. Well,
first of all, I think we are dealing with a generation of
young people with a much greater social awareness. [15673
This has become evident to me in recruiting over the past
six years. Secondly, they are more apt to have been ex
posed during their college career to additional courses
required by the college in sociology, urban problems, and
this kind of thing. Also, the preparation of elementary
teachers, I believe, has gotten considerably better over the
years and so our new teachers coming to us each year we
have reason to believe are somewhat better prepared than
the teachers of five years or even four years before.
Q. How about the minority teachers? Are they good
teachers? A. They are fine teachers. They meet the same
requirements. All of our teachers are screened with the
same requirements in mind, and they all meet those quali
fications.
Q. In your discussion of Barrett School, you indicated
that certain of the teachers transferred into Barrett. Would
you tell us, please, what the transfer policy is, how it
works? A. The transfer policy?
Q. Yes. A. We publish a list of known vacancies in
April and again in May to all offices in the School District,
and at that time teachers may submit a request for trans
fer on a regular teacher’s request for transfer form. These
come to our offices, are printed out from automatic data
Dr. Harold A. Stetzler—for Defendants—Direct
1171a
processing, giving the teacher’s present school, the request
for transfer— [15-683 they may request more than one
school to which they would like to go—the number of years
experience that they have had and the number of years
in their present position. At the time of the deadline for
receiving transfers, this data is accumulated, and we work
from the printout then with, of course, particularly in ele
mentary school seniority being the prime factor, because
people are equally qualified.
Q. How does seniority come to be the prime factor, Dr.
Stetzler? A. This is stated in the negotiated agreement
concerning transfer.
Q. Prior to the negotiated agreement, was it also con
tained within the Policy 1617A? A. Yes.
Q. Backing up for a moment, you indicated that you
publish a list of vacancies. How are these vacancies estab
lished? A. These are established through my office when
we receive the resignation from teachers or the approval
for leaves of absence. Then we know on our list this needs
to be a replacement for the following year.
Q. And in any given year, are these vacancies spread
out throughout the city, or are they concentrated in any
specific areas? A. This varies considerably from year to
year.
[1569] Q. Are you familiar with the Traylor Elementary
School? A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall when that school opened? A. In Jan
uary of 1968.
Q. This was in the middle of the year? Did this present
any particular problem regarding teacher assignments? A.
Yes, midyear assignments, of course, are quite a different
matter from September assignments in that we don’t have
the alternatives. We don’t have the number of vacancies.
Dr. Harold A. Stetder— for Defendants—Direct
1172a
Generally, we don’t have the number of new teachers needed
or even available. The January assignment of teachers is
a quite different operation from September.
Q. How was the staff at Traylor selected? A. We de
termined that the fairest way to open Traylor was to
publish the list of vacancies or the list of teachers needed
at Traylor, as we publish the list in the spring of each
year. So we did again print this list and sent it to all
offices within the district and asked people to submit their
request for transfer in the usual fashion.
Q. And how did you determine which teachers, assum
ing they had qualifications, would be assigned to Traylor ?
A. The same as in the spring, by seniority.
Q. Dr. Stetzler, I hand you what is in evidence as Plain
tiffs’ Exhibit 267, purporting to show the median years
teacher experience at the minority elementary schools and
at [1570] Traylor Elementary School. What does that
exhibit show? A. In the twenty minority schools, the me
dian experience would be just under four years, and at
Traylor about eleven years.
Q. And you indicated that the assignments to Traylor
were done on the basis of seniority? A. That’s right.
Q. So the teachers that were assigned would be those
teachers with the greatest experience for the particular
opening that was available? A. Yes, who wished to move.
Another factor, many times people might not wish to move
mid year, although they might even have liked to have
gone to Traylor. They feel loyalty and concern for the
class they are teaching and do stay.
Q. What effort, if any, did you expend toward encourag
ing minority teachers to transfer to Traylor? A. We had
one minority teacher who did make a request for transfer
to Traylor in the position of teacher assistant. This is a
Dr. Harold A. Stetzler—for Defendants—Direct
1173a
position that is just what it says. It is a teacher assistant
to the principal. This person has no classroom duties. He
is assigned to the office to assist the principal with the
routines and administration of the school. This requires
a Master’s degree and five years of experience in Denver.
This person did not have the five years of experience. Also,
this position is selected by the principal, so we would
[1571] give the list of names for such a vacancy to the
principal and ask him to make selections. But I did call
the person, and on a couple of occasions, and asked if that
person would not go to Traylor in a regular classroom,
and he decided that he would not go to Traylor.
Q. Was the community relations office able to furnish
you with any minority teachers desiring a transfer to
Traylor? A. No.
Q. Now, are you familiar, Dr. Stetzler, with the opening
of Montbello School? A. Yes.
Q. And when did that open? A. We opened the smaller
unit in, I believe, January of 1967, and then the larger
unit in September of 1967.
Q. Now, in the September opening, how were the teach
ers assigned to Montbello School? A. Through, first of
all, the publication of a list of vacancies and the usual
transfer procedure.
Q. Were you able to encourage minority teachers to
transfer to Montbello? A. Yes, as we opened the larger
unit at Montbello, we did open with three minority
teachers.
Q. Out of a total teacher staff of— A. It would have
been a total of ten, eight at the larger unit and two at the
smaller one.
[1572] Q. Now, did the fact that Montbello opened in
the fall of the year make your job any easier than when
Dr. Harold A. Stetzler-—for Defendants—Direct
1174a
Traylor, for example, opened in the middle of the year?
A. Yes, I would say so, because the request for transfer
would be greater. People that had desired to move would
feel it a better time to transfer than they do in January.
Q. In your position as the director of elementary school
services since 1964 was there a period of time, Dr. Stetz
ler, when you were responsible for elementary pupil ser
vices? A. I was responsible for making recommendations
concerning pupil services, yes.
Q. And what did this invlove? A. The assignment of
pupils, the transfer of pupils, the administration of the
boundary lines, the exceptions to boundary lines, the trans
portation of pupils.
Q. In what period of time did you have this responsibil
ity? A. From ’64 until reorganization began to be effec
tive sometime in the ’68-’69 school year.
Q. With regard to the assignment of pupils, Dr. Stetz
ler, what is the main problem with regard to assignment-
of students? A. Space, particular the assignment of stu
dents that we had gained through annexation over the
number of years. The annexations come in sometimes
rather rapidly. Housing is [15733 built rapidly. It is a
continually fluid situation as you move through the years.
Q. What is your responsibility for children who are
residing within an area that is annexed to Denver? A. To
get them into schools generally immediately upon the ef
fective date of the annexation.
Q. What considerations do you take into account in
determining what recommendations you will make as far
as the school to which these pupils will be assigned? A.
Primary concern, of course, would be where is the space;
secondly, where is the nearest space; and, thirdly, what
does this do to the total transportation system? We usu
Dr. Harold A. Stetzler—for Defendants—Direct
1175a
ally have conferences with the supervisor of transportation
to make certain space available on buses.
Q. The question of space, Dr. Stetzler, would you tell us
how you determine what space is available throughout the
city? A. Through looking, first of all, at the membership
reports that come to us during the year and then through
conferences with those principals at those schools that
would appear to have space. A primary source, of course,
is the principal at the time we want to utilize the space.
Q. You say compare those schools that appear to have
space? Are you familiar with the formula approach to
determine rated space at schools within the Denver system?
[1574] A. Yes.
The Court: You don’t seek to transfer them nec
essarily to the schools nearest to them?
The Witness: From the annexations, we attempted
to get youngsters into the school that would be the
closest to that annexation.
The Court: Regardless of whether—I thought you
said space was the primary—-
The Witness: Nearest school with space, yes.
[1575] The Court: If you were following out the
neighborhood school principle, you would give prior
ity to the school that was nearest their place of resi
dence, wouldn’t you?
The Witness: That’s right.
The Court: You don’t do this?
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: You mean to say you don’t haul them,
past these schools to other schools that have vacan
cies frequently?
The Witness: We would take them to the nearest
Dr. Harold A. Stetsler—for Defendants—Direct
1176a
school that had available space.
The Court: If it had space, then, that is the—
The Witness: Yes, right.
The Court: That’s the real problem?
The Witness: Eight.
The Court: Okay.
B y M r. Jackson:
Q. On this matter of space, Dr. Stetzler, you say that
you are familiar with the rated capacity of the school and
that you then compare the rated capacity with the member
ship? A. Yes.
Q. And then you discuss this with the principal? A.
Eight.
Q. Is the fact that a school has, for example, fifty £1576]
children less than its rated capacity—does that necessarily
indicate that you can select any group of fifty students
and transport them or assign them to that school? A. Not
necessarily. It would depend upon the time of the year
when you needed to utilize that space; would depend upon
the facility itself; would depend upon the grade level mem
bership in that school. So a number of factors could enter—•
The Court: The only thing I ’m suggesting is that
this is a compromise with the neighborhood school
principle or policy. If you were adhering to that
primarily, you would move them to the school closest
to them and avoid busing, them, if possible.
The Witness: This would mean that the school
closest would probably go on double sessions and
become overcrowded and so forth.
The Court: Yes.
The Witness: Eight.
Dr. Harold A. Stetder—for Defendants—Direct
1177a
Q. Dr. Stetzler, are there neighborhood schools within
these areas that are annexed? A. Well, of course, in the
annexed areas there are almost no schools. Particularly,
of course, they—when they are annexed, there aren’t any.
Q. Is there any effort to keep children from the same
general area together in terms of placing them in a [1577]
school? A. Yes. This is a tremendous problem because
once you start youngsters from an area to a school, we have
attempted to keep them in that school But finally, if that
school runs out of space, you set a cutoff date and then
youngsters moving into that neighborhood after that date
are assigned to another school. It can be after two or three
years that you have youngsters going to four or five schools
from the same general area.
Q. What effect does the educational program of the
receiving school have upon the spaces available at that
school? A. Again it would depend upon the time of the
year. If there are special programs in a school, even though
it would be below capacity as rated, we would probably not
consider it a school to receive pupils. Again, the January-
September kind of concern enters into this. You mentioned
fifty spaces—If this is in January, it may mean a complete
relocation of the pupils within the school to take a partic
ular area. In September this is an easier matter where
youngsters are going to be reassigned to classrooms, any
way.
Q. What about the class size and pupil-teacher ratio at
the school with apparently some capacity? A. This would
be another factor in discussing space available with the
principal. We would look at class size and [1578] pupil-
teacher ratio in terms of keeping a reasonable educational
program in that school, also.
Dr. Harold A. Stetder•—for Defendants-—Direct
1178a
Q. Do you look also to the annexation areas as well as
the area surrounding the receiving schools ? A. You must
also consider the potential of the annexation so that, if you
start out with a few youngsters, we are aware generally of
the speed within which the builder intends to erect homes
and have some idea of the final potential of that area.
So we also need to look in the future to attempt to save
some space in the school where those children are being re
ceived for the additional youngsters that are sure to come
in.
Q. And you plan that at both ends of the line1? A. Yes,
by looking at the school on space and the annexation and
how much potential it has.
Q. Is this busing from the annexed areas a temporary
thing? Or is it a temporary thing until schools are built?
A. Well, I’ll say—obviously with the opening- of Traylor,
those youngsters were no longer transported to another
school. So it is a temporary kind of thing until a school
is built in that neighborhood.
Q. And would the same principle apply to the Montbello
area? A. Yes. You see, they initially were transported
until [1579] the unit—the larger unit was completed. And
then those youngsters began to attend the Montbello unit.
Q. Approximately how many students are you required
to accommodate each year from these annexation areas?
A. This would vary, but something between 2,500, 3,000
youngsters must be accommodated from an annexed area
in the elementary schools.
Q. And do the annexations themselves fluctuate in terms
of rapidity or in terms of— A. Oh, sure.
Q. And have you experienced instances where areas have
been annexed to the city and then disestablished and re
annexed? A. Yes, we have had a couple of these that I can
Dr. Harold A. Stetder—for Defendants—Direct
1179a
recall that we didn’t know whether the youngster belonged
to us or not, over a period of a number of months.
Q. And you have to take that into consideration also in
your planning? A. Right.
Q. Dr. Stetzler, with regard to the transfer of pupils
which you testified was within your domain for a period of
time, what are you speaking of when we talk about transfer
of pupils? A. We do, of course, have some exceptions to
the elementary boundary lines and they would be summed
up where [1580] children may attend school where there
is a baby-sitter. And, if a mother is working full time and
does have a baby-sitter who resides in another school sub
district, the youngster may go to school from the baby
sitter’s address, again depending upon the space available
in that school.
We also make exceptions for medical reasons, both phys
ical and mental health. We would make exceptions through
the courts if sometimes the courts do recommend a change
of school for youngsters.
Q. What about overcrowding in a particular school? A.
And if a school became overcrowded, we might move, yes,
some students from that school to another one.
Q. How would that process take place with regard to
those schools which were overcrowded? A. Our first step
would be to make sure that the present facility is fully
utilized and again in conferences with the principal and
other people, see if there are changes and program changes
in scheduling. Changes in the use of space that would per
mit greater number of youngsters to remain there.
The second consideration would be mobile units or an
addition.
A third consideration then would be transportation to
another school.
Dr. Harold A. Stetsler— for Defendants—Direct
1180a
£1581] Q. What about double sessions! A. Yes, earlier
in 1964, ’65, ’66, we tried to avoid double sessions just as
much as we could. Later we began to consider it also as
a means of retaining youngsters in their school.
Q. Was there a general policy at that time of attempting
to keep children within their own neighborhoods? A. Yes.
Q. And did this form one of the bases for your considera
tion of transportation, for example, or the placement of
mobile units or additions? A. Well, the sequence would be
to keep children in the school and to the utilization; then
possible double sessions; and then mobile units or an addi
tion, and then transportation being the last consideration.
Q. Once it was determined that it was necessary to re
move some of the children from their neighborhood either
because of lack of money or additions or other causes, how
did you determine the school to which these children would
be transferred? A. Again, look at the school nearest to
their neighborhood with available space.
Q And when you speak of space, did the same considera
tions apply as we discussed earlier with regard to the
assignment of students from annexed areas? £1582] A.
Yes.
Q. I take it then, Dr. Stetzler, that the determination of
space is not a pure formula and mathematical approach to
the question? A. No, it is not.
Q. Why is this? A. The mathematical approach to space
available is just that. It’s an indicator. But it really doesn’t
tell you the kind of programs that are being conducted
within the schools. It didn’t tell you very much about the
facility itself. And some schools, particularly older ones,
have smaller rooms than others; have other difficulties with
special programs. So, it’s a beginning point.
Dr. Harold A. Stetsler—for Defendants—Direct
1181a
The Court: So space is not the whole criterion!
The Witness: Not just the mathematical availa
bility. That’s right.
The Court: You had said a moment ago—indicated
a moment ago that this was just about the sole
criteria; availability of space. But you do look to
the school; as you say, you determine from a number
of criteria whether the students should go to that
school, is that right, or the group of students?
The Witness: Yes, the mathematical formula
would be the beginning point. Then you need to have
the conference with the principal and, of course,
we’re aware of the [1583] schools as you work with
them, the kinds of space available and the programs
in the schools. But you must talk with the principals
and others to make sure what the situation is at the
time that you want to utilize additional space.
The Court: What do you mean? What situation?
The Witness: Well, you see, our reports are gen
erally we get a membership report in right after
school starts and another one about the 1st of Oc
tober.
The Court: Well, could you just list the other
criteria that you take into account.
The Witness: All right. This is one. What’s
happened to the available space since my last report?
The school may have grown indeed from its neighbor
hood.
Second thing would be what special programs are
going on in that school.
The Court: Like what?
The Witness: Like a special reading program,
special education, team teaching. These kinds of
Dr. Harold A. Stetsler—for Defendants—Direct
1182a
programs that might—may utilize space in a differ
ent fashion.
The Court: In other words, special education!
The Witness: Special kinds of education, yes.
The Court: What else?
The Witness: The organization within that build
ing indeed would have something to do with the space
available, also, in terms of the movement of young
sters. The platoon [1584] versus the self-contained
classroom.
The Court: You mean whether they move them
from class to class for particular subjects?
The Witness: Yes, if you have a departmentalized
school or a platoon.
The Court: Then you use a homeroom type of—
The Witness: Yes, and you can get more young
sters in that school.
The Court: You use that in the elementary level?
The Witness: In some schools, yes.
The Court: Okay. What else would be important?
The Witness: I believe those are the primary
considerations.
Q. Do you also look, Dr. Stetzler, to the type of trans
portation available? A. Well, existing transportation.
The Court: Public transportation?
The Witness: Not for elementary schools, no. We
would have to look at our own utilization of trans
portation and how it might fit.
Q. Is it important also to determine where the over
crowding exists in terms of the grade level or age of the
Dr. Harold A. Stetder—for Defendants—Direct
1183a
students? A. Yes, particularly if you’re going from school
to school. So you must determine the school that is over
crowded. £15853 Are there grade levels that particularly
are overcrowded? And then look at the receiving school
to see if they can indeed receive youngsters from those
grade levels or that grade level.
Q. And does this become an even more difficult problem
in the secondary level in terms of where the spaces are or
where the need is? A. I have not dealt with secondary—
Q. You indicated that as with the assignment of students
from the annexation areas, that with the transfer of pupils,
you attempt to assign the pupils, if necessary, to the closest
school with available space, is that correct? A. Right.
Q. Is that same policy followed in the Northeast Denver
area? A. The same consideration of utilization and so
on would be followed, yes.
Q. I mean, in terms of the receiving school that would
be selected? A. Yes, primarily. We make sure—Would
you restate your question?
Q. Is the same policy of transporting children to the
closest school with available space followed, also, in North
east Denver? A. Primarily. There would be some excep
tions to E1586 3 that.
Q. And what would some of those exceptions be, Dr.
Stetzler? A. The available space that might be closest
would be schools where—either they would be crowded—
with available space, it would be schools that had a rather
large number of special programs that in schools in which
we have attempted to reduce class size and pupil-teacher
ratio.
Q. Are you attempting also to transfer those students
to the closest available Anglo school -with space? A. In
some cases, yes.
Dr. Harold A. Steteler— for Defendants—Direct
1184a
Q. Dr. Stetzler, X have placed on the easel Plaintiffs’
Exhibit 390 and 390-B showing the busing in the elementary-
school for the year 1968. I would ask you if you would leave
the witness stand and come over to this exhibit for a mo
ment.
We have had previous testimony, Dr. Stetzler, that on
the base map which is Exhibit 390, the schools with red
circles represent schools that are at least 51 percent Anglo
that were ten or more undercapacity in 1968. The schools
with blue circles are schools who had at least a pupil popu
lation that was 51 percent minority, and again, had a capac
ity utilization representing ten percent or more available
space.
Now, would you please, for the Court and for counsel,
indicate generally on this exhibit the areas that you have
been discussing* with regard to students from areas annexed
to the City and County of Denver? A. This would be the
general southeast and southwest areas of the city.
[1588] Q. And would you locate for us on that exhibit
Traylor Elementary School? A. This is the Traylor
School.
Q. And this exhibit does not show any busing from
Traylor in 1968, does it? A. That’s right.
Q. Do you recall, Dr. Stetzler, where those Traylor stu
dents were transported prior to the opening of Traylor
School? A. Before Traylor opened, the youngsters from
this area were transported to University Park, Cory and
Asbury Schools.
Q. Would you locate those schools for us, generally? A.
This is University Park, Cory and Asbury.
Q. Now, Dr. Stetzler, directing your attention to the
Cowell area as shown on this exhibit, this indicates busing
from the Cowell district to Johnson, which bypasses both
Dr. Harold A. Stetzler—for Defendants-—Direct
1185a
an Anglo school and a minority school, does it not? A.
Yes, it does.
Q. And can you tell ns the reason for that? A. The
Anglo school is Perry with a total capacity of about 150
youngsters. It is a very small school and really part of
an administrative unit with the Westland School. The
Westland School is one of the schools in which we have
attempted to keep class size and pupil-teacher ratio mini
mal and in which there are some or have been some special
programs. When we moved youngsters from Cowell, Cowell
had become [15893 crowded and we utilized the space as
best we could there and considered the matter of mobile
units, and the site at Cowell does not lend itself—
The Court: I am just curious as to where Cowell
is. Is it Barnum or some place?
A. (Continued) It is at 10th and Vrain, I believe, yes.
This would be Sheridan Boulevard here. The site at
Cowell is a multi-level site and did not lend itself to the
establishment of enough mobile units to take care of the
crowding*, and it was determined then through meetings
with the staff and the community that rather than go the
double-session alternative that first graders would be
moved. So we took, I believe, some ninety youngsters from
Cowell School to Johnson School, because at Johnson there
were at that time two empty rooms.
The Court: Where is Johnson?
The Witness: Johnson is at Irving and Jewell.
So, we passed up Perry School. Ten percent below
capacity there might mean fifteen youngsters. We
passed Westland School because of our special pro
grams and our attempts to keep teacher-pupil ratio
and class size at a minimum at Westland School.
Dr. Harold A. Stetsler—for Defendants■—Direct
1186a
Q. In directing your attention to the middle portion of
the map, which indicates students being* bused out from
Elyria School with at least 51 percent minority, pupil
population under capacity, to Swansea, can you tell us
why that [1590] busing occurs? A. Elyria-Swansea once
again is an administrative unit. It has the same boundary
lines and same principal. Elyria has only five classrooms
and has not had kindergarten within my experience. The
kindergarten youngsters are transported to Swansea and
back.
Q. You took into consideration just first graders from
Cowell when those were bused to Johnson and just kinder
garten from Elyria to Swansea? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Directing your attention to northeast Denver and in
particular to Smith and Stedman Schools, would you locate
those on the map for us, please. A. Smith School and here
is Stedman School.
Q. Now, the pattern as shown for the transportation out
from Smith and Stedman Schools, the receiving schools for
those children are located where? A. Primarily in the
south half of the city.
Q. And in the primarily Anglo portion of the city? A.
Yes.
Q. And is this a specific practice, to move these students
to Anglo schools? A. The Smith and Stedman transporta
tion are again a little different.
The Court: I think that’s an important question
[1591] that ought to be answered directly. Do you
ever take into account the presence of minorities
when you are making these decisions as to transpor
tation, and have you ever, and when did you start, if
you did? I think we are all interested in this.
Dr. Harold A. Stetsler—for Defendants—Direct
1187a
The Witness: The transportation from these two
schools, the primary consideration was to transport
youngsters to schools of primarily Anglo attendance
areas.
The Court: Was that the first time yon have done
that with that in mind! I have been led to believe
here that the only motive you had was the existence
of space plus special programs, organization and
building.
The Witness: Yes, when these—
The Court: I concluded from what you said that
whether they are minorities or not or whether they
are in the receiving school was not considered by
you.
The Witness: I would say up until the time of
the Stedman, Smith and the Philips transportation,
this would be true.
The Court: With the exception of these three?
The Witness: Right.
The Court: Very well.
Q. Now, this exhibit shows not only that transportation
which is being conducted because of overcrowding but
shows also inter-district busing, does it not, within various
£1592] subdistricts? A. Yes.
Q. And would you give us some example of that? A.
Well, you mentioned Traylor there. There are youngsters
bused who live more than a mile from Traylor. Youngsters
are transported to Brown who live more than a mile from
Brown. I think there is some over here. The Asbury young
sters in the southeast corner living more than a mile are
transported, and from Garden Place these youngsters are
within the boundary but live more than a mile from the
Garden Place School and are transported to Garden Place.
Dr. Harold A. IStetzler—for Defendants—Direct
1188a
Q. Does that type of busing bear any relationship at all
to annexation or overcrowding? A. No, we have an estab
lished policy that youngsters in elementary schools living
a mile or more from school are eligible for transportation
to their school.
The Court: When you said that you sometimes
assign to the nearest Anglo school—do you remem
ber saying that? He asked you if you ever did and
you said yes. Did you mean to say that?
The "Witness: I would have to go back to the
question. I am—
The Court: Well, Mr. Jackson walked up to the
map and he said, “Do you sometimes make assign
ments in this transportation effort to the nearest
Anglo school?” You said [1593] Yes.
The Witness: From northeast Denver, yes.
The Court: In other words, you had reference to
Smith-Stedman-Philips, is that—•
The WTtness: Right.
The Court: When you made that answer?
The Witness: Yes.
Q. And the pupil population in Smith, Stedman and
Philips, the pupils being transported, are you familiar with
their racial composition? A. The majority of those young
sters would be Negro.
Q. And the reason for their being transported from
Smith, Stedman and Philips is because those schools are
overcrowded? A. Yes.
Dr. Harold A. Stetzler—for Defendants—Direct
Mr. Jackson: You may examine.
1189 a
C ross-E xam ination by M r. B arnes:
# # # * =£
[1598] * # *
Q. Turning your attention to your Exhibit DG, I ’d like
to ask you whether or not that shows whether there has
been any increase in the total number of minority teachers
in the elementary schools in the period 1964 to 1968? A.
This does not relate to the total number of teachers.
Q. You recall, do you not, that in 1964 the percent of
minority teachers in the elementary schools was nine per
cent? A. It was low.
Q. And that, in 1968 it was still nine percent? A. I would
agree that this is about right.
Q. And that is not contradicted by Exhibit DG, is it?
A. No.
# * «= * *
[1599] * * *
Q. You referred, Dr. Stetzler, to the use of photographs
in the teachers’ files. Can you tell us more specifically
when that program began and when it ended? A. I don’t
know when it began. It was in force when I assumed the
position.
At that time on the application there was a request that
the person submit a picture with their application. Shortly
after that, I would judge it to be in 1965 or 1966, we re
moved that request from the application.
Q. And do you now have photographs in the files? A.
We do request a photograph after a person is employed
and has signed a contract.
Q. And that—is that before or after he is assigned to a
school? [16003 A. It could occur either way. In many
cases the photograph arrives in September. We make re
quests for these. If the person has not complied -with any
Dr. Harold A. Stetsler—for Defendants—Cross
1190a
of the requirements we do make requests to complete the
application so it may occur at any time after they have
signed the contract.
Q. And it may occur before he is actually assigned to the
school? A. It may.
Q. Does it typically occur before he is assigned to a
school? A. I don’t know. Sometimes the photograph is
there when we’re making the assignment and sometimes
they’re not.
Q. You also mentioned that for some years race was
identified in the file and for others it is not.
Could you specify what years the race has been identified
in the file? A. The race is identified only through the
photograph that was requested with the application. We
have never on the application itself identified race.
Q. Does the photograph typically show up in every file?
A. After we have employed the person, yes.
Q. After the person has been employed? A. Yes.
Q. And prior to the person being employed, you have
[1601] an interview? A. Eight.
Q. So you always know the race of the person prior to
employment as well, don’t you? A. Somebody does. The
interviewer would.
Q. Whoever hires him does? A. Right. This would be
in question, by the way.
Q. Are there some cases where you can’t be sure? A.
That’s right.
Q. But not the majority of cases? A. Not the majority
of cases.
Q. During what years, if any, Dr. Stetzler, while you
have been in your present position has it been necessary
to notify a principal in advance of the race of a teacher?
A. It has never been necessary.
Dr. Harold A. Stetzler—for Defendants—Cross
1191a
Q. Has it ever been, the practice! A, No. We begin by
telling principals that they would receive teachers and
they would receive good teachers and that they should be
aware of our practice of increasingly assigning minority
teachers all over the city.
* # * # #
[1606] * * *
Dr. Harold A. Stetsler—for Defendants—Cross
Mr. Barnes: I think that’s right, Tour Honor.
Q. I’d like to turn your attention, Dr. Stetzler, to Defen
dants’ Exhibit E, Article 14 of the agreement between the
School District No. 1 and the Denver Classroom Teachers
Association, which is in evidence, and ask you if the agree
ment does not require the approval Of the superintendent
for transfer of teachers? A. Or his designee.
Q. Or his designee. And in Section 14-4-4, does it not
indicate that some transfers may be requested by the ad
ministration! A. Yes, there is a procedure for administra
tive transfer.
[1607] Q. And it indicates that transfers may be re
quested because of changes in enrollment or other unusual
situations, doesn’t it? A. That’s right.
Q. So that in the case of a serious educational problem
the superintendent might have the authority to make what
ever transfers he thinks are educationally necessary,
mightn’t he? A. He has—according to the agreement, he
has the authority to make transfers in unusual circum
stances or wdien there is a change in pupil population
within a school subdistrict.
Q. You indicated that it was the policy of the district,
I think—I think you indicated that it was the policy of
the district not to enforce transfers on teachers against
1192a
their will or without their initiating the request. Is that
accurate! A. That’s right.
Q. But yet you have the authority under this agreement
to do that, don’t you? A. Under the—
Q. The superintendent does? A. Under those circum
stances set forth in the agreement.
Q. Now, is there a policy of the district that probation
ary teachers will remain in their school, first £1608] assign
ment, for three years? A. Not now.
Q. Has there been in the past? A. In the past, there
was a statement indicating that teachers should remain in
assignment three years after their initial assignment or
after transfer.
Q. Does that typically occur, still, today? A. It is no
longer in the agreement.
Q. Is it the usual circumstances that a new teacher stays
in her first school three years? A. With reference to the
transfer, she may request transfer at any time after initial
assignment. I would suggest that most teachers remain in
their initial assignment for some period of time.
Q. Does the district discourage reassignment or transfer
of probationary teachers? A. Not by the agreement. We
have suggested to people that there are some disadvantages
to them of transferring, particularly during their second
or third year of probation.
Q. Is there any disadvantage to the school or to the
pupil? A. In most cases, I think not.
Q. Do you recognize some advantage in teacher stability
in a school? A. Given some other things, like teacher
willingness [1609] and teacher empathy, teacher skill, and
these kinds of things in that particular school this may be
well.
Q. When there is not teacher willingness or empathy in
a school, you might allow transfers—a transfer out of that
Dr. Harold A. Stetsler—for Defendants—Cross
1193a
school sooner than three years, is that correct? A. Under
the present agreement, we would allow a transfer upon re
quest under three years.
Q. And the grounds for granting that request might be
that the teacher simply didn’t want to be at that school?
A. As you will note, there are no reasons for transfer
stated in the agreement. The reason is not a consideration.
The Court: Are transfers as readily given while
a teacher is on probation as they are when he is not?
The Witness: Well, they have the seniority factor
—probably more teachers on probation are not trans
ferred at their request, you see, because they do not
meet the seniority of others teachers requesting
transfers.
The Court: So there is less inclination for the
school board to honor a request if a teacher has
not served the three years?
The Witness: We would be less inclined, yes.
B y M r. B arnes:
Q. Anri the purpose of that resistance is to improve the
educational offering at the school, isn’t it? A. Part of
that would be. I t’s also a matter of [1610] the probationary
period where we would like a person to remain in an as
signment with a principal who is evaluating that person’s
effectiveness over a period of time long enough to indeed
be able to evaluate the person.
Q. You have testified concerning your efforts in hiring
of minority teachers. Can you give us some idea of how
successful you have been in increasing the percentage of
minority school teachers in the various levels? A. As cir
cumstances change, we are becoming more successful as
Dr. Harold A. Stetzler—for Defendants—Cross
1194a
we learn more ways of recruiting and contacting minority
teachers. We have made considerable efforts in the past
few years to increase our number of minority teachers
through those efforts.
Q. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 245 which is in evidence indicates
that between 1964 and 1968 the percent of Negro teachers
in elementary schools has remained constant at nine per
cent. And I think you said you didn’t disagree with that,
is that correct? A. Eight.
Q. That same exhibit indicates that the percent of His-
pano teachers between 1964 and 1968 has gone from one
to two percent. Would you disagree with that? A. No.
Q. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 276 indicates that between 1964
and 1968 at the junior high level the percent of Negro
[16113 teachers has gone from six to nine. Would you
disagree with that? A. I have no knowledge of it. I
assume it’s right.
# # # * #
[1613] * * *
Q. Exhibit DGf shows that there are a great many schools
with 20 some percent minority teachers. There are also
schools with 30 percent and more, are there not? A. Yes,
there are.
[1614] Q. Such as Columbine with 33 percent in 1968?
A. That’s right, and I would suggest in that connection
that these teachers are very fine teachers and that because
there are 20 percent or more of Negro teachers in a school
certainly would not indicate that it is a poor faculty. They
are very fine teachers.
Q. In the assignment of teachers, isn’t it a fact that the
first decision about where a new teacher goes is made by
your office? That is, for elementary schools? A. The ini
tial assignment, yes.
Q. So that even though you have had difficulty transfer
ring them out, part of the concentration which is already
Dr. Harold A. Stetsler—for Defendants—Cross
1195a
there results from their initial assignment, doesn’t it! A.
Those concentrations, if you want to use that term, that
existed in ’64 were, of course, from initial assignments.
Q. Well, then, there has been other assignments since
you have been in your position of Negro teachers, haven’t
there, to Negro schools? A. Yes, there have.
Q. Hispano to Hispano schools? A. Yes, there have.
The primary assignment practice has been not to assign
minority teachers to minority schools, but we have made
exceptions to that.
Q. I take it that your discussion of the Traylor experi
ence indicates that the system was not geared up in a
[16153 way to put minority teachers in Traylor; is that
correct? A. We went through our usual procedure of
publishing vacancies.
Q. It just illustrates, does it not, that senior teachers
tend to move out of less desirable positions into the more
desirable positions? A. I don’t think that particular ex
ample does. Most of those teachers I believe you will find
came from University Park, which is not an undesirable
situation.
Q. But, few of them came from minority schools? A.
They probably did.
Q. And there were no minority teachers, were there, in
Traylor? A. As I testified, only one minority teacher re
quested transfer. We talked with that person more than
once, attempting to get him to agree to a transfer to
Traylor.
Q. Do you have any plan or any new way which will
better accomplish the movement of minority teachers out
of minority schools? A. We are beginning to talk with
people about a teacher exchange. Part of the requirement
would be moving from a minority school to a school out of
Dr. Harold A. Stetder—for Defendants—Cross
1196a
that area, and part of the hope here being that we would
also get people of different races to move on an exchange,
so they can become acquainted with other areas, and our
hope would then be that indeed they [1616] would request
transfer to that school or a similar school. We are right
now exploring this whole matter with two teacher commit
tees, hoping that we can gain from them some ideas and
some help that will further advance our efforts.
Q. When did that program begin? A. This is in the
exploratory stages. We have contacted some teachers as
a pilot kind of thing, to see what kind of considerations
would need to be made before we did this on a citywide
basis.
Q. Concerning the assignment of pupils, Dr. Stetzler, I
think you indicated that space is the main consideration or
at least that is part of what you indicated. Do you recall
whether any Anglo children were ever moved into minority
schools where there was space? A. I don’t.
Q. If we look at Exhibit 390 and the overlay, 390-B, and
identify the Montbello area out here, do you recall when
that area was brought into the School Disrict? A. Yes.
Q. When was that? A. I believe it was January 1967
when we first—no, it was before that because they were—
we opened the first unit there in January ’67.
Q. In January of ’67, and were there any schools out
there—you opened the first unit, I am sorry— [16173 A.
Yes, so it must have been in September, probably Septem
ber of ’67, that we first began to receive youngsters from
there.
Q. Where did those youngsters go? A. They went for
the one semester to Palmer—■
The Court: You mean they had gone prior to the
opening of Montbello? Is that what you are inquir
ing about?
Dr. Harold A. Stetsler—for Defendants—Cross
1197a
The Witness: No.
Mr. Barnes: Yes, sir.
The Witness : Oh, yes, sir.
The Court: Do you understand!
The Witness: Yes. I know they went to Palmer,
and I am not certain that some of them were trans
ported to Teller. Palmer was the—
Q. Palmer being down south of Colfax! A. Yes.
Q. And Teller being even farther south! No, it is not.
It is about equal latitudinally, isn’t it! It was farther to the
west. Do you recall that there were empty spaces at that
time in Columbine School? A. Columbine School, of
course, made empty spaces, but would be in that group
of schools where we would be or have been attempting
to lower the pupil-teacher ratio and the class size and to
provide special kinds of programs.
Q. And one of the special programs was not integration
£1618] of students, was it? A. They were educational
programs designed in such areas as reading and mathe
matics and other kinds of material, kinds of things, at
Columbine School.
Q. Was there any consideration that these children
might be taken to Columbine? A. We would not consider
those schools in that area because of our attempt to pro
vide a lower pupil-teacher ratio and the special programs.
Q. Did you have anything to do or do you have any
knowledge of the busing of the junior high school children
out of the Montbello area? A. No.
Q. You do not know that they went past Cole Junior
High School, which was empty, all the way over to the
Lake—
Mr. Jackson: If the Court please, he just indi
cated he didn’t any special knowledge of that.
The Court: Sustained.
Dr. Harold A. St eider—for Defendants—Cross
1198a
Q. In the identification of schools with space, does the
principal have the final say as to whether or not his school
has space? A. Probably not, if it came to a matter of
just a final say. This is a cooperative kind of seeking be
tween central administration and the principal. Often,
they would be urged to take youngsters when they might
have felt a little E16193 differently, but I guess I would
say probably not the final say.
Q. What kind of a conference occurs between the admin
istration and the principal to discuss whether or not there
is space? Does he come to your office or you to his, or do
you call him on the phone, or how is this discussed? A.
Usually, it is a conference in an office in the central admin
istration when we would ask the principal to bring current
enrollment figures and assignments and so forth so we
could look with the principal at the situation as it exists
at the time.
Q. And do you discuss such things in addition to those
you have mentioned as achievement gaps? A. No, sir.
Q. Do you consider such things as discipline problems?
A. This is—I can’t remember this being a matter of con
cern for a receiving school.
Q. You mean that—have you had a number of these meet
ings? This occurs fairly often, doesn’t it? A. Yes.
Q. And that in none of these meetings, no principal ever
raised the issue of—perhaps you are not saying it that
strongly. Did any principal ever raise the issue of disci
pline or the changing character of his school? A. Not that
I recall.
£16203 Q. Well, how do you explain the fact that there
have not been any—or, how can you explain the fact that
there have not been any transporting of Anglo students
into Negro schools? A. Well, if you are talking about
Dr. Harold A. Stetsler—for Defendants—Cross
1199a
the schools designated here with the blue circles, we would
not call the principal and ask him if they would receive
youngsters because of the efforts that I have mentioned
of reducing the pupil-teacher ratio for the special pro
grams in those schools.
Q. You indicated with regard to Cowell busing that you
had meetings with parents and representatives of the com
munity to discuss whether or not to bus out or to go on
double sessions? A. Yes.
Q. Is that kind of a meeting a common occurrence! A.
Yes.
Q. Can you indicate other schools in which such sessions
with parents and representatives of the community have
been held? A. I remember going to, let’s see, Ashgrove
School, where crowding occurred, at the McMeen School
prior to its addition, I remember going to the Hallett
School.
Q. When was that? In 1966? A. I guess the Hallett
School meeting was where they were able to come off
double sessions, and the parents were so sold on double
session that we met with them to try to get [1621] them
to utilize the new space on regular session.
Q. Do you make a continuous effort to follow what you
regard to be community opinion in these choices? A. When
yougsters have to be moved or—yes, then in some fashion
the principal or principal and representative from the
central office would be discussing this with either PTA
representatives or a meeting of the community.
Q. What do you mean, when youngsters have to be
moved? A. A school becomes so crowded that decision
has to be taken to remove youngsters to relieve the crowd
ing, then there has to be communication of the parents
involved.
Dr. Harold A. Stetsler—for Defendants—Cross
1200a
The Court: Excuse me, Mr. Barnes. We will take
our morning recess now.
(The court recessed at 11:00 o’clock a.m.)
[1622] (Following a recess, the trial resumed at
11:22 a.m.)
B y M r. B a r n e s :
Q. Dr. Stetzler, I think before the recess we were dis
cussing the offering by the district of transportation to
some school communities where there was overcrowding.
Do you always discuss with the parents transportation be
fore children are in fact transported? A. Certainly, the
principal would, at least.
Q. Do you always discuss mobile units with them before
mobile units are put inf A. Yes. I do not, but the prin
cipal, again, or some persons from the central office would.
Q. Do you solicit their opinion or follow their choice f
A. It’s not always a matter of following their choice. This
is not really the kind of thing that you can take a vote
about and do. It’s a matter of discussion with people over
circumstances and what the alternatives are at the time.
Q. Do you offer mobile units to—
The Court: Let’s pursue this. You mean to say
you oftentimes have to decide on a policy and then
you undertake to sell the parents on that policy? Is
that right, because of what you regard as the alter
natives ?
The Witness: We would have—yes, we would have
some alternatives that are impossible that the par
ents might prefer, but we cannot provide that. That’s
right.
Dr. Harold A. Stetsler—for Defendants—Cross
1 2 0 1 a
[1623] The Court: And so, then, when you do
institute a busing program, it is not always with the
consent of the people who are bused?
The Witness: That’s right. It would not always
be.
The Court: So it would be mandatory busing some
times, in effect?
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: I mean, to relieve overcrowding?
The Witness: Yes. In most cases.
B y M r. B a r n e s :
Q. You have had mandatory busing relieve overcrowding
between Anglo schools, have you not? A . That’s right.
Q. Have you ever relieved overcrowding at Carson and
Knight by busing? A. Carson and Knight—
Mr. Brega: I’ll object to that. I believe the facts
show a great percentage of the students at Knight
are bused in.
[16243 The Court: Well, let him answer, why
don’t you, without any suggestions from you, you
know?
A. This was a fact. At Knight School I believe you will
find that at various times half the school population is
transported in and that Carson School receives youngsters
from a number of areas and other schools from time to
time because they have not—they have had space.
Q. Where are they transported in from? A. Southeast
Denver where there are no schools.
Q. Are they all transported in from annexed areas? Some
of them are not, isn’t that true, that some of them are
Dr. Harold A. Stetzler—for Defendants—Cross
1202a
transported from other areas in central east Denver? A.
No, I don’t think that’s right. I think the Stephen Knight
and Carson Schools have almost always received young
sters from southeast Denver.
Q. Has there ever been any of that transportation de
ferred to minority schools? A. These were the schools
that were closest to southeast Denver with space.
Q. Did you offer those parents in those annexed areas
mobile units as opposed to the transportation? A. When
you don’t have schools, you don’t have sites on which to
put mobile units, which require facilities that are in schools.
Q. You said that there are certain schools to which
[1625] you would not consider transporting Anglo chil
dren because of special programs. How do you identify
what those schools are? A. I would like to correct your
statement. We wouldn’t consider transporting pupils at
all into southeast schools, primarily the ones with the blue
circles on the map, because it has been our extreme effort
in those schools to keep class size low, to keep pupil-teacher
ratio low. They are the recipients of special programs,
partially funded by federal money, and it would be in
opposition to what we are attempting to do in those schools
to transport additional youngsters into them.
Q. You said, I think, that you do not even contact the
principals in those schools to ask them. A. That’s right,
because of the kinds of considerations we already have in
staffing those schools and in the programs in those schools,
it would be foolhardy to consider.
Q. How are those schools identified? A. They are iden
tified primarily through—
Q. They are minority schools, are they not? A. Well,
we set criteria for receiving additional staff and materials
Dr. Harold A. Stebder—for Defendants—Cross
1203a
and programs through, monies provided by the federal gov
ernment under various titles.
Q. Well, are those all the schools where there are fed
eral assistance and not other schools? [1626] A. The
schools that are marked by blue on the map are not all
of the schools that receive federal assistance, but these—■
Q. When you are making these decisions, do you have a
list of the schools that receive federal assistance in front
of you to which you do not refer Anglo children? A. I
wouldn’t have a list. I know the schools and programs that
are in them and the kinds of programs that are there, and
these would not enter into our thinking.
Q. They include some schools which are not receiving
federal aid, don’t they, the list of schools to which you do
not refer Anglo children? A. I am not sure I know what
you are saying.
Q. Well, do you ever refer Anglo children to any pre-
domainantly minority schools?
The Court: Haven’t we been through this before?
I mean, has’t he said that they don’t, do not, isn’t
that correct?
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: In other words, Montbello is the one
we were discussing, and I think we concluded from
the answers that you gave that there you elected to
send the children to Palmer and to Teller, because
you said even though there were openings in the
schools west of Colorado Boulevard, because there
you had special programs and you were seeking to
reduce [1627] the student-teacher ratio?
The Witness: That’s right.
The Court: And this is a policy that’s been fol
lowed pretty much?
Dr. Harold A. Stetzler—for Defendants—Cross
1204a
The Witness: We would have gone past the other
predominantly minority schools because they are
crowded.
The Court: The ones in Park Hill, you mean?
The Witness: Yes.
Q. Are all the Negro children in the minority schools
in special classes, in special programs? A. No, all the
youngsters in a school designated this way are in a special
program.
Q. Could you add Anglos to those classes without limit
ing the level of attention that they would receive? A.
This is not my area:—it has not been the area in which I
have dealt over these years. Certainly, through our de
partment of instruction and elementary education we would
not have added pupils to those schools that we had been
attempting for quite some time to reduce the class size and
the pupil-teacher ratio.
Q. Well, Anglo children with higher pupil-teacher ratios
tend to get less attention, don’t they? A. I guess I wouldn’t
agree with that.
# # # =» #
[1634] * * *
C ross-E xam ination by M r. B rega:
Q. Dr. Stetzler, in discussing Exhibit 390 and the round
blue tab schools in 390, you specifically mentioned Colum
bine and why Columbine was not considered in the busing
[1635] of the people from the Smith-Stedman area. You
didn’t mention the other schools which are in blue: Gilpin,
Whittier, Crofton, Ebert, Elmwood, Fairview and Elyria.
Would you tell the Court how those schools compared
to Columbine in the programs that you have and the spe
cial education that are going on in those schools? A. Well,
Dr. Harold A. Stetzler—for Defendants—Cross
1205a
these schools would have even more special programs than
Columbine, particularly Mitchell, Gilpin, Ebert, Pairview.
Elmwood, I believe, you mentioned, would have a greater
number of programs probably over the years than Colum
bine.
Q. And would it be fair to say that the capacity of the
schools below ten percent, but the schools are being util
ized to this—to their fullest capacity according to the ad
ministration views of what should be done in these schools ?
A. Yes. The special programs many times take additional
space, a team teaching kind of thing; where, if you’re go
ing to reduce the pupil-teacher contact to 15 to 1 or 12 to 1,
you need another room. If you’re going to have such a
program as we have had, an orientation room where young
sters initially, when they come to the school, are assigned
to that particular room for orientation and some kind of
assessment as to where they would best fit in the school
and—this takes space. This room is limited or has been
[16363 limited to a few pupils at a time.
Q. In other words, under the special education programs
going on at the blue tab schools, the pupil-teacher ratio
of 30 to 1, which we have had testimony is a general thing,
then drops down to some lower figure? A. Eight.
Q. So it’s what? 15 to 1? Or in that area generally?
Or is there a set figure? A. Class size and pupil-teacher
ratios are different. But, for parts of the day it was the
attempt, particularly for reading and maybe arithmetic,
to get the pupil-teacher contact down to 15 to 1 or lower.
Q. In other words, you would take a class, say of 30,
but in this class you would divide it—you try to divide it
into two groups of 15? A. That’s right.
Q. So that each would have a teacher so there would be
more concentration on them? A. Eight.
Dr. Harold A. Stetsler—for Defendants—Cross
1206a
Q. And this is one of the reasons that you didn’t want
—or the administration didn’t want to bus these people
into these blue tab areas? A. That’s right.
Q. Now, considering these areas, they are all located in
the old Denver. Are these the schools that are primarily
[1637] classified as the poverty area under the federal
program? A. Yes, called various things: target area, cul
turally deprived.
Q. And part of this program, I presume, is based then
on the income of the students in the school? Supposedly
there is some cutoff figure in that regard? A. Yes, one of
the factors is the number of children receiving Aid to
Dependent Children, yes.
Q. The number of children in the school? A. Eight.
# # # # #
[1641] # * *
Q. How many people do you have in your interviewing
that actually are here in the Denver office of the adminis
tration? A. There are three of us that take care of the
majority of interviewing in our offices.
Q. As I understand it, when you went on your program
in 1964, you began to enlarge the area where you recruited
teachers? A .Actually, we began to enlarge that partic
ular kind of area a year or so later.
Q. And where did you go? Down South and Southwest?
A. Yes.
Q. During this period of time did you write to teacher
institutions to attempt to promote interest in [1642]
teachers for minority schools? A. We did some of this
and I believe that’s a directive of the 1964 study that the
superintendent send a letter to a rather large number of
colleges and universities indicating our concern.
Dr. Harold A. Stetzler—for Defendants—Cross
1207a
Q. Now, in your placement of the teachers in these ele
mentary schools, do you have a special compensation for
teachers who do extra work in the elementary school at
these target areas or disadvantaged schools! A. Yes, and
in some of them there are programs that go on either
before or after school for which teachers are paid an hourly
rate.
Q. And for—that’s for teaching at extra times, before
and after school? A. Yes.
Q. Do you have summer reading programs by these
teachers in the elementary schools for these schools? A.
The summer reading programs are for the total city and
cover the total city so that a center will be placed or a
number of centers will be placed. I believe we will have
sixteen of those this summer. So that youngsters from all
over the city may participate in those programs.
Q. Do you have an intercity tuition grant for elementary
teachers in trying to promote their interest in these dis
advantaged schools? [1643] A. The school district has
from time to time initiated workshops with universities or
colleges and also are instrumental in getting information
to teachers about grants available generally through NBEA
federal funds.
Q. And you would encourage the teachers to get them
selves involved in this summer—in these summer programs?
A. That’s right.
Q. In the minority schools or the disadvantaged schools,
do you employ teacher aids to help the elementary teach
ers? A. Yes.
Q. Tell the Court how that works and what the purpose
of that is? A. Aides have been assigned to faculty for a
number of reasons, primarily to relieve teachers of duties
so that they could spend additional time at their teaching
Dr. Harold A. Stetzler—for Defendants—Cross
1208a
duties. Aides have been employed in the elementary schools
to do such things as supervision of playgrounds and run
lunchrooms.
They have been employed to actually help teachers at a
grade level, prepare themselves, put up bulletin boards
and this kind of thing.
They have been employed to indeed supervise youngsters
and help in some ways after they have received instruc
tions from the teachers. This kind of thing is the point of
hiring lay aides.
Q. Do you also employ and staff certain of those [1644]
schools with additional superintendents or assistant super
intendents or principals ? A. We’ve only got one super
intendent. In some of these schools we have assigned an
assistant principal when the school would not normally
qualify for an assistant principal.
Q. Well, give us an example or two of this? A. We have
an assistant principal at Whittier School. We have an
assistant principal at Gilpen School, and we have an assis
tant principal at Westwood School. The initial policy of
assignment of assistant principals in the elementary school
was to those schools that had a thousand pupils or more.
And these schools do not at present have a thousand pupils
or more.
Q. Now, in the disadvantaged elementary schools you
mentioned the orientation room. What’s the purpose of
that? A. An orientation room is established in a school
that has a higher factor of pupil mobility. So they may be
receiving youngsters that have attended even that current
year two or three schools. And the idea is to do just what
probably introduce that youngster in a personal fashion
the name bespeaks, to orient the youngster to the school;
to the principal and the nurse and the custodian and other
Dr. Harold A. Stetzler—for Defendants—Cross
1209a
people around the school so he feels comfortable. And also
to assess his level of achievement at that point so [1645]
that the orientation teacher has some idea of where this
pupil may function best in that school. The youngster is
assigned there from a few days to a few weeks. If achieve
ment seems to be particularly low, the youngster will spend
his time there with that teacher primarily, for instance, in
reading or arithmetic, to bring that youngster as near
grade level as possible, but certainly to bring that young
ster to the level of some group within that grade level in
the school when he is assigned and oriented to what’s going
on and has a better total orientation to his school situation.
[1646] Q. In other words, you attempt to put this child
that comes into school in the best possible environment for
him? A. That’s right.
Q. Do you use team teaching in going about this process ?
A. This particular process is a teacher and they work,
of course, in a team fashion with the other teachers in the
building, discussing the assignment of the youngster, mak
ing sure the youngster is acquainted with that teacher.
Q. Do you also have special library augmentation for
these type of schools and rooms? A. Yes, this room would
have additional reading materials available to the teacher
for instruction of these youngsters that have difficulty with
reading.
# # # # #
[1648] * * *
Q. Is there a great deal of competition to obtain minority
teachers at this time? A. Extreme competition.
Q. And how about with regard to the Hispano or Spanish-
American? A. This is, yes, more difficult. We have found
fewer of these people to interview. Fewer of them per
centagewise apparently are attending colleges and also not
Dr. Harold A. Stetsler■— for Defendants—Cross
1210a.
only otter school systems but business and industry are re
cruiting, spending much time, spending their recruiting
efforts, so they indeed will also interview people with an
educational background and employ them for their partic
ular business.
Q. Is it the policy of the School Board at this time that
if an applicant says he would not teach in a minority
school that the administration would refuse to hire him or
[1649] offer him a contract, or her? A. This would be
just almost tantamount to no employment, right.
Mr. Brega: You may examine.
R edirect E xa m ina tion by M r. Jackson:
Q. Dr. Stetzler, have you personally interviewed all the
teachers that you have assigned during your period in
this office? A. No.
Q. Do you have Exhibit 424 in front of you? A. Yes.
Q. Directing your attention to the first paragraph of that
exhibit, Dr. Stetzler, does that indicate the school year
for which those figures are given? A. It indicates re
questing transfer at the close of the ’62-’63 school year and—
Q. And that was prior to the time that you assumed your
present job? A. That’s right.
Q. And that was prior to the time that you received
your instructions from the administration regarding con
centrations of minority teachers and the assignment of new
teachers? A. That’s right.
[16503 Q. On cross-examination by Mr. Brega, you in
dicated that you had assigned or that there were assigned
assistant principals to, I believe, you mentioned, Whittier
and Gilpin, although they did not fit the district arithmetic
criteria of 1,000 or more students. What was the reason
Dr. Harold A. Stetsler—for Defendants—Redirect
1211a
for assigning those assistant principals? A. This is an
other attempt to give those schools where we have special
programs a sufficient administrative staff to administer the
programs and be as sure as we could that they were effec
tive.
Q. You mentioned also under the current agreement be
tween the Denver Classroom Teachers Association and the
School District that you would have to have a reason for
arbitrarily transferring a teacher without the teacher ini
tiating the request, is that correct? A. That would be cor
rect.
Q. Is there also within that agreement a grievance pro
cedure if they disagree with your reason? A. Yes.
Q. And this is not unlike the grievance procedure in any
other union or civil service? A. Where a person feels that
we have not administered according to the agreement, they
have a process for review, yes.
Q. One other item, Dr. Stetzler, on this question of space
and how space availability is determined in any given
[1651] school. Is each one of these schools in the same
categroy? Does it have the same programs or the same con
siderations present? A. The receiving schools?
Q. Yes. A. Oh, look, this happens all the time, and
none of these kinds of situations are precisely alike. We
may be wanting to change an attendance area on December
8th and youngsters after that time go to a new school. The
kinds of things that you must consider in each move often
are—you do not need to sit down and discuss each item
because I have an educational background, the principal
does, and we are aware of the situation. Each time you do
something like this, depending on the time of year and all
kinds of things, it is just a different problem to solve.
Q. Is it ever possible to do it on a pure mathematical
approach? A. That would make it very neat, and I would
Dr. Harold A. Stetsler—for Defendants— Redirect
1212a
have a few less gray hairs if it were. No, it is not a mathe
matical thing. We are dealing with little kids and their
education, where they are going to school.
Mr. Jackson: I have nothing further.
# * # # #
[16523 * * *
The Court: It will be received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 426 was received
in evidence.)
Q. Do you see there an indication of a number of Anglo
students that might be transferred from Stedman-correc-
tion, the number of Negro students that might be trans
ferred from Stedman to any given Anglo school, in the
last paragraph and the last sentence? A. Just indicates
that a total of ninety additional pupils—these are not identi
fied as to race.
[1653] Q. Doesn’t your memo suggest that only three to
four students should be put in a particular class in an
Anglo school of these students that are discussed in that
memo ? A. This suggests that as in relation to Mr. Kruder,
who had been working with us on the Stedman transporta
tion. You see, this is the result of a capacity study at Sted
man School where at this—prior to this time it was deter
mined maybe there are some ways of determining capacity
other than the list of rooms times thirty. The principal
and the staff at Stedman were given an opportunity then
to develop some other kinds of criteria, and this is the result
of their indication that additional transportation would be
necessary if they were to meet that total number they felt
they could accommodate at Stedman.
Q. Well, this indicates that small numbers of Negro stu
dents were being bused—small numbers of students from
Dr. Harold A. Stetder—for Defendants—Redirect
1213a
Steelman were being- bused to a large number of schools.
A. That’s right.
Q. Would you read the last sentence in your memo? A.
“There are empty rooms at Stevens and Beech Court, but
the use of the rooms for thirty pupils from Stedman would
require a larg-er number of Stedman in classes at Beech
Court and Stevens than the three or four which Mr. Kruder
has suggested.”
Q. Do you know why three or four only were suggested
[1654] by Mr. Kruder? A. Mr. Kruder had worked with
us very closely through the office of school-community re
lations and had indicated that upon initial assignment of
minority students, as we began this kind of move, that they
should be—I believe he called it—well, the exposure should
be probably at the rate—initially at the rate of three or four
pupils per classroom.
Q. Is that the policy of the District now with regard to
that busing? A. No.
Q. How long was that policy? A. I am not sure that
“policy” is the word to use. This was a suggestion from a
person who dealt with these kinds of matters. This was his
expertise. He suggested we begin this way.
Q. Are you aware of any cases in which more than four
or five or six minority students were placed in a single
classroom in an elementary school? A. Yes.
Q. Are there many such cases? A. You are speaking
of presently?
Q. Yes. A. Yes, I am sure there are.
Q. Is it accurate to say that presently the minority stu
dents being bused from northeast Denver are being spread
[1655] fairly thin? A. This would depend on grade level
and numbers going to a school. I suppose this is right.
Dr. Harold A. Stetsler—for Defendants—Redirect
1214a
L idell M . Thom as— fo r D efendants— D irect
[16573 * * *
L idell M. T homas, called as a witness by the defendants,
being first duly sworn, on Ms oath testified as follows:
The Court: Please take the witness chair and give
us your name and address.
The Witness: Lidell M. Thomas, 1951 South
Oneida.
D irect E xam ina tion by M r. Jackson:
[1658] Q. Mr. Thomas, by whom are you employed? A.
Denver Public Schools.
Q. And what is your present capacity? A. Presently
the assistant executive director of secondary education.
Q. And how long have you been in that position? A.
Since August of 1969.
Q. And how long have you been employed by the Denver
Public Schools? A. Since January of 1948.
Q. And what was your first assignment with the schools?
A. Teacher at South High School.
Q. And how long did you remain at South? A. I re
mained there as a teacher from 1948 until 1955, with a year
and a half off, being recalled by the Marine Corps during
the Korean war, so I was no longer a teacher after January,
’55.
Q. What subjects were you teaching at South? A. Pri
marily science and chemistry, physics, mathematics.
Q. All right. Then, after your return from the Marines
did you return to South High School? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And in what capacity? A. Well, again, I returned
as a teacher. This was in 1952, and then in 1955 I became
the assistant principal.
1215a
[1659] Q. And that was at South? A. Yes.
Q. And how long did yon remain as assistant principal?
A. 1966.
Q. And then what was yonr assignment? A. I then be
came the principal at Hill .Junior High School.
Q. And how long did yon remain at Hill? A. For only
one year, and the following year I became the principal
at South High School.
Q. And yon were the principal at South until your ap
pointment as assistant executive director of secondary
education in August of 1969? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Thomas, would you describe generally for the
Court your duties in that position? A. Well, primarily,
this is-—well, obviously, I am the assistant to the executive
director, but our basic job is the assisting in the day-to-
day operation of the secondary schools in the Denver
Public Schools, liaison between central administration and
the individual high school principal and junior high school
principal. We deal with personnel to a degree, budgeting,
the budget allotments to the various schools, some areas
of curriculum in that we assist in the development of new
curriculum and the attempt to make it [1660] citywide
in the offerings.
Q. Just so that the record will be complete, Mr. Thomas,
the secondary schools are the junior and senior high
schools of the district, is that correct? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, within the area of curriculum, generally, do
you have any specific responsibilities? A. Basically, in
my position I am now involved with a—there are four
groups of committees that are made up both of faculty
and administrators from various districts within the city.
They develop, review and request deletions to certain cur
ricular offerings or additions. These are then forwarded
Lidell M. Thomas—for Defendants-—Direct
1216a
to the central instruction committee, of which I am the
chairman. We review their requests and findings and then
make a recommendation to the staff of the central ad
ministration that we would like to innovate a certain new
curricular offering in a certain individual school or maybe
in all of the junior high schools or senior high schools, so
in this capacity I am involved indirectly in curriculum, yes.
Q. Is it possible to break down the general subject of
curriculum into specific areas of instruction? A. Well,
basically, I would say that the traditional or academic type
subjects, English, social studies, math, science, would be
—and this is more in recent years—this would be one
facet. Another facet would be what we characterize now
[1661] as the vocational arts, which primarily involve in
dustrial arts, home economics and business education.
Then there is another area of elective subject matter
such as the—if you want to classify them, as the fine arts,
language, art, music. Then there is physical education.
That’s kind of an entity of itself.
Q. Are there also some special programs within the
general curriculum in various schools? A. Very much so,
yes, both in the—I would say primarily more in the voca
tional arts area than would be in the academic or tra
ditional, but there are special programs in all areas, yes.
Q. And are these the same in all schools, the special
type programs? A. Not necessarily. There are many that
are universal throughout the system, but there are also
many very special specifics for certain individual schools.
[1662] Q, What is the philosophy behind this? A. Well,
primarily you’re dealing with young men, and your men es
pecially in the secondary level, that the desire is to give
them the best education that they have that is available
to them, but we can have the tradtional reading, writing
Lidell M. Thomas—for Defendants—Direct
1217a
and arithmetic, but we must also deal in the areas of
their interest and their desires and their abilities, and as
a result special programs have to be instituted in this
area to assist them in completing the type of education
that we think is the best for them.
Q. And this has been different at each of the secondary
schools? A. Very much so, yes.
Q. Now, Mr. Thomas, how does a youngster approaching
either junior high school or high school become aware
of the various curriculum offerings available to him? A.
Well, the normal procedure is that in the sixth grade or
in the ninth grade, depending upon grade level, as they
are planning to progress to the next level of education
they are given a booklet, primarily a guidance booklet
which gives them a listing of all the normal types of cur
ricular offerings that are available to them, either in the
junior high or senior high.
Q. Mr. Thomas, I hand you what have been marked for
identification as Defendants’ Exhibits HF and HG.
Mr. Jackson: Your Honor, I believe there is no
£16633 objection to the authenticity of these docu
ments.
Q. Would you please tell us what those documents are,
Mr. Thomas? A. Yes, sir. The green one, HG, is a
guidance handbook primarily designed for the use of
junior high students and their parents. The red one is
the similar type of a booklet, however, designed for senior
high school students and parents.
Q, And are these the booklets currently being utilized
by the District? A. Yes, they are.
Mr. Jackson: I would move the admission of
those two exhibits, Your Honor.
Lidell M. Thomas—for Defendants—-Direct
1218a
Mr. Greiner: No objection.
The Court: They will be received.
(Whereupon, Defendants’ Exhibits HF and HG
were received in evidence.)
The Court: Now, these apply to all the junior
high and hig*h schools?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: And where there are variations, I
take it those books will specify what they are?
The Witness: Individual variances—
The Court: Only at South or East or Manual?
The Witness: No, sir, these are the universal
[16641 offerings. Exceptions are not found in the
individual book.
The Court: But, the cultural courses that you
mentioned, that is, language and science, mathe
matics—do you offer identically the same courses
in each of the high schools and junior highs?
The Witness: Yes, sir. I would preface it with
this statement—
The Court: These are electives?
The Witness: Not all of them are elective. Well,
in order to reach certain graduation requirements,
they must elect certain subjects within an offering.
For example, they must have a certain number of
semester hours of English, but the choice of what
English courses that they will elect is a combina
tion between the parent and the pupil, and the
counseling teacher as a request for a recommenda
tion of what level is the best for them. There are
some roughly 200 offerings, for example, in the
senior high school booklet, and of that 200 there
Lidell M. Thomas—for Defendants—Direct
1219a
may be certain offerings that are not offered in
school A but is offered in school B, and so on.
The Court: I am sorry. Go ahead.
Mr. Jackson: That’s all right, Your Honor. Your
Honor was anticipating my questions.
The Court: Well, I have been kind of curious
about this.
Q. Is there any mention at all, Mr. Thomas within [1665]
either of those guidance pamphlets of any limitations upon
course offerings of any of the schools, be they junior high
or senior high? A. In the booklet the only limitation, if
I interpret your question, is that certain courses may not
be offered every semester in each individual school be
cause of lack of popularity, if you would like to call it
that. In other words, if this is the question you’re ask
ing—felt the need for the number of students that re
quest this certain specific course—that has some bearing
on whether it will be offered or not.
Q. How is the specific curriculum or school determined
each semester? A. Well, very early in the semester the
counseling teachers work with the individual pupils and
in a like token with the parent indicating the offerings
which will be tentatively offered in this school. The pupils
with their parents and the counseling teacher then elect
the courses at which they feel they would like to take
the following semester. These elections then are tabulated
in each individual school and a grand total of those re
questing each individual subject is listed. On the basis
of that, then, the principal and his administrative staff
develop a program, a schedule of classes which will take
care of the requests of all the students. The administrator
is under the problem of—if there aren’t enough that elect
Lidell M. Thomas—for Defendants—-Direct
1220a
a specific class, then he must work to the extent [1666]
to say that “We won’t be able to offer this certain class
this semester,” and those children that did elect that
class then would have to review with the counseling
teacher and their parents and find a substitute class for
them. This is an exception rather than the rule.
Q. But the same courses that are available to all junior
high schools, the same courses are available to all senior
high schools? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Within this academic framework that we have been
discussing? A. Bight.
The Court: I think we will call a halt now, Mr.
Jackson, and we will reconvene at 2:00 p.m.
You will return then, please.
The Witness: Yes, sir,
(Whereupon the trial recessed at 12:28 p.m.)
[1667] A fternoon- P roceedings
(The court reconvened at 2:04 o’clock p.m.; the witness
Thomas resumed the witness stand.)
D irect E xam ina tion by M r. Jackson (Continued):
Q. Mr. Thomas, just prior to the recess, we were dis
cussing course selection and curriculum offerings in the
various schools, and you indicated that after conferences
with counselors and principals students made decisions
as to those courses which they elected to take, primarily,
I assume, the senior high level, is that correct? A. That’s
right.
Q. Now, on the elective courses where the student has
an opportunity to select, what guidelines are established
Lidell M. Thomas—for Defendants—Direct
1221a
in terms of whether all of the courses which are in the
guidance handbook will be offered in a particular school?
A. Primarily, as I stated, as the principal gets the tab
bing as to the total number of students requesting a cer
tain subject, he has to take into account if it is reaching a
point as to whether it is economically feasible by way
of having a teacher teach ten students in a class when
you have the problem of overloading in other classes?
The principal then makes a decision to evaluate whether
it is proper to offer this course. If it is not, they then,
the students in this smaller number would have to select
a new course. Along with [1668] this, the principal has
how many faculty he may have to operate his school, and
in many cases in sequential courses he has to be careful
to the extent that if there are 18, let’s say, requesting to
take a sequential course in one semester with the possibility
of persons dropping out in the second semester of that
sequential course, the numbers might go down, and yet
he is obligated to offer this course because the boys and
girls have begun a sequential course, and as a result
this has some bearing on whether he decides to have the
class offered that semester or not, Frequently, it has been
expedient to offer a course every other semester. In other
words, if children would like to take this one certain
course but not sufficient in number to logically offer it
this semester, he may hold off and offer it again next
semester, hoping that he would have those boys and girls
ask for it and then some additional, so that it would make
it more economically logical to offer it. So frequently you
will find many of them: offered every other semester.
Q. Now, wre are not talking, are we, about those courses
we might classify as being the classical academic offering
when we are talking about electives? A. Oh, no, in fact
Lidell M. Thomas—for Defendants—Direct
1222a
the classical academic ones, because they are a required
type course, the numbers are always sufficient to offer all
of these courses.
[16693 Q. And are those the same in each of the
schools throughout the system! A. Yes, sir.
Q. And within those academic areas, are all levels, and
by that I mean the accelerated level as well as the regular
level, taught in each of the schools! A. Yes, that’s right.
Q. What happens, Mr. Thomas, if, for example, say, at
Manual five to ten students elect to take Russian? A.
Well, the principal has the prerogative to make his deci
sion with his staff to either not offer the course or to
offer it on the basis of seeking assistance from some
other schools. For example, I am aware of the fact that
in Manual there was a small number that did request
this, and by working with central administration a teacher
was transferred on a one-period basis and came from
another high school, taught this one course, and then
went back to his or her home high school, so to speak.
[16703 Q. Now, you say that you’re aware this hap
pened. This is continuing to happen this school year A.
Yes.
Q. At Manual? A. Yes.
Q. And is it happening in more than one Russian course
that we made reference to? A. Yes, I believe this same
thing is being done in Italian. However, it’s involved with
another teacher from another high school, but the same
procedure is involved.
Q. So then if the students elect courses which are at
that time not being offered at a particular school, there are
ways in which these courses can be made available to these
students? A. Another alternative to this as has been done
Lidell M. Thomas—for Defendants—Direct
1223a
in some instances, rather than have the teacher travel, we
have the student travel. This is done in some cases also.
Q. Now, in the academic area from time to time people
have referred to certain aspects of English, for example,
as either accelerated, college level, advanced placement,
referring to a higher achievement than normal. Does the
Denver Public Schools system have complete control over
the subject matter of those courses, the testing, the grading
process? A. No, to this extent. Now, the individual teach
er has the option to teach from the method by which they
find £1671] the most success. However, in the ultimate,
these accelerated programs are primarily designed to chal
lenge and give the able and ambitious a better offering to
educate themselves. However, the ultimate theoretically is
so that in their senior year they may be taking college level
courses, similar to the freshman year in college. As the
result, one of the benefits derived from this is not only a
better education or at least a more full education for the
individual student, in many cases they are given credit
upon entering college from the work that they had been
doing in high school, and the method by which this is done
-—the college then prescribes what tests will be given at
the end of the college level course in a senior year. As a
result the test is written by college professors and also is
scored by them.
So, the teacher in an individual school teaching it does
not know the exact questions on the test. They just know
the general area in which the child will be tested.
Q. And is this program presently operating in all senior
high schools? A. Yes, it is.
Q. Mr. Thomas, you earlier distinguished -within the cur
riculum field between the academic offerings, the vocational
offerings and special offerings. Could you give us some
Lidell M. Thomas—for Defendants—Direct
1224a
examples of the special offerings at the senior high school
level? [16723 A. Unique within individual high schools,
you mean!
Q. Yes. A. For example, East High School is presently
involved in a course called Senior Seminar, which is quite
a unique approach to the normal, traditional type educa
tion in which there is a great deal of travel involved, not
only in this country but in Mexico. They are studying
ecology, urban problems, history, archeology to the extent
that a number of them will be or have been in Mexico.
They will study the Indian problems in the Southwest.
They will take a trip down the Green River following
Powell’s expedition in making studies there. They study a
governmental system here in this state.
There are presently a group involved at the State Capi
tol, noting how the legislature operates. This is one that
is quite a unique program.
West High School has a program in which they are
sending boys and girls to the University of Denver and
receiving college level courses and are getting high school
credits but also would be receiving college credit if they
continue to go to college.
Q. Excuse me. That’s the same type of program you
discussed earlier with the college level courses within the
high school? A. No, these are completely divorced from
high school. [1673] They actually attend on the campus
at the University of Denver and are instructed by college
personnel.
Q. Go ahead. Other than that, West High School does
also have a tutorial program that might be a little inno
vative in that they have students coming in from the Uni
versity of Colorado—coming down and tutor the individual
Lidell M. Thomas—-for Defendants—Direct
1225a
students right at the high school. Manual High School has
quite an extensive list of special programs that are being
offered uniquely there.
Q. With regard to Manual, why does it have a different
type or a greater quantity of programs than the other
schools? A. Well, I think it’s basically from several
standpoints: One, at the direction of the staff and the
administration of Manual High School, seeing a felt need
that the traditional type of program seemed not to be too
relevant to the boys and girls, and as a result a fairly high
dropout rate and poor attendance, which seemingly would
be indicative if they were not offering the type of program
that the boys and girls could relate with and see value in.
The community also had this similar feelings with the
young boys and girls also. So, as a result, through this
triangle, I would say, many innovative programs have been
and are being produced now to improve the dropout rate—
or to decrease it, I should say—to hope that they would
retain the boys and girls, to give the boys and girls a better
image and [1674] actually give the school a better image.
Q. Can you relate, please, some of those programs to us?
A. Well, uniquely within this school that isn’t offered at
other high schools—I will go back to the D.IJ. program.
It is similar to one at West High School. Manual has boys
and girls going to arts and science programs, receiving
both high school and college credits for programs taken on
the campus. They also have a pre-med program going on
in which actually the boys and girls are involved in pro
grams at their own school in the traditional required type
subjects and then spend three periods a day, for example,
at Colorado General working with the professors, the doc
tors, nurses, technicians there, investigating possible voca
tions, professions, in the area of medicine.
Lidell M. Thomas—for Defendants—Direct
1226a
A similar program is involved in their pre-law set of
classes in which the same general procedure is taken.
However they are involving themselves in the actions of
observing court hearings, working with lawyers, under
standing their type of work in which they’re involved, to
see if—well, that it may be a relevant thing that they want
to become a lawyer. That’s the way in which they would
determine what the real operations of a lawyer is and
whether they are capable of doing it and actually working
right with them.
Additionally, they very recently—I’m sure you saw
[1675] in the newspapers of the building trades program
in which the boys involve themselves in building a house
from start to finish, and to the extent that the students
drew the plans, ordered the materials, and actually erected
the building. They had a corporation in which there are
presidents, vice-presidents, business managers, and so forth.
In other words, understanding not only in the area of
building it as the—as with the typical hammer and nails,
but there are many other types of duties and jobs involved.
Presently they have just completed the sale of this
house to a person in the area, and now they plan to build
five houses under a similar type of program.
The cosmotology program is unique in that it’s the only
one in the Denver high schools where the young ladies are
given a complete program in cosmotology along with their
regular high school program, which, at the conclusion of
it will allow the girls to not only have a high school diploma
but can be certified by the State under the regulations and
be certified as cosmotologists.
In talking with Mr. Ward he indicated that there is a
possibility that four of them upon graduation are planning
Lidell M. Thom,as—for Defendants—Direct
1227a
to apply for a small business loan and go into business for
themselves.
Let me just see if I have—There are some, I believe,
forty-one young men and women attending part time the
elementary [1676] schools in the immediate Manual vicin
ity, really finding out what the elementary education is
about. They work as tutors. They work as teacher aids
and assistants and work with the youngsters and with this
desire, that this may be their area of emphasis, and this
is what they might want to go on to.
In other words, Mr. Ward and his staff are trying to
show avenues to these young men and women that possibly
may have never been afforded them before. They don’t
understand what the possibilities are that exist for them,
and he is trying to let me see that these possibilities are
there.
[1677] Q. Do they also have a pre-engineering program?
A. Yes, sir, they have pre-engineering, which is again
pretty basically like his pre-med, his pre-law, in which
they go and work right in engineering concerns on part-
day basis and find out what draftsmen do, what engineers
do in their job, and assist. I mean, this is not just observa
tion, but they actually are assigned duties where they are
capable to assist these people to get actual indoctrination
and on-the-job training.
Q. You mentioned the pre-medical program at Colorado
General. This is conducted under the auspices of the Uni
versity of Colorado Medical Center, is it not? A. That’s
right.
Q. And as a part of this program, are the students en
gaged in research activities at the Medical Center? A.
Yes, actually they have been given at their first approach
into this program an overall view of the operation of the
Lidell M. Thomas—for Defendants—Direct
1228a
Colorado Medical School, and then as they develop interest
and within their area then they will somewhat specialize
and work with individuals. They are planning this summer
to take on a—well, actually it’s a research project, in which
they are going' to study what—well, try to determine what
causes adhesions, which as I understand it has been bother
ing the medical profession for years. And they are going
to actually work with specialists at the C. U. Medical School
and [16783 try to come up with some ideas about the
cause. This would be, I would assume, pure medical re
search that they would be working with.
Q. Are you familiar with the filling station operated
by the Manual students? A. Yes, sir, there was a rather
large corporation that Mr. Ward has been working with,
and they have received the use of a filling station in East
Denver in which the young men are actually operating it
under the guidance of instructors from Manual High
School. They have their own board of directors. They
must keep books, they must do the purchasing, and, obvi
ously, they have to service the cars. As an offshoot of one
of their industrial education programs, which is the auto
motive section, they have boys that have become quite
proficient in their schooling at Manual in the area of
automobile maintenance, and as a result they actually can
operate under the supervision of the instructors on main
tenance of automobiles as you would expect any filling
station.
Q. Now, these various programs that you have been men
tioning, are these programs in addition to the regular
academic schedule of these students? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Has there been any transfer value, to your knowledge,
of the experience of these students in the business world
back to the classroom in terms of their ability to perform?
Lidell M. Thomas—for Defendants—Direct
1229a
[16793 A. Yes, I think that basically they now see, if I get
the import of your question, they see a relevancy now to
why they have to learn mathematics, what the values of
science are, or English, because now they have seen the
need and now they have a great desire to go back to the
classroom and now improve themselves in areas in which
they have found themselves in need. For example—also,
for example, in the building trades, there is a great deal of
geometry that is actually applied in building a house. If
you attacked geometry from the standpoint of the tradi
tional book-learning approach, in many cases it is found
that, “I am not too concerned about a right triangle,” for
example, or, how to determine the length of a hypotenuse,
whereas in learning to develop the pitch on a roof, for
example, there is a basic geometric method by which they
develop it. And so, as they see how they need to have this
on a house, it makes the geometry much more relevant
and interest is therefore greatly increased.
Q, I would like to direct your attention to page 68 of
Defendants’ Exhibit D, which is in evidence, otherwise
known as the Gilberts Plan for Planning Quality Educa
tion, and ask you if you would advise the Court what is
shown there on page 68 with regard to Manual High
School. A. Yes, this is specifically headed “Manual-Col
lege High School.”
Q. Would you just generally tell us what it is? [1680]
A. Our present superintendent, Dr. Gilberts, in trying to
develop Manual as being an outstanding school in the city
and a model, proposed that Manual would have some kind
of a. contact with some recognized institutes of higher
learning here in the state and develop a program at which
there was sharing between that institution and the high
school, primarily to develop the attitude in the student
Lidett M. Thomas—for Defendants—Direct
1230a
that college was for them, that they had the ability to work
in this area if they had the approach from this standpoint,
and basically I would say this was what Dr. Gilberts was
desiring to develop.
Q. Are you aware of the present planning with regard
to the operation of Manual along with Colorado State Col
lege? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would you tell us about that program? A. About a
year ago, approximately, a community—a group of per
sons from the community developed a committee or task
force in relation to working with representatives from Colo
rado State College at Greeley and members of the admin
istration both from Manual and from the central adminis
tration. Their plan was to develop a program in which
both the teachers and the students at Manual would bene
fit, but also the faculty members from Colorado State
College would benefit. The plan in essence is this, that
Colorado State College has offered personnel from the
School of Education to come to Manual High School to
work with the students and with the teachers [16813 to
improve their curricular offerings, to assist the teachers
in better methods of instructing, and one of the real strong
points, to contact the boys and girls and to get their under
standing as to where the problems lie in Manual. For
example, what they dislike and what they like about it.
Q. Is this in line with the recommendation of Dr. Gil
berts in that exhibit? A. Yes, sir.
Q. In connection with that program, are college courses
offered to the Manual students? A. They will be offered
this present semester to the extent that they-—a group will
be sent actually to the campus at Greeley and work on
campus in this special program. At the same time, Greeley
has a need to participate in this program, too, because
Lidell M. Thomas—for Defendants—Direct
1231a
they feel that possibly they could do a better job of edu
cating prospective teachers to come to an entire city course
type school that Manual is, so they hope they may learn
from their experiences coming from the college down to the
high school, actually teaching the boys and girls and work
ing with them and working with the teachers to find that
they may have better methods by which they may educate
their pospective teachers and gain that.
Q. The cooperative program at the University of Denver
whereby students are taking courses at the University of
Denver will be continued also? [1682] A. Yes, it is.
The Court: Under this plan, will the student com
position of Manual remain about the way it is now?
A. Yes.
Q. Ultimately, Mr. Thomas is that section of “Planning
Quality Education” directed to establishing Manual as the
college high school for the entire city? A. Yes.
Q. Now, with these special types of programs and offer
ings at Manual, what effect have these programs had on
factors such as attendance or the dropout rate or the atti
tudes within the school community? A. Well, basically, I
could give you the feeling as I have discussed in talking
with Mr. Ward, the principal, and also with a group of
people in relation to my capacity as being a representative
to the CSC-Manual High School Project, so I do have
contact with them, that the image of the school, I think,
has been greatly enhanced. The community is extremely
eager about the various programs which are going- on or
are proposed at Manual. Certainly, the attitudes of the
students are greatly improved. They feel, I think, that
they are getting a more relevant education. It does give
them a feeling that they are accomplishing a great deal
Lidell M. Thomas—for Defendants—Direct
1232a
at their school. I think it is reflected in the fact that the
dropout rate has gone down at Manual in the last year
and also the [16833 retention has gone up, which corre
lates with the dropout.
Q. What do you mean by the retention? Are you speak
ing about the dropouts who re-entered school? A. Eight.
In other words, may I go to this extent? This was one of
the reasons that these various groups of persons desired
to develop this program, because the dropout rate was
high, and previously the students that did want to re-enter
after being a dropout had the same program facing him
when he did come back to school. So the only thing would
be a definite change of attitude at which he would work
harder to try to succeed and again maybe thinking the
program wasn’t very relevant it would be a little difficult
for him to have this interest, and as a result, by changing
the type of offering, it was the desire that they would de
crease the dropout rate and also keep the boys and girls
in the schools. And this seemingly for the time it has
been operating is doing both of those things.
Q. What effect, if any, have these programs had upon
the average daily attendance at Manual? A. It has gone
up.
Q. Now, Mr. Thomas, are you aware of the percentage
of Denver’s high school graduates on the average who an
nually apply for admission into college? A. Yes.
Q. And what is that figure? [16843 A. Those are the
graduating seniors in the high schools that at least indi
cate and make application to college, the city average, is
58 percent.
Q. Now, are you aware of the various percentages for
the senior high schools in Denver for the graduates of last
year? A. Yes, sir.
Lidell M. Thomas—for Defendants—Direct
1233a
Q. And could yon tell ns, please, what those figures are?
A. Estimated—
Mr. Greiner: Pardon me, Your Honor, hut I
would object unless the source of the information
is identified, at least. He seems to be reading from
handwritten notes.
The Court: You might lay a little foundation for
this, if you will.
Q. All right, what figures are available to you in your
capacity in secondary education regarding the seniors
from. Denver schools that go on to college? A. Well,
basically, my—the source could be obtained from each in
dividual senior high school by contacting them. However,
we do make a study each year, and this information is passed
to members in our pupil services portion, of the central
administration, and this is where I—
Q. This is a study that is made every year? A. Yes.
[16853 Q. And pupil services maintains this informa
tion? A. Yes.
Q. And they have it for years in the past? A. Yes.
Q. Did you go to pupil services to gather the information?
A. Yes.
Q. I will ask again then if you can tell us what the per
centages were from the various schools last year. A.
Shall I just go down the—
Q. Yes. A. Abraham Lincoln was 48 percent. East High
School, 59 percent. George Washington, 73 percent. John
F. Kennedy, 74 percent. Manual High School, 58 percent.
North High School, 41 percent. South High School, 51 per
cent. Thomas Jefferson, 78 percent, and West High School,
44 percent.
Lidell M. Thomas—for Defendants—Direct
1234a
Q. Now, I believe in the letter which you just read, Mr.
Thomas, that North, South and West all had a smaller per
centage than did Manual, is that correct! A. North, South,
West and Abraham Lincoln.
Q. Are you aware of the racial composition of those
schools last year? A. Relatively, yes.
Q. And are they all predominantly Anglo? A. I would
say with the exception possibly of West, 116863 it could be
very close, Anglo-Hispano. I don’t know the percentage
exactly.
Q. And Manual was right at the citywide average, is that
correct? A. That’s right.
Q. Now, Mr. Thomas, you testified earlier that you were
an assistant principal at South for a period of, I believe it
was eleven years, is that correct? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And were principal at South for a period of two years?
A. Yes.
Q. In view of your experience as principal and your
present job, have you had an opportunity to compare the
Manual curriculum and offerings with the other high schools
in the city? A. Yes.
Q. And how does it compare? A. Well, specifically, I
would say that it compares in every aspect with any other
high school and has more to offer than the other high
schools.
Q. Has more to offer? A. Yes.
Q. In term s of physical resources and monies, do you
knoAV whaether or not Manual received its share of those
monies? £16873 A. Yes, specifically, the allotment of bud
getary amounts are done on a per-pupil basis for educational
equipment and m aterials, and this is universal throughout
the city. In other words, the number of students you have,
the proportional amount of money is granted.
Lidell M. Thomas—for Defendants—Direct
1235a
Q. Now, directing your attention, Mr. Thomas, to the
senior high schools, we have had previously admitted the
guidance handbook for the junior high school. Is there as
much freedom in the junior high school for elective courses
as senior high school1? A. No, not to a great degree.
Primarily, the junior high schools work pretty much on a
block system in that most of the subject matter is required.
There is not the great degree of freedom for electives in
the junior high as you do in the senior high.
£16883 Q. And by virtue of their being on the block sys
tem, the curriculum then I would assume would be almost
identical in all of the junior high schools! A. Pretty much
so, yes.
Q. Are you aware, Mr. Thomas, of any special programs
in the junior high schools! In particular are you aware of
any special programs at Cole Junior High School directed
towards improving the achievement levels? A. Yes, I be
lieve so. Cole Junior High in studying their problems in
relationship to hoping to give the best education that they
can for their boys and girls have studied their curricular
offerings and the method by which they’re doing them, and
as a result have recently initiated many programs within
the basic guidelines of the curricular offerings. For ex
ample, I mean, they are stressing reading as one of the
achievement thrusts. Knowing that reading seems to have
a very close relationship to success in high education. And,
as a result, they are taking in many programs to improve
or hoping to improve not only comprehension but speed in
the level of reading in their students.
Q. Do you know what form this special program takes at
Cole? A. Well, they have what they call a reading labora
tory which is specifically designed to work with either the—-
they categorize it the late achiever or those that have above
Lidell M. Thomas—for 'Defendants—Direct
1236a
[1689] average ability and want to proceed. And this
laboratory is open eight periods a day where the students
may come in and work directly with teachers who are as
signed in there to improve their comprehension, their speed
and so forth in the reading lab.
In addition, they have a reading improvement program
in the ninth grade which involves a kit—a reading kit in
which they have had a great deal of success. It is an active
concept, English, in which they again hope to improve the
reading level and ability of the students. They have special
reading classes in the seventh grade for those that are
having difficulties or have indicated reading problems in
which they have much more of a tutorial type reading ap
proach with reading specialists and regular English teachers
to assist. In this area where they have—are reading below
expectancy, they are attempting to offer this child a two
period approach in reading; putting more emphasis on hop
ing this will improve their abilities in the area of reading.
Q. Do you have the special emphasis on any other aca
demic areas'? A. Yes, they have the emphasis in mathe
matics, again involving themselves with late achievers or
slower ability levels where they are attempting to make the
mathematics more relevant, approaching it from a remedial
standpoint, to improve their ability in the area of mathe
matics.
[1690] Q. Do they also have it in the science area? A.
They have it in the science area. They are working in the
area of social studies also in trying to develop again for
those that are late achievers. This has been in operation
for about three years, and it’s a laboratory type thing and
has been successful enough that it is now initiated in six
other junior high schools in the city with the success that
they seem to have had.
Lidell M. Thomas—for Defendants—Direct
1237a
They are also teaching a few specialized courses. For
example, they do have Afro-American history classes in
which—and a Hispano class—in which in most cases has
been offered in the senior high level, and in most cases they
have an urban study class in which it is uniquely the only
one offered in the junior high. They are offered in the
senior highs, but they are offering it in the junior highs now.
Q. Are you aware of any Cole students that are sent to
Manual for courses! A. Yes, there were some that desired
French, and they were sent to Manual just to take French
and then returned to their own school for the rest of their
courses.
Q. Does Cole in fact work closely with Manual in terms
of preparing the students for the various programs avail
able at Manual! A. Yes, I think there is very close articu
lation between the two schools. I think this could be for
several [1691] reasons. I suppose that—well, the com
munity is served by both these schools, so their needs are
the same. The administration and the staff in the schools
have the same attitudes and philosophy so that they work
very closely together. There is a great deal of articulation
with the fact, I would say, the principal, Mr. Morrison, at
Cole is attempting to innovate programs which might even
speed up these offerings at Manual because some of them
will be filtered down into the junior high school to prepare
them a little bit sooner before they get into Manual. Very
close articulation.
Q. Are you aware of the effects of these special programs
at Cole! A. Yes. I would say this, that again in speaking
with Mr. Morrison who is the principal at Cole, he feels that
the attitude of the community has improved greatly in re
lationship to their feelings of the value of Cole Junior
High. The faculty has greatly improved the attitude and
Lidell M. Thomas— for Defendants—Direct
1238a
desire to work. In fact, lie lias indicated to me that they
volunteer now to bring new programs to him, asking his
okay to initiate these which I think indicates their interest.
He feels there will be less turnover at Cole this year,
teacher request to go to some other school. Students have
a much better attitude, happier. They think that the school
is a part of their community, and they have a high respect
for it. The values specifically that you can indicate—Tru
ancy is 15 percent of [1692] what it was last year. This
year it’s 15 percent of what it was last year. And as at
tendance is up 5.4 percent over last year. So, it would as
sume that the school must be meeting their needs to have
this success.
Q. Now, you have mentioned a Mr. Morrison at Cole and
a Mr. Ward at Manual. You have identified these indi
viduals as the principals of those schools. Is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Ward and Mr. Morrison are both Negro, are they
not? A. That’s right.
Q. Now, Mr. Thomas, you have indicated that although
the academic offerings are the same at each and every
senior high school, that the special programs do vary. Is
there any way in which a student who feels that a particular
course of instruction is the best for him can transfer be
tween schools? A. Yes, this can be done on the basis if it
is thought to be a bona fide reason and there is a real desire
to obtain a certain type of course from one school to another,
it can be done mutually between the principals of the two
schools involved with pupil personnel in the central ad
ministration.
Q. As a matter of fact, to your knowledge, have students
transferred into Manual for this very reason? A. Yes.
This fall, I believe, the number was 22 young men and
Lidell M. Thomas—for Defendants—Direct
1239a
women that would normally have attended East High
[1693] School, did attend Manual on the basis strictly be
cause of class offering or subject offering.
Mr. Jackson: No further questions.
C ross-Exam ination by M r. G reiner:
Q. Mr. Thomas, currently there are what, about 1600
students at Manual! A. I would say it’s closer to about—
a little less than 1500, I believe.
Q. In 1968 there were 1578 students there! A. Approxi
mately. I have no figures.
Q. These pre-med, pre-law, pre-engineering programs
which you have described, when were these instituted! A.
This last year.
Q. What do you mean by this last year! This year! A.
Yes, September.
Q. The 1970 school year? A. That’s right.
Q. How many students at Manual are participating in
the pre-med program? A. I believe that it is in the forties,
I believe.
Q. Is that a program designed for twelfth graders,
eleventh graders, tenth graders? A. Primarily twelfth
graders.
Q. And there are forty in the pre-med program? [1694]
A. Approximately. I can’t give you the specifics.
Q. How many in the pre-law program? A. I can’t give
you the exact numbers.
Q. Can you give us a ballpark figure? A. Twenty-five.
Q. And how many in the pre-engineering program? A.
Approximately the same number, twenty-five to thirty.
Q. Now, how are these children selected, Mr. Thomas?
A. Purely on their own interest. This was a specific cri
Lidell M. Thomas—for Defendants—Cross
1240a
terion; that ability had nothing to do with it. If they
thought they could do it and they were interested in this,
this was the method by which they applied.
Q. So you have some very low-achieving children in these
courses, is that right? A. The only thing that I can give
you basically is that I heard from Mr. Ward that there were
fifteen involved in the D.U. program, and fourteen received
A’s and one received a B. What their levels were, I have no
idea. College level course. I mean, they received A’s in the
course by the professors at D.TJ. There was no selectivity
by way of—that you must have a certain IQ, for example,
to participate in this program.
Q. Now, for example, for somebody who was interested
in a pre-med program, Mr. Thomas, and this is a twelfth
grader now that we’re talking about, I assume, do you know
what sort of—And it is also true, is it not, that for college
entrance C1695 3 that certain courses are required to be
taken in high school, is that right? A. That’s right.
Q. And, for example, those would include science courses?
Is that true? A. Specifically to be entered into a normal
med school, yes, but not to get into arts and sciences col
leges, necessarily.
Q. Well, with respect, for example, to somebody who
wanted to enter into a liberal arts program, having a credit
at college, he would have to have a certain amount for
English in high school, is that right? A. Not necessarily.
Q. A certain level of English? A. All of them require
English.
Q. And mathematics? A. Mathematics.
Q. And science? A. Not necessarily all. Most of them,
I would say, require—
Q. Yes. A. —in the basic four areas, yes.
Lidell M. Thomas-—for Defendants—Cross
1241a
Q. If a child had only basic science and there is such
courses, is there not, in high school, basic science? A. Not
specifically by that term.
[16963 Q. I t’s a very low level science? A. Yes.
Q. That wouldn’t be an exemption for college entrance?
A. It would not necessarily rule him out of college. It
doesn’t necessarily have to be a laboratory subject to go
to arts and science, a specific school. If you’re speaking of
college schools, or you’re speaking of a pre-med pro
gram—in other words, specifically designed out of the arts
and science—-yes, they would require a minimum of a year
of chemistry and a year of physics. This is a normal mini
mum.
Q. Now, of the children in the pre-med program at Man
ual, do you know how many of these children have com
pleted those requirements? A. May I enter this—that—-
Q. Can you answer my question first? A. No.
Q. You don’t know. All right. Go ahead. A. It is not
the desire that if they have 25 going to the pre-med pro
gram at Manual that they’re all going to become doctors.
They are working in the area of nursing, in—working in
the area of a possible feeling that if they do want to be
come a doctor—and I can specifically give you an example
—one girl was investigating the nursing situation and
voluntarliy said she now wants to become an obstetrician.
"Whether she has the [1697] ability, I cannot say.
Q. Now, what about the pre-law program? Do all the
children in the pre-law program plan on being lawyers?
A. I have no idea. That is an area of their interest. This
is what they want to investigate. This is one of the things
this plan is desiring to do, is actually let them see what
these programs are, and the typical approach is, “I want
Lidell M. Thomas—for Defendants—Cross
1242a
to be a doctor. In my senior year.” It is hoped to make
the subject matter within the school relevant because they
see that they have opportunities in these areas.
Q. Well, Mr. Thomas, these are twelfth graders. Isn’t
it a little late to start stimulating those children’s interest
in those programs? A. You’re asking me an opinion?
Q. Yes. A. I would say it’s never too late. I can give
you a typical example of college seniors that haven’t de
cided yet. The sooner the better. I would grant you I
would much rather have them identify the situation at
the tenth grade than as seniors. Better than that, possibly
ninth or eighth grade, if they are mature enough and have
a broad enough background, which is one of the reason in
which Cole is trying to articulate with Manual so that
they may identify in the eighth or [16983 ninth grade.
Q. Now, you mentioned the relevancy or curriculum at
such schools as Manual and Cole. Do you recall that? A.
Yes.
Q. What are the factors that make a given course rele
vant? Can you list them for us ? A. Well, I would assume
that the term basically would mean that the individual
that is going to take these courses would see that it fits—
would see that it fills the needs of that person. If I can
see a reason for taking English, I have to become pro
ficient in English to participate in my future, then it
becomes relevant if I study it. To contrast it, maybe this
is what I can hope to say. Many young men and women
do not see the need for becoming proficient in mathematics.
I can look up in a table and I can find out how much it
costs and so on. The desire of making it relevant is to
have them have experiences in which they see that they
may not progress or attain the level that they would like
to have without having this basic information. Then it
Lidell M. Thomas—for Defendants—Cross
1243a
becomes relevant because they say that I can’t be a doctor
if I have not bad chemistry. Therefore, chemistry has
more meaning for me. That’s relevancy.
Q. Now, there are other inputs, are there not, Mr.
Thomas, other than just relevancy as to a child’s ability?
A. Absolutely.
[1699] Q. To understand a given course? A. That’s
right.
Q. Or a given subject? A. Uh-huh.
Q. And as I understand your prior testimony one of
the most important aspects of the child’s ability to achieve
is Ms reading abilities, is it not? A. I believe that is rec
ognized, yes.
Q. And I take it in—that in tailoring the curriculi at
such schools as Manual and Cole, that you take into account
the average achievement levels that are currently present
in those schools, do you not? A. Yes.
Q. For example, it would be silly, wouldn’t it to have
at Manual High School nothing but college-bound courses?
A. Very much so.
Q. Because most of the children entering Manual could
never get into college, could they, many times? A. Did
you say most?
Q. That’s right. A. Well, I would say that a large num
ber of them wouldn’t. Basically last year 58 percent ap
plied, I would say a large number obviously could not be
accepted in college.
Q. And one of the problems that those children have,
isn’t it, Mr. Thomas, is that by the time they enter the
ninth [1700] grade at Manual they may only be reading at
the seventh grade level? A. Many of them, yes.
Q. And that is the same problem you have at Cole,
isn’t it? By the time they enter Cole they may be reading
Lidell M. Thomas—for Defendants-—Cross
1244a
two levels—two grade levels behind where they’re sup
posed to be, is that rigid? A. The same in every junior
and senior high school in Denver.
Q. Oh, is it in terms of proportion, Mr. Thomas? A.
Not in proportion, but there are students.
Q. There are more of them in the minority schools, are
there not? A. I will agree with that, yes.
Q. Now, you mentioned the dropout rate at Manual.
Do you know what it is today; the cumulative dropout
rate? A. By definition of “cumulative” what do you
mean?
Q. Well, we have an exhibit— As opposed to the annual
dropout rate. A. By that, if you mean that if a child
drops and then re-enters and drops he is counted as a double
dropout—
Q. You’ve got me. I don’t know. But, do you under
stand what cumulative is? A. If that’s what you’re ask
ing me, yes, I do understand that.
[1701] Q. Do you know what that rate is at Manual?
A. No, I don’t.
Q. It’s over 50 percent, isn’t it? A. I believe it is.
Q. Even today? A. (No answer)
Q. Now, you mentioned the contents of courses offered
at various—Let’s talk first of the senior high school. Now,
as I understand it in the general subject matter of a sub
ject such as English, there are at a particular grade level,
there are all sorts and types of English courses which
may be offered, is that correct? A. That is right.
Q. Some may be remedial type courses? A. Yes.
Q. Some may be an average English course? Others
may get into compositions, is that correct? A. Yes.
Q. And others may get into advanced literature? A.
Yes.
Lidell M. Thomas—for Defendants—Cross
1245a
Q. So that the contents of these various offerings vary
considerably from course to course? A. Yes.
Q. Within the general subject matter of English, is that
right? [1702] A. Yes.
Q. Now, a child in order to graduate or to be graduated
from Manual—what can you tell us about the level of diffi
culty—the minimum level of difficulty of the courses which
that child must take in order to qualify for graduation?
For example, I take it that the child need never have taken
an advanced course in any subject, is that right? A. Ac
celerated, you mean?
Q. Eight. A. That’s true.
Q. Now, is it also true that you break up these courses,
Mr. Thomas? Do you have a regular course and then
you have what’s called a modified course at the senior
high school level, in academic subjects? A. In some areas
of English—may I point out for example in the regular
types of English, tenth grade, eleventh and twelfth grade,
then they have to have them graded, regular and modified
and specific courses such as contemporary literature—
there’s a regular and modified; American literature in
most instances, it’s just a regular course. There is no
modified in that. So, specifically, we do have some subjects
in the overall area of English in which there are gradua
tions of ability within a certain type of subject in English.
Q. Now, that’s also true in mathematics? A. Yes, it
is.
[1703] The Court: Would this modified be a
remedial course?
The Witness: Yes.
Q. It is for the slow learners, is it not? A. That’s
right.
Lidell M. Thomas—for Defendants—Cross
124:6a)
Q. People who are behind? A. Yes.
Q. Do you have those courses in mathematics? A. Yes.
Q. Do you have them in science? A. To a slight degree.
Primarily, in science, rather than offering as English-lOth
grade, English-regular 10th grade, meaning English modi
fied, a typical science course would be regular biology-
special materials, which is primarily a laboratory ap
proach, a little bit less depth in the area of biology, a little
slower, which would be similar to a modified course in
biology.
Q. All right, now, we have covered the three K’s. What
other areas of courses, Mr. Thomas, that we haven’t men
tioned yet are broken down into regular, modified and
accelerated? A. Social studies.
Q. Social studies? A. Yes.
Q. Now, I take it, in order to be graduated from Manual
[17043 a senior must have taken, for example, a certain
amount of social studies, is that right? A. This is right.
Q. Can that entire requirement have been fulfilled by
taking nothing but modified social studies courses? A.
Yes, it could.
Q. Is that also true with the mathematics requirement?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that also true with respect to the English require
ment? A. Yes.
Q. The science requirement? A. Yes.
Q. So, a child who has graduated from Manual may never
have even been in a regular course and is still qualified to
graduate? A. No different than any other high school.
They all offer the same.
Q. Now, is it also true, Mr. Thomas, that at the pre
dominantly Anglo high schools, for example, at John F.
Kennedy— A. Yes.
Lidell M. Thomas—for Defendants—Cross
1247a
Q. —Thomas Jefferson, if one examined the master
schedules at those schools and compared them with Man
ual High School— [1705] A. Yes.
Q. —would one expect to find, for example, more sec
tions of college calculus than one would find at Manual?
A. If I could read your question, you are—the college
calculus would be a wrong one. Probably only one in
any school. But if I get the import of your question, you
would probably find more accelerated courses at John F.
Kennedy and Thomas Jefferson than you would at Manual
or North.
Q. This in turn is a reflection on the demand for such
courses? It varies from school to school, does it not? A.
That is right.
Q. And it is also a reflection of the fact that there may
be fewer children who could qualify for such courses in
the minority schools, is that not so? A. Would you state
that again, please?
Q. Well, for example, what does it take to get into col
lege calculus? A. Well, to have gone through the entire
accelerated program from ninth grade on. You must have
had the equivalent of two full years of algebra, a year of
geometry and a semester of trigonometry, which you can’t
get in an ordinary four years unless you do accelerate.
Q. All right, and what about getting into a college level
physics class? Are they offered in some of the high [1706]
schools? A. Not offered in any of the high schools.
Q. Is physics offered in any of the high schools? A.
Yes.
Q. What does it take to get into that? A. A year of
geometry and a year of algebra.
Q. Is there any sort of advanced biology? A. Yes.
Q. What are the prerequisites? A. To have had the
Lidell M. Thomas—for Defendants—Cross
1248a
basic year of biology, the regular biology. In order to take
advanced, you must have had the basic biology course.
Q. I think you understand the import of my questions,
and it is, is it fair to say that a school such as Manual,
just in terms of numbers, are there fewer children at
Manual who qualify for these advanced programs? A.
Yes, I would say this is true.
Q. Now, Exhibits HGf and HE are curricula descrip
tions. A. Oh—
Q. Yes. A. Yes.
Q. Is that printed each year? A. No.
Q. How often is that printed? A. Oh, I would venture
to say maybe every three or [17073 four years.
Q. And what edition are we looking at there? A. I
believe it is the 1967, May of ’67.
Q. Do you happen to know, Mr. Thomas, how many
copies of those are printed up at each printing? A.
40,000? A. Yes.
Q. And are they then distributed to every child in the
school district? A. Well, every junior hig’h school stu
dent gets one and every senior high school. Not—and they
only get them one time. In other words, a tenth grader
gets this. It is the desire that this follows him for the
three years that he is in high school.
Q. As I understand it, those exhibits are not broken
down by school or categorized by school, are they? A. No.
Q. These are the general offerings that may or may not
be actually available, but at least they are tentatively
offered at all the schools in the district? A. Yes.
Q. And if we wanted to find out what the elective courses
were at various schools, what sort of—we wouldn’t find the
answer in Exhibits HG or HF? [17083 A. No, the actual
class offerings would then be found in master schedules.
Lidell M. Thomas—for Defendants—Cross
1249a
Q. Now, you mentioned the question of budget allot
ments. Can you describe for us how it is determined, for
example, how much money a given senior high school re
ceives? A. I will try. It is pretty complicated. In fact,
we are constantly trying to understand it ourselves. Ba
sically, it is done on the basis of pupil enrollment. So much
money is alloted for every child that attends that school.
Q. How much, do you happen to know, for this last
school year? A. I believe $2.75 per pupil for books and
I believe $4 per pupil for supplies, and this is I believe—
Q. What about for such things as teachers’ salaries?
A. Well, the school, individual school, is granted a number
of teachers that they need, according to primarily, one,
the number of pupils they have to instruct, but other ex
tenuating things. If they have special programs, they are
given extra personnel there. In other words, they don’t
have “X” number of dollars assigned to each school for
teacher salaries, if this is what you are asking.
Q. Now, as I understand it, there tends to be more less-
experienced teachers at these minority schools? A. You
said more less-experienced?
[1709] Q. Yes. A. I would say yes.
Q. And those teachers are compensated at a lower
rate of pay than are the more experienced teachers of
the district, is that correct? A. Yes.
Q. There is a salary scale, is there not? A. This is
true.
Q. Based on seniority? A. Yes.
* * * * *
[1711] * * *
Q. All right, you mentioned the Russian and Italian pro
grams at Manual. A. Yes.
Lidell M. Thomas-—for Defendants—Cross
1250a
Q. How long have they been going on! A. Two years
now. At least, this felt need was there. I cannot tell yon
whether there was Russian offered prior to that time or not.
Q. Are you familiar with the PAR tests! A. Yes.
Q. What is the PAR test? A. It is a test by name,
“Proficiency and Review Test,” which is a test that has
been described by an outside agency, in which it is used
as a basis of, one, of meeting—it must be passed in order
to meet one of the graduation requirements for the Den
ver Public Schools, for a diploma.
Q. Could you tell us what subjects are tested in the
PAR test? A. Basically, English and mathematics.
Q. Does English include reading ability? A. Yes.
[1712] Q. Vocabulary? A. Yes.
Q. Understanding and comprehension? A. Yes.
Q. Now, do you have any knowledge, Mr. Thomas, of the
level of achievement that is reflected in that test? A. Not
specifically. I know that it is a basic—it is the lowest level
at which they decide to—if they fail it, then sufficient back
ground isn’t there to merit the diploma. This is the reason
for the test. But, as to levels, I have no idea.
Q. Well, for example, in order to pass the PAR test, a
student would have to be reading at least the sixth grade
level, isn’t that correct? A. It would be an assumption.
There again, I—as being a principal, we gave the test. We
let the experts that designed it and score it make the level.
I don’t know. I don’t know whether it would be seventh
grade or sixth grade. I would have no idea.
Q. But you know it isn’t tenth or eleventh or twelfth
grade, don’t you? A. That is granted, yes.
Q. It is true, is it not, that there are courses offered in
certain of the minority senior high schools to help prepare
to take this test? [1713] A. I would have to ask you to go
Lidell M. Thomas—for Defendants—Cross
1251a
a little farther—if you are inferring a review course in the
PAR?
Q. Yes. A. It is offered in every high school.
Q. Aren’t there many more sections offered at Manual,
for example, than there are at TJ ? A. I haven’t the slight
est idea.
Q. Do you think that might be a possibility, Mr. Thomas?
A. It is a possibility.
Q. Now, you said that 58 percent of the students gradu
ated from Manual applied for college, is that right? A.
Yes.
Q. How many actually got into college, Mr. Thomas? A.
I haven’t any idea. This was last year’s figure.
Q. So you don’t try to follow up on that? A. I don’t
know.
Q. And do you have any idea of those who actually get
into college how many are able to stay in college? A.
Specifically Manual in relation to any other school?
Q. Yes. A. No. I might add this. It may have some
relevance to your questioning. This is also one of the
special programs unique with Manual. They have a full
time counselor from the [17143 Manual High School on the
Colorado University campus to do nothing but help coun
sel their students that have now gone on to Boulder. The
prime need, in my estimation and many people’s estima
tion, is that counseling that is given in college is not too
strong. I mean, they aren’t followed as closely as they are
in high school, and as a result this has been developed to
work with Manual students at Colorado University to as
sist them in getting started and staying on the ball. This
is also a portion of the CSC program. They will also have
this followup counseling if they attend Greeley.
Lidell M. Thomas—for Defendants—Cross
1252a
The Court: Are you saying this is a Denver Pub
lic Schools employee?
The Witness: Yes, it is. It is a college counselor
from Manual High School that is doing work on the
Boulder campus to do followup work to assist work
ing with those students.
* * * # *
[1742 J R edirect E xam ina tion by M r. Jackson:
Q. Mr. Thomas, Mr. Greiner asked yon if a student
could progress through Manual taking only remedial
courses or modified courses through math, science and
social studies and still graduate. Could a student do the
same thing at George Washington? A. Yes, sir.
Q. In fact, could a student do that at any of the high
schools in Denver? A. Any of the nine high schools.
Q. I believe you have already covered this, but I want
to make sure. Did you indicate that the programs at Man
ual and Cole are in fact pilot programs? A. Yes.
Q. Of recent origin? A. Yes.
Q. And hopefully would be implemented throughout the
system if they prove successful? A. Yes.
Q. At the present time, can you tell us what the effect of
these special programs at Manual and Cole have had on
the motivation of the children? [17433 A. Well, the basis
of my conversations with the administration has been it
has been very good. The motivation of the students has
increased. They relate to the school much more readily.
Their attendance is better. As I believe indicated in one
case, their estimate of themselves is better.
Q. In fact, this is directed more at giving the opportunity
for equal educational opportunity to these students, is it
not? A. Yes.
Lidell M. Thomas—for Defendants—Redirect
1253a
Q. Now, this counseling program which goes on at the
University of Colorado, this is in no sense a tuitorial sys
tem, is it? A. Not whatsoever.
Q. This is not to get into the academic area, to assist in
the achievement in that regard? A. No.
Q. Is this the same type of counseling that we might ex
pect some children to receive at home through parents ? A.
Yes.
Q. From their own peers? A. Yes.
Q. Is there, Mr. Thomas, a program directed or one that
we might classify as a vocational program at all of the
senior high schools in Denver? [1744] A. Very definitely.
Primarily in four basic areas, industrial arts, home eco
nomics, business education and an area called distributive
education, which is primarily working in the area of sales
manship, office, working in clerical type work, and this is
offered in all schools.
Q. Those are in all schools? A. Yes.
Mr. Jackson: Nothing further.
R ecross-E xam ination by M r. G reiner:
Q. Mr. Thomas, you said that there was a larger propor
tion of the modified or remedial type academic sources at
the minority schools than at the predominantly Anglo and
secondary schools, is that right? A. Well, I could cate
gorize it, let’s say, high school, there is really only one
minority high school as such, 50 per cent or more, but I
would assume where they had a high minority instance,
yes, this is true.
Q. And do you think it more or less likely, Mr. Thomas,
that a given elective course of an advanced nature might
not have sufficient demand at Manual than, say, at GW?
A. Possibility, yes.
Lidell M. Thomas—for Defendants—Recross
1254a
Q. Do you think the unavailability of those advanced
courses coupled with the larger proportion of remedial
courses has any effect on the image of the school in the
[17453 A. I don’t believe so, at this time, no. I believe
that you will find that at Manual their image of the school
is as high as any other school in the system.
Q. You didn’t hear Senator Brown’s testimony, is that
right? A. No, I didn’t.
Q. About the black community’s attitude toward Manual?
A. No.
* * # # #
[1748] * * *
Mr. Ris: Dr. Armstrong, please.
Charles A rmstrong , a w itn ess ca lled b y an d on b e h a lf o f
d e fen d an ts , h av in g been f irs t d u ly sw orn , w as ex am in ed a n d
te s tified as fo llo w s :
D irect E xam ina tion by M r. R is:
The Court: Give us your name and address,
please.
The Witness: Charles Armstrong, 1190 South
Race, Denver.
B y M r. R is:
Q. What is your occupation? A. I work for the Denver
Public Schools, Assistant Superintendent for Planning and
Engineering.
Q. Dr. Armstrong, I hand you a document that’s been
marked Defendants’ Exhibit HC. Is that a statement of
your educational background and your job assignments?
A. Yes, it is.
Charles Armstrong—for Defendants—Direct
1255a
Charles A rm stro n g — fo r D efendants— D irect
Q. Is that correct? A. Yes.
Q. I hand you Exhibit HD, and what is that? A. That’s
a job description of the job that I am now employed in.
[1749] Mr. Bis: We offer in eivdence HC and
HD.
Mr. Greiner: May I inquire of counsel, Your
Honor, as to whether Dr. Armstrong is being-
offered as an expert witness?
Mr. Ris: Yes.
The Court: I assume he is.
Mr. Greiner: In what areas? Education in gen
eral?
Mr. Ris: Education in general and in the admin
istrative end of it.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we have not been fur
nished with these previously. Might we take a few
minutes now to look them over?
The Court: Surely.
Mr. Ris: They have copies now.
The Court: Well, we can receive these exhibits,
I suppose.
Mr. Greiner: Yes, we have no objection to their
receipt, Your Honor.
The Court: This is just for the purpose of saving-
time.
We will receive HC and HD.
(Whereupon, Defendants’ Exhibits HC and HD
were received in evidence.)
Mr. Greiner: Well, may it please the Court, as
I understand it this witness functions in the areas
of engineering [1750] services, the planning of new
1256a
school facilities, the administrative supervision of
additions to and remodeling of facilities, planning-
for new sites and additions to existing sites, estab
lishment of pupil attendance areas. As I under
stood counsel’s comments, he was being offered
in a much broader area than those which I have
just described.
Mr. Bis: Well, he has the qualifications. Whether
we will ever get to ask him anything beyond that,
I don’t know.
Mr. Greiner: Well, we will simply cross that
bridge, I guess, when we come to it.
The Court: Eight.
Q. Dr. Armstrong, how long have you been employed
by the School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado? A. Since
1935.
Q. How long have you been at an administrative level?
A. Since 1946.
Q. At which time you were in the department of in
struction, is that correct? A. Yes.
Q. And how long have you been in the planning area?
A. Since 1948.
Q. And is the planning area as you have described it or
as we will talk about it here generally set forth in your job
description Exhibit HD? [17513 A. Yes, it is. Now, it was
a little broader than that earlier.
Q. And it’s now narrower by reason of the organization
of the administrative staff? A. That’s right.
Q. What year did that take place? A. Actually it was
just this last year.
Q. Now, in planning what are there—are there two basic
phases in planning? A. Yes, there are. One is to look at
Charles Armstrong—for Defendants—Direct
1257a
the information that is available now and to analyze it and
to make decisions as to what ought to be done; and then
to project data for the future, to see vThat may happen in
the future.
Q. Look into the crystal ball? A. And we are from time
to time making plans from one to ten years ahead. It’s
obvious that there are so many variables that enter into
these decisions that it’s almost impossible to plan ten years
ahead or even three years ahead. Nobody can tell what is
going to happen to the birth rate or the mobility of popu
lation. So, it’s difficult.
Q. After you made a planning study and projected ahead
various figures, at the end of the projected period have you
taken a look at the actualities? A. Yes, we make continuing
studies of what actually is taking place after we have made
the projections. It’s 317521 necessary to do it on a short
term basis.
Q. Have your projections always been accurate? A. No,
they have not.
Q. Now, in doing this planning, is this a one-man job?
A. No, it requires a team to do this.
Q. Is the administration under the Superintendent broken
down into a few small categories or a few small in number,
I should say, categories? A. Yes, really departments.
Q. And what are those basic departments? A. The basic
ones, of course, planning and engineering would be one;
another would be education; another would be business
administration or business services; another is the—the
present name is planning and budgeting. Those are the
major ones, I believe. Oh, there is personnel is the other
one.
Q. And in projecting ahead in the years to come, do all
of these various categories have to be taken into considera
tion? A. Yes, all have a part to play.
Charles Armstrong—for Defendants—Direct
1258a
Q. And you draw on information furnished by the other
assistant superintendents who head up the other depart
ments? A. Yes, that’s correct.
Q. Do you actually work with those other superinten
dents E1753] and are your planning projections done on a
cooperative basis with them? A. Yes, very closely as among
all the departments.
Q. Do you have to consider changes in the educational
field? A. Yes, this is extremely important.
Q. Are there changes? A. Yes, always. There is very,
very rapid change taking place in instruction and educa
tion all the time.
Q. Has it ever been static in the years you have been in
the planning, since 1948? A. Not that I know.
Q. Now, with respect to the planning on buildings, site
acquisitions and so forth, let’s call it just generally housing
of pupils and staff. Has this—has that been a static thing
since the year 1948 or has there—has this been a fluid type
of thing? A. It’s been rapidly—a rapidly changing thing.
Q. I would like to discuss with you very briefly the matter
of site acquisition, site planning, if you will, Doctor, and
in determining the possible location of future buildings,
for example, or locations where additions are going to be
built to existing buildings, are there various factors or
elements that are considered by you and the other super
intendents and assistant superintendents who are going to
work [1754] with you on such planning? A. Yes, there are
many factors. Of course, the major two are how many
children need to be accommodated, and I think we need to
amplify that a little bit, and then what kind of program is
going to be housed in the particular school that will be
constructed. This thing of how many children is the one
where there is some difficulty in assessing what these vari
Charles Armstrong—for Defendants—Direct
1259a
ables are going to do. For example, birth rates in the city
have a very marked effect on how many children will be
accommodated. The mobility of population within the city
has a very important effect, and both of these variables are
difficult to assess.
Q. By mobility do you mean people coming in from out
side as well as people moving from one part of the city to
the other? A. Yes, in Denver from outside the city com
pletely, and people moving out of Denver, and there are
people moving about within the city itself. All of these
are variables that we have to try to assess.
Q. Have there been variables in the birth rate since 1948
—since World War II particularly? A. Yes, that’s correct,
both the birth and mortality rates. They work together,
of course.
Q. And you stated another important element was what
you were building for. Can you amplify that, please?
[17551 A. Yes, the purpose of a building, of course, is to
accommodate educational programs, and so we work very
closely with the Division of Education to determine what
kinds of programs they will be wanting to accommodate
so far as they know now and also try to work with them
to see what may be coming in the future so far as building
needs are concerned in terms of spaces, the kind of spaces,
and the amount of space.
Q. Are there matters pertaining to residence construc
tion and annexation? A. Yes, one of the variables that has
operated very markedly over the last—well, ten years par
ticularly, has been that of annexation and residence de
velopment within the older areas of the city. In the last
ten years—well, since I960-—the size of Denver has in
creased from approximately 75 square miles to 100. Now,
in other words, a twenty-five square mile increase. Many
Charles Armstrong—for Defendants-—Direct
1260a
of these new areas that come into Denver are undeveloped.
In other words, they are vacant land. No children. And
so as time goes on and the residences are constructed there,
children, for example—families move in and we need to
accommodate children in those areas.
It’s difficult to determine what the rate of development
will be for two or three reasons; one is, we do not know
what the zoning will be when the thing is finally [17563
developed. We don’t know what the financial situation is
so far as the developers are concerned, and so it’s difficult
to know or to assess what numbers of children will be com
ing in from these annexations. There have been annexa
tions come in that have been almost fully developed so
that is relatively easy to count those children in those
areas.
Q. What about obsolescence of old buildings as a factor ?
A. In the older areas of the city or the existing buildings
of the city of course become obsolete, not so much from a
physical standpoint but from the standpoint of education
obsolescence. Now, our maintenance program has operated
effectively over the years and we feel that the buildings
have been maintained in good physical condition, but as
we mentioned before, the educational program is changing
and it is important that we try to modify spaces or add
spaces that will accommodate the program more effectively.
Q. Dr. Armstrong, what about the availability of capital
funds ? Is that one of the controlling factors that we have
to face? A. In other words, it’s easy enough to say that
we need so many buildings or so many classrooms, but
unless we have money to construct them, there is no real
value in knowing what the needs are. We continue to pro
ject these even though money is not in sight.
[1757] Q. Can you tell me at the moment what the
Charles Armstrong—for Defendants—Direct
1261a
bonded indebtedness of the district is approximately? A.
Oh, I can’t exactly. I know that the 1948 bond issue has
been paid off. The 1952 bond issue has been paid off, and
the 1956 bond issue will be paid off in 1975.
Q. Dr. Armstrong, I hand you a little booklet that has
been marked as Defendants’ Exhibit HK. Do you know
what that is? A. Yes, the annual publication from the
Department of Information and Services of Denver Public
Schools.
Q. A 1969 edition of that? A. Yes.
Q. Called Denver Public Schools Facts and Figures? A.
Yes.
Mr. Greiner: No objection, Your Honor.
The Court: Very well. It will be received.
(Whereupon, Defendants’ Exhibit HK was re
ceived in evidence.)
Q. I would ask you to refer to the pages referring to
bond issues and state if there is reflected the information
on the 1952, 1956 and 1959 bond issues? A. It’s 19—yes,
1952, 1956, and the bonded indebtedness as of June 30,
1969.
Q. Could you tell us how much remains due and owing
on the principal resulting from each of those issues?
[1758] A. Yes, the total principal owed is $23,897,000'.
Q. On all three? A. Yes, I believe, yes, that’s correct.
Q. Have you added them, Doctor? A. No, I didn’t.
Q. They’re stated separately there, I believe. A. This
is the total, I believe. I am quite sure this is it.
Q. Yes, I guess you’re right. I am sorry.
All right. Thank you. Do you recall what the estimated
bonded indebtedness required under the so-called Gilberts
plan is? A. The amount?
Charles Armstrong—for Defendants—Direct
1262a
Q. Yes. A. Of capital needs!
Q. Right. A. I don’t remember the exact figure. It was
something over a hundred—I can’t remember.
Q. Would it be around $125 million! A. I was going to
say $120 million. Yes, that’s about right.
The Court: You’re referring to the education re
port of Dr. Gilberts, is that right!
Mr. R is: Yes, sir, I believe it’s Exhibit D.
The Court: If the total of that were put into
E17593 effect!
Mr. Ris: That’s correct. Just highlighting the one
figure; just if the whole thing would be put in effect;
not that it’s been approved or intended to be or
anything of the sort.
The Court: What’s the purpose of all this!
Mr. Ris: As being a very essential element in
planning, the funding is one of the major things that
has to be considered in any planning of the future
at all. That’s objective.
The Court: You mean as bearing on the actions
that the school board has taken!
Mr. Ris: Yes, sir.
The Court: And its staff has taken through the
years, is that right!
Mr. Ris: For example, in the last few years, why
they haven’t built more buildings.
The Court: What their motives were! Is that
what you are coming to!
Mr. Ris: That’s what I ’m coming to ultimately.
The Court: They did the best they could with the
limited funds!
Mr. Ris: If that’s going to be conceded by every
body, I won’t ask any more questions.
Charles Armstrong—for Defendants—Direct
1263a
The Court: I suppose that’s always a problem in
[1760] every unit.
Mr. R is: It most certainly is. That’s all I was try
ing to establish.
B y M r. R is:
Q. In connection with such planning on site acquisition
and planning additional buildings or additions—or plan
ning new buildings or additions to existing buildings, can
you take any one or two of those elements and ignore all
the others, Dr. Armstrong? A. No, they are all variables,
and if any one of those variables changes or operates dif
ferently it makes a difference in the long-range projection.
So, it isn’t possible to take any one or even two of them
and make projections.
Q. Is it possible to take all of the various elements and
give each of them a weight and say this weight will apply
to every situation that we may consider? A. No, it isn’t
that easy.
Q. With respect to the site planning, Dr. Armstrong, in
the years that you have been involved since 1948 has there
ever been a site planned by you or by the administration
for the purpose of containing minority students, meaning
either Negro, Hispano, or both, in certain schools so as
to keep them separate from Anglos? A. No.
Q. Now, with regard to the capacity and utilization
[1761] of which there has been considerable testimony,
and I don’t want to beat a dead horse, Dr. Armstrong, but
I would like to cover just a couple of items on this. Many
of the exhibits that have* been introduced into the case
have been on the basis of rated capacity. That’s generally
been defined, I believe, as the number of classrooms times
30 for the average schools, is that correct? A. Yes, that’s
correct.
Charles Armstrong—for Defendants—Direct
1264a
Q. Now, does that necessarily depict the utilization effi
ciency of a particular school when it hits that particular
point, being a hundred percent efficiency? A. No, it
doesn’t. The major reason for setting up this kind of
capacity consideration is that we have some basic points
from which we can move. And it is a theoretical kind of
thing, but it does give us a base point. But, from that,
then, we can move to adjust capacities for the kinds of
programs, and after all, this is the important thing about
a school building, is the kind of program that it houses.
And so with that basic idea of 30 pupils per classroom
and variation from that, we can then arrive at some kind
of an adjusted capacity or a usable capacity or whatever
the term you want to use.
Q. Is there any rule of thumb that has customarily
been used by the administration of this school district
with respect to a percentage of over-capacity which is
within a [1762] permissible limit, for example?
Mr. Greiner: Could we have that defined as to
the time period, Your Honor?
Mr. Bis: I said now and in the past has been,
was my question.
Mr. Greiner: Same comment, Your Honor.
The Court: Overruled. You can cross-examine
him.
A. There was a time when it was in the elementary schools,
it was considered that a good educational program could
be carried on in some schools, again, depending upon the
program. If a school were crowded say 10 percent over
or something like that. But, no hard and fast rule has
ever been established.
Charles Armstrong—for Defendants—Direct
1265a
Q. Now, was this 10 percent over capacity a rule of
thumb that was used and unless you are over that you
wouldn’t consider going* into any new construction pro
gram or double session and so forth? A. No, it wasn’t.
The needs for future construction are based on these
factors that I have talked about here and also whether a
building is crowded in terms of the kinds of program
that is being carried on. So, that 10 percent wouldn’t
necessarily apply all down the line.
[17631 Q. Well, then, a reasonable utilization capacity
of a building is not the same as a rated capacity on the
standard formula of 30 times classrooms'? A. No, it is
not.
Q. All right, and you take these other factors into con
sideration in determining the capacity or future plan
ning! A. Yes, we do. That’s why we have maintained a
close liaison with the Division of Education, because this
is their responsibility, to develop the programs, and then
they can help us to determine what size the building
should be.
Q. All right, sir, thank you. Are you also involved in—
The Court: You are saying* you need more square
footage to carry on a manual arts program?
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: Then you do college preparation?
The Witness: Yes, generally I think that would
be true, depending exactly on what kind of pro
gram, yes, sir.
Q. This varies also as to the number of pupils per
classroom? A. Yes, it does.
Q. And is that also related to pupil-teacher ratio? A.
Charles Armstrong—for Defendants—Direct
1266a
Well, that affects the pupil-teacher ratio, yes, [1764] but
the type of program is set up on the basis of how best
the particular course or offering can be taught.
Q. Are there some instances where you have, say, forty
pupils in a grade or class and you assign two teachers to
that? A. Yes.
Q. Without breaking up the class? A. Yes, this would
be true.
Q. So you may have one classroom with forty students
and two teachers? A. Yes.
Q. But still it will be a low teacher ratio? A. Yes. A
good example of that, it may not be relevant, but, in gym
classes, for example, larger numbers of children can
have classes in a gym, but in order to handle the larger
classes more teachers are assigned.
Q. Does your responsibility also relate to establishing
new boundaries after schools are open? A. Yes.
Q. And reestablishing- or redesignating boundaries on
existing schools? A. Yes.
Q. Do a great many of the criteria that you previously
discussed with respect to site selection also refer to es
tablishing the boundaries [1765] A. Yes, sir, they do.
Q. Are there also other factors that go into the estab
lishment of boundaries? A. Yes, one that has been men
tioned before, and that is the walking distance that the
children live from the school. The size of the building, of
course, enters into it.
Q. All right, and you have natural features? A. Yes,
that’s right, highways, the man-made features that are—
make access to the school difficult or natural features
such as gullies and so on that make it difficult for chil
dren to move from one place to another.
Q. Now, with regard to the creation of boundary lines
Charles Armstrong—for Defendants—Direct
1267a
for a new school or realignment of boundary lines for
old schools, was there a period of time and up to a cer
tain year during which racial and ethnic population fig
ures were not taken into consideration? A. Yes, there
were years—yes, before 1962, I believe, that these fac
tors were not taken into account because the data was not
available.
Q. Or was it after the Voorhees report in 1964, Doc
tor? A. I believe that’s right. It was after that report,
because we didn’t have those data.
Q. And have they been taken into consideration since?
A. Yes, they have.
C17663 Q. And again with respect to all the elements
that go into establishment or changes of boundaries, can
any one or two be taken or isolated from all the others
and put through a computer and arrive at an answer?
A. No, this is not a strict mathematical process, so it
isn’t as simple as putting numbers into a calculating ma
chine or computer, because there are social factors in
volved. We are dealing with human beings and not blocks
of wood.
Q. Since you have been in planning since 1948 have
there been any establishment of boundaries of new schools
or realignment of boundaries for old schools which either
you individually or members of the staff or the staff itself
had plans for containing minority students in certain
schools or to keep them separate from Anglo schools?
A. No.
The Court: Just a moment, somebody said this
afternoon that on no occasion in an overcrowding
situation have white students been bused to a pre
dominantly minority school. Would you agree with
that?
Charles Armstrong—for Defendants—-Direct
1268a
The Witness: I would have to think about it.
I ’m not sure. I just at this point—I don’t know.
The Court: Let me ask you a question that might
be somewhat embarrassing to you but I think it is
on all of our minds. Wouldn’t you hesitate be
cause of parent reaction to send a group of white
students down into the old [1767] Negro areas?
The Witness: I think what we need to do there
is what’—
The Court: I mean, you could anticipate a parent
reaction, I suppose?
The Witness: I would suppose, or it could hap
pen—
The Court: Would this deter you any?
The Witness: Well, it might, although I think
we get almost as much reaction the other way.
The reason I say that—
The Court: Well, I’m not concerned about the
other way at the moment.
The Witness: Okay. I think we would need to
look at the situation and talk with the parents,
just as we do with any shift of boundaries or shift
of assignment of students and look at all the fac
tors involved, not just the parents’ reaction, but
the good of the district and so on. I think it is
a little more complicated than just the parents’ re
action from the group that might be moved.
The Court: I think the testimony was that they
refrained from moving them into the Negro schools
which were underutilized merely because they didn’t
want to disturb the special education programs.
The Witness: This might also apply to the situa-
Charles Armstrong—for Defendants—Direct
1269a
tion you just posed here and that is that prop-
ably there isn’t [1768] enough room in the minority
schools to accommodate these children. In other
words, the same types of special education pro
grams and so on.
The Court: Well, they hauled them quite a wrnys
further.
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: From Montbello all the way to Teller
and Palmer, which were right beyond the schools
which were underutilized, and said, “Well, the rea
son for it was that they had these special education
programs that require more space than other pro
grams.”
The Witness: Yes, I think this is part of it.
On the other hand, I think, really, a simpler look at
the transportation routes. Getting to Teller, for
example, is pretty easy. In other words, 1-70 to
Colorado Boulevard and down there, and those
schools, you see, are pretty close to Colorado and
are accessible by transportation, whereas you know
Columbine or Whittier or Gilpin are a little more
difficult to get to, so this is one factor, a minor one
admittedly, but we do have to look at it because of
the need to utilize our transportation most effi
ciently, most effectively.
The Court: Well, I know, but you are always
maintaining that you pick out the schools closest,
regardless of whether you are transporting or
whether you are walking, [1769] isn’t that right,
if you can?
The Witness: Yes, if we can.
Charles Armstrong—for Defendants—Direct
1270a
The Court: And if you have the space!
The Witness: Right, and for the same reason—
The Court: This is adhering to the neighborhood
school concept in a sense!
The Witness: Yes, essentially, that’s right.
By Mr. R is :
Q. With respect to busing, does one bus just pick up
one load of students and deposit that load at one school
and then take up until school is out? A. No, it isn’t
possible to do that because of the number of children to
be transported and the number of buses we have, SO'—
well, there are really two or three programs. One is a
special education program and so we transport the special
education children early to utilize the buses for that pur
pose and then we begin to pick up children who go to
the regular programs, and in cases where the bus run
is short, then that bus can make as many as two runs,
preferably two, more if we can, but they need—the buses
need to be utilized for more than one run.
Q. Do some buses on short runs even make more than
two! A. I ’m sure they do, but I don’t know how many.
Q. Is this in your department! A. No, this is Di
vision of Administrative Services.
[1770] The Court: They seem to be moving
pretty good whenever I see them., I will say that.
They are not moving slowly.
The Witness: No, that’s right. I will relay that
on to Mr. dander. He will like to hear that.
The Court: They are keeping up with the flow
of traffic, I will say that.
Charles Armstrong—for Defendants—Direct
1271a
Q. Dr. Armstrong, in some of the past testimony, there
has been reference to Dr. Holme and Mr. Ketcham as
having been involved in some of the previous planning.
Are both of those men deceased? A. Yes, they are.
Q. We have had a lot of testimony about Hallett and
Park Hill. Again, I don’t want to review all of that in
detail, but I do want to ask you one thing, if I may, please.
I refer you to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 52, with particular
reference to Pages 16 and 17, to which there has been
previous reference made with other witnesses.
First of all, let me ask you what this exhibit is and
what you had to do with its preparation? A. Well, this
is a preliminary study that was prepared to the 1962 re
port. I believe it is Exhibit 405.
Q. All right. Now, on the face of this, it says, “For
Study Only.” What is the significance of that in plan
ning? [17713 A. Well, in any kind of situation where
we are trying to establish boundaries or assign children
to schools, we need to look at a number of alternatives,
and so this is is one of the early studies which has some
alternatives in it, before we finally made decisions or the
board made decisions or the superintendent as to what
should be done in these years.
Q. As these studies are made, are there changes made
in some of the details as you go along? A. Yes, they
are. From time to time. In fact, there are many changes
made in all of them.
Q. Now, in addition to proposed changes that were
being studied at the elementary level in the Northeast
Denver area, there were apparently others in other parts
of the city, were there not. A. Yes, there were many of
them. As I recall, there were some 25 or 30 other situa
tions, boundary changes.
Charles Armstrong—for Defendants—Direct
1272a
Q. Particularly concerned were the three pertaining
to Stedman referred to on Page 16 of Exhibit 52. Would
you look at that, please? A. Yes.
Q. And refer to the first three items, turning to Maps
No. 10, 11 and 12, from Stedman to Smith, to Hallett,
Optional Park Hill, Stedman to Park Hill, and the effec
tive date therefor is shown as 1962, is that correct?
£1772] A. Yes, sir, that’s what’s shown here.
Q. All right. Now, if you look at Page 17, you have
estimated pupil membership for these schools referred
to on Page 16, do you not? A. Yes.
Q. And those refer to what estimated projections would
be if the proposed boundary changes had been made?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, will you look particularly at Stedman there,
and what did that show as to the actual membership in
1961? A. In 1961 the actual membership was 742.
Q. Could you take your pen and just underline that at
that point, please? A. (Witness complied with counsel’s
request.)
Q. Now, if the effective date of any Stedman change
was 1962, would that be reflected in the column headed
“1962”? A. Yes, it will be under estimated membership.
Q. Was it so reflected? A. No.
Q. What do you show for ’62? A. 750.
Q. Was it reflected in your projection for 1963? A.
No.
Q. What do you show for 1963? [17733A. 765.
Q. Was it reflected for 1964? A. Yes, it was.
Q. And what was your projected membership for Sted
man that year? A. 651.
Q. Is there a variance between Page 17 and Page 16,
your projections? A. Yes, there is.
Charles Armstrong—for Defendants—Direct
1273a
Q. Do you know which came first, the chicken or the
egg? A. Well, I’m sure that the data on Page 16 were
tabulated and studied before the numbers on Page 17.
Q. Well, which was the final recommendation then, 17
or 16? A. Page 17. The data on Page 17 reflects what
went into the final report.
Q. And somehow' or other the data on 16, were not
changed to reflect that? A. No, that’s right. We normally
didn’t go back and revise the studies. We—
Q. All right. On Page 17, the four years, the estimated
membership for ’61, ’62, ’63 and ’64 for Stedman. I
think you already underlined the ’61 A. Yes.
[1774] Q. Would you underline the other three years,
please? A. Yes.
All right. ’62, ’63 and ’64.
Q. Right, and on Page 16, the 1962 effective dates as
to Stedman, would you underline those three, please, for
emphasis? A. (Witness complying with counsel’s re
quest.)
Q. Now, Dr. Armstrong, at the time that you make a
study such as this, do you keep a workbook, looseleaf
book? A. Oh, yes.
Q. And have you verified these figures on 17 from your
workbook? A.Yes, I have.
Q. I hand you what has been marked as Exhibit CE,
and would ask you to look at Page 3 of that and would
further ask you if that is your work sheets from which
the items on Page 17 of Exhibit 52 were ultimately pre
pared? A. Yes, that’s correct.
[1775] Q. So that this Exhibit CE—that’s your origi
nal source document for Exhibit 52? A. This is 52?
Q. Yes. A. Yes, they are the data that are incorpo
rated here.
Charles Armstrong—for Defendants—Direct
1274a
Mr. Ris: We would offer Exhibit CE.
The Court: May I look at that 521
Mr. Ris: Yes, sir.
Mr. Greiner: No objection, Your Honor.
The Court: It will be received.
(Whereupon, Defendants’ Exhibit CE was re
ceived in evidence.)
Q. Dr. Armstrong, in both 1962 and 1964, what was
the policy of the district with respect to the making of
elementary school changes? Was that a matter for
formal board action? A. No, it was not. It was the
responsibility of the superintendent.
The Court: You mean on the elementary schools?
Mr. Ris: Yes, sir.
Q. The board did take formal action on secondary
school changes, did it not, at that time? A. Yes.
[1780] * * *
Mr. Ris: Yes, sir. Before I call Dr. Armstrong
there are a couple of court matters that ought to be
on record. With respect to the daily transcript that
was delivered this morning, I refer to page 1773,
on line 7, in reference to “Is there a variance be
tween page 17 and page 18.” This should be with
reference to “page 17 and page 16.”. And I would
ask that that be—I mentioned this to Mr. Greiner,
and he has no objection.
Mr. Greiner: That’s correct, Your Honor.
Charles Armstrong—for Defendants—Direct
1275a
Mr. Ris: And the same correction should be made
at line 15 and also line 18. The “18” should read
“16.”
The Court: All right. We will change 18 to 16 on
each of those lines.
Mr. R is: All of our discussion at that point was
on page 16 and 17. I may have misspoken, but cer
tainly that was the intent of the examination.
Any objection!
Mr. Brega: No objection.
.y, .y, M.W # TP W
[17813 * * *
Jfe -it- -V-TP W W W
Mr. Ris: Yesterday the Court requested that we
[1782] obtain figures concerning the voluntary open
enrollment figures for Manual, for the first semester
-1969-70 school year. We have gotten from the school
records such figures for both the limited open en
rollment, which is a carryover from those who were
in LOE originally and even though that was super
seded by VOE, those who had already made a change,
as the Court will recall, were permitted to carry on.
So, I have one exhibit consisting of two sheets, one
pertaining to limited open enrollment for the fall
semester of 1969 and the second sheet being the
voluntary open enrollment. So I will hand it to the
Court at this time, Exhibit HI.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, I believe that we have
already had marked for identification as an inter-
venor’s exhibit I, the full report on VOE.
Mr. Creighton: That’s Exhibit B.
Mr. Brega: I believe it’s in evidence.
Charles Armstrong—for Defendants—Direct
1276a
Mr. Greiner: Which I think is a little more com
plete.
The Court: Is that 1969-70, too?
Mr. Brega: Yes.
The Court: We will take this in evidence then.
(Whereupon, Defendants’ Exhibit HI was re
ceived in evidence.)
Mr. Bis: Dr. Armstrong, please.
D irect E xam ina tion hy M r. R is (Continued) [1783]
Q. Dr. Armstrong, when we recessed yesterday I think
we discussed that basically during the period of time that
we were discussing the changes in the elementary school
boundaries that these were made by the Superintendent
as an administrative matter and then reported to the Board
of Education, is that correct ? A. That’s correct.
Q. That secondary school boundaries were actually made
by formal resolution or action of the Board of Education
itself? A. Yes.
Q. May I ask you whether the administration—whether
the Superintendent was making the changes at the ele
mentary level or whether the Board was making the changes
at the secondary level, were studies invariably done with
respect to those changes in advance? A. Yes, they were.
Q. Were the studies basically the same type of studies?
A. Yes.
Q. With respect to your planning for construction of a
new school building in an area, you previously indicated
that you projected future student membership for some
years ahead, is that correct? A. Yes.
[17841 Q. And that’s one of the elements you considered
among various other elements? A. Bight.
Charles Armstrong—for Defendants—Direct
1277a
Q. Now, if you project a figure of future membership,
do you always build or customarily recommend building to
that figure. A. Not to the peak estimate of eventual en
rollment. We have found—and this is generally true I think
in other school districts—that the membership in schools
in new areas tend to increase up to a peak and then begin
to taper off, to fall back to an extent. And the ordinarily
accepted figure for this decrease in membership over the
eventual life of the school is about 85 percent of the peak
enrollment. So rather than build schools to what we think
the peak enrollment may be and then when the enrollment
drops off have a vacant space available, we feel it is better
to build to about 85 percent of what we think the peak
enrollment will be.
[17853 Q. Did such a consideration go into the Barrett
building? A. Yes, it goes into the consideration of all of
the buildings that we construct.
Q. Dr. Armstrong, with respect to the junior high bound
ary changes in 1962 involving Cole, Morey and Byers, you
will recall we have had considerable testimony on that. A.
Yes.
Q. Prior to that change, you had made a substantial study
of numerous boundaries and numerous schools, had you not,
which is represented by Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 405? A. Yes,
throughout the city.
Q. In that did you make certain projections as to your
best estimate of what the future pupil membership would
be of the various schools involved in 405? A. Yes.
Q. Was that true also as to Morey? A. Yes.
Q. And if you will look at page 31 of Plaintiffs’ Exhibit
405, pertaining to junior high schools, and estimated pupil
membership with the proposed changes if adopted, of
course, does that give your projections as to Morey, to the
best of your ability at that time? A. Yes, it does.
Charles Armstrong—for Defendants—Direct
1278a
Q. And what was your 1961—first of all, what was your
[1786] adjusted building capacity for Morey at that time?
A. 1,170.
Q. What was the ’61 actual membership as shown? A.
894.
Q. What was your projection for 1962? A. 1,004.
Q. And what was it for 1965? A. It increased to 1,073.
Q. Dr. Armstrong, would you just take your pen on page
31 and underline the word “Morey” and just run your line
clear across on your projection for emphasis?
(Witness complied with counsel’s request.)
Q. So, subsequently, in the years that followed, if it de
veloped that the Morey population did not go as high as
your projection, that would represent hindsight, or, rather,
foresight at this point in time? A. Yes, it is impossible to
assess all of the variables that go into these projections.
Q. In arriving at the figures in 405, were any racial
figures taken into consideration at that time? A. No, they
were not. It was strictly on the basis of building capacity
and numbers of children.
Q. Did you have at that time any figures available to you
giving the racial or ethnic numbers of various schools re
ferred to in Exhibit 405? [1787] A. No, we did not.
Q. Were such figures available to you in your planning in
1948 when you went into the planning end of it until 1964
with the possible exception or with the exception of the new
Manual? A. They were not available.
Q. Now, Dr. Armstrong, I would next direct your atten
tion to the situation concerning which you have had some
testimony pertaining to Ashland Elementary School,
Boulevard and Brown Elementary School. Now, Ashland
is on West 29th Avenue, is that correct? A. Yes.
CMarles Armstrong—for Defendants—Direct
1279a
Q. And do yon remember the approximate cross street,
Bryant or Clay! A. No, I don’t remember. It is in that
general area.
Q. And Boulevard is on Federal Boulevard in the 2300
block? A. Yes, that’s correct.
Q. And Brown is between Julian and Lowell in the 2500
block? A. Yes.
Q. Brown is the newest of the schools among those three?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, Boulevard had an old school and a new addition,
is that true? [17883 A. Yes, there were two sections.
Q. Two sections, all right. Was the old section one of the
oldest schools in the city? A. Yes, it was.
Q. Was there any intent on the part of the District to
phase out the old section and close it out? A. Yes, that
was one of our proposals.
Q. Did that have anything to do with the 1961 boundary
changes? A. Yes, it did, because that part was phased
out.
Q. So, with that change, what effect would that have on
the pupil membership in Boulevard? A. Well, it would
mean the pupil membership would have to be decreased in
some way to fit the building capacity.
Q. I hand you what has been marked as Defendants’ Ex
hibit CM and ask you if those are also notes from your
personal work book. A. Yes, they are.
Mr. Greiner: We have no objection, Your Honor,
to CM.
The Court: All right.
Q. Does this reflect the projections on pupil membership
in those three schools among others as between ’61 and ’62
and on to ’66? A. Yes.
Charles Armstrong—for Defendants-—Direct
1280a
[1789] Q. What does that reflect as to Boulevard? A.
Well, it shows that the capacity of Boulevard was 375 and
the actual membership in 1961 was 503 pupils.
Q. What was projected into ’62 and thereafter? A. The
projection for Boulevard was that the number of pupils
would increase in 1962 to 538; ’63, 561; and 577, 589, and up
to 601 by 1966,
Q. Did each of those years also reflect taking off 150
pupils? A. Yes.
Q. Is that what is contemplated to be transferred to
Brown Elementary School? A. That’s correct.
Q. And is the same 150 figure reflected in the Brown
projections for 1962? A. Yes, in the next entry, just below
this.
Q. If you will wait until I finish my question, otherwise
the reporter has us both talking at the same time, Dr. Arm
strong. A. Sorry.
Q. At the time of this change between Boulevard and
Brown, the maps that have been introduced also show an
irregular section transferring or a boundary change from
Ashland to Boulevard in the area between the Platte River
and the Valley Highway and south of the 14th Street Via
duct. Do you [1790] recall what led to that boundary
change or what the principal element was with respect to
it? A. Yes, it was a very small area there, and those
children were being transported, and since the number was
small it had little effect on either the membership of Ash
land or of Boulevard.
Q. Did the opening of that section of the Valley Highway
have anything to do with this ?
Mr. Greiner: I object to the question, Your Honor,
because I don’t think the record reflects when in fact
Charles Armstrong—for Defendants—Direct
1281a
the Valley Highway did open. I think it is a leading
question.
The Court: It is somewhat leading, but we will let
him answer.
The Witness: Would you repeat that?
The Court: Did the Valley Highway have any
effect?
A. Oh, yes, it did, because it tended to cut off that section,
so to speak, from the rest of the area.
Q. Can you state where the overpass from that section
over the Valley Highway was to the wTest? A. No, I can’t
remember where it was.
Q. Well, West 23rd Avenue? A. Twenty-third, that’s
right. I am sorry. I couldn’t remember exactly.
Q. Now, did your projection, Defendants’ Exhibit CM,
show there was any loss at all from Ashland and any gain to
[1791] Boulevard from this boundary change? A. No, it
was so small we felt it wasn’t even essential to enter it here.
Q. Was there any racial or ethnic consideration at all in
transferring that particular section to Boulevard? A. No,
there was not.
Mr. B is: I am not sure Exhibit CM was offered or
admitted. May we have an order on that?
The Court: Yes.
Mr. Bis: All right.
(Whereupon, Defendants’ Exhibit CM was re
ceived in evidence.)
Q. Now, I will direct your attention, Dr. Armstrong, to
the situation pertaining to Colorado Boulevard as it relates
to Teller and Steck Elementary School. Teller is located
Charles Armstrong—for Defendants-—Direct
1282a
where? A. Well, it is west of Colorado Boulevard. I can’t
—I don’t remember the exact address.
The Court: It is on Monroe?
The Witness: About 12th and Monroe, in that gen
eral area.
Q. Close to Gove? A. Yes, just south of Gove.
Q. Do you know approximately when that was built?
A. No, I don’t, offhand.
[1792] Q. Is it an older school? A. It is an older school
and has had some additions.
Q. And Steck? A. East of Colorado Boulevard at 4th
and Albion or Bellaire, in that general area.
Q. Do you know about when it was built? A. It is a
newer school, but I don’t remember the construction date.
Q. Were both of those already constructed when you got
in the planning department in 1948? A. Yes.
Q. Was Colorado Boulevard at that time a six-lane
divided street? A. No, it wasn’t.
Q. During your planning period from 1948 on, since then
has there been any device created with respect to Gove
Junior High or traffic conditions across Colorado Boule
vard? A. Yes, two years ago, an overpass was constructed
there actually from the school. The school site is divided,
one part on each side of Colorado Boulevard, and the over
pass goes from one part of the site to the other. It also has
landings so that the pedestrians using the public sidewalks
can make use of the overpass.
Q. Is Teller so situated that this serves any purpose for
Teller? [1793] A. Yes, it does. Some of the children who
attend Teller Elementary School need to cross Colorado
Boulevard, and this overpass serves as a way for them to
get across.
Charles Armstrong—for Defendants—Direct
1283a
Q. Was this part of the planning for that overpass? A.
Yes.
Q. Now, have there been any particular accidents in that
area involving school children? A. Before the overpass
was constructed, there was an accident where two children
were fatally injured.
Q. From either Gove or Teller? A. They were from
Gove Junior High School.
Q. Now, with respect to Steck, has that been given con
sideration as to what might be done with the boundary line
and its relationship to Colorado Boulevard? A. Yes, con
sideration has been given to it and we worked closely with
the City Traffic Engineering Department to make such
crossings as safe as possible, and there have been installed
at Colorado Boulevard and Fourth Avenue traffic control
signals which helped the pedestrian traffic there, the school
children, to get across Colorado Boulevard.
[1794] Q. Is Fourth Avenue completely— A. Fourth
Avenue does not go through. So that actually Fourth Ave
nue terminates at the east side of Colorado Boulevard.
Q. Was that also made a one-way street some years ago?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. Has there been given consideration to attempts to
revise the boundary line for Steck, for example, to get rid
of that? A. Yes, consideration was given to it but there
seemed to be no feasible, practical way that this could be
be done and it was felt, with the safety programs and with
the traffic control lights, that this was an adequate situa
tion.
Q. In connection with your planning, Dr. Armstrong,
could you tell us what has been done with respect to main
tenance of the various school buildings in the district and
with particular reference to the older buildings as compared
Charles Armstrong—for Defendants—Direct
1284a
to the new buildings? A. We have a very complete program
of maintenance for the older buildings. This consists of
keeping them in safe and healthful condition by means of
painting, by means of repairs, replacing roofs, and inspec
tion by the Fire Department and by our own engineering
staff to be sure [1795] that the structure is adequate and
safe. We have developed some programs of lighting class
rooms, corridors, and we have installed fire detection sys
tems. We have replaced boilers. Quite an extensive pro
gram to keep these buildings in operating condition, so
that physically the buildings are, in. our opinion, adequate.
Q. With respect to the lighting, what lighting program
was it you mentioned? A. Several years ago the school
district embarked on a program of replacing all the lights
in all the schools of the city as a matter of fact where they
were needed, which at that time were new, the fluorescent
lights. And so all of the classrooms in all of the schools
have been provided with fluorescent lights, bringing the
lighting level up to a satisfactory amount, so that there is
no problem of lack of illumination.
Q. Has this been accomplished in all the old buildings?
A. Yes, in all schools.
Q. Has fire protection or smoke detection systems been
installed in all the old schools ? A. All the ones built before
1900. We have some thirty-five installations. I’m not just
sure of the list but all of the older buildings.
Q. Dr. Armstrong, I would hand you first of all a docu
ment which has been marked as Interveners’ Exhibit E—
[17963 if the Intervenor has no objection—and ask you
what this is? A. This is a pupil membership report dated
November 17, 1969.
Q. For all of the Denver Public Schools? A. Yes, all
schools in the district.
Charles Armstrong—for Defendants—Direct
1285a
Q. And what does that reflect? A. It shows the name of
the school, the building capacity, the membership in the
grades, respective grades, including the special education
as well as the regular pupils.
Q. Was this a report that was made in the regular course
of conduct of the operation of the district? A. Yes, sir, it’s
a monthly report.
Mr. E is: We offer in evidence Intervenors’ Ex
hibit E.
Mr. Greiner: No objection
The Court: It will be received.
(Intervenor Defendants’ Exhibit E was received
in evidence.)
Q. Now, I will offer you specifically to the report of
pupil membership as of November 17, 1969, as compared
with membership of November 18, 1968, and with particu
lar reference to the junior high schools. Would you tell us
what the 1968 pupil membership was for the junior high
[1797] schools? A. Yes, this is for November 18, 1968, the
total membership in the junior high—these are the junior
high pupils—whether they were housed in junior high
schools or whether they were in a six-year school, 21,788.
Q. What is the 1969 membership for all the junior high
schools! A. 21,971.
Q. Right at 22,000? A. Yes.
Q. And I would hand you what’s previously been ad
mitted into evidence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 347. And I
would direct your attention—I don’t know what color it is.
I’m color blind. Is that brown or green? A. Green.
Q. Does that actually reflect the 1968 actual membership
as shown by Exhibit E—Intervenors’ Exhibit E? A. It
Charles Armstrong—for Defendants—Direct
1286a
appears to me to be low. The number shown here is 21,788,
which is nearer 22,000 than this line shows, so it is low here.
Q. Would you put an X approximately where it should
be and put your initial on there. And then with respect to
the 1969 membership in the 1969 column, would you put
an X approximately where it would be? A. Let’s see, that
would have been nearly—
[17983 Q. And if you would put your initials after that,
also, please.
Thank you.
Would you refer to Exhibit 346 that pertains to certain
schools, Doctor, and if you will notice the one line, the
bottom line, capacity, refers to Hill, Merrill and Jefferson,
and then the minority schools above—not so stated on the
exhibit—
Mr. Ris: Correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Greiner,
but those are Baker, Cole, Morey and Smiley, I be
lieve; is that correct?
Mr. Greiner: I believe that’s correct.
Q. Now, there has been some testimony here pertaining
to overcrowding with respect to Hamilton Junior High and
Place Junior High. Could you tell us what planning has
been which has led to the construction of Hamilton and
Place? A. Yes, Hamilton and Place are both located in
Southeast Denver where there are large numbers of—
eventually of junior high school children to be accommo
dated.
Thomas Jefferson Junior and Senior High School was
on double sessions for a long time and it was our intention
when the building was originally planned to accommodate
only grades ten through twelve. With the completion of
Hamilton, we were able to take the seventh and eighth
Charles Armstrong—for Defendants—Direct
1287a
grades out of Thomas Jefferson Junior and Senior [1799]
High and accommodate them at Hamilton. There wasn’t
room at Hamilton to take the ninth grade. So the plan then
is eventually to take the ninth grade out of Thomas Jeffer
son, accommodate those children in the schools in Southeast
Denver, Merrill, Place and Hamilton, and possibly Hill,
and make Hamilton a junior high school, seven through
ninth grades, as are the other schools in the district. And
to make Thomas Jefferson a senior high, grades ten through
twelve. In order to do that—to balance the membership
with the capacity, taking into account the potential growth
in this area, the Place Junior High School will be neces
sary. There is one other factor which is an unknown and
that is the potential for annexation just east of Place
Junior High School. There has been talk and, as a matter
of fact, there was before the City Council a request for
annexation of some four square miles just east of Place
Junior High School.
Q. Dr. Armstrong, has this been a planning that is look
ing some years ahead and on the basis of the best available
figures that you have now, projecting into the future? A.
Yes, and our figures for the total number of senior high
school pupils in the area is around 2,100 to 2,,500, senior
high, that is, ten through twelve, and Thomas Jefferson
Senior High School has a capacity in that [1800] same
area. So we expect that the senior high school pupils can
be accommodated there and the junior high school pupils
accommodated as I indicated in the junior high schools in
the area.
Q. Both in Southeast and Southwest Denver, your build
ing plans over the last ten years have been for building
schools right at or very close to the city limits, isn’t that
correct? A. Yes, that’s correct.
Charles Armstrong—for Defendants—Direct
1288a
Q. And what is the reasoning behind that? A, Well, be
cause of the annexation pattern that has developed over
the years, we feel that it’s important to look ahead so far
as we can or as accurately as we can and locate schools so
that they will be within a reasonable distance of the resi
dence of the children they’re going to serve. Two examples,
I think, show what does happen.
Thomas Jefferson itself was located on the city limits
when the land was acquired and the building constructed.
Since then it’s obvious what’s happened. This whole area
has been annexed, and numbers of children will be residing
there that will need to be accommodated. Somewhat the
same situation existed southwest when the John F. Ken
nedy Junior-Senior High School was constructed. That
was just about on the city limits at the time it was con
structed. And since then quite an area has been annexed
[18013 to the city, both west and south from that building.
Q. George Washington, when it was constructed, was at
the city limits? A. George Washington also was then at
the city limits.
Q. During the period of time that you have been engaged
in planning, could you tell us approximately—and let’s
restrict this to the last ten years, from 1960 to 1970—in
1960 what was the approximate square mileage of the dis
trict? A. About seventy-five square miles.
Q. And what is it now? A. It’s about a hundred. Just
under one hundred, I believe.
Q. So you picked up about another twenty-five? A. An
other twenty-five square miles, yes.
Q. In the past ten years? A. Yes.
Charles Armstrong—for Defendants—Direct
1289a
Charles Armstrong—for Defendants—Cross
[1845] * * *
C ross-E xam ination by M r. B rega:
Q. I would like to refer, first, to your planning and de
sign and work that went into the preparation of Hamilton
and Place. Would you tell us about how long and what
the procedure is for you to plan a particular school build
ing in the district? A. It starts out with the appointment
of an architect approved by the Board and then the pre
liminary planning goes on for several months. It varies
with different buildings as much as six to eight or nine
months for the preparation of preliminary plans. Then,
after those have been approved, the staff is authorized to
proceed with the preparation of working drawings and
specifications. This takes another six to eight or nine
months, depending on the project.
Q. Let’s stop right there. How many people would you
[1846] say are involved in this particular procedure? Is
it just a one-man job? How many departments? A. All of
the departments in the District are involved. It is impor
tant to know that in the Administrative Services, because
they are affected from the standpoint of maintenance,
operation, transportation, lunchrooms, and so on. Obvi
ously, the Division of Education is important in working
with us to develop these plans so that the educational pro
gram can be properly accommodated. The Division of
Pupil Services is interested in various areas of the build
ing. Counseling, for example, is one, so that all of the
divisions are closely involved in these decisions, many
people.
[18473 Q. Does any one person or department make
the final decision on this? A. The final decision is made
by the Board of Education.
1290a
Q. And they get all of these composite studies done
by all the groups over these months? A. Yes, and they
take the form of preliminary plans and they are discussed
then with the Board of Education, all of the implications
involved, costs, and so on.
Q. Do you know when Place and Hamilton were ap
proved by the board, roughly? A. Now, at what stage?
The preliminary plans?
Q. Yes. A. Or the original authorization to proceed?
Q. Well, let’s take the preliminary plans. A. No, I
don’t know the date.
The Court: Well, he wants to know about how
long ago it was. Five years ago?
The Witness: Oh, Place was under construction
as of this fall, so the preliminary plans were ap
proved some six or eight months before.
Q. And in that study with Place, was there any pro
vision for removing pupils from any of the Northeast
schools? A. Yes, as part of a long-range plan involving
[1848] Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Merrill, Gove and
Smiley, there were plans to accommodate some of the
children from Smiley in those junior high schools.
Q. Basically, where is Place located? A. I t’s in the—
at East Florida and South Quebec Streets.
Q. That’s Southeast Denver? A. Southeast Denver,
yes.
Q. How many students were coming out of Smiley under
these plans? A. There were two plans set up; one
whereby 200 children would be coming out of Smiley to
be accommodated at Place and then some also at Hamilton.
Q. Now, taking Place for the moment, that school hasn’t
Charles Armstrong—for Defendants—Cross
1291a
been opened yet, has i t1? A. No, it’s under construction.
Q. And they approved that 200 students should be re
moved from Smiley? A. Yes.
Q. What is or what was the condition at Smiley at the
time that that was approved so far as double sessions
extended or— A. Smiley was on double sessions at the
time.
Q. And what was the purpose in trying to remove the
students? [1849] A. To take Smiley off of the double
sessions.
Q. Were you trying* to get it down to a pupil number?
A. Yes, trying to reduce the numbers there below the
capacity of the building.
Q. Did you have a number in mind that you were try
ing to work with? A. Yes, we were working toward a
pupil membership of a little over a thousand at Smiley
eventually and that is a long-range program.
Q. And, in regard to Hamilton, were there any plans
on pupil tarnsfer from Northeast Denver for that school?
A. Yes, some 150, as I recall, were to be transferred from
Smiley and also from Gove and Hill to reduce capacity—
or to reduce memberships there.
Q. In planning the two schools that we have talked
about, was Northeast Denver considered as a possible
site? A. Well, the 1962 study suggested that a junior
high school be constructed at 32nd and Colorado Boule
vard.
Q. But that was scrapped? A. Yes, it was.
Q. Was there any consideration to going back into that
area when you planned these two schools? A. No, the
consideration of the board was that a new junior high
school would need to be constructed further [1850] south
and east from that area. And at one time there was a con
Charles Armstrong—for Defendants—Cross
1292a
sideration of the acquisition of some land around Lowry
Field as a potential, not only for a junior high but for
other facilities.
Q. And part of the planning behind it was to try to
integrate these new schools, was it not, by—to bring
pupils in from a wider, more diverse area? A. Yes.
Q. And this I presume then come out of the 1962 junior
high that was planned at 32nd and Colorado Boulevard?
A. Well, that was the time when these other studies be
gan to evolve, yes.
Q. Was there a new junior high built in the eastern
part of Denver between 1962 and 1968? A. No, there
wTas not.
Q. So there was really—this was really the first plan
ning since the junior high at 32nd and Colorado Boule
vard? A. Yes.
* * * * #
C18583 The Court: When was Cole built, Mr.
Armstrong?
The Witness: I don’t know offhand. It was in
the ’20s. I t was in the 1928 building program. It
was in that era.
Mr. Brega: It was built in 1925, Your Honor.
The Court: At the same time West and East
were built ?
The Witness: Yes, the same building program.
The Court: Do you regard it as an adequate
physical facility?
The Witness: I’m sorry, sir?
The Court: An adequate physical facility?
The Witness: Yes, physically it’s in good shape,
good condition.
Charles Armstrong—for Defendants—Cross
1293a
Charles A rm stro n g — fo r D efendants— Cross
By M r. R is :
Q. Dr. Armstrong, with regard to planning for Hamilton
and Place, was there also a resolution adopted by the
Board of Education sometime during the ’60s with the
reference to no building in the Northeast Denver area!
A. Yes.
[1859] Q. Is that policy in effect? A. It has never
been rescinded to my knowledge.
The Court: Well, this one on 32nd and Colorado
Boulevard, what was its purpose? What area was
it intended to take in? Cole adequately took care
of everything.
The Witness: Cole at that time was crowded,
and so there was a need—and I believe Smiley was
also, so there was a need for additional capacity in
the area.
The Court: This was done to relieve Cole and
Smiley?
The Witness: Cole and Smiley.
Q. Now, with regard to the planning for Hamilton and
Place, were there certain recommendations made to the
Board of Education at their meetings in 1968? A. Yes,
there were.
Q. Did you personally appear at that time? A. Yes,
I did.
Q. And did you present some recommendations to the
Board with respect to this planning and this construction
which would involve the movement of pupils from Smiley?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell us expressly what those recommenda
tions were ? Movement from Smiley to what other schools ?
1294a
And involving how many pupils? A. Yes. At that April
25th meeting, it was recommended that an addition be
placed on Hamilton Junior High School, [1860] which
was then under construction, so that children from Smiley
and from some of these other schools in the area could be
transported to Hamilton to relieve the crowded condi
tions at Smiley, which was then on double sessions.
Q. And at that time, what was the recommendation of
the number of pupils to be transferred from Smiley to
Hamilton? A. It was 150.
Q. Now, at the same meeting of the Board, was there
consideration also given and recommendations made per
taining to the construction of another junior high school
on what we now know as the Place site? A. Yes.
Q. And did that also involve transportation of Smiley
students? A. Yes, it did.
Q. Now, how many were contemplated and what recom
mendation was made to the Board? A. Two hundred
from Smiley to be housed at Place Junior High School.
Q. Was this further studied at the May meeting in
1968? A. Yes, it was.
Q. And were some further recommendations made at
that time with respect to these two junior highs, or either
of them? A. Yes, that the planning proceed for construc
tion of the addition at Hamilton and the construction of
the new Place [1861] Junior High School.
Q. And what figures were given to the Board at the
May, 1968, meeting concerning the removal of students
from Smiley to alleviate its overcrowding and to move
them into other areas? A. Well, the pupils be moved
from Smiley to the Place Junior High School and that
Charles Armstrong—for Defendants—Cross
1295a
pupils from some of the other nearby junior high schools
be accommodated at Place, also.
Q. Can you give us exactly how many pupils were to
be moved from Smiley to Place? A. About 200 was the
projected amount.
Q. Now, were some also to be moved from Smiley to
Hill and some Hill students to Place? A. Yes.
Q. How many did that involve? A. Originally, there
were to be 150 from Hamilton—or from Smiley to Hamil
ton—and then from Hamilton to—or, yes from Hamilton
and TJ to Place were about 600. In other words, the idea
was to eventually eliminate the junior high school at Thomas
Jefferson and house it in those junior high schools.
Q. Was there also, as part of this overall plan, that
some were to go from Smiley to Hill? A. Yes.
Q. Was this so recommended to the Board at the May
meeting? [1862] A. Yes.
Q. How many? A. I believe it was a hundred.
Q. Now, also were some to be moved from Smiley to
Merrill? A. Yes.
Q. Was there an estimate made then at the same meet
ing as to the total number of pupils that would be re
moved from Smiley to these other junior highs as the
result of the opening of Hamilton? A. Yes, there was,
but I don’t remember this number.
Q. Well, see if this refreshes your recollection, Dr.
Armstrong. “The effect of the indicated moves to reduce
the number of pupils at Smiley from around 1600 to 1,000
and permit a reduction of about 100 pupils from Gove—”
Mr. Greiner: May I ask what counsel is reading
from?
Charles Armstrong—for Defendants—Cross
1296a
Mr. Ris: May 16, 1968 minutes.
Mr. Greiner: Is that an exhibit?
Mr. Ris: Is that? No. Would you like to see it?
He is using it to refresh his recollection.
Mr. Greiner: Plas it been marked as an exhibit?
Mr. Ris: No, but I would be glad to show it to
you, Mr. Greiner.
Q. Was there any discussion at that meeting as to the
locations from which the Smiley students should be taken?
[1863] The Witness: No, it was to done on a
geographic basis, however, because this was the
way that—
The Court: What do you mean geographic?
The Witness: In other words, pupils in a certain
area in the Smiley District would be assigned to
a particular school. In other words, it wouldn’t be
on a name-by-name basis. We have ordinarily as
signed children to schools on a geographic—
The Court: Which geographic areas were you
considering?
The Witness: We hadn’t at that time. This was
just a proposal, and after the planning had been
done and the school was under construction, we
would then have made our assignments.
Q. Did you actually get to the point of making such
assignments? A. No, we did not.
Q. Why not? A. This was a preliminary proposal and
we normally do not make pupil assignments until a school
is at least under construction and very nearly ready for
occupancy.
Charles Armstrong—for Defendants—Cross
1297a
Q. What about the assignment of Smiley pupils to
Hamilton! A. Well, that school was finished. The origi
nal part of the building was finished or very nearly
finished and the £1864] addition was under construction.
Q. Well, at some point in time, were some pupils then
moved from Smiley subdistrict to Hamilton! A. Yes,
they were.
Q. And who did the planning on that! A. Well, this
was a combined effort. In other words, Personnel and my
department.
Q. All right. Is any part of that transfer now pursuant
to the injunction of this court! A. Well, the original as
signment of pupils from Smiley to Hamilton was done
before the injunction and that still stands. They are still
being transported.
Mr. Ris: All right, I am sorry, Mr. Greiner, do
you have some other remark!
Mr. Greiner: Yes, Your Honor, rather than de
pend on the witness’ general description of what
went on at the board meeting, I would like to have
those minutes marked as an exhibit and placed in
evidence.
Mr. Ris: Counsel may do so if he likes. I was
merely asking it to refresh the witness’ recollec
tion, if it were available for that purpose, and that’s
a proper evidentiary procedure.
The Court: Well, he can mark it and offer it as
a plaintiffs’ exhibit.
Mr. R is: Oh, yes, if the plaintiff wishes to do so.
[1865] Q. Getting back to the board minutes, the portion
I read to you concerning the reduction of the number of
Charles Armstrong—for Defendants-—Cross
1298a
students from 1600 to 1,000, does that refresh your recollec
tion? A. Yes. The purpose, of course, there was to pro
vide additional space at Smiley for some other programs
that were important.
Q. With regard to these monthly reports from principals
that you previously mentioned, do those reports come di
rectly to your office? A. No, they do not. They go to the
Budgetary Services at that time. It is now Planning, Bud
geting and Research.
Q. What is done with those reports, do you know? A.
They are studied and compilations are made, analyses are
made of the reports, and summaries provided as necessary.
Q. And do the summaries and compilations that are of
interest to you come to you or are made available to you?
A. They are made available to me.
Q. Is that what you basically rely on, rather than the
broad data in the basic reports from the principals? A.
Yes.
Q. Now, does planning automatically cease when pro
jected pupil membership levels off? A. No, sir, it is a
continuing project.
Q. Does leveling off of pupil membership mean the whole
district becomes static and just rolls along? [1866] A. No,
one of the factors we mentioned earlier in connection with
planning is the mobility of the population within the city,
and this occurs continually, among other factors.
Q. Insofar as having compilations or summaries of the
ethnic data furnished to you by the department that gets in
all the reports and so forth, or from the Community Rela
tions Department, can you tell me specifically when you be
gan to get this information on a regular basis? A. Yes,
it was in ’64. They began to collect it earlier, but we didn’t
have it available for our studies before 1964.
Charles Armstrong—for Defendants—Cross
1299a
Q. There has been dispute as to whether it was ’62 or ’64.
I just wanted to get that in.
With regard to the Ashland-Boulevard-Brown 1961
change in boundary, have you given that any further
thought as to any other matters that went into that bound
ary change? A. Yes, I mentioned the sole reason for
changing the assignment of those pupils was membership,
but it was actually a matter of access, also, because of the
access of the overpass there that led directly to 23rd and
made good access to Boulevard as contrasted with the more
difficult access to Ashland.
# « = # # #
[1877] * * *
K e n n e t h Oberholtzer, ca lled as a w itn ess b y th e de
fe n d an ts , b e in g f irs t d u ly sw orn , on h is oa th tes tified as
fo llo w s :
The Court: Please take the witness chair and give
us your name and address, please, Doctor.
The Witness: My name is Kenneth Oberholtzer.
The address is 3244 South Gregg Court, Denver.
The Court: Thank you.
D irect E m m in a tio n by M r. R i s :
Q. Dr. Oberholtzer, I hand you a document that has been
marked Defendants’ Exhibit HE. Is that a summary of
your past educational and professional history? A. Yes,
it is.
Mr. B is: Offer into evidence Exhibit HE.
Mr. Greiner: We have no objection.
The Court: It will be received.
(Whereupon, Defendants’ Exhibit HE was re
ceived in evidence.)
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants—Direct
1300a
Q. Dr. Oberholtzer, you were Superintendent of Schools,
School District No. 1, City and County of Denver, Colorado,
from August 1, 1947, to 1967, correct! [18781 A. Correct.
Q. And the School District having been created by stat
ute, there were various duties and responsibilities imposed
upon the District by the Board of Education as a policy
making body? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And as Superintendent of Schools you were the ad
ministrative head of the District to carry out the policies
of the School District? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And in many instances were your responsibilities of
such a nature that you had to make recommendations to the
School Board itself? A. Yes, sir. My duties wTere outlined
largely in the bylaws of the Board of Education, which
gave me certain broad powers, even policy-making rules
not inconsistent with the policy.
Q. All right, sir, in a position such as Superintendent
of Schools, could you give us a summary or an outline of
various departments in which your administration was
divided for administrative purposes and the general nature
of the duties of each such department? A. Perhaps the
easiest way to do it would be to use the terms for the assis
tant superintendents.
Q. All right, sir. [1879] A. There was an assistant super
intendent for Personnel Services, which meant the matter of
recommending personnel, the assignment of personnel,
which was both certified and classified, all persons in the
District, excluding only a few such as the attorney and
others.
Q. And what is meant by certified and classified? A.
Certified is defined by law as those certified to teach or to
administer or to supervise in a School District. Classified
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants—Direct
1301a
in effect is all others in the employ of the District, such as
persons in the lunchroom, custodians and the like.
[1880] Q. Are certified personnel all entitled to tenure
after a probationary period ? A. All certified personnel as
teachers—they have tenure as teachers. Certain other per
sonnel recently has tenure, yes.
Q. And would you just briefly state for the record what
tenure is in this concept? A. Tenure is defined by state
law as in general a person who is appointed as a teacher, a
certified person, to teach in the district and who serves with
satisfaction for a period of three years and is reappointed.
Upon that fourth reappointed he becomes a tenure person.
Q. What is meant by probationary in the sense that you
use it? A. Probationary is essentially applied to teachers
and refers to a person who is serving in their first three
years in the District.
Q. Before they have tenure? A. Before they have ten
ure, yes, they are known as probationary.
Q. Will you continue on with your discussion of the
various departments and divisions. A . Yes. I referred
first of all to personnel. There is another large division
which was known as instruction which included such services
as instruction, curriculum and guidance. There is another
large division called buildings [1881] and grounds. And
this obviously refers to the construction, the maintenance
and operation of the school plants, the various buildings of
the District.
There was later introduced—that is when I say later, I
am describing what was initially true in my tenure of office
—later introduced a planning and engineering office which
is an offshoot of buildings and grounds. But, in essence
there are three major types of functions under the assistant
superintendents. There are in addition some other officers
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants—Direct
1302a
who were not directly responsible to the Superintendent
but to the Board of Education, but who worked with the
Superintendent, such as the attorney for the District, the
legal services.
There were also certain financial and secretarial services,
for example. There is, for example, a secretary-treasurer
of the School District. They worked in close collaboration
with the Superintendent and generally under his direction
although not responsible to him.
Q. All right, sir. At the time you arrived who was the
attorney for the School District? A. Mr. S. Arthur Henry.
Q. Did he continue to serve as such during your entire
20-year period? A. During my entire period as superin
tendent.
Q. Sometime subsequent to your arrival was there a
[18823 reorganization of the staff itself with some change
in responsibilities of various departments? A. Yes.
Q. Is there any necessity to go into any of that? A. I
could state it very briefly if it’s of pertinence to you.
When I first came to Denver there were three assistant
superintendents and the other officers that I have mentioned.
One was an assistant superintendent for elementary schools.
One for secondary schools. And one for business affairs.
That was in 1947.
In 1950 there was a reorganization on a more functional
line. We had an assistant superintendent for instructional
services. One for personnel services. And one for business
services. And that structure held until about 1962,1 believe,
when we introduced the planning and engineering services
office, and that was an offshoot of the business affairs of
fice, otherwise the same.
Q. You split up one part or division into two parts, is
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants—Direct
1303a
that basically it? A. Right. It was just a division of
workload, so to speak.
Q. Upon your arrival in 1947, what did you find with re
spect to the population and population trend then in ex
istence in Denver? [18833 A. This was one of the things
that was talked over in connection with my appointment
and which I took a look at when I arrived. There had been
preceding 1947 a declining school population for several
years. But at the same time there had been a rising birth
rate, young people population. So that it was known that
when the school year opened in 1947-1948 there would be a
substantial increase, and I was asked especially to take a
look at this whole situation and to try to make some recom
mendations soon as to what to do about it.
Q. Asked by whom sir? A. By the Board of Education.
In taking a look at it, one of my early decisions was to em
ploy the services of an expert in population prediction to
make a survey of the population and to find out how many
boys and girls would be expected in different parts of the
city as the result of this population explosion. So, we em
ployed the services of Professor Fitzhugh Carmichael of the
University of Denver to make a study of the population
over a period of years and to assist us in the location of
school sites to meet the needs of this growing population,
that is, to locate schools.
Q. All right ,sir. Did the school population—the pupil
population increase during your 20-year tenure? A. The
year before I came, as I recall the population was a little
over 45,000 pupils. In 1947, my first fall in [18843 Denver,
it jumped by almost 3,000 pupils to about 48,000. It more
than doubled during my tenure as Superintendent. The
high point was a little over 97,000, as I recall, about 1962
or ’63, in that neighborhood.
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants—Direct
1304a
£1885] Q. Now, also during your tenure, to take care
of this expanding pupil population, was there a sub
stantial amount of building that was done? A. There was,
a very substantial amount.
Q. Could you give us an idea of how many different
projects during that 20-year period? A. As well as I recall,
there was a hundred or more projects, building projects,
during my tenure as Superintendent, and related thereto
were three major bond issues which the citizens of Denver
voted. One was in 1948. Another was in 1952. The third
was in 1955. I heard this morning testimony, 1956. That’s
when the bonds were sold, but the bond issue was in ’55, so
there were three major bond issues totaling 79% million
dollars, and the other funds which were appropriated from
current funds in the budget made the total well over a
hundred million dollars for buildings.
Q. That’s for capital construction? A. For capital con
struction and the equipping of buildings.
Q. Now, with regard to the source of these funds, you
had your operating budget that you computed every year
and recommended to the Board? A. Correct.
Q. And once the Board adopted a budget, was it the final
body to approve this budget ordinarily, or did it have
[1886] to go to City Council or any other agency? A. The
Board of Education has the final approval on a budget, but
by law if there is an increase of more than a certain amount
each year in the operating budget you were obliged to
report to the State Taxing Commission for approval or
for referral to a vote of the people, and of the twenty years
I was there I think I had to go up about eighteen years for
approval.
Q. All right, sir, then did you have some portion of the
annual budget which was allocated to a reserve for capital
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants-—Direct
1305a
expenditures? A. There were two types of funds that re
lated to the construction of buildings. One was the bond
fund, to which I have referred, and that can be achieved
only by a vote of the people. The other was known as the
capital reserve fund, which is provided by state law, and
this initially was limited to a one-mill levy. It later became
a possible two-mill levy, to be used entirely for the con
struction of school building and equipping of school build
ings, and this was the fund referred to in the testimony
this morning where one could accumulate over a period of
years. You could levy, for example, two mills from year
to year, and could accumulate funds enough to build a
particular school. For example, this was the way in which
the Kennedy Junior-Senior High School was built, out of
that capital reserve fund. It was not [1887] built out of
bond funds.
There is also provision in law for what is called the cap
ital outlay account within the general fund of the budget.
If I may add parenthetically, there are three major funds
in a budget, the general fund, the bond fund, and the capital
reserve fund. There is also a retirement fund. I mentioned
three—four funds. It was three at one time and then four.
It was divided.
Q. Now, you mentioned that there was about a total of
100 million including bond funds and also capital reserve
funds combined which were available during your tenure
for building purposes and equipment? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was that all used up during your period of time? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. When was the last bond passed prior to your tenure,
do you know? A. I believe 1938, when Hr. Stoddard was
Superintendent.
Q. And there have been none since 1955 that have
Kenneth Oberholtser■—for Defendants—Direct
1306a
passed? A. Well, yes—when yon say that it passed, there
was one recently that did not pass.
Q. That was in 1967? A. Right, in the fall of 1967.
Q. Yes, sir, yon had just left office. [18883 A. That was
after my term of office.
Q. All right, sir. Row, by reason of the increased school
population and increased amount of school space, did you
have major increases in personnel, both certificated and
classified? A. There were major increases. For example,
the number of classroom teachers when I came to Denver
was about 1600, as I recall. When I left office, it was more
than 4,000.
Q. Could you give us the approximate amount of your
budget the year that you came and the last year that you
were in office? A. I can give you approximate amounts.
The first budget would have been in the fall of 1947 for the
year ’47-’48. It was a little over 12 million dollars. The last
budget that I recommended, which would have been in the
fall of 1968 for the school year ’68-’69 was, as I remember,
more than 76^-million.
Q. So the District itself is a sizeable operation? A. One
of the largest in the City of Denver.
Q. When you arrived, what did you find with respect to
community involvement in the affairs of the School Dis
trict? A. I found some involvement. I would not say it was
extensive. There were active Parent-Teacher Associations,
a Parent-Teacher Association Council, but I don’t recall
any other groups directly affiliated with the schools. There
[18893 were, in addition, a number of civic groups, of
course.
Q. Was community involvement something with which
you were interested or concerned? A. Very much.
O. And why? A. Very much concerned. It seems to me
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants—Direct
1307a
that it is an important and integral part of school opera
tions. The schools are public schools and finally responsible
to the people, of course, and especially in view of the very
great building needs at that time, it was obvious to me at
the outset that we needed to have the community more
involved in trying to solve this problem. And they must
have an understanding of it. They should have had one
better than they had at that time, because I remember very
well some of my early meetings in the community when I
made some statement about the needs of schools, there
seemed to be an aura of incredibility, “This can’t be, we
aren’t going to grow that way.”
So we found it necessary to organize for a study of the
school situation in addition to Dr. Carmichael’s study of
population, organized in other ways.
May I just add parenthetically there was formed a citi
zens committee, and there were committees formed in all
of the schools.
Q. What were they called in the individual schools! A.
School advisory committees.
[1890] Q. And did those committees continue to function
thereafter! A. They were in being when I left office.
Q. Were there substantial changes in curriculum during
your tenure? A. Yes, sir, substantial and continuing
changes.
Q. Now, Dr. Oberholtzer, we have already had consider
able testimony here concerning the neighborhood school
concept, and, again, I don’t want to get into a lengthy dis
sertation on it, but would you again just give us your
general definition of what is meant in your mind by the
neighborhood school concept? A. The neighborhood school
concept has been applied essentially to the idea of con
structing a school in a given area of the city called a sub
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants—Direct
1308a
district, for the most part within ready walking distance
of a group of pnpils, and by that, the definitions varied
through the years, but in general, within a mile, for ex
ample, for the elementary schools, generally within two
miles for the junior high schools. The senior high schools
were at usually greater distances, and there there was some
expectation that there might be transportation, bicycles,
automobiles, other ways of getting to school.
Q. Is there any portion of the neighborhood school con
cept in your definition or in your thinking, Dr. [1891]
Oberholtzer, that includes any direct or indirect attempt
or being used as a device to segregate by races or ethnic
groups f A. There was not, no, sir.
Q. During your twenty years as Superintendent, do you
know of any instance where a pupil or pupils were refused
attendance at a school within the subdistrict of his or her
residence and denied attendance because of race or color?
A. Not to my knowledge.
[1892] Q. Now, with respect to this racial and ethnic
data, I ’d like to know what you did and your motivation
there, Dr. Oberholtzer—you came some seven years be
fore Brown against the School District was decided by
the Supreme Court. Right? A. Yes.
Q. When you came, what was the policy or practice of
the District with respect to racial or ethnic matters and
the assignment to schools or the determination of bound
aries? What did you learn? A. Early in the fall after
August 1 when I came, one of the staff members called
my attention to a provision in the Constitution of the
State of Colorado which says that there shall be no dis
tinction or classification used in the schools for pupils;
that is, no distinction or classification by race or color.
This staff member called my attention also to the fact
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants—Direct
1309a
that there had been previous to my coming some annual
reports which did state numbers by—I have forgotten—
I think Negro, other classifications. When we both took
a look at it we both concluded that this was not in keeping
with the Constitution and that we would not pursue that
practice, not continue it.
Q. You mean the reporting of figures in that matter?
A. The matter of requesting or reporting the figures.
We found, for example, that—I think there was on the
enrollment cards some designation from which apparently
these £1893] statistics were gathered. My attention was
called to the annual report, I think, of the superintendent
and the secretary where such figures were published. But
I directed—when I learned of this—that such not be done.
Q. Did you discuss this with the School District Council
before giving such instruction? A. I did discuss this with
Mr. Henry and his staff, and he agreed that this was de
sirable.
Q. And did you then publish such an order to your staff?
A. I did so, yes.
Q. This was in 1947? A. That was in the fall, yes, sir.
Q. Thereafter did you continue to get from your staff
summaries or statistical analysis or anything comparable
thereto by race, color or ethnic origin? A. I did not re
ceive any. My attention was called and I must say on or
about—I’m not positive at this late date—but around 1957,
that despite my order there were some such statistics
being collected. They had never been reported to the staff.
And to my surprise were being collected. However, I was
not aware of them until this was called to my attention,
and when it did come to my attention I again issued an
order that they not be collected and, thereafter, to the best
of my knowledge, they were not £18941 collected.
Kenneth Oherholtser—for Defendants—Direct
1310a
Q. During that tenure period when apparently they
were coming in to the administration building, were these
again from the principal report estimates? A. Appar
ently they were, yes.
Q. Did you see any of those yourself? A. I did not,
no. I don’t customarily see those basic reports. I see the
summaries. But in this instance I did not see a summary
of this report at any time.
Q. And to your knowledge so far as you know were any
such summaries or tables or collations or anything of that
sort prepared and directed to the other members of the
staff? A. I do not know of any, no, sir.
Q. Now, when 1954 came along, the Brown decision was
published. Did you take a second look at the situation?
A. We certainly did.
Q. What did you do at that time? A. We took a look
together, particularly with the attorney, to get his inter
pretation of the application of the Brown case to Denver.
It was his opinion and our opinion that this related to
what is now called the de jure segregation, that is, to
school systems where by law there was a separation—a
separate school facility; separate school systems for the
Negro and the Anglo.
Q. Under the old separate but equal doctrine? [18953
A. Under the old separate but equal doctrine, yes, sir.
Q. Was the School District operating under the so-
called separate but equal doctrine A. It was not, no, sir.
Q. Dr. Oberholtzer, were there also professional publi
cations which discussed this from time to time at that
time? A. There were. There were publications and there
were doubts expressed as to the applicability in those
publications. In fact, that was generally assumed to be
the case.
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants—Direct
1311a
Q. Did you also attend professional meetings on a na
tional scale in which tlie same problem was discussed?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And was there any consensus at those meetings as
applied to a district such as Denver?
Mr. Greiner: Objection, Your Honor. It would
be hearsay, I believe.
The Court: He can describe what he observed as
bearing upon his state of mind. Go ahead.
A. Well, the discussions were again in a vein similar
to those in the publications w'hich I have just commented
on.
Q. Now, Dr. Oberholtzer, there has been some testimony
here that—
Mr. His: Excuse me just a moment.
Q. There has been some testimony here, Dr. Ober
holtzer, that in January, in the months following in 1956,
that there [13963 were certain members of the Negro
community who appeared before the Board or conferred
with you individually concerning some boundary changes,
particularly a few blocks on the west side of York Street
pertaining to changing the optional Manual-East district
to all Manual; an optional Smiley-Cole to mandatory
Cole; optional Morey-Cole to mandatory Cole. Do you
recall that particular period of time? A. Yes, I do.
Q. And particularly with respect to Mr. Lorenzo Tray
lor who testified here'—I don’t believe you heard his testi
mony. A. No.
Q. I ’m just attempting to bring this into some context
for you. Do you recall meetings that were held at that
Kenneth Oberholtser-—for Defendants—Direct
1312a
time attended by various members of the Negro com
munity? A. Well, let me see if I can put in context—
Are we now talking about the proposals which related to,
for example, the opening of Hill Junior High School and
the boundaries of the junior high schools and the senior
high schools that were interrelated about that time?
Q. Well, Hill Junior High was to open the end of Jan
uary 1956. Yes, sir. Does that ring a bell with you?
A. Yes. WTell, that’s what I wanted to establish. You’re
talking about secondary school boundaries now?
Q. Yes, we are. £18973 A. Yes.
Q. Now, do you remember now whether with respect
to the opening of Hill that your staff submitted to you
various proposals for creation of new boundaries for Hill
and changes in the surrounding subdistricts? A. When
ever you open one new junior high school, you inevitably
affect certain other contiguous areas. In this case it
would have been Smiley; probably Gove or Cole; Morey;
that general vicinity.
Q. Now specifically do you recall that you made some
recommendations to the Board in January of 1956 with
respect to certain boundaries? A. I know I made some
recommendations. I can’t recall just exactly streets or
localities at the moment.
Q. Do you recall whether those recommendations origi
nated with the opening of Hill as the take-off point? A.
Yes. This was the reason for the proposals. The basic
reasons.
Q. Now, Hill was carved out of basically what other
junior high subdistrict? A. It would have been basically
Gove and Smiley most directly. To some extent, possibly
Morey. But, Gove and Smiley.
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants—Direct
1313a
Q. So that would, result in changes of the boundaries
of those schools? £18983 A. Yes. And when you affect
those particular schools you can also affect certain other
neighboring schools. As I recall, they were affected.
Q, Do you recall that there was some opposition by
members of the community to your proposal made in Jan
uary of 1956? A. I do recall that there were some com
ments made to the Board, yes.
Q. Dr. Oberholtzer, I hand you what’s been marked as
Exhibit 332 and ask you if that refreshes your recollec
tion as to the proposals that were made by you at that
time. A. This certainly appears to be the proposals,
yes, sir.
Q. And that is divided into how many major parts,
with Roman numerals? A. There were four major parts.
Q. Were all those the outgrowth of the opening of Hill?
A. Yes.
Q. Were all those adopted by the Board in the Jan
uary meeting of 1956? A. No, they were not. As I recall,
we were obliged to consider— Well, we had to have some
boundary lines for Hill Junior High School. It was open
ing shortly. And as I remember we divided the action
into two parts, the first part [18993 relating to Hill
Junior High School, and the immediate contiguous school
—junior high schools, and later the action with respect
to—well, to be more specific, there were two parts: The
first was the new boundary lines for Gove, Smiley and
Hill. And Roman two for Morey, Gove and Hill. Three
was between Cole, Morey and Smiley. And four, between
Manual and East. As I recall, action was taken on I and
II in January and the other two were deferred.
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants—Direct
1314a
Q. Would there be a tie-in between III and IV1? A.
Yes.
Q. Why is that! A. Primarily because the so-called
feeder junior high schools related to both Manual and
East were affected then.
Q. Now, do you remember when III and IV were en
acted—or adopted by the Board, I should say! A. Ap
parently in June. That’s my recollection. And, you have
the Exhibit No. 333 here.
Q. That’s a copy of the Board minutes at that time!
A. And this is a copy of the Board minutes of June 20,
in which action was taken on the changes in boundary lines
between Cole, Morey and Smiley and between Manual
and East High Schools.
Q. At the time that these changes were made then, as
indicated in the Exhibits 332 and 333, did you have any
racial statistics as to pupil membership in the various
schools involved or in the neighborhood from which the
[1900] pupils came! A. We did not.
Mr. Greiner: Pardon me. Could we have “you”
identified! Is it the personal “you” or is it the
School District?
The Court: I believe he could only testify con
cerning his own knowledge.
Q. Let me ask you first—did you have any personally?
A. Personally, no.
Q. To your knowledge did any member of your staff?
A. No, and I’ll have to supplement that, because I know
of no discussion or presentation of any such data.
Q. Were any such given to—
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants—Direct
1315a
[1901] The Court: You are talking about actual
numbers ?
Mr. Ris: Yes, sir.
The Court: This doesn’t say they didn’t have any
knowledge?
Mr. Ris: No, sir, I am asking about statistics, was
my question.
The Witness: Correct.
The Court: Well, that doesn’t really mean very
much. I suppose what we are really concerned with
is were you aware of the conditions ?
Mr. Ris: I will come to that in a moment, yes, sir.
The Court: In other words, at this stage I don’t
suppose that you could fail to know that all the popu
lation is increasing, particularly the Negro popula
tion, or expanding.
Mx*. Ris: Well, this is—
The Court: You are going to bring that out?
Mr. R is: I will pursue this along that line, yes,
sir. May I proceed?
The Court: Surely.
Q. Were any statistics or figures presented to the Board?
A. No. No, sir.
Q. Now, there have been some figures in the new Manual
publications, have there not, Dr. Oberholtzer? A. This is
so, yes. There was a study of the new [1902] Manual High
School, in which I think there was one table of statistics.
That’s the only exception that I know of.
Q. Do you know the source of those figures? A. No, I
don’t.
Q. You say it was a special study. Do you know how that
special study was carried out? A. Well, the special study
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants—Direct
1316a
was carried out under the direction of an assistant superin
tendent and the principal of the high school.
Q. All right. When Manual was opened in 1953 was there
any boundary change for the new Manual as compared to
the old Manual! A. I don’t recall that there was any par
ticular change, no, sir.
Q. Now, at this same period of time and to develop along
the line that the Court just asked about, with respect to
the change proposed between Cole-Smiley, Cole-Morey,
East and Manual, the particular area being immediately
west of York Street, what personal knowledge did you have
as to the racial composition of that area, general^, specifi
cally, whatever it may have been! A. I had no statistical
knowledge. As has been inferred here, I had some general
knowledge, obviously, but no specific or statistical knowl
edge.
Q. Tell the Court as specifically as you can what your
[19033 general knowledge was. A. Well, an obvious aware
ness that there was a presence of a large number of Negro
pupils, for example, in Manual and in Cole and in that
vicinity.
Q. To what extent did your knowledge as to the minority
population in that area and the pupil membership coming
from that area enter into your consideration at that time
in the boundary changes that wrere being proposed! A.
At that time it was not a consideration.
Q. Why not! A. Because, again, we were, as we under
stood it, under the mandate of the Constitution not to make
distinction or classification by race or color, and this was
not to be taken into account in the schools.
Q. Now, there were people who appeared before you at
meetings, either in the community or before the Board,
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants■—Direct
1317a
who told you that this should be taken into consideration,
were there not? A. There were some.
Q. And what was your reaction to that and why? A.
Well, again, our reply, as I recall, or our comments were
that we were endeavoring to build schools where they
were needed to accommodate the pupils who were in those
particular areas of the city, and by that I am not referring
to any particular line but a neighborhood, if you want to
call [19041 it that, a particular area of the city.
Q. Was there any one person or any one group who
appeared to you, Dr. Oberholtzer, to speak for the entire
community there?
Mr. Greiner: Object, Your Honor. I don’t believe
that would be relevant.
The Court: I don’t see the purpose of this, Mr.
Ris.
Mr. Ris: Well, again, it goes to the matter of
intent, motivation, causation, so forth, which is one
of the plaintiffs’ theories in this case.
The Court: That the Board or the Administration
was primarily charged with following the community
demands ?
Mr. Ris: No, sir, but I think it enters into what
he did and why he did it.
The Court: Well, the fact that there were splinters
of opinion, I don’t think is of much consequence.
There probably always are.
Mr. Ris: My point is this, Your Honor, to hear
Mr. Traylor talk he appeared before the Board and
he stated his piece and gave his reasons and so forth,
and from his testimony he was speaking for every
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants—Direct
1318a
body, and there was no splinter. All I am attempting
to establish is that there was.
The Court: All right.
[1905] Mr. Ris: Many different viewpoints.
The Court: Go ahead.
Q. All right, Dr. Oberholtzer, I will restate this. At
these various meetings, were there different opinions ex
pressed by different people? A. May I ask the reference?
At these meetings, what do you mean?
Q. These meetings—
The Court: Having to do with these boundaries.
Q. 1956. A. Yes, at the Board meetings there were. The
reason I asked, I think if I may amplify a little bit, because
of the presentation at the Board meetings I invited into
my office and into the Administration Building a large
number of people from time to time in small groups to
discuss this situation, both from the Negro and Anglo
communities, as to what their views were, and this is why
I was asking you. I didn’t know what meetings you were
referring to. These were conferences with citizens of the
area.
The Court: Well, I think there were some meet
ings described at Manual High, for example.
The Witness: Well, that’s another type of meet
ing, Judge. That’s why I am asking what he is refer
ring to.
Q. I was just referring to any meetings, whether they
were at the Administration Building, at Manual, or at
Glenarm [1906] YM, during this period. I didn’t want to
Kenneth Oherholtzer—for Defendants—Direct
1319a
take the time to go meeting by meeting, but try to cut it a
little short here, on the discussions held during this period
involving this particular boundary change. A. Eight.
Q. Now, then, getting back away from this specific boun
dary change, Dr. Oberholtzer, and to the consideration by
you individually, by you as the Superintendent, and by the
Board, at what point in time did there come a change with
respect to consideration of racial and ethnic groups? A. I
would say in perhaps 1982 would be as good a point as any
because at the time, in 1962, there was a proposal for a
building program, including as one of the proposals a
junior high school to be located at 32nd and Colorado
Boulevard. That probably, as nearly as you can take any
one point, would be a turning point of consideration. Now,
there were some subsequent related matters there.
Q. But that was the major thing that— A. I think as a
date, yes.
Q. Did this ultimately lead to the appointment of a spe
cial study committee which we have been referring to here
as the Yoorhees Committee? A. I have not heard all the
testimony here. I presume that’s what you are talking
about, yes sir.
Q. There was a special study committee appointed in
[1907] 1962? A. There was a special study committee on
equality of educational opportunity. I presume this is the
one you are calling the Voorhees Committee.
Q. Of which Jim Yoorhees, James Yoorhees, was the
chairman? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who authorized this committee to be foi’med, Dr.
Oberholtzer? A. The Board of Education.
Q. Who appointed the committee? A. The Board of
Education.
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants—Direct
1320a
Q. Were there 'numerous citizens recommended for it?
A. As I recall, there was a general invitation to the public
to nominate persons to be members of this committee, and
a large number of names were submitted to the Board of
Education, and the Board of Education made the selection
of the persons to be on the committee.
Q. Now, in connection with the study of that committee,
were Mr. S. Arthur Henry and his staff requested to re
search the eases that have been decided in recent years
following the Brown decision? A. He was asked to review
and to present a written opinion or series of opinions.
Q. And was that done before the committee? [1908] A.
It was done.
Q. Also in 1962, in this same connection, did you and
anyone else take a trip to visit other schools districts than
Denver, being faced with like problems? A. Dr. Hender-
man and I did in May or June of 1962, yes, sir.
Q. And what was Dr. Henderman’s position at that time?
A. Dr. Henderman then was Deputy Superintendent and
also Assistant Superintendent for Instruction Services.
Q. Where did you go on this trip, Dr. Oberholtzer? A.
We went to Philadelphia, New York, Detroit and Chicago.
Q. Upon your return did you report to the Board? A. I
did make an oral report to the Board of Education, yes, sir.
Q. I hand you what has been marked as Exhibit HM and
ask you if you know what that is. A. This is a transcript
of notes taken on my oral report, taken by the secretary of
the Board.
Q. Have you had occasion to look at that recently? A.
Yes, I have.
Q. And is that a fair transcript of your remarks to the
Board at that time? A. Yes, it is.
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants—Direct
1321a
Mr. Ris: We offer into evidence Exhibit HM.
[1909] Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we have never
seen it before. Might we take a minute to read it?
The Court: Yes.
Mr. Greiner: It is several pages long.
(Document was handed to counsel.)
Mr. Greiner: Well, Your Honor, I have no doubt
that this is an authentic transcript. We do object to
it on the basis if it is offered for trying to establish
the truth of the facts asserted in the report regarding
what was going on in these various cities, I believe it
is a hearsay statement, and we would object to it on
that grounds.
The Court: I think it is only offered for the pur
pose of showing inferentially the attitude and state
of mind of the Superintendent. For that purpose,
we will receive it.
(Whereupon, Defendants’ Exhibit HM was re
ceived in evidence.)
Q. Dr. Oberholtzer, I don’t want you to attempt to read
that report at all, but can you just very briefly summarize
what you had done on this trip and what you found as re
ported to the Board? A. Yes, I can, and the purpose was,
as the Judge has stated. I recommended this trip to ascer
tain more accurately what was going on in other large
cities, particularly these four, with respect to consideration
of racial and ethnic factors in the matter of building schools,
programs of [1910] education and such, and when I re
turned I made this oral report that was made here simply
with the idea of advising the Board generally as to what
was taking place. No two of the cities were acting alike, but
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants—Direct
1322a
they were all concerned with such matters as teacher as
signment, community relationships, school boundary lines,
and the like.
Detroit had a study going under a citizens advisory com
mittee on school needs which was chaired then by Mr. Rom
ney and out of which grew a special committee to study the
quality of educational opportunity.
At the conclusion of my remarks, I did say that there
were two major ways of conducting a study which I felt
was necessary in Denver at that time. One would be for the
Board of Education to appoint a committee or commission
involving citizens individually, citizens as representatives
of organizations, and also some of our professional staff.
Another way would be to have a professional staff study in
volving consultants and hearings so that the community
could express itself.
I expressed to the Board a preference for the first alterna
tive, which was later-—and I recommended at a later date the
Board adopt it, the idea of a committee composed of citizens
and professional persons, and I would like to add here
again my concern for that approach because I felt very
much the need of a much better community understanding
of the [1911] issues and the questions which were at stake.
I did not feel that there was such understanding at that
time.
Q. Then the Yoorhees Committee was appointed, went to
work, and did you get an interim report from that com
mittee? A. There were some interim reports, yes, sir.
Q. And then the final report came out March of ’64, and
you have a copy there before you as Exhibit 20? A. I do.
Q. All right, after this report was published, did you
have occasion to study it, Dr. Oberholtzer? A. I most cer
tainly did.
Kenneth Oherholtser—for Defendants-—Direct
1323a
Q. Wliat did you do about it? A. I studied it intensively,
and one of the first things I did was to make a compilation
of all the recommendations separately and to assign each
of the recommendations to a major staff person for study
in his office. I also made a summary of all the recommenda
tions and provided copies for every person in the public
schools staff so that they were aware of the recommenda
tions of the study committee.
Q. You have before you a document marked as Defen
dants’ Exhibit HN. What is that? A. It is entitled, “Rec
ommendations of the Special Study Committee,” and it is
what I just referred to, my assignment to various members
of the staff. For example, it has a number column in which
we numbered all the recommendations of [1912] that spe
cial study committee so that we could refer to them readily.
There were 155 recommendations.
Mr. Ris: We offer into evidence Exhibit HN.
Mr. Greiner: Does it bear a date, Dr. Oberholtzer?
The Witness: I don’t see a particular date on this
copy.
Mr. Greiner: Could we have a foundation, Your
Honor, at least as to when it was prepared? Other
wise, we would have no objection.
Q. When was this prepared? A. This was prepared im
mediately after the presentation of the report. It would
have been on or about April of 1964.
Q. And was there a follow-through on this, Dr. Ober
holtzer? A. There was a follow-through, and in many
ways—may I mention in addition to the staff study, I in
vited every faculty, school faculty, to make a study of the
recommendations and to respond to those recommendations.
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants—Direct
1324a
Q. Was that done? A. That was done. As a part of the
consideration, the special duty committee itself held public
hearings throughout the city. Through the cooperation of
the Parent-Teacher Association, meetings were held in
various parts of the city to discuss the recommendations. I
personally made [1913] reports to the Board of Education
on the progress that we were making, our response to the
recommendations, and what the schools were doing about
them. Now, there were several types of responses. One of
them was a report to the Board of the staff studies, but I
think perhaps of more pertinence would be the summaries
which I reported to the Board of Education.
[1914] Q. What was accomplished? A. What was ac
complished? With respect to each of the recommendations?
Mr. Greiner: Tour Honor, we have no objection
to the introduction of HP and HQ which are being
marked now.
The Court: All right, they will be received.
(Whereupon, Defendants’ Exhibits HP and HQ
were received in evidence.)
The Court: We have already taken ilX, I guess.
Were you satisfied then with the data on HN? You
objected to it on that ground.
Mr. Greiner: Yes, Your Honor, I was.
Well, Your Honor, HQ—we would again object to
it if it’s going to be offered for the truth of the mat
ters stated in it. It is a somewhat self-serving docu
ment. It’s a report of Dr. Oberholtzer to the Board.
Mr. E is: I had better lay a foundation as to what
it is.
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants—Direct
1325a
Q. Dr. Oberholtzer, I band you three exhibits, HO, HP
and HQ. Will you take them one by one and state what they
are, please? A. HO is entitled, “A Progress Report to the
Board of Education by the Superintendent and Staff of the
Denver Public Schools on the Recommendations of the
Special Study Committee on Equality of Educational Op.
portunity, May 6, 1964, to May 6, [19153 1965.”
HP is entitled, “Two Years After a Progress Report to
the Board of Education by the Superintendent and Staff of
the Denver Public Schools on the recommendations of the
Special Study Committee on Equality of Educational Op
portunity, May 1964 to May 1966.”
The third document, HQ, is a secretary’s report of my
oral comment to the Board of Education and its meeting on
June 29, 1967. There is no other heading. But, this relates
primarily to the advisory council on the equality of educa
tional opportunity—the so-called Berge committee report.
Q. Have you had occasion to review the transcript shown,
HQ? A. I have.
Q. It is a correct transcript of your oral remarks? A.
To the best of my recollection, it is, yes.
Mr. R is: We offer in evidence—
The Court: We will receive them all.
(Whereupon, Defendants’ Exhibit HO was re
ceived in evidence.)
Mr. Ris: Was HN also received?
The Court: HN has been received. HQ will be re
ceived over the objection for the limited purpose of
reflecting the thinking at the time and the knowledge
that was communicated to the Board members.
Kenneth Oberholtser-—for Defendants-—Direct
1326a
[19163 Q. Dr. Oberholtzer, I am going to leave these
exhibits for a moment and we will return to them shortly.
Now, Dr. Oberholtzer, we have already had considerable
testimony, but I’m not sure it’s entirely clear so I want you
to explain it to us the best you can—what difference, if any,
there be between what’s known as a rated capacity of a
school building and the actual utilization of a school build
ing; what the relationship may be. And whether merely
reflecting pupil membership to rated capacity is always a
fair comparison; whether the actual utilization of that
building must be taken into that consideration. A. I had
heard some of the testimony with respect to this and I can
understand why there might be some difficulty in under
standing the matter.
We are obliged to have what amounts to certain base
figures from which to consider capacity of a building or
utilization of a building. And this has been—it was during
my twenty years—different terms were used and there
were some differing practices as was pointed out this mor
ning in how you calculated capacity. We found it difficult
to explain to citizens through the years, and I find it here.
But, it is a necessary part of our consideration.
The tendency of most lay citizens is to take capacity as
an ironbound—you go above or below a certain figure. That
was not the purpose of this matter at all. It was to give
11917] an indication on the basis of a formula from which
you derived the utilization. And just to repeat, usually
building capacity was calculated on the basis roughly of 30
pupils per classroom with certain variations. But, that
was the basic—there were variations, as was pointed out
this morning with respect to major things.
For example, whether you included libraries or not.
Whether you included the gymnasium or not. So it made
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants—Direct
1327a
some difference from year to year as to what a capacity
was. But, this was simply the starting point of considera
tion of utilization.
And when we took a look at the—at a given pupil popu
lation in the school in terms of suitable programs, you
always had a variation as to utilization. The confusing
part is that we still find citizens referring to under-utiliza
tion and over-utilization based on this 30 pupil. This is
really of no meaning, if you consider the program. I have
to say it that way. And yet, we wTere obliged to publish a
capacity figure, and this is why we got ourselves into argu
ments with people about what it meant, and I have heard
some of them here.
For example, if there were—if we had testing results,
achievements, and I ’m referring to standardized achieve
ment results. If there was generally let’s say lower
achievement than another school, there would be a different
[1918] picture as to its utilization.
Let me generalize I hope in a meaningful way. Using
the middle line of achievement as the median, if the major
achievement was well above the median, it was possible to
have larger class sizes, a larger number of pupils in a given
building and still maintain a very good educational pro
gram. This is largely because in those areas or neighbor
hoods where there was a generally high achieving group of
pupils, that group is more capable of self-direction in its
own study activities and did not need lesser number of
pupils.
If there was lower achievement in certain areas, it was
necessary to have a larger number of teachers per pupil
per group of pupils. That is, the number.
This is where you get into teacher-pupil ratio.
And generally speaking, one of the adaptations that we
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants—Direct
1328a
made through the years for those schools where achieve
ment was not as high as I have just referred to, there
would be lower pupil-teacher ratios. Every room would be
occupied and the building would be utilized from our stand
point. fully for that program.
Now, if you just take a 30-pupil average and calculate it,
then that building was not utilized, and I have heard that
term used here, underutilized. That in our estimation is
not the case. The building was fully utilized and that’s
why I want to make it clear at this point because I can if
advisable [1919] point to particular schools and that may
be useful to do so.
But, this is in general the case. So, we instituted the
other kinds of adaptations to endeavor to raise the
achievement levels, but one of the basic adaptations was
to lower the pupil-teacher ratio. In other words, if you
want to translate this into pupil capacity and utilization,
instead of let’s say using 30 pupils as a normal capacity
in those schools, you in fact ought to use closer to 25
as a rated capacity.
Q. Now, we had considered this at one time as a way
in which to relate to this and we tried it. But, we found
people constantly getting confused as between the two
applications. This is in fact what has happened.
Q. And some of the comments that I heard this morning
relate specifically to what I have just said.
Q. Can you relate this specifically to either Manual
or Cole from the testimony you heard this morning?
A. Yes, sir. It would apply both to Manual and Cole.
The achievement level at Manual and at Cole was not in
this higher bracket that I am talking about generally,
and please keep in mind that one of the basic facts of
Kenneth Oberholtger—for Defendants— Direct
1329a
education is the individual differences, and I ’m talking
now only in general, not individual.
There was a need in both instances of a much lower
pupil-teacher ratio and this was requested year after
year by the principals in those schools. And we did ac
cede in £1920] their request for lower-pupil teacher ratios
as one of the means of endeavoring to raise the achieve
ment levels.
Q. Dr. Oberholtzer, there has also been a problem with
respect to this exhibit, which is 390 and 390-B. And there
was particular reference to certain elementary schools
which are represented by blue circles, Columbine, Whit
tier, Gilpin, Crofton, Ebert, Elmwood, Fairview, West-
wood and Elyria.
Q. Can you relate what you have just been discussing
with respect to utilization compared to rated capacity as
to these particular schools?
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, I object. That exhibit
speaks as of September 1968; at a time when the
Superintendent was no longer Superintendent.
The Court: Well, he can give us whatever in
formation he has on this subject. It may not be
in date particularly.
A. If it would be useful, I will comment, as I knew the
schools.
Q. That’s all we’re asking. Anything you have of your
own knowledge; what you know from your own experi
ence. A. From what I know of those schools—they were
generally in what would be termed low economic—socio
economic neighborhoods and this is based upon the aver
age income of the family, and they would be generally
Kenneth Oberholtzer—-for Defendants—Direct
1330a
in the portals that I was talking about, not of the high
achieving schools, but of the lower achieving schools.
Yes.
[1921] Q. Dr. Oberholtzer, you say that you had var
ious adaptations that "were used in those low achieving
schools. Why were you using adaptations there? What
was your objective? A. Our endeavor was to try to raise
the achievement levels of the children in those schools.
It has come to be known in these later terms as provid
ing- equality of educational opportunity. What we were
trying to do was to provide the conditions whereby these
boys and girls might achieve more nearly in keeping’ with
their abilities.
Q. Directly tied in then to making available equality
of educational opportunity? A. It was directly related
to it, yes, sir.
Q. Now along the same line, but deviating a bit, there
has been some evidence introduced at this trial concerning
the achievement results by schools and particularly with
respect to the triennial testing that was done and the fact
that although there were publications made of the test
results, that here were no publications to the general pub
lic or even to the Board itself at its meetings of analysis,
school by school, so that schools were compared. Is that
the fact? A. That was a fact during my administration.
Q. Why did you do that, Dr. Oberholtzer? A. May I
comment then, because I recommended the institution of
the triennial surveys of testing of achievements [1922]
which began in 1950 and were continued at three-year
intervals thereafter. At the same time an opinion sur
vey which accompanied it, which is pertinent to this, I
hope, later. We did consider many times in staff the de
sirability of reporting comparative results and decided not
Kenneth Oberholtzer■—for Defendants-—Direct
1331a
to do it, essentially for the same reasons that we did not
publish comparative results of individual boys and girls.
We felt that it would not be desirable. There are indi
vidual differences among boys and girls, many differences.
There are many differences among schools. And it was
in our judgment an unfair practice to do this.
Now, this is a very short answer to a difficult and com
plicated question, but I would add immediately that the
results for every school were made public in the neighbor
hood. Where that school was located we did compare their
results with the city wide results and it was an obligation
of the principal and the faculty to discuss with the citizens
of that community the results and at least one meeting was
held in the schools to do this on each occasion.
The Board was furnished the overall results. The com
munity at large was furnished the overall results. A spe
cial edition of the review, for example, was published.
Q. And the review is what? A. The review is an official
publication of the Denver Public Schools issued at first
once a year and then I think [19233 three times a year,
which was an attempt to make a public report to the eiti-
zents of some important things going on in the schools.
Q. To whom is the review circulated? A. A copy was
given to every boy and girl in the schools to take home,
for one thing, so that there was a public statement of the
results. We also mailed copies to organizations and to a
large number of individuals who expressed an interest
and wanted copies. The members of the Board were pro
vided copies. All members of the staff, certified and classi
fied, were provided with copies.
Q. Did the staff itself compare school by school? Did
they have that material available? A. That material was
available, and there, however, were no discussions with
Kenneth Oherholtser—for Defendants—Direct
1332a
Kenneth Oberholtser-—for Defendants—Direct
faculties or with schools comparing them with other
schools. We did every year—when I say “we,” the deputy
superintendent of instruction made a personal visit to
every school at least once a year, all schools in the district,
for the purpose of discussing these results with the princi
pal and the faculty committee, usually the so-called instruc
tions committee of the faculty, raising questions as to
what they were doing to improve the situation.
£19243 Q. In each school, was there a standing instruc
tion of the faculty! A. There was, for a long number of
years. This is an old custom in Denver. It was here when
I came and continued.
Q. Dr. Oberholtzer, as the years went by and we had
overcrowded situations, you had various expedients to solve
the problems, either temporarily or permanently, correct!
A. We did.
Q. When yon first came, was consideration given to the
use of mobile units! A. There was some consideration at
that early date.
Q. Were they being used at all in the Denver system?
A. No mobile units. There were some so-called temporary
buildings that had been there since World War I.
Q. At Gove primarily? A. There was, I think, one or
more, perhaps one or two, at Gove, but there was another
junior high school that had one or two.
Q. Was that the extent of the temporary buildings? A.
That was the extent of the temporary buildings at that time.
We called them temporary buildings. They were not tempo
rary.
Q. Were mobile units being used in other districts in the
metropolitan area? [1925] A. I don’t recall any mobile
units. There were some called, again, temporary buildings.
For example, our neighboring Jefferson County embarked
1333a
on, I think they called them cottage schools. They were
homes, in fact, converted to schools temporarily, but I don’t
recall any so-called mobile units at that time.
Q. In the ’60s, there was some use made of mobile units
in Denver, were there not? A. There was a very late de
velopment, after we had considered other ways in which to
meet the increasing population.
Q. What other ways were used? A. Well, basically, we
made a decision early not to build temporary buildings in
connection with the first bond issue, so we constructed no
temporary buildings for elementary or secondary schools
for a long period of time. I have to qualify that, because
in the late 1960s, there was a change. Instead, we did utilize
several sessions of schools and so there were at times as
high as 200 rooms on double sessions in the district, mainly
in the elementary schools, although there were at times
some secondary schools, rather than building temporary or
mobile units. Now, this was in lieu of permanent construc
tion, until we could get it.
Now, our ideal was to provide permanent [19261 con
struction wherever possible. We had the usual problems of
insufficient funds to do all the things that we wanted to, to
meet the needs. A great many of the needs were met
through the three bond issues and the other program that I
referred to, but a lot of them, were not met.
Q. Would you just define what is meant by double ses
sions? A. A double session—let me use the term in the
elementary schools first—for example, it meant that a given
classroom in a given grade would have two sessions in a
day. There would be one teacher in the morning’ and one
teacher in the afternoon, and, generally speaking, that, as
I recall, went from 8 :30 to 12:30 and 12:30 to 4 :30 in the
Kenneth Oberholtzer—-for Defendants—Direct
1334a
afternoon, with some overlap of teachers, so that there
were in fact two teachers in a given room at a time.
Q. Two different groups of pupils? A. No, one group
of pupils, but there were two teachers for that group in the
overlap period of time at the noon hour.
Q. No, I’m speaking about the morning session and the
afternoon session. A. There were two sessions of pupils
but no overlap of pupils. The overlap was in the teachers
who were working with the pupils. That was mainly in the—
[1927] Q. Just a minute, let’s hack up.
The Court: I thought double sessions involved full
utilization of the buildings by starting at seven in the
morning with one shift and commencing at twelve
with the second.
The Witness: Now, Judge, we are coming to that
in a moment. That’s the secondary school, not the
elementary school.
Q. Well, in the elementary school, do you have one group
going in the morning and a second group going in the after
noon? A. In the secondary school, but they started—
Q. I am talking about the elementary. A. Two groups
in one room.
The Court: When do they start?
The Witness: 8 :3d1 in the morning to 12:30 and
12:30 to 4:30. What he is talking about is a secon
dary school. That’s another matter. I will come to
that.
Q. I don’t think it is clear that you had separate teachers,
morning and afternoon. A. That’s what I stated.
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants—Direct
1335a
Q. Two groups of pupils, morning and afternoon? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. And the teachers overlapped over the noon hour? A.
That’s right.
[1928] Q. So the teachers overlapped? A. They had the
same day as any regular teachers.
Q. All right. How about the secondary school! A. It
was as the Judge indicated. We began there much earlier,
and our endeavor was to provide, as nearly as we could,
the full time element for them. We began about seven,
went to twelve, and twelve to five. That’s the secondary
school, that’s true. Here again, there were two groups of
pupils and two faculties. There was not a continuation of
teachers. Now, this was widely used in both elementary
and secondary schools as a temporary measure to meet
overcrowding. There was another means of doing this
used in the secondary schools only.
Now, I have to refer to stages of overcrowding, if I may
here. At the first stage, there would be extended days,
and by that I mean they were taking normal school days,
which began around 8 :30 or so, and extended to about 3 :30.
They would add a period on in the morning and in the
afternoon, or one or the other or sometimes both. This
enabled them to accommodate another group of young peo
ple in the schools. When that did not meet the need, then
we had to go to a double session, and that’s the second
stage.
Q. Was the extended day technically used only at the
secondary level? [1929] A. In the secondary schools, yes.
Q. That had to be tied in to a so-called tutorial system
where they went from class to class. A. This was adapt
able in the secondary schools because you have a quite dif
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants—Direct
1336a
ferent organization. You do it subject by subject. Certain
subjects would be offered in the morning and certain in
the afternoon.
Q. So, a normal day, say, at a high school, was seven
periods and on an extended day yon would extend it to
nine periods? A. That would be typical.
Q. The pupils would still take the normal course? A.
They would be involved for seven periods, for the most
part.
Q.You could accommodate more pupils in the nine peri
ods? A. Eight.
The Court: I think we will take our afternoon
break at this time, Mr. Ris.
(Whereupon, at 2:27 o’clock p.m., the Court re
cessed.)
[1930] (Following a recess, the trial resumed at
3:48 p.m.)
Q. Dr. Oberholtzer, we were discussing various—
The Court: Double sessions.
Mr. E is: I think we were through with double ses
sions, unless the Court had some—
The Court: That was the last thing.
Mr. Eis: I ’m through with it.
The Court: I ’m pretty well checked out on that
now.
Q. Now, what other options are there that have been
used from time to time for a solution of overcrowding in
the schools that we have not discussed so far? A. Well, a
limited—to a limited extent, some transportation. But,
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants—Direct
1337a
transportation was used more often to accommodate pupils
in areas where there were no schools and you transported
them. The other was the mobile units to which you re
ferred. But, that did not come into the picture until late
196Q’s, as I recall, around 1965-1966, somewhere in that
time. Those were the principal ways.
Q. Did you on occasion or as a matter of practice have
to determine what the wishes of the parents of the children
or the students were as to some of these various options?
A. Yes, there were discussions. Sometimes extended dis
cussions ; sometimes very brief discussions, depending par
ticularly on the differences between elementary and secon
dary schools. There was usually some discussion. Very
often in [19311 the case of the elementary schools it would
be the principal and the faculty with the citizens. Some
times, the central staff would be involved. Rather fre
quently in the case of the secondary schools where board
action was necessary and much larger numbers of pupils
involved, there were hearings and sometimes in the schools
there were meetings, representations were made at the
board meetings.
So it varied greatly from school to school. But, there
usually was some consideration of the citizen interest.
Q. Do you remember a circumstance pertaining to the
Smith Elementary School and questionnaire to parents as
to various alternates—or to various options, I should say?
A. I do have some recollection of it, yes. But at the same
time that Smith was being considered, Stedman was also
being considered. And Dr. Hendryman attended the series
of meetings at Smith School and I attended a series of
meetings at Stedman School. So I am familiar generally
with what went on at Smith, but I did not attend the meet
ing.
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants—Direct
1338a
Q. You were not personally present that evening? A.
I was not.
Q. Did Mr. Olander attend the one at Smith, if you
know? A. He might have. But, Dr. Hendryman was the
man primarily responsible, my deputy superintendent.
Q. At that meeting—at Smith, you were aware that
[19323 the meeting was being held? A. Oh, yes. And he
was assigned to go there.
Q. And at that time and prior to that meeting was it
known busing was to be had out of Smith to what schools
the children would be bused? A. I don’t recall that par
ticular—there was a discussion of possible busing and of
possible mobile units, as I recall. These were the—or double
sessions; such arrangements. But, the primary issues re
solved between mobile units and busing.
Q. Boundary changes also a solution to overcrowding!
A. I don’t recall any extended—at least any extended dis
cussion of any changes in boundaries at that time. There
were perhaps some, but it is primarily ways of making a
significant difference in the overcrowding.
Q. Dr. Oberholtzer—
The Court: Well, were the solutions—the discus
sions and solutions the same at Smith and Stedman?
The Witness: No, sir. The solutions were not the
same.
The Court: Were you going to ask him about his
experience at Stedman?
Mr. B is: No, but I’ll be glad to.
The Court: He said he attended Stedman.
Q. Would you tell us about your experience at Stedman.
[19333 A. I ’m glad to have the opportunity. I did discuss
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants—Direct
1339a
with. Dr. Hendryman his experience so I had some general
knowledge of what occurred.
Mr. Greiner: Pardon me. I thought the question
pertained to Stedman, Your Honor.
The Court: Well, that was my object.
A. All right. I will discuss Stedman then.
The Court: Very good.
Q. That was the question. A. In the case of Stedman
I was present at the meetings where there were citizens
interested in solutions to the overcrowding of that school.
The discussions resulted in the citizens recommending that
we relieve the overcrowding by busing out some children
from the school.
[1934] Q. What type of meeting was this, Dr. Ober-
holtzer? A . A public meeting.
Q. Was it a PTA meeting or a special meeting called
for this purpose? A. It was a special meeting called for
this purpose, at which I understand a general invitation
was extended to citizens of the community.
Q. Do you remember when this meeting was held? A.
In the afternoon.
Q. What month or year? A. I can’t recall precisely. It
was, I think in the spring of the year.
Q. January, 1966? A. I was thinking of later. It might
have been.
Q. There has been some evidence as to certain over
crowding in Columbine and Harrington in the early ’50,
specifically 1951 and 1952. Do you recall what the situation
was at Columbine and Harrington in particular at that
time ? A. ’51-52 ?
Kenneth Oherholtser-—for Defendants—Direct
1340a
Q. Right, A. There was an increasing population of
students in that area, and as I recall, rather serious over
crowding of those schools.
Q. Do you recall what the situation was with [1935]
increase in number of Negro students in either of those
subdistricts at that time? A. Well, again, we had no sta
tistics and I have no distinct recollection of the racial
composition, no. I do know there was some general chang
ing and moving of population beginning about that time,
but not a large group.
Q. All right, do you recall making any changes or es
tablishing of any optional zones in that area where the
race, directly or indirectly, went into your consideration
or decision? A. That was not a part of our considera
tion.
Q. Directly or indirectly? A. Directly or indirectly.
Q. Now, with respect to the 1956 boundary change, when
those changes were made between Cole and Smiley and
Cole and Morey and East and Manual, do you recall what
uras done with respeet to the pupils that were already
enrolled in any of those optional schools, as to whether
they could continue or had to complete their junior high
experience or the senior high experience at the new* school?
A. The general policy at that time, and I presume it was
followed then, was to permit a boy or girl to continue in
the school of attendance. For example, if you were in a
junior high school, to continue his attendance [1936] there.
In the senior high school, to continue there.
Q. I would direct your attention again to Plaintiffs’
Exhibit 333, June 20, 1956, and Paragraph C. Does it so
indicate that all the present seventh, eighth and ninth-
grade pupils may continue at either Smiley or Morey or
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants—Direct
1341a
Cole, where they were presently attending? A. Correct.
Paragraph C.
Q. With respect to Manual and East, referring to Para
graph B, what is provided? A. All present tenth, elev
enth, and twelfth-grade pupils living in this area may con
tinue at East and Manual High Schools under the present
option.
Q. And when did it become mandatory then as to the
future students? A. Well, all pupils entering the senior
high school from the area in the future, beginning Septem
ber, 1957, would attend Manual High School.
Q. Now, Dr. Oberholtzer, I would like to take a look,
if we may, at Barrett. First, Barrett construction and,
first, to the Barrett site selection. Can you tell us in wliat
year the property was acquired by the school district,
roughly, Jackson, Colorado Boulevard, East 29th Avenue
to East 32nd Avenue? A. It, as I recall, was acquired in
1949.
Q. Were various school sites selected during your [19373
tenure in office? A. A great many sites and one of the
first of my jobs was to participate in this selection, result
ing—and this is an instance, the 32nd and Colorado site—
resulting from the Carmichael study. This was one of the
early sites acquired, and we acquired sites throughout the
city where there was some projected increase and where
we did not have, or where there was potential increase,
and we did not have sites, and in this case it was a potential
that we were looking to. 32nd and Colorado was a. junior
high school site, as I recall, because of its size, but we did
acquire a goodly number of both elementary and secondary
school sites in a period from roughly 1948 to 1950, and
then thereafter periodically, as expansion, annexations oc
curred, so on.
Kenneth Oberholtser-—for Defendants—Direct
1342a
Q. Again, attempting to obtain a time sequence, you
assumed your responsibilities on August 1,1947 ? A. Right.
Q. Do you remember when Dr. Carmichael began his
study and survey? A. Well—-
Q. Or do you remember when you got his report? That’s
the important thing. A. Well, it came in 1948, as I recall,
before the close of school or about the close of school. Dr.
Carmichael [19383 was employed sometime before Decem
ber of 1947, as I recall, to begin his studies, and he begin
promptly to make these studies of pupil populations and
projections of populations and assisted us also generally
in commenting on the location of sites, but we had in addi
tion a committee of realtors who did the actual negotiation
for sites at our direction. That is, the general locality.
You can’t always buy a site where you would like to have
it, because the neighborhood perhaps was already built up.
Rarely did we have the opportunity to go into an unde
veloped territory and select a site where we would like
to have it.
Q. All right, in your years of connection with the Denver
Public Schools, have school site locations ever been selected
for the purpose of containing minority pupils, that is, Ne
groes and Hispanos, in schools separate from Anglo stu
dents? A. No.
Q. Now, with regard to the Barrett construction, what
was the problem that led to that construction, Dr. Ober-
holtzer? A. Well, again, as in other cases, a rising and
in this instance a very rapidly rising school population
and an overcrowding of schools in the immediate neighbor
hood. In this instance, the most contiguous schools would
have been, I believe, Columbine and Harrington, but rapid
[19391 rise there led us to recommend the construction of
a school at 29th and Jacbson. We had an available site.
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants—Direct
1343a
It was at the east end of the territory involved, where the
children were. We would have much rather had a school
farther to the west, but there was no site for it. This was
the available site.
At the same time, there were other needs very closely
related and similar to the Barrett situation. For example,
the Denison Elementary School. I mention this because
the plans of Barrett and Denison were identical. That is,
they were prototype schools, and the situations very simi
lar, rapidly rising population.
Q. Again, in connection with the decision to build on this
site, were parents of the children in the community con
sulted? A. There were discussions, as I recall, about the
construction of the school, yes.
Q. Do you remember when the authorization was given
by the board for the schools? A. As I recall, I recommend
that we construct the school late in 1958, somewhere in
that neighborhood.
Q. Had planning been considered prior to that for any
period of time? A. In this instance, as in others, yes,
over a period of months, some consideration had been
given.
[19403 Q. I hand you what has been marked as Defen
dants’ Exhibit DC, which purports to be Pages 9 and 10
from certain minutes. Do you recognize what that is? A.
These appear to be copies of minutes of the Board of
Education.
Q. Relating to Barrett School? A. Yes.
Q. Have you reviewed these recently? A. I have had
an opportunity to read them, yes.
Q. What is the date of the meeting? A. The date of
the communication is April 8, 1959.
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants—Direct
1344a
Mr. Bis: We offer into evidence Defendants’ Ex
hibit GC.
Mr. Greiner: No objection, Yonr Honor.
The Court: It will be received.
(Whereupon, Defendants’ Exhibit GC was re
ceived in evidence.)
[1941] Q. Now at the same time do you recall what
the situation was with respect to Columbine? I think you
mentioned Harrington. A. I think I did mention Colum
bine and Harrington.
Q. I ’m sorry. I missed that if you did. A. There was
an increase in population at both Columbine and Harring
ton, yes.
Q. Was there any difference in the population movement
between 1958 when Barrett was first being discussed and
1960 when it was completed and occupied? A. It’s my
recollection that about that period there was a considerable
change in the population, increase, yes.
Q. Now, had you anticipated the amount of increase and
the amount of population movement in that area during
the planning stages? A. Well, we had anticipated some
increase obviously, or we would not have constructed a
school. But, as I look back on it now, there was more
really than we had anticipated.
Q. Now, do you normally build for a hundred percent
of your maximum estimated membership ? A. That was
not our customary practice. We usually tried to make an
estimate of the peak population for a given area and then
we would construct a school for about 85 percent of that
peak.
Q. Do you recall any of the children in what turned out
11942] or what ultimately became the Barrett subdistrict
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants—Direct
1345a
for being bussed to any other school for that before Bar
rett opened? A. I believe there was some transportation
at that time to Park Hill Elementary School.
Q. Do you recall whether or not there were double ses
sions at either Columbine or Harrington before Barrett
was constructed ? A. I can’t recall precisely but I wouldn’t
be surprised if there were. There was a rather substantial
increase. There probably were.
Q. With respect to the establishment of the eastern line
of the Barrett Subdistrict to Colorado Boulevard, will you
state the matters considered in coming to that conclusion?
A. Well, here, again, we were concerned with meeting the
needs of a group of young people, boys and girls, in that
immediate area. The school site wTas at the eastern edge
of the area under consideration, next to Colorado Boule
vard. We were concerned about the traffic on Colorado
Boulevard, and I must say if you examine the map as we
looked up and down Colorado Boulevard we tried where
we had the responsibility of building schools not to set
the boundary lines over. Elementary schools now I am
talking about.
And so, we did set the eastern boundary with that—
that was one of the factors; but not all of them.
Q, Even though the boundary line—even though the
[1943] school site was on the eastern boundary line of
the subdisrtict, was the size of the subdistrict such that it
was within the one mile walking distance for elementary
students? A. Yes. We had, if I may add, a situation
quite similar developing in the western part of the city,
and I referred earlier to the two plans that were used,
one at Barrett and one at Denison. Originally, keep in
mind, this site was not intended to be an elementary school
site, but as we found development in the city and in this
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants—Direct
1346a
instance a much larger population development over a
relatively short period of time than we had expected, we
were under the necessity of building an elementary school.
The same thing happened at Denison School, which is
very comparable. The school site is right up against Sher
idan Boulevard on the west side of that subdistrict. These
are two instances, coincidental, that happened right about
the same time, but similar circumstances of unusual in
crease, rapid increase.
Q. At the time of planning for the Barrett School in
1958, did the district own. another site further east, in the
Hallett area? Somewhere in there? A. Elementary school
site now you’re talking about?
Q. Yes, sir. A. I don’t recall any within any relatively
close distance, no.
[1944] Q. Senator George Brown testified he understood
or thought there was another available site further east.
A. There might have been, but nothing close that I recall.
Quite a distance.
Q. Was there any racial or ethnic basis for establishing
the site of Barrett where it was built? A. That was not a
factor in building the Barrett School.
Q. During the years of your association with the Denver
Public Schools, have attendance and boundary line changes
been drawn for the purpose of segregating minority stu
dents, that is, Hispanos and Negroes, so as to keep them
separate from Anglo students? A. No, sir.
Q. Now apparently prior to the Voorhees report there
was no detailed written policy as to boundary selection
criteria or factors of boundary changes. Is that a correct
statement? A. Yes, sir. There were such. I noticed—-
Q. Will you tell us what they were? A. I noticed this
and again as I reread the report, there were available
Kermeth Oberholtser—for Defendants—Direct
1347a
criteria. I was looking through, for example, the reviews,
copies of the school review, and you will find for example
in I9601 a special edition dealing with school boundaries
and the criteria, so I am a little surprised [1945] that the
report said that there was no previous publication. We
did have a policy manual that related to boundaries and
such, but I referred specifically to the review as one in
stance. And there were others, but I can’t recall specif
ically.
Q. Was this policy book that you referred to limited
solely to boundary matters'? A. No, this was a compila
tion of a large number of policies by the Board of Educa
tion, rules by the Superintendent which had the effect of
policy by sanction of the Board authority. It was a com
bination of such and a rather thick document—if I may
show you with my fingers—about so thick. (Indicating.)
Q. Now, were optional zones in use throughout the dis
trict when you arrived in 1947? A. There were optional
zones in various parts of the city, both for secondary and
elementary schools when I arrived in Denver.
Q. Were they in use in both predominantly Anglo areas
as well as predominantly Negro areas? A. Yes.
Q. And these continued until 1964, as I understand it?
A. Yes, rescinded in 1964 in part as a result of one of
the recommendations of the study committee.
[1946] Q. To your knowledge during the period they
were in use, were they used for racial segregation pur
poses? A. They were not so used.
Q. Dr. Oberholtzer, do you have any specific recollection
to the 1961 boundary changes involving Boulevard, Brown
and Ashland? Can you add any light to those changes? A.
I have heard the testimony and I am sorry, I can’t add any
specific light to that situation.
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants—Direct
1348a
Q. Can you tell me if during the period at about 1961 or
’62 there were any discussions in staff with respect to the
phasing out of the old portion of Boulevard or even of
Ashland itself? A. Yes, I remember those discussions. I
heard the testimony this morning. The Boulevard School
was made up really of two parts; one distinctly older than
the other. And there was sort of a passageway between the
two buildings.
Q. Was the new part contained so far as heating and—
A. It was not a new building. Let’s call it a more recent
part. It was also an older building. It was not a new build
ing. In other words, construction—I don’t remember the
precise date, but long before I came to Denver. The other
part of the building was one of the very old buildings in
the city and the nature of it was such that we deemed it
inadvisable to continue to have school in the building. And
so we razed the building.
[19473 Q. And that was following the 1961 lowering of
the capacity at Boulevard? A. That did result in the
lowering of capacity. Now I do remember that aspect of
it. But, as to the other discussions, I don’t recall.
Q. Now, with respect to the 1961-1962 boundary change
study, which among other elementary schools involved
Stedman and Hallett, do you recall that particular study
that was made, Exhibit 52? Are you familiar with that?
A. Do you have anything that would help me recall it? I
remember the general situation.
Q. Will you look at Exhibit 52, please, Dr. Oberhholtzer.
Do you recall this particular document at all? A. This
is one of the many such documents where we 'were consid
ering in staff possible school boundary changes. It was not
the sort of document which would have been presented to
a board meeting or to the board in regular meeting. I t’s
possible that some board member or staff member—I am
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants—Direct
1349a
sure the staff members had copies. But, this is not a report.
It was for study only, and among many proposals that I
made over a period of years.
Q. And this related only to elementary schools! A. It
apparently does, yes.
Q. The title on the first page I believe refers— A. Yes,
it does.
[19481 Q. At that time who made the determination with
respect to boundary changes at the elementary school level!
A. By the bylaws of the Board, that was the responsibility
of the Superintendent and his staff, with the additional
responsibility of informing the Board from time to time.
This was done by letter and by various means. But, they
were informed.
Q. I)r. Oberholtzer, at about this time do you recall a
situation existing at Smith, the pupil membership at Smith
where it had a temporary but rather drastic drop that was
developing! A. There was a period in—now I am trying
to relate it to the particular years. Let me describe it in
general; when we built Smith School, we tried our best as
usual to predict what the peak enrollment would be. But,
it increased more than we had expected and there was an
addition necessary. Then there was the construction in that
vicinity of a parochial school, as I recall, which resulted in
a decided drop in the membership of the Smith School for a
short while. But that I mean a period of possibly a year
or two.
Then there was another rapid increase in pupil popula
tion, and this is typical of some areas. You get varying
population trends, down and up. And in the case of Smith
School I suppose we have one of the most drastic instances
of rapid change, both ways, down and up.
[1949] Q. Was this drastic change predictable before it
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants-—Direct
1350a
happened? A. As we looked forward, we could not see it.
If you used 20-20 hindsight, I suppose it is predictable, but
we did our best to ascertain what was going to happen and
things happened that we didn’t expect.
Q. With respect to Exhibit 52, would you please look at
pages 16 and 17 ? A. 16 and 17.
Q. Yes, sir. On page 16, you will notice two references
for proposed boundary changes on Steelman, the first three
items referring to Maps Nos. 10, 11 and 12. A. Yes.
Q. And the last column there, “Effective Date, 1962.”
Would you then refer to page 17 and refer to Stedman,
showing actual membership in 1961, and then estimated
membership for subsequent years. Do you now recall the
reason for the variance between the 1962 shown on page 16
and the fact that there is no drop in estimated membership
for Stedman on page 17 until 1964? A. I am sorry, I am
trying my best to remember what specifically happened
there. I don’t recall at the moment.
Q. Do you recall whether you made no changes in 1962
with respect to Stedman boundaries by reason of any racial
or ethnic factors in the area, in the subdistrict? [19501
A. There would not have been any changes at that date
with respect to racial or ethnic factors. As I recall, the
initiation of that factor in our consideration began in 1964,
not in 1962.
Q. Well, was there any inaction in 1962 with respect to
Stedman boundary lines related to racial or ethnic factors?
A. Well, the obverse would be so, too.
Q. With respect to the busing out from Stedman in 1966,
do you recall how the pupils were chosen who were to be
bused out at that time? Was it optional? Was it manda
tory? A. I am trying to reflect on your question. There
were several considerations. Yes, with respect to options,
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants—Direct
1351a
yes, it was optional with the parents concerned. That is,
with the parents I am talking about now. There were con
siderations as to what grades, as I recall, should be in the
picture for relieving the overcrowding, and once those were
decided upon then the option was with, as I recall, the
parents.
Q. Was there any selection by achievement level of the
individual students? A. I do not recall any selection on
that basis, no, sir.
Q. Do you know whether all children whose parents
elected to have them bused out were accommodated? A.
I think so. The best I can recollect, they were.
Q. Did you have occasion to establish a new department
£19513 in connection with community relations in the
1960’s? A. Yes, I did. In connection with the trip that
I referred to, to Philadelphia, New York, Detroit, and
Chicago. One of the matters of interest to me was the
staff resources available to the Superintendent and the
Board especially, to make studies of the situations, par
ticularly with respect to racial-ethnic matters, and as I re
call in each instance there was a special staff member ap
pointed, sometimes an assistant superintendent, sometimes
some other title, whose responsibility was to work, usually
directly with the Superintendent on such matters, and one
of my recommendations after I returned was the establish
ment of the Office of School-Community Eelations. This
came in connection with also my recommendation that there
be a special study committee established for equality of
opportunity.
Wes felt it highly desirable to have a qualified staff mem
ber who would be available to the study committee for its
studies, and this was one of the reasons for the establish
ment of that office, not the only reason.
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants-—Direct
1352a
Q. And who was the first one to be appointed as director
of that department? A. Miss Mildred Biddick was the first
director.
Q. And how long did she hold that position, do yon know?
A. Well, let’s see, it must have been about four years.
[1952] I judge from ’62 to about ’65 or ’66.
Q. Then who took over? A. Mr. Gilbert Kruder suc
ceeded her as the director.
Q. Now, with regard to teacher recruitment, employment,
assignment and transfer, we have evidence that early in the
game and during your tenure, why, there weren’t too many
minority teachers and they were limited to a relatively
small number of schools. Can you give us what the situa
tion was when you arrived and what happened chronologi
cally after that? A. Well, this is substantially correct,
what I have heard in the testimony, minorities here I sup
pose referring to Negro-Hispano-Asian.
At the time that I arrived, most of the minority teachers
were in the central part of the city in the schools, the
central part of the city.
Q. Was there any educational theory at that time, gener
ally accepted in the profession, with respect to assignment
of minority teachers to predominantly minority schools?
A. Yes, there was. The thought was that the minority
teachers, as you have called them, in this instance mainly
Negro teachers, could best be assigned to those schools
where there were some concentrations of Negro pupils and
where in a sense there would be an immediate empathy,
understanding, role-model playing. This was currently ac
ceptable [1953] theory at that time.
Q. What is meant by role-model? A. Well, as I would
say it, it is an adult of in this instance the same race to
whom the children could look up to as a model. They have
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants—Direct
1353a
attained status and achievement in their profession or
their occupation and as a person.
Q. Did this have some relationship to the motivation of
the child! A. A very intimate relationship, yes, sir.
Q. Now, with respect to the identity of applicants by race
or ethnic origin, what was the practice and why during the
early years before ’64, particularly? A. I am not sure
that I understand. Each applicant was—a teacher appli
cant, now, we are talking* about?
Q . Yes, sir. A. We had different procedures for differ
ent employees. The teacher applicants, usually by letter,
sometimes otherwise, made inquiry and for an application
blank. The first process would be to file that, and the ac
companying materials, which included a transcript and a
college record, references and such. When that was com
pleted, the usual procedure was for the person to come in
for an interview with one of our staff and then an appraisal
■was made by the particular staff person whether this per
son was qualified and should be recommended for appoint
ment. This is in general the procedure.
[1954] Q. Well, with respect to any designation of race
or ethnic background, was that asked on the application?
A. That was not on the application, no, sir.
Q. Was a photograph required? A. There was a photo
graph required at that time.
Q. And was that continued during your tenure ? A.
That was continued up until a certain time when we were
asked to discontinue it.
Q, By whom? A. And this was done by Mr. Reynolds,
who is the director of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination
Commission, the state commission.
Q. State agency? A. A state agency. He came over to
look—I don’t recall how it came about, but he was appar
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants—Direct
1354a
ently aware or had looked at our application blanks, and
in his judgment this was a discriminatory practice, and in
light of his judgment we discontinued it.
Q. At what period did actual recruiting begin to attempt
to get more minority teachers, Negroes or Hispano? A.
Well, there were efforts all throughout my tenure to hire
the best qualified persons that we could for teachers, and
there were applicants from among Negroes as well as
Anglos, Hispanos—as between Negroes and Hispanos, rel
atively few Hispanos, more Negro applicants. We did make
some [1955] appointments. I don’t think there was any
great increase for quite a period of time there. In fact,
there weren’t large numbers of applicants. We did make
intensive efforts to increase the numbers, especially with
the advent of the special studies committee and thereafter,
its report.
Q. As of 1964? A. As of 1964.
Q. Now, before 1964, was race or color either a positive
factor or a negative factor? A. Now, here again, we were
not operating on a basis of trying to make a distinction as
to racial or ethnic factors. We were endeavoring to hire
the best qualified persons that we could find for the schools.
Q. Regardless of race or color? A. Regardless of race
or ethnic factors.
Q. Then the Voorhees report made some affirmative rec
ommendations pertaining to both recruiting and the dis
tribution of minority teachers? A. This was one of the
aspects of that report to which we gave careful attention,
yes.
Q. Did you take action according to that direction? A.
We did take action, affirmative action, to endeavor to in
crease the numbers.
Q. Now, respect to the assignment of teachers or trans
fers, was there anything else you could add to the [1956]
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants-—Direct
1355a
testimony you heard here in the last couple of days? I
don’t want to just repeat it, but anything— A. No, sir,
not in substance. Let me just make one comment. Some
emphasis was made several times on the seniority rights,
and as was pointed out, the administration did have the
power to appoint—I mean, to transfer—initial appoint
ment, too, placement, and if in our judgment there was
a serious deficiency, then we did make some transfers, and
we did. We would talk to teachers.
Now, I didn’t hear this in the course of the testimony
that I have heard, because I personally did some of this
talking with some of the teachers. There were different
conditions under which we were operating. Let me give I
hope just a brief description of this, because one of the
first things that occurred when I came to Denver in 1947,
there was a disagreement among the certified employees as
to how they were to be represented in their views with the
superintendent and the Board.
I will simply state that after a long period of considera
tion, beginning in 1947, shortly after I came, in 1948, there
was established what was known as the Employees Council
of the Denver Public Schools. This was an organization of
both certified and classified employees on a proportional
basis to the number of employees in a classification. This
was the group that recommended policies to the superin
tendent [1957] and the board in a variety of ways, among
the personnel, and so there were policies in the policy book
to which I refer that held for quite a while, and there was
more discretion on the part of the superintendent and staff
at that time as to transfers than there is at present,
apparently.
In 1962, we entered into the first formal agreement with,
for example, the Denver Classroom Teachers, and there
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants—Direct
1356a
after there have been subsequent agreements with changes,
and I think there is more emphasis now than there used to
be on the matter of seniority and tenure.
Q. Were these agreements beginning in 1962 the result
of what’s commonly called collective bargaining between
the administration and the organization representatives?
A. These collective bargaining, professional associations,
that sort of terminology, yes, and the process.
Q. Mr. Lorenzo Taylor testified that in the years 1952 to
1956—approximately four years—he said there were 150
applicants to the school district seeking appointment and
somewhere between 30 and 40 were so employed. A. What
period?
Q. 1952 to 1956. A. ’52—
Q. To ’56. Now, 30 or 40 employees employed out of 150
applicants, how would that compare with the number of
teachers who were employed during the comparable period,
[1958] compared with the total number of applicants in
that period? Could you give us an estimate? A. Well, my
estimate would be that that would be a higher proportion
than we hired among the Ang'lo applicants, because we were
hiring at that period—it must have been ranging all the
way from 300 to 600 new teachers each year. It varied.
We had some years where there were 2500 increase in
school population. 1 remember one year where we had
about 5500 increase, so it varied, but there would be each
year anywhere from 3,000 to 5,000 applicants total, most of
whom would be Anglo applicants. So I would say that if
this figure is correct—I am taking his figure, I don’t remem
ber it—but if that is the figure, it would be a relatively high
proportion of the group.
[19593 Q. All right, now, another witness, Dr. Ober-
holtzer, was Ethel Rollins, social worker, who testified
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants—Direct
1357a.
that she was informed that shortly after she was employed,
assigned, that it was the policy of the school district to
have white certificated personnel within a school vote as
to whether to accept a Negro teacher or other certificated
personnel who was assigned to that school. Was there any
such policy? A. There was no such policy.
Q. Was there any such practice? A. I ’m not aware of
any such practice.
Q, Dr. Oberholtzer, you made several references in
your testimony concerning pupils in reference to their
achievement and in some reference to their socioeconomic
environment. Do you have an opinion from your expe
rience, your education and your experience both before
you came to Denver and in Denver as to what factors go
into an individual’s achievement, whether they achieve
highly or whether they achieve poorly?
Mr. G-reiner: Your Honor, I would object on the
basis the witness isn’t qualified. I don’t think there
has been any foundation laid to show that he has
studied this question.
The Court: You might ask him some preliminary
questions on it.
[19603 Mr. Bis: Well, I think his entire back
ground is shown in the exhibit.
The Court: I’m inclined to agree.
Mr. Bis: It gives his educational and professional
experience plus—
The Witness: If I may just add, my graduate
studies were related directly to some of these ques
tions, if he wants to look into it.
Q. Go ahead and tell us some of what your background
is in this field in this regard. A. Well, from my Master’s
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants—Direct
1358a
degree—through my Master’s degree through my doctor
ate, there was work in psychology, in education, in sociol
ogy, in statistics and in measurement, all of which are
related, I think, to the subject at hand. I hesitate to say
in this highly-controversial field that anybody is an expert,
that knows all of the answers. Certainly I do not. This is
an extremely difficult field. Witness the current contro
versy as to the importance of native intelligence and what
it is. But I think most psychologists would agree as most
persons with a degree that there are differences among
people as to their native capacity. I’m talking about indi
viduals now.
So, there are such things as—let’s call it native ability,
to do school work, for example. And this [19611 was the
original definition related to the intelligence quotient. It
was an attempt to try to assess the capacity frankly to do
school work. Now,through the years, ideas about this have
changed. But there is a native capacity I think without
doubt. It’s very difficult to measure precisely and to take
into account. But there are differences. This is the most
important factor.
Secondly, related to it, is the whole—if I may use the
term—environment, in which this child was reared, grows
up, becomes a person. There are, within this environment,
the home, the community, the school. And I don’t want
to be pedantic in recital, but these are all important, very
important factors. There is also, importantly, the deter
mination and the motivation of the pupil himself. After all,
he is the one that learns. Nobody else but he can learn for
himself. We have to be reminded of this. There are indi
cators within the environment.
Now, I want to get back to the specific question as I
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants—Direct
1359a
remember your question; some factors in the community,
was it?
Q. What factors that create differences in achieve
ments. A. In achievement, yes.
Q. Eight. [1962] A. I mentioned the individual. And
the individual is all-important. But there are things that
affect the individual, situations, people, and these have a
bearing on every boy and girl.
I think perhaps—and I’m giving you my opinion— real
ize there are studies of this and, over a long period of time,
I have concluded that probably the most important factor
affecting the individual himself, aside from his native
intelligence, is his home environment; his mother and dad;
his sisters and brothers; the neighborhood in which he
grows up and becomes a person. These are all very im
portant as they affect his achievement.
Q. Can you be more specific as to what differences there
are in the home that has made a substantial difference-to
the child? A. Well, for example, the educational level of
the parent has much to do with it. With his own under
standing of what a school is ; of what a school can do; his
own experience in school affects his relationship to the
child. If that relationship has not been satisfactory, the
tendency, for example, would be to reflect that in the
child; not always. But when you come to studies—and
there have been studies in professional literature of the
influence of achievement insofar as the home is concerned,
the educational level of the parent is one thing. The [1963]
occupation of the father and the income level.
Now, these are all indicators which have been objectively
studied in various instances and this is usually wrhat is
referred to generally as socioeconomic factors. These three
indicators.
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants—Direct
1360a
And where those three indicators, if I may put on a
continuum, are relatively low, the chances are the achieve
ment of the pupils will be relatively low. Now, there are
individual exceptions to this. No doubt about it. But
study after study will show you this relationship. These
are the principal factors. There are other factors. Now
I’m referring here not only to the community. Let me talk
about the individual pupil.
There are two major factors that we see in schools and
one is his attendance at school. If he does not attend
school, the chances are he is not going to learn what is
offered at the school in the way of opportunities. I am
talking about most individuals. If this child is obliged to
move from school to school as many as three, four, five
times within a given school year, his work is affected.
Q. Is this a situation that is common? A. This is a
situation in Denver and in most large cities. It unfortu
nately is a factor that is not a atypical in low-income fami
lies that do move from time to [1964] time from one place
to another. We have schools of very high mobility. This
is the term we use; pupil mobility.
Q. By that you mean turnover in the school population ?
A. Where they move. A child moves from one school to
another, or where there is an in-and-out at schools.
Q. Can you give use an illustration of a specific school
in Denver in percentages? A. Yes. Two schools come to
mind. Downtown Emerson Elementary School, why, there
is—
Q. Where is it located? A. There is one of the high
est. And Morey School is located—
The Court: He asked where Emerson is located.
The Witness: Oh, it’s on 14th and—
Kenneth OberJioltser— for Defendants—Direct
1361a
The Court: And Emerson?
The Witness: No, it’s not Emerson, Judge.
That’s Ralph Waldo Emerson was the origin of the
school name. I t’s about Ogden somewhere, I believe,
in that neighborhood.
The Court: Also the origin of the street name,
I think.
The Witness: Was it? Yes. But I don’t think
the school was located there.
The Court: I’ve been here longer than you.
The Witness: Okay, Judge. You’re probably
right.
E1965] The Court: But not that long either.
A. But the Emerson School and the Morey Junior High
School, are within a short distance of each other. Those
two school probably—I know they are among the highest
in terms of mobility. I do recall—and I can’t name the
years—but in talking with principals of Emerson School,
the mobility or turnover of the Emerson School was more
than 100 percent in a given—
Q. A single school year? A. In a school year. That
means you had a complete changeover of the student body
within a year. Now, there—this is not typical, but it is not
atypical altogether either. There are other school of
high mobility.
The Court: Well, through the years that was—
well, I would say it was above average economics—
The Witness: It was until recently.
The Court: Until, I suppose, the late ’50s.
The Witness: That’s right.
The Court: Fairly solid economically fixed area,
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants■—Direct
1362a
I would say, at that time.
Mr. B is: Originally, yes.
Q. When was the chang*eover in that school from a static
school population to high mobility? A. The Judge has
indicated, as he recalled, it was in the ’50s. And, as I re
call, most markedly in the ’60s.
[1966] Q. What other substantial factors are there
which you relate to achievement in your opinion, Dr.
Oberholtzer? How about language? A. Well, I can give
you variations of the home environment. Where there is
a home environment with a low income, there are usually
fewer books, magazines, reading materials in the home,
which has an effect on a child.
The matter of language—that is, the use of oral language
one of the best indicators of whether a child can do the
usual work. And if one were seeking a single factor as an
indicator of capability of doing school work, you could
just ask for the vocabulary, the range of vocabulary, the
oral vocabulary.
Now, these are not exact. These are general indicators.
But, the language of the child has much to do with his
capabilities and it is especially important what happens
to that child in his early years before he gets to school.
The largest education program that Denver has had—it
was here when I came and I think it continues—is a speech
correction program. And this results from difficulties that
children have with the language when they come to school.
And when a child comes with a limited oral language, he
has difficulty in learning to read. Beading is based on an
oral language base.
[1967] The Court: Of course, his exposure is
probably the most important element in changing
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants—-Direct
1363a
this, isn’t itf Exposure to persons who have vocabu
lary; who enunciate1?
The Witness: I would agree.
The Court: We will call a halt now until 9:15
tomorrow morning.
(Whereupon, the trial recessed at 4:59 p.m.)
[1970] * * *
D irect E xam ina tion by M r. R is (Cont’d ) :
Q. Dr. Oberholtzer, when we recessed last night I believe
we were still on the general subject of achievement with
particular reference to low achievers and some of the basic
background reasons therefor. One of the last things we
were discussing was the background of some of the young
sters, the low achievers, with particular reference to their
home environment and so forth. Now, I think one of your
last statements concerned the matter of communications;
communication in the home, parents, depending on their
extent—the extent of their educational level. And, the oc
cupation and income of the family.
Now, I would like to pursue this one step further [1971]
if we may, please. And this pertains to the age at which
you believe these children become disadvantaged cultur
ally, so to speak. When it begins, and when the most im
portant years are that they create this gap between an
underprivileged child and a child coming from an average
middle-class home in a socio-economic level. Would you
pursue that, please? Tell us your opinion. A. Well, there
are no differences as between low income or high income
with respect to the timing of influence. Life is a continuing
stream, and a person is influenced throughout, of course.
But, what are known currently as cognitive psychologists
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants—Direct
1364a
contend generally, and I believe with them, that there are
very important influences at early ages that affect what a
child is capable of doing in school.
Q. Specifically what ages are you referring to? A. I
am referring— Again, life is in continuing stream. I don’t
think there is any one mark to stage. But, most of the
psychologists will say at least beginning at age 3, 4 and
5, some say earlier. As a matter of fact it begins with the
first verbal oral attempts at language, and from there on,
to a marked degree. The language capability of a child,
his potential, when he comes to school affects markedly
what is done about reading and his capability of learning
to read. So, where there is, let’s say, a relatively low de
gree of capability or of communication as you have ex
pressed it in [1972] language, that child has a marked
handicap when he comes to school. He comes with that
to school.
And, if I may add, if I had the power as a person to allo
cate the dollars for education as I would like to do them,
I would put proportionately a larger—much larger pro
portion for those early years that are sometimes called
early childhood education years, probably three and four
and five years old. The five-year-old now is kindergarten.
Q. Is that the ag*e level of what we know now as the
Head Start program? A. Head Starts programs vary.
Most of them I think are four or five-year-olds, rarely
three-year-olds. But, this is the early childhood area
which has come into prominence in recent years and
largely because of the findings of the cognitive psycholo
gist.
Q. Now, Dr. Oberholtzer, in your discussion of the var
ious factors and differences in background which reflect
Kenneth Oherholtser—for Defendants•—Direct
1365a
on a child’s achievement level, yon have made no reference
to race or color as an element? A. I have not.
Q. Is that a factor in your opinion? A. I do not think
that race as such is as I think the factors that I have men
tioned are.
Q. Dr. Oberholtzer, there has been some question raised
at this trial concerning the facilities and equipment between
[1973] the various schools. Could you tell us during the
period of your administration, twenty years that you were
Superintendent, what was done and what was accomplished
with respect to any attempt at making the physical fa
cilities and equipment as equal as possible? A. Well,
throughout the twenty years there were substantial
amounts of funds allocated to the maintenance of build
ings. I well remember my first experience when I came
in August in visiting buildings.
Q. August, 1947? A. 1947. To my amazement I found
in many of the clasrooms, one single drop cord light in
the middle of the room. That was the lighting. They were
already under way with a program to change that situa
tion. Mention was made in the testimony that I earlier
heard of the fluorescent lighting program, which was true,
and we were able to step up that program so that every
classroom in the district had good lighting. That took a
period, as I recall, of two or three years to complete. In
other ways we changed the situation from fixed seating
that was in some of the rooms to tables and chairs. We
generally supplied equipment comparable to the new
schools. In other -words, tables and chairs and such.
We made an endeavor, for example, to include central
libraries, lunchrooms, and in other ways to make the build
ings equal insofar as types of facilities were concerned.
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants—Direct
1366a
So, [1974] there was a continuing and a very large pro
gram of maintenance throughout the twenty years.
Q. Was the maintenance budget increased substantially
during that period? A. I can’t remember specific figures
at the moment, but there were increases, yes. It varied
some .from year to year but as between the beginning and
closing, yes, there were increases, dependent on the kind
of program.
Q. Now, with respect to the educational organization in
the various schools, both at elementary and at the secon
dary level, would you inform the Court as to whether
there were equal offerings on the basic three R’s, for ex
ample, various classical subjects, reading, writing arith
metic, or were there differences in curriculum offerings at
any of the various schools? A. There were the same
basic offerings. For example, reading was taught in all
schools, arithmetic and such. The subjects, the basic sub
jects, the so-called three E’s, were taught in all of the
schools. There were differences in the curriculum within
specific subject areas, to be sure, depending upon the needs
of the pupils, their interests, and such.
Q. What was the reason for that? A. As I indicated,
differences based on needs, on interests, on their back
ground, and such.
Q. Did that have any relationship to attempts to offer
[1975] everything on an equal educational opportunity?
A. This was related directly to that in an attempt to pro
vide equality of opportunity.
One of the things, if I may add another word, related
directly to this, is the matter of pupil-teacher ratio that
was referred to yesterday in testimony. One of the typical
arrangements or changes made where there were no
achieving pupils was to provide a lower pupil-teacher
Kenneth Oierholtser—for Defendants—Direct
1367a
ratio; in other words, to make possible teacher-pupil con
tacts more frequently individually than might otherwise be
the case.
Another type of arrangement, which we instituted and
practiced in many of the lower achieving schools, espe
cially, was team teaching. In this instance, instead of per
haps two teachers there would be three teachers working
with groups, sometimes a group of thirty or sixty different
pupils, but they were divided up into smaller groups, and
where you had, for example, three teachers with sixty
children, you would have a pupil-teacher ratio, of teacher
to pupil, 1 to 20. The normal in many schools was 1 to 30.
So this was one of the typical changes made.
Q. Were there also varying assignments with respect to
non-teacher personnel, social workers, so forth? A. There
were changes made with respect to that. We instituted the
employment of teacher aides, for example. These were fre
quently people who assisted with the clerical [19763 tasks
of the teacher so that more attention could be given to the
professional aspects by the teacher herself or himself.
Q. There has been some evidence here concerning com
pensatory educational programs. Were those also initiated
during your regime! A. What I have indicated were
some aspects of compensatory programs. There were in
troduced some newer types of curriculum materials, for
example. In some instances there were, for example, more
community trips to enable children to see first hand some
of the community environment that they had not seen
before, and that was used as a basis of discussion and of
reading and of writing. There perhaps were more ma
terials developed by the teacher herself in addition to the
standard materials of textbooks and such. These are illus
trations.
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants—Direct
1368a
There were also provided special teachers of reading
where there were marked deficiencies, and this came in
before the federal program, but also it was enhanced or
expanded after the federal programs were introduced.
As a matter of fact, in the so-called target areas, as they
were designated, which were under the criteria of the
federal government, certain so-called low income areas,
there were mobile units moved in on school grounds, and
teachers would take groups of pupils to help them with
reading.
Q. When these federal programs were offered on a
£1977] national scale, did the Denver School District take
advantage of those programs, apply for them? A. We did
apply for funds, for approval, and we did participate in
the programs, yes.
Q. In substantial amounts ? A. In substantial amounts,
yes.
Q. Now, specifically with regard to the Head Start pro
gram, can you tell us what was done under the federal pro
grams in that regard? A. The Head Start program in
Denver was made up of a number of different agencies
participating, one of them being the Denver Public Schools,
and in our instance we made a beginning, I am trying to
recall, one summer. Then we had programs in the regular
school year and in the summers, both, that is, it was a
continuing program. These programs were offered in
housing centers. We leased space in the housing centers.
These w’ere low income centers, and we provided the op
portunities basically in those centers. As I recall, there
were some twenty centers.
Q. Dr. Oberholtzer, it was during the sixties that the
open enrollment program was first initiated, is that cor
rect? A. An open enrollment program was initiated fol
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants—Direct
1369a
lowing the report of the special study committee on equal
ity of opportunity. The recommendations were made, I
believe, in May, 1964, and this was instituted in the fall of
1964.
[1978] Q. On your trip east, Philadelphia, New York,
Detroit, Chicago, did you investigate their plans of open
enrollment in 1962? A. We did, and we found them util
izing such programs.
Q. When the limited open enrollment was established
in Denver, was that based primarily upon the experience
of these other districts that you investigated! A. We did
base it pretty largely upon their experience, not precisely
the same, but very similar.
Q. Was there any one district to which it was more
closely related than other cities! A. Our plan was pat
terned more especially after New York and Detroit.
Q. What was the objective of the open enrollment plan?
A. The objective of the open enrollment plan was to make
it possible for boys and girls who might be attending a
given school to attend some other school outside of their
subdistrict where they were supposed to attend and where,
in their judgment, they might get perhaps a different edu
cational opportunity if they wanted it.
[1979] Q. Dr. Oberholtzer, in 1964 is when the optional
areas were abandoned throughout the entire District, is
that correct ? A. They were rescinded or abandoned again
as the result of the recommendations of this study commit
tee report in 1964.
Q. Now, do you remember what month in 1964 the
boundary changes were considered by the Board of Edu
cation at a formal meeting? A. I believe it was May.
Q. Was it at that same meeting that you announced the
changes that you were making in the elementary school
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants—Direct
1370a
boundaries? A. Well, that was a pretty long meeting as
I recall, and I think that was one of the features, yes.
There were actions by the Board on my recommendations
for a number of policies. One of the major policies was
with respect to school boundaries, subdistriets. For the
first time we took into account racial and ethnic factors
as a policy of the Board of Education. And that was in
May 1964.
Q. Was it at that meeting that he made the recommenda
tion which led to the adoption at that meeting of policy
5100! A. That was one of about three or four different
policies, as I recall. That was one. There was one on
boundaries, one on pupil transfers, one on pupil transpor
tation. That’s four. There might have been another one.
The Court: I ’d like to ask a question here. I may
[1980] forget it if I don’t right now. You indicated
yesterday that you were reticent or hesitant about
taking any positive action involving classifications
based upon race. Was it your view that the Colo
rado Constitution prohibited you from taking any
action that would have a tendency to desegregate
prior to 1964?
The Witness: Judge, it was our view—- In sub
stance, yes. To express it differently and use the
language of the Constitution, it said you shall not
make a distinction or classification b t̂sed on race
or color. And it was the interpretation of our at
torney and our interpretation that this would in
a sense prohibit what you have said, yes.
The Court: Thus, then you avoided any possible
policies that would have a tendency to relieve the
concentrations of Negroes at Negro schools, for
example ?
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants—Direct
1371a
The Witness: As I have indicated, yes, Judge.
The Court: Okay. Well, I gathered that impres
sion from what you said, and I wanted to clarify
it.
The Witness: I tried to indicate throughout that
our boundary lines and our actions were based
without distinction as to race and color. That was
our effort.
Q, Either in a positive manner or a negative manner?
A. —or a negative manner.
Mr. E is: May I pursue this one since you brought
it up?
E19813 The Court: Well, I would encourage you
to do so.
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants—Direct
Q. In 1962 was there a request made to Mr. S. Arthur
Henry to make a thorough study of the decisions, the court
decisions that had come down since the Brown decision in
1954? A. There was such a request made for written opin
ions, and it wTas made by me. It was also made by the spe
cial study committee on equality of opportunity.
The Court: That was in 1954 when Brown No. 1
was decided, is that right? 1954! Is that what you
asked?
Mr. Bis: Yes, Volume I, Exhibit 4.
And then this request was made in 1962, however,
Your Honor.
The Witness: Let me remind us that we did make
requests of the attorney as to the meaning of the
Brown decision. I did. Oral opinions were given me
that it applied to de jure segregation, where they
had equal and separate school systems.
1372a
Q. A dual system! A. Dual systems.
Q. But in 1962 it was when you asked Mr. Henry to
review the matter at that point in time and to prepare a
written opinion for you and for the Voorhees Committee?
A. I am not sure whether it was in 1962 or 1963. It seems
to me it might have been 1963. It was during the course of
the deliberations of the special study committee that that
119823 was requested. I requested it and they requested it,
a written opinion. And, he did render a summary of opin
ions.
Q. And was that furnished to the special study commit
tee? A. It was.
Q. Was that reflected in the study committee’s report.
A . I believe it was, yes.
Q. Also, let me ask you this, Dr. Oherholtzer, along the
same line. When the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed were
you concerned with it? A. Yes, we were. The Civil Rights
Act occurred—of 1964 you’re referring to?
Q. Yes. A. And the special study committee report
came out in the spring of 1964, as I recall it. We were
much concerned with the provisions of these Civil Rights
Acts and apparently here again there was not to be an
assignment—I can’t recall the precise language, but the
import of it was that there would be no assignment of
pupils on the basis of color or race. That was as I recall
the wording.
Q. Well, in any event whatever the wording was, that
act was studied by you and attempted to be worked into
the overall planning of the District? A. That’s right.
Q. Now, after the Yoorhees report came in then and the
action that was proposed at the May 1964 meeting, after
£19833 that time did you report to the Board then with
Kenneth Oherholtzer—for Defendants-—Direct
1373a
respect to various elementary school boundary changes and
particularly with reference to northeast Denver ? A. I did.
Q. And I would direct your attention to Exhibit 70 and
an overlay, Exhibit 71, which purport to show the specific
changes with reference to Stedman, Hallett, Philips, Ash
ley, Montclair and I presume Park Hill down in here. Yes,
Pai'k Hill here. Could you tell us the basic background and
reasons for these specific changes and with particular ref
erence to whether they had any objective of segregatory
intent or objectives? A. I can answer the latter. There
was no such objective. The objectives were primarily again
changes of boundaries resulting from the rapid moving of
population in this area and changes in population. I don’t
recall any. Now, I have to say that because it was at this
juncture, one way or the other where we were officially and
actively considering the matter of racial and ethnic factors.
I do recall that in the case of the secondary school bound
aries we did. May I add that the boundaries in this instance
as in many instances in the elementary schools involve such
a relatively few numbers of pupils, however, in terms of
the total school population, that conceivably any one change
could have not made a significant change in the racial or
ethnic composition of E19843 the student body.
Q. Was that true with respect to these immediate changes
in the northeast Denver area? A. I would think it would
be so. I have no recollection of any changes—any specific
numbers with regard to race or ethnic factors.
Q. Now, at this same meeting I believe you recommended
changes at the junior high and high school levels, did you
not, which were adopted? A. Yes, the elementary schools
were by way of information for the Board in case there
were questions about it. In the case of the secondary
schools it was my obligation to recommend changes, yes.
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants—Direct
1374a
Q. Now, I am referring to Exhibit AM which purports
to be junior high, 1964, showing old boundaries, the dotted
lines—dotted black lines, and the new boundaries with the
orange lines. You recognize that exhibit? This being
Gove? And this Smiley? A. Lots of arrows and lines
there.
Q. Yes. A. Do you have an earlier junior high?
Q. Yes, I do.
1963 or 1964? Either one. A. This one is good.
Q. Okay. That’s Exhibit AL. [1985] A. I’m asking for
this, because with the opening of the new senior high
schools, George Washington and others, in this instance
George Washington.
Q. And that was in 1960 ? A. In 1960 we had determined
certain boundary lines, and at the same time, as I recall,
we had certain related boundaries in the junior high
schools which this refers to. This is—although this is 1963,
it reflects the changes that were made about—oh, in ’59 or
’60, with the opening of the new high schools. I call your
attention particularly in this instance, Gove Junior High
School boundary, which goes east out along Colfax—quite
a long boundary. I t’s an unusual boundary. Based largely
upon available transportation, moving east and west to the
school. And also on the fact that you had Hill Junior High
School located down here not very far. To the west is
Morey. To the immediate north of Gove and a little east
is Smiley. Over here is—the big circle and then Gove far
ther to the west. At this time you will note that there were
still optional areas.
“A” here, largely, as I recall, between Cole and Smiley.
And “B” as between Gove, I believe Gove and Morey. That
was the situation in 1960 and up! until 1964, as I recall.
Now, if you will look at 1964.
Kenneth Oherholtser—for Defendants-—Direct
1375a
Q. All right.
(Referring to Exhibit AM.) [19863 A. The new bound
aries established here were established with an application
of the racial and ethnic factors in mind. No specific pupils
in mind, but areas of the city, of the School District. For
example, and—in an effort to achieve a higher degree of
integration the area north of City Park, that area which
was previously, I believe, in an optional zone as between
Cole and Smiley, became in a sense a mandatory zone to
Gove.
Q. Was this area north of City Park predominantly
black? A. I believe it was, largely so. Again, an area
from—
Q. And that’s basically a major portion of the Barrett
subdistrict, is it not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then the area just immediately north of Barrett I
believe that’s Harrington— A. Yes, that’s Harrington.
The Harrington School which was formerly again in, I
believe, within the optional zone largely became a part of
the Smiley District. The optional zones, if you will notice,
are done away with in this instance, and we have estab
lished boundaries. But, for the first time in the case of
the junior high schools we endeavored here in 1964 to take
into account the racial-ethnic factors.
The Court: The Harrington optional zone was
abolished?
The Witness: Yes, sir, the whole junior high
school [19873 optional zone was abolished and this
became mandatory to Smiley in this instance.
Q. And was this adopted by the Board, also, at the May
1964 meeting? A. Yes.
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants—Direct
1376a
Q. Which is the same meeting that you announced these
changes? A. The elementary school boundary changes,
yes.
Q. Now, at the same meeting, then, in ’64, was there also
a high school boundary change recommended and adopted ?
A. May we have again the two maps?
Q. All right, we have a ’62 senior high map, which I will
show you first. A. In this case, again I would refer you
to the presence of optional zones, and this represents the
boundaries following the establishment of the new senior
high schools, in this instance the George Washington High
School, which affected markedly the boundaries, particu
larly of East High School which is contiguous to it.
Q. What other high schools were open at the same time,
Lincoln? A. Abraham Lincoln—I am trying to think—
and Thomas Jefferson, the senior high schools. There were
in this instance three major ABC optional areas relating
to East, C relating only to East and to George Washington.
[1988] Now, if we may see the ’64 boundary map.
Again, at the meeting of the Board in May of 1964 the
optional zones were rescinded or abandoned, and this had
its effect upon the boundaries of the high schools, so that
for one effect there were no longer any optional zones and
substituted therefor were the more or less mandatory zones.
If I may call your attention here especially to the action
of the Board, I think it would be useful to start with what
was formerly Optional Zone A just north of City Park.
Do you want me to point that out?
Q. Tes, would you please. A. This is the former op
tional zone, Optional Zone A, which was optional as be
tween East High School and Manual High School. As the
result of the Board action, if you will notice the red out
line, this part of the area which was the largest part of
the area, was assigned to the East High School. This part
Kenneth Oberholtser—-for Defendants—Direct
1377a
of the area which was contiguous or closest to the Manual
High School was assigned to the Manual High School.
There was formerly a small optional area here which had
been optional between East and Manual; this was assigned
to East High School.
In the case of George Washington High School and East
High School, this dotted line area was the former optional
zone. As the result of the Board action, this was no longer
optional, but in addition they took this territory [1989] in
the red line and assigned the whole area to George Wash
ington High School, and this was because of our studies
showing some moving of Negro pupils generally eastward,
and to some extent southward, and this was in anticipation,
also, of some possible further moves in an effort to change,
again, the racial-ethnic composition.
Q. Dr. Gberholtzer, there has been some evidence there
were not too many black students living* in this area at the
northern part of this new change at the time. May I ask
you to expand just a little bit, were you projecting ahead
that there would be a further movement of Negroes into
this area? A. It seemed to us logical. There had been
moves generally in this direction, and it seemed to us this
would be a logical future change, yes, and then you go
either way and you have to take into account some reason
ableness as to the distance. This is quite a distance from
this point to George Washington High School. It is also
quite a distance from up in here to East High School. But
those factors were taken into account, and we held hear
ings. I remember one hearing at East High School that
was attended by a large number of people with respect to
the boundaries. And we would generally hold hearings or
people would attend Board meetings and express their
views as to what should be done. In this instance there
was considerable interest.
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants—Direct
1378a
Q. Then this was done with an intention of change!
[19903 A. This was done with, an intention of changing the
racial-ethnic factors to the extent feasible there.
Q. Thank you. Dr. Oberholtzer, in the May 1964 meeting
of the Board where these various boundary changes were
made and optional zones abolished, you mentioned it was
at that meeting that Policy 5100 was adopted? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was it at that meeting that the limited open enroll
ment policy was also adopted? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you also mentioned that a major policy change
was made with respect to transportation. What was it? A.
That included a provision making it possible to—I can’t re
call the precise wording of it, I don’t have it before me, but
it made it possible to transport children where there was
overcrowding, to relieve them, the schools, so affected, and
to move them, the children, into other schools where there
might be an improvement in the educational program for
the children, in other words, because there would be less
crowding, and so on.
Q. Again, such transportation away from the child’s own
neighborhood school, that is contrary to the neighborhood
school concept in its purest form, is it not? A. Yes, it is
to some extent, yes.
Q. This overcrowding situation that you referred to,
[1991] and busing to relieve it, was that intended as a
permanent thing? A. No, it was again intended to be
somewhat temporary until perhaps more permanent ar
rangements could be made to relieve the overcrowding.
Q. And what were the permanent arrangements depen
dent upon? A. Primarily money funds to construct.
Q. Now, yesterday you referred to Exhibit HN which
was a worksheet entitled “Recommendations of the Special
Study Committee.” A. Correct.
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants—Direct
1379a
Q. Which summarized the 155 recommendations made by
the special study committee, is that correct? A. Correct.
Q. Now, was continuing action taken then thereafter with
respect to those recommendations? A. The document to
which you refer was simply a listing—I don’t happen to
have it before me.
(Document handed to the witness.)
A. This is a matter which I developed. It states all of the
recommendations, the 155 recommendations, of the special
study committee in order from 1 to 155, refers to the pages
in the document, the report itself, and indicates my assign
ment for study to the various staff members. This [19923
was one of the initial steps that we took.
We developed a statement of all of the recommendations
which were printed and distributed to all school employees
of the District, to every faculty, for study, with the sug
gestion that they make a study of it and report their views
and findings with respect to this.
I also assigned it to various other groups, one of them
being the Central Committee on Instruction, which made
quite an extended report. This is typical of the beginning
aspects of attention to the study.
Q. Was that done? I mean, did these people get these
reports back to you? A. They did. They rendered reports
to me and many of them—most of them were rendered di
rectly to the Board of Education as well.
Q. And was action taken? A. Action was taken on a
large number of these recommendations.
Q. We will get back to the action in just a moment. Sub
sequent to the receipt of the Voorhees report in 1964, there
was then appointed a second committee called the Advisory
Council on Equality of Educational Opportunity? A. Yes,
Kenneth Oherholtzer— for Defendants—Direct
sir.
1380a
Q. What was the objective of this—
The Court: When was that ?
[19933 Mr. Ris: I beg your pardon!
The Court: When was the appointment of that
committee!
Mr. Ris: Do you remember?
The Witness: I believe in January 1966.
The Court: Go ahead, Mr. Ris.
Q. What was the objective of this council as compared
to the former study committee? A. The precise wording
—I have the report, just a minute.
This was a continuation, to some extent, of the earlier
report, but the advisory council was given a specific charge
that I think is of pertinence to our interests here. May I
read some of this? I think I can answer your question
more quickly.
Q. All right, sir. A. The Advisory Council on Equality
of Educational Opportunity in the Denver Public Schools
—I was in error—was appointed on March 17, 1966.
The advisory council was given, on March 21, 1966, the
following charge:
“Against this background (of increasing school popula
tion leading to concentrations of minority group children
in certain areas, as alleviated by certain procedures insti
tuted by the Board of Education in conformity with rec
ommendations [1994] of the special study committee in
1964), the Board of Education requests your study and
advice on the following matters, with your report to be
submitted at the earliest possible date. Tour recommenda
tions will be most helpful if they can be reasonably specific
Kenneth Oherholtser— for Defendants—Direct
1381a
and can meet the tests of educational validity and financial
feasibility,
“A. Should the present policies and procedures of the
Denver Public Schools, particularly Policy No. 1222C be
applied to the location of new schools or additions to schools
in northeast Denver?
“B. If not, what changes should be made in present
policies and procedures? What new policies and proce
dures, if any, should be adopted?”
That was the specific charge to the council.
Q. All right, sir. So there were two basic things they
were to answer. And then they submit their report in
February 1967, Exhibit 21. A. I was reading from your
Exhibit 21, yes, the plaintiffs’ exhibit.
Q. Would you refer to page 84 of that exhibit, sir, and
what was their answer to the charge with respect to con
tinuation of Policy 1222C as to new schools in northeast
Denver? A. “The present policies of the Denver Public
Schools, in particular, Paragraph 1(b)(6) of Policy No.
12220 and Paragraph 4 of Policy No. 5100 answer Question
A of the charge [19951 and therefore no schools should
be built in northeast Denver until plans are developed to
implement Paragraph 1(b)(6) of Policy 12220 and Para
graph 4 of Policy No. 5100.”
Thereafter they recite the particular paragraphs.
Q. All right, sir. Now, did you, first as to the Voorhees
report, have occasion to report to the Board of Education
approximately one year after the report and approximately
two years after the report as to the progress that had been
made with respect to the recommendations? A. I did.
Q. Did your two-year report summarize the entire two
years so that it included the one-year period as well? A.
Yes, sir, it did.
Kenneth Oberholtzer-—for Defendants—Direct
1382a
Q. Yesterday you already identified Exhibits HO and
HP as being your written reports, first for tbe one-year
period, then secondly for tbe two-year period, correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. With respect to tbe two-year report, Dr. Oberholtzer,
would you bit tbe highlights for us as to what—not tbe
studies that were made but what actual progress bad been
made with respect to tbe recommendations? A. I will
endeavor to do it, because this was a summary in itself,
and I will have to cite some—
Q. Hit tbe highlights for us. A. I will try to. First
of all, it includes tbe [19963 General Policy Statement
5100. With respect—
Q. Dr. Oberholtzer, 5100 was really tbe first policy state
ment by the Board which added racial beteogeneity to boun
dary considerations? A. It was.
Q. Go ahead. A. In May of 1964, as to what was done,
tbe recommendations of tbe special study committee were
divided into several categories, one of them being on ad
ministration and organization, and I ’d like to cite just a
few things that happened.
As I have already indicated, the optional areas were
discontinued as of September 1964, referred to in these
charts.
Secondly, to tbe usual criteria for setting boundaries,
there was added tbe factor of ethnic and racial character
istics of tbe school population, making, to tbe extent pos
sible a heterogeneous school community and the mobility
and levels of educational attainments of the pupils.
They also adopted tbe limited open enrollment for the
school year 1964-65, and that was continued in 1965-66,
There were quite a few recommendations relating to build
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants—Direct
1383a
ings, equipment, libraries and supplies, and I will cite just
a few of many changes that were made.
An addition under construction at McMeen Elementary
School, it says “to provide for pupils who have had to be
bused to other schools.”
[1997] An addition to the Hallett Elementary School
was authorized to provide permanent classroom space.
Under special assistance from the School Lunch Division
of the Colorado Department of Education, experimental
lunch programs were set up in areas of low income using
increased amounts of surplus commodities to enable pupils
to buy lunches at 15 cents.
An addition was made to Smiley High School in the
form of an industrial arts facility, recommendations on
curriculum, guidance and instructions, to cite a few things.
For example, a revision of the social studies program
was in process, including certain specific objectives, and I
will cite only two to illustrate.
Grade 1, to help pupils appreciate and understand cul
tural backgrounds of other families.
In grade 11, understanding that all persons should be
considered as individuals and judged on their merits, their
differences should be respected and their rights safe
guarded.
The subcommittee of the K-12—that is kindergarten
through 12—human relations committee initiated and is
conducting a 10-week seminar for teachers for the purpose
of exploring ways of supplementing the social studies guide
with specific suggestions for dealing with human relations
concepts and learnings related to the various grade levels.
[1998] Library services were given special attention,
selection of books dealing with human and intergroup re
lations for the purchase of professional library and for
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants—Direct
1384a
examination and contribution to school libraries at each
level.
Title Two of the ESEA, which is the education—the
Federal Education Act—made possible the ordering of
$171,000 worth of library books approximately 60,000 vol
umes to be owned by the Denver Public Schools but to be
available for use in public and private schools in Denver.
During the summer of 1965 Head Start programs under
the Office of Economic Opportunity were conducted for
eight weeks in ten centers. Head Start programs were
funded under the same Office of Opportunity, varying from
six to ten weeks in twenty centers located in the housing
projects that I referred to. Team teaching programs of
improving language and reading skills, recommended
strongly by special study committee, has been expanded to
include arithmetic and has been extended into Grades 1,
2 and 3, especially in the eighteen elementary schools in
the target area of the greatest need. Under Title One of
the ESEA a project has been funded to help educationally
disadvantaged pupils progress through a planned reading
improvement program for one-half day for eight weeks
for pupils of 4, 5 and 6.
The Metropolitan Youth Education Center set up jointly
with Jefferson County has provided counseling, basic
£1999] education training, and assistance in securing em
ployment for 450 out of school and unemployed youth
from the two districts. In each instance we have cited
and I have not taken the time to read the specific recom
mendations referred— For example, there are eight re
lated recommendations on this one act of ours. The second
center for the Metropolitan Youth Education Center is
being added in Denver with assistance of the Title One
funds. Well, there are many others. Under personnel,
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants—Direct
1385a
pupils, orientation rooms have been provided in eleven
elementary schools for pupils who change school fre
quently and are lacking in skills needed for progress in
the larger group class. Neighborhood aids are provided
through OEO funds to assist the teacher and help make
contacts with the home.
In the secondary schools of the target area the counseling
load of teachers has been reduced and time for counseling
has been doubled to permit counselors to have time to give
to those students as individuals and to give them special
attention.
Also, under ESEA opportunities for substitute tutoring
in areas of special academic needs by teachers is provided
and an after school library program to give access to ref
erence materials and to encourage reading. A program
under ESEA will bring counselors in target area high
schools back to work in August to do intensive counseling
with dropouts and potential dropouts; to encourage them
to return to [20003 school and to plan a program to meet
their needs. As to the personnel of the District, recruit
ment visits were made during the year 1964-65 to forty-
three college and universities located in fourteen states.
In addition recruiting materials were sent to eighty-
five other colleges and universities. An analysis shows
that 403 new teachers were hired for the 1965 calendar
year. The number of Negro applicants has enabled the
Division of Personnel Services to increase the number of
well-qualified Negro teachers. Recruitment visits in 1965-
66 have included more intensive and extensive visits to
Arizona and New Mexico institutions of higher learning
as the number of qualified Spanish-named applicants to
the Denver Public Schools is limited.
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants—Direct
1386a
As of October 15, 1965, all junior and senior high schools
and 67 of the 89 elementary schools had at least one teach
er with a minority background. The high percentage of
minority teachers in schools with the concentration of
minority pupils has been reduced somewhat so that no
faculty now includes more than 50 percent minority teach
ers. Letters were written to 55 teacher training institu
tions throughout the country, emphasizing the importance
of preparing teachers to teach all children. Those of dif
ferent racial and ethnic backgrounds, and those disadvan
taged in educational terms. Replies were received from
31 of the institutions. A report [20013 on the improve
ment of human relations was presented to the Board of
Education on November 18, 1965, and to all committees
on instruction later. Included was a report of the work of
the K-12 committee on human relations and a review of
the participation of the Denver Public Schools personnel,
a variety of human relations activities during the summer
of 1965. A five-day institute designed to develop an under
standing of the unique culture of the Spanish-named
Americans of the Denver area has been funded with ESEA.
The emphasis will be on classroom practices which will
build upon the pride of the heritage and the—and improve
the motivation and skills needed for the educational
achievements.
Approximately 247 teacher aids, non-certified persons,
usually from the area near the school, have been hired to
relieve teachers of some lunchroom and playground duties.
Then there is a section relating to school community rela
tions. I will cite just a few of the many actions taken.
Carefully planned tours of the community with com
mentary by persons most able to interpret the develop
ment and interrelationships of the agencies and opportu
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants—Direct
1387a
nities to meet parents and businessmen of the area have
proved valuable for new and experienced teachers. A three-
day tour is planned for those schools in the target areas
before the opening of school.
In northeast Denver the lack of recreational programs
[2002] for the growing youth population led to the plan
ning of a coordinated program for recreation involving
the city recreation department, the public schools, a num
ber of churches, and concerned individuals. A community
study hall association has been providing volunteer staff
for 20 study halls located in the community centers,
churches, or school buildings. The encouragement and the
assistance with learning has proved important to pupils
and volunteers. In many cases added enrichment programs
have opened new experiences to the young people. Under
OEO a coordinator has been paid to help coordinate and
help expand the program. A project of youth motivation
was funded to assist high school young people, particularly
Spanish-named, in four high schools, to have an oppor
tunity to work at a club with adults who can help and see
that they can succeed in school and can plan for a satisfy
ing vocation.
A part-time coordinator and neighborhood aids have
been appointed to expand and improve the program initi
ated four years ago under voluntary leadership. This
spring the Latin American student clubs held a very suc
cessful all-day workshop with the support of interested
Spanish-named adults.
Just two more to conclude—
The Court: Just a second. There is no need for
putting this verbatim in the record, is there?
Mr. Eis: I just wanted him to highlight—
Kenneth Oberholtzer-—for Defendants—Direct
1388a
[2003] The Court: I mean, you wish to have the
reporter transcribe all this?
Mr. R is: He’s not reading the entire report.
The Court: Well, if that’s what you wish, that’s
the way we’ll do it. In other words, I believe we
could refer to the exhibit and the pages. But, if
you say you wish to have it done that wTay, why—
If you think it would be better to have it all in
the transcript, that’s fine.
Mr. R is: Actually, he hasn’t been reading. He has
been skipping through, and hitting the highlights.
The Court: I realize that.
Mr. R is: I think we have to have it in our record,
yes, sir.
The Court: Okay.
A. Through the cooperation of Opportunity School with
neighborhood organizations and the Denver Housing Au
thority staff, a number of basic education classes enrolling
180 adults has been set up in the neighborhoods where the
people live. The purpose is to enable mothers and fathers
uprate their own skills and to help their children make
better use of school opportunities. The Denver Public
Schools is again providing work experience for 200 high
school youths, age 16 to 21, in clerical, maintenance and
custodial programs under a neighborhood youth corps
project. In addition to supervision [2004] work experience
there will be educational occupation and personal counsel
ing and a physical examination. I was simply trying to
give you a few of the many highlights in this report.
Q. Thank you. Now, after the Berge committee reported
and submitted their recommendations which are reflected
in Exhibit 21, what was done with respect to considering
Kenneth Oherholtser—for Defendants—Direct
1389a
and implementing any of the recommendations in that re
port! A. I did make an oral report to the Board of Edu
cation about it, and we did proceed to implement various
aspects of that report as well.
Q. That report came out in February of 1967! A. Yes.
Q. And you left your position in August of 1967! A.
Right.
Q. Before you left then did you give an oral report
to the Board which you previously identified as Exhibit
HQ! Correct! A.Yes, sir.
Q. I don’t want to cut you off, Dr. Oberholtzer, but I
also want to cut down the volume. Can you highlight and
summarize that even more succinctly than the last one ! A.
I’ll try to do it more succinctly.
Q. If you will, please. A. In this instance the advisory
council came up with four aspects of equality that are
somewhat different from the [20053 aspects that I have
referred to here in my comments. And in light of our dis
cussions yesterday of school capacity, I think this is espe
cially pertinent, because the first of their recommendations
—major recommendations related to the term school capac
ity, and they wanted us to make a special study highlight
ing some of the various conditions that would affect the
capacity and in essence highlighting what I suggested
yesterday, that you had to take into account mobility, at
tendance, achievement and a variety of factors, and we
did institute a study, as I recall, in two elementary schools
while I was still in office. And one was Stedman and the
other, I believe, was Greenlee. I mil not take time to
indicate that. There is in this report when you read it
considerable discussion of that.
A second and most interesting report—or recommenda
tion—related to what was variously called the cultural arts
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants—Direct
1390a
center, cultural arts program, or the academy of arts for
children. In essence what they recommended was a means
of enabling children of different cultures, and this related
to elementary schools, to become acquainted with those
cultures more directly than they ever had before, and to
become acquainted with not only children but particularly
with adults of the community of different ethnic groups.
And so we set up a center in the Gilpin School. And for
example children were transported for part of the school
[20063 day from Moore to Gilpin and they participated in
classes together with those children, and they also partici
pated in unique and special cultural programs. One of
them I remember was by a lady of Japanese ancestry play
ing a rather unique musical instrument and explaining it
to the children. There were dances. There were art pro
grams, various aspects of native culture for the children.
Q. It wasn’t limited to learning how to play the auto
harp, was it, Dr. Oberholtzer? A. It was not essentially
an attempt to teach a skill. But rather to become acquainted
with various cultural aspects of different ethnic groups.
Again in the general realm of what is called a human rela
tions program.
A third aspect of the program was entitled the Superior
School Program. And this was related especially—it was
an attempt, I suppose you would call it now in some as
pects, a compensatory program. It was an endeavor to
suggest ways—ways unusual, unique where superior pro
grams might be instituted in the schools where there were
some concentrations of minority groups. For example, in
the Negro or in the Spanish—and I remember, for exam
ple, that we as a result instituted some Spanish programs
at Baker Junior High School.
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants—Direct
1391a
Q. Was this basically for low achievers or high achiev
ers? A. This was basically for low-achieving pupils.
[2007] The fourth aspect of the advisory council report
was related to what they called educational centers in ele
mentary and secondary schools. And this was one where
I know there was considerable investigation of the possi
bility of what was then called educational parks, centers,
and some effort was made to acquire sites and some
federal land near Lowry as I recall it.
We made an extensive study of centers, but there was
no other specific action taken at that time. However, there
were applications of this idea subsequent to my time, and
I simply refer to it in the bond issue—that was offered in
the fall of 1967, I believe it was, after I had retired.
Q. The basic planning for that bond issue having been
done by you and your staff? A. The basic planning hav
ing been done, but we did try to incorporate some of their
ideas in the center in that bond issue proposal.
Q. Dr. Oberholtzer, just two small matters. Now, going-
back—I want to clarify something.
The May 6th, 1964 board meeting was a meeting where
the various major policy decisions were made and referred
to, and 5100 adopted; the boundary changes made at the
secondary level and so forth. Was action of the Board on
those various policy changes and boundary changes—was
it a unanimous decision of the Board in each instance?
[20083 A. My recollection is it was a unanimous vote.
Q. With regard to guidance—vocational guidance I am
referring to specifically—there has been considerable tes
timony here concerning vocational matters at Cole and
Manual. Were similar—were vocational guidance offer
ings made at all other secondary schools as well? A.
There were offerings at all high schools. There were vari
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants—Direct
1392a
ations among the high schools. Since yon have referred to
the vocational guidance I heard some comments yesterday
in testimony. I would like to amplify a little hit. There
was some concern expressed because of—I believe certain
unique offerings—now, pre-law, was it? . Pre-med and so
on in the twelfth grade. And I think you could easily in
fer that this was all that was offered or it was deferred
until the twelfth grade. As a matter of fact, for many
years we have had in the Denver high schools a course
in vocations which is required of pupils. And this is an
attempt to give them an idea of the fields of endeavor or
improvement, descriptions of them, and as I recall given
at about the tenth grade.
Furthermore, we had at least for many years when I
was Superintendent, with the cooperation of the State
Employment Service, vocational aptitude—or preference
tests. Interest tests, rather. Not aptitude. Interest tests
which were provided in all of the junior high schools with
the E20093! purpose of calling to their attention again
various fields of endeavor for which they might prepare
for and which they might be interested.
So I will give—I will cite only these two other instances
to show that we have been concerned for many years in
the matter of vocational preparation and of attempting to
give young people some view of this.
I ’d like to mention one other thing, that is, and that is
referred to only casually in this report, in vocational edu
cation, we instituted before I left office in the high schools
certain other experimental courses in vocations that I
think are continuing. For example, our concern in the
high schools, in vocational education, is to find the kind
of preparation—to offer the kind of preparation that
young people can use to get jobs.
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants—Direct
1393a
So many times vocational educational is given, and then
there is a gap between the education and the actual time
of entering upon a job. That kind of vocational education
is virtually useless. We tried to avoid that mistake, and
so we offered, for example, in the electrical trade—we had
courses in preparation for entry occupations in the elec
trical trades. We had another type in the basic metals
trade. We had another in the business occupations. These
are still operating in the high schools. But they have been
limited because again we had to provide special facilities
for them £2010] and we were not able to expand them in
all instances.
Mr. Ris: Thank you. You may examine.
# * # # *
£20113 * * *
* * # # #
C ross-E xam ination by M r. G reiner:
Q. Dr. Oberholtzer, when you arrived in Denver as
Superintendent of Schools in 1947, I believe you mentioned
that there were fifteen schools that had Negro teachers,
is that correct? A. I don’t recall I mentioned that par
ticular number, but there was a small number.
Q. Can you identify some of those schools for us? A.
Some of them—most of them would have been in the
central part of the city, such as Whittier.
Q. And you can think of more than just Whittier, can’t
you? Was Greenlee one? A. I don’t recall that Greenlee
was at that time, it might have been. Whittier, Wyatt,
Wyman.
Q. How about Wyatt? A. Wyatt I did mention, I be
lieve.
Q. How about Crofton? A. Probably Crofton, yes.
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants— Cross■
1394a
Q. How about Gilpin? A. Yes.
Q. How about Mitchell? A. Probably, yes.
[20123 Q. Garden Place? A. It might have been, yes.
Q. Bryant-Webster? A. I am not so certain about
Bryant-W ebster.
Q. Elmwood? A. Elmwood, probably, yes.
Q. Emerson? A. Doubtful at that time.
Q. Was Emerson predominantly Anglo in ’47? A. I
think it probably was.
Q. So I take it, then, you found—first of all, do you
recall how many Negro teachers there were in 1947? A. It
was a relatively small number, I think probably less than
fifty.
Q. Less than how many? A. Fifty.
Q. And do you recall when the first Negro teacher was
placed outside of the core city schools in a predominantly
Anglo school? A. I don’t recall precisely, no.
Q. It was about 1955 or 1956, was it not? A. It prob
ably was in the 50’s somewhere.
Q. Didn’t that happen at Mrs. Biddick’s school at that
time where she was principal? A. I don’t happen to recall
that instance.
[20133 Q. You don’t recall the circumstances? A. I
do not.
Q. I take it that you don’t deny, do you, Doctor, that
when you came to Denver you found that minority teachers
had consciously been assigned to minority schools on the
basis of their race? A. They had been assigned to minor
ity schools.
Q. Because they were minority? A. In large part be
cause they were minority teachers, yes.
Q. And when would you say that changed, that policy?
A. Well, you have already indicated one change.
Q. 1955? A. F rom there on.
Kenneth Oberholtser-—for Defendants— Cross'
1395a
Q. All right. Now, one of the reasons that you felt there
was some validity, as I understand it, in this racial as
signment of minority teachers, was because they were to
act as role models in the minority schools, is that correct?
A. This is one function, yes.
Q. Now, did you have an opinion at the time, Doctor,
as to what proportion of teachers in a minority school had
to be minority teachers in order for this Negro role model
ing function to be fulfilled? A. There was no specific
number, no.
Q. Might one black teacher have done the job? £20143
A. Not necessarily, no.
Q. Would eight black teachers have done the job? A.
I have no specific number.
Q. You said there was literature at the time, as I under
stand it, that in effect said that this was a good thing to
do? A. “This” being what?
Q. The placement of minority teachers in minority
schools. A. Yes.
Q. That literature also said, did it not, that Anglo stu
dents might benefit from Negro role models? A. Pos
sibly, yes.
Q. Possibly? A. Yes.
Q. You believe that to be the case, don’t you? A. I do
believe it, yes.
Q. And yet some seven years passed before a Negro
teacher was placed in an Anglo school? A. That’s cor
rect.
Q. Now, I take it there must have been some resistance,
then, Doctor, in the white community concerning the place
ment of black teachers in white schools, is that right? A.
I don’t know of any specific resistance.
Q. You recall the findings of the 1964 Yoorhees £20153
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants—Cross
1396a
Committee, do you not? A. Some of them, yes, in gen
eral.
Q. One of those findings was, was it not, that black
teachers have not been assigned to white schools because
there was a resistance in the Anglo community? A. At a
later date, yes. I don’t know that it referred to any specific
date.
Q. Well, the report spoke as of 1964, did it not! A.
Yes.
Q. Then the report found that there were still the con
centrations of minority teachers in the minority schools,
did it not? A. I believe it was referring to the current
time in that statement.
Q. And I believe the report also referred to the resis
tance of the principals of the Anglo schools about place
ment of Negro teachers, do you recall that? A. I recall
the reference, yes.
Q. Now, what was done during this time period between
1947 and 1955 or 1956 regarding the placement, for ex
ample, of minority principals, where were they placed,
Doctor? A. As I recall, the first Negro was appointed, I
believe, at Whittier School.
Q. And that was a predominantly minority school? A.
Minority school, yes.
[2016] Q. What year was that, do you recall? A. I can’t
recall the specific year. It was in the 50’s.
Q. Can you tell us, Doctor, when the first Negro princi
pal was assigned to a primarily Anglo school? A. In the
1960’s.
Q. Do you recall the incident? A. What?
Q. Do you recall the particular appointment? A. As I
remember, I think you are referring to the University Park
Elementary School—no, not University Park, Washington
Park.
Kenneth Oberholtser— for Defendants— Cross■
1397a
Q. Washington Park? A. Washington Park.
Q. What was the situation with regard to the assignment
of assistant principals, do yon recall when the first minor
ity assistant principal was placed in the School District?
A. I am sorry, I don’t.
Q. Do you agree that he was placed in a minority school?
A. I would agree that would have been the case.
Q. And do you recall the first instance of when a minor
ity assistant principal was assigned to an Anglo school!
A. No, I do not.
Q. Would it also have been sometime in the 1960’s? A.
Yes, it might have been in—it would have probably [20171
been in the 60’s.
Q. Now, as I understand it, shortly after you arrived on
the scene you said that a staff member had pointed out to
you a provision in the Colorado Constitution. A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall that? A. Yes, I do.
Q. Who was that staff member? A. Mr. Guy Pox.
Q. Mr. Guy Pox? A. Guy Pox, P-o-x.
Q. Was he a lawyer? A. No, sir.
Q. What was his position? A. He was director, as I
recall, then, of Pupil Personnel Services.
Q. Now, as I understand it—correct me if I am wrong—
from, the early 1920’s the School District had until your
arrival conducted an annual racial census of the schools,
had it not? A. I found that to be the case after my atten
tion was called to this, yes.
Q. And the racial census was published in the Superin
tendent’s Circular for each teacher, was it not? A. Yes,
there was an annual Superintendent’s and [2018] Secre
tary’s report. I think that was a public report.
Q. Now, do you know what use was being made of that
racial report during that time period? A. I do not.
Kenneth Oherholtser—for Defendants— Cross•
1398a
Q. Do you know why it was being compiled? A. I do
not.
Q. Now, as I understand it, you gave some orders in
1947 that that census stop, is that right? A. I did.
Q. And yet it took nine years to eradicate it, is that right?
A. It was going on without my knowledge, that is, some
reporting, but it never came to my attention, as there are
many reports that do not come directly to my attention or
to the staff.
Q. But do you know whether or not there was any dif
ference of the routing of these reports between 1947 and
1956 when you finally got them cut off and the routing that
had previously occurred? A. There must have been some
difference, and I have been thinking in my own mind to
find what happened. I do not know. And there was before I
came a department of research, and I was told that there
were some reports from that department. Now, that de
partment did not exist after my coming for more than one
or two years, but there was a Department of Budgetary
Services, and the normal routing of such material [20193
would probably be to that office, but that office never, in
the time that I was in office, made a report to me of such
statistics.
Q. Now, I recall that you said that you had a conference,
then, with Mr. Henry, who was then counsel for the School
District? A. I did.
Q. What was the subject of that conference, can you tell
us? A. The subject was the one that I have indicated,
what are the indications of the constitutional provisions,
and especially with respect to the collecting and the pub
lishing of such data.
Q. And did Mr. Henry’s firm render a written opinion?
A. He did not render a written opinion. He rendered an
oral opinion.
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants— Cross.
1399a
The Court: Just a moment. I don’t think we have
fixed the time of this conference with Mr. Henry.
The "Witness: It was in the fall, Judge, of 1947,
and I can’t name a specific date, shortly after I came.
The Court: And then you had another conference
following the decision of the Supreme Court in the
Brown case?
The Witness: We did, yes, and there were many
other conferences, hut these were—
The Court: I mean one relevant.
[2020] The Witness: Relevant to this.
Q. Calling your attention, then, to the fall of 1947, Doc
tor, do you recall how long it took for this opinion to be
rendered, did this consideration carry over some period
of time ? A. I don’t remember the length of time, but there
was within a reasonable time a response.
Q. You said yesterday in your testimony that Mr. Henry
said that he felt it would be desirable to stop the racial
census. Did he say it would be necessary, or did he say
it would be desirable? A. I can’t recall the specific word,
but the intent of his reply was that we should not continue.
Q. Now, at this time you were aware of the District’s
policy, were you not, of assigning teachers on the basis of
race? A. They were assigned to minority areas for rea
sons I have indicated before.
Q. Did you inquire of Mr. Henry whether or not the Colo
rado Constitution might apply to that kind of assignment
policy? A. No, I did not.
Q. Did you have occasion to discuss that relationship?
A. That particular relationship, no.
Q. Now, seven years later the United States Supreme
[2021] Court decided Brown against Board of Education.
Have you read that opinion ? A. I have read it.
Kenneth Oberholtser— for Defendants— Cross.
1400a
Q. And yon discussed that opinion with Mr. Henry? A.
I did.
Q. Was there a written opinion rendered on that occa
sion? A. At that time, no. There was an oral opinion.
Q. And yon were aware at the time that Brown was
decided, were you not, Doctor, that there were then existing
in School District No. 1 schools at all levels of education
that were predominantly in minority in racial composition?
A. I was aware of their general composition, yes, in that
there were so-called minority schools.
Q. Do you recall offhand, Doctor, how many such minor
ity schools there were in Denver in 1954? A. Not a spe
cific number, no. I made no particular count on such basis.
Q. Well, in considering the possible impact of the Brown
decision, didn’t you consider what it might then take, if
Brown required desegregation in Denver, wasn’t that one
of the things you considered? A. No, the opinion given
was that the Brown decision did not apply to us.
Q. So you never got that far in the process of trying
[2022] to determine what it might have taken at that time,
is that right? A. We were not then concerned because of
that opinion.
Q. Now, you were familiar, were you not, Doctor, with
the findings in Brown of the educational and psychological
damage caused minority children by their concentration in
minority schools? A. I was aware—
Mr. Brega: Just a minute, if I may. I object to
that question. The decision in Brown was rendered
upon a dual system, and that opinion states that by
legally segregating those people it does create those
problems, but this is not the situation as it existed
in Denver, nor has it ever existed by law in Denver.
Since 1893 we have had an open school policy.
Kenneth Oherholtzer—for Defendants— Cross.
1401a
The Court: I think the question was whether he
read the language in Brown and was aware of it,
that’s all, and I think it is a permissible question.
Isn’t that the thrust of your inquiry?
Mr. Greiner: That is correct, Tour Honor.
I am not sure the question has been answered.
The Witness: Will you repeat the question? I did
not think that was the trust of your question, the
last one.
[2023] Q. Now, did you read the Brown decision A. I
did.
Q. And you were familiar with the findings in that case?
A. I was.
Q. And one of those findings was of the psychological
and the educational damage done to children in those
southern systems, is that right? A. Wherever they had
separate school systems, yes.
Q. And was the basis of that decision or did you con
sider whether or not the basis of that decision at the time
was the concentrations of these minority students in all
minority schools? A. Not in that light, no, sir.
Q. Well, now, you have testified as an expert. You have
a background of psychology, is that right? A. To some
extent, yes.
Q. Did you see any basis for distinguishing the type of
damage found in Brown and the type of damage which
might occur in a northern so-called de facto setting? A.
There are possible bases, yes.
Q. What are they? A. So far as I know, there is not
in evidence—to the best of my knowledge, evidence to show
that in all instances, including the Coleman report, that
there is [20243 necessarily damage.
Q. But—well, the Supreme Court found damage. That’s
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants— Cross>
1402a:
a constitutional fact in the South, is it not! A. Again,
let me refer to the fact that they were talking- about the
separate school systems where there were concentrations.
The Court: I think his answer is that he didn’t
feel it was pertinent in relationship to the system
in Denver; that he didn’t regard the isolation per
se as the important factor. Isolation as a matter
of law he says, is the thing he felt might be damag
ing.
Q. Is that the purport of your answer? A. That was
the purport of my answer, yes.
Q. Now, there was a great deal of discussion, I assume,
among educators when the Brown decision was made, is
that right? A. There was.
Q. And I believe you said yesterday that the consensus
was that Brown would only be applied in the South, is
that right? A. At that time, yes.
Q. Were there any differing views expressed at that
time? A. Yes. Never unanimous, on subjects.
Q. Some people thought that Brown might apply in the
[20251 North as well? A. I think so, yes.
Q. Even to the so-called de facto situations? A. Some
people did, yes.
Q. Was that one of the questions that Mr. Henry ren
dered an opinion on? A. Well, may I say again, as I
have said before, his opinion was that this applied to the
de jure segregation; separate schools.
Q. Now, did you become aware at a point in time,
Doctor, and I take it that during the late ’40s, throughout
the ’50s until perhaps the dispute in 1962 about the build
ing of the proposed junior high school—throughout that
time period, if I could capsulize your policy, it was to
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants—Cross
1403a
build schools where the children were, isn’t that right?
A. In essence, yes.
Q. Did there come a time, Doctor, when you realized
that this policy was leading to more and more predom
inantly minority schools? A. It was apparent in the late
’50s that there was a movement of population into areas,
for example, where we had already built schools.
Q. Well, now, for example, since 1950—between the per
iod 1950 and 1962, it is also true, is it not, Doctor, that
many schools received additions to their [2026] facilities?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And many of the schools which received those addi
tions were at the time they received them minority schools,
were they not? A. Some of them were.
Q. Now, I’d like to draw your attention next, Doctor,
to the controversy that surrounded the 1956 boundary
changes.
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants—Gross*
The Court: Well, as a matter of fact, when they
reach a certain percentage of concentration, Doctor,
why, they just—I think your experience probably
shows that they just—if you let nature take its
course, they just go Negro. That’s all. Pretty soon
they are predominantly Negro. Do you think that
that is a justifiable conclusion? When they get
over, say, 40 percent Negro, why—and whether it’s
from neighborhood movement or what—it’s only a
matter of time?
I mean, it’s very definitely predictable that they
will be predominantly Negro?
The Witness: No, I don’t think that is definitely
predictable, Judge.
The Court: They don’t stabilize, do they?
1404a
The Witness: Some do. Some don’t. What you
have said frequently happens, but I don’t think it
happens £20273 in every case.
The Court: Not invariably?
The Witness: It happens frequently, yes.
The Court: You think that Bast High, for exam
ple, is predictably going to become a predominantly
Negro school in a very short time!
The Witness: Do I think so? No, I do not think
so.
The Court: If it’s permitted to go just the way
it is—
The Witness: No, sir, not necessarily.
B y Mr. G reiner:
Q. It’s true, is it not, that East is getting more Negro
each year? A. I think there is some increase, yes.
Q. And the Anglo enrollment this year is just barely
50 percent Anglo ? A. I ’m not acquainted with that figure.
Q. Now, first of all, with respect to the building of new
Manual, it’s true, is it not, Doctor, that Manual High
School today is the smallest high school in the district?
A. It is the smallest senior high school, yes.
Q. And it was at the time it was built, also, was it not?
A. I believe it was, yes.
[2028] Why was Manual built so small, Doctor? A.
Are you talking about new Manual or old? A. New Man
ual. A. The ne-w Manual was built in the same general
location as the old Manual and substantially the same at
tendance area. That was the reason.
Q. It was built to serve a particular community? A.
The community in that area, yes.
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants—Cross
1405a
Q. What was the composition of that community, Doc
tor? A. Negro and Anglo, largely; some Hispano.
Q. Well, you recall, do you not, Doctor, that as early
as, I believe it’s 1950—1951, that Manual was already a
predominantly minority school, do you not, about 40 per
cent black, 35 percent Hispano, 25 percent Anglo? A,
Somewhere in that neighborhood.
Q. And I assume that that neighborhood that new Man
ual wTas to serve wasn’t getting any whiter between, say,
1951 and ’53 when new Manual -was opened? A. No.
Q. It was becoming blacker, was it not? A. There was
some tendency, yes, to that.
Q. Well, it’s true, isn’t it, that when new Manual opened,
Doctor, it onfy had 77 Anglos in it?
Mr. Brega: Your Honor, I object to this line of
testimony. In 1953—that was prior to Brown and
at [2029] that time the law in the country was
separate but equal. That was all right. If that were
the case in Denver, that would not have been un
constitutional at that time. I think it’s moot and
not relevant to the issues.
The Court: Well, I think that we have been per
mitting inquiry into the history of this for various
purposes. So we will not draw the line at this point.
The Witness: Would you repeat the question,
please?
Mr. Greiner: Would the reporter read it, please?
(Question read by the reporter.)
A. I do not recall that figure.
Q. Do you recall what its Anglo composition was when
it opened? A. No, I do not.
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants— Cross•
1406a
Q. Was there any doubt in yonr mind that, when new
Manual opened, Doctor, it would be predominantly minor
ity in its composition! A. It appeared to be so at that
time, yes.
Q. So you knew that as a fact, did you not! A. I have
answered your question. I said it appeared to be so.
Q. Now, did you consider what might happen to the
racial composition of new Manual in the event you had
built it larger, for example, during the planning stages
for new [2030] Manual! A. Racial factors and ethnic
factors were not a part of our consideration in the con
struction or location of schools.
Q. And I take it your answer is the same with regard
to a possible change in the boundary between what has
been that for old Manual and that for neŵ Manual! A .
I would give you the same answer.
Q. Well, you’re not telling me, are you, Doctor, that
you were in fact, when you built Manual, building a sep
arate but equal school, are you! A. I don’t know the im
port of this question.
The Court: What he’s asking you is, just so I
think you will be aware, is whether this was built
to be a Negro school and planned as such, although
you were determined, undoubtedly, to give it equal
facilities. That’s the essence of what he’s asking you.
Mr. Greiner: That’s correct.
A. We were again building a school to house the children
of that particular area, and there was, as you have said,
a high percentage of Negro pupils in that area, yes.
Q. Well, for example, the whole curriculum at Manual
was tailored, was it not, for these minority students! A.
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants—Cross
1407a
It was tailored to the students who were attending [20311
that school, yes.
Q. And those were minority students. You don’t deny
that, do you? A. No, I’m. not denying it.
Q. Now, at the time that Manual was being planned—
and I ’m still talking about new Manual—East, was con
siderably older capacity, was it not? A. It was—1 don’t
recall specifically. I think it might have been some over
capacity.
Q. And was a projection— A. In the sense you have
determined capacity, I want to come back to that and
amplify the answer.
Q. Well, can you give me a number, Doctor, at which
the enrollment at East would have had to reach at which
point you would agree with me that it was overcapacity?
A. I cannot give you a specific number. As I indicated
to you yesterday, there was no specific number. The pro
grams were different at East and at Manual and the
achievement levels of the pupils were different and we
had a lower pupil-teacher ratio at Manual than we did at
East.
Q. My question goes to East and not to Manual. A.
I ’m talking about East. It has a higher level pupil-
teacher ratio because the achievement level was higher
and consequently it was able to house a larger number of
[2032] pupils. That’s the basic reason.
Q. And I take it the gist of your testimony yesterday,
Doctor, was that in an Anglo school such as East, its
rated capacity comes very close to its utilization figure,
does it not? A. It may or it may exceed it. Not all Anglo
schools. I’m sorry. You generalized. Not all. Some.
Q. Well, let’s talk about East. A. All right.
Q. Are you telling me then that East could afford to
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants— Cross>
1408a
house more than its rated capacity? A. It could at that
time.
Q. And that would require a pupil-teacher ratio of
about thirty, is that right? A. I didn’t say that. That
does not go with the utilization above 100 percent.
Q. Well, rated capacity is based on thirty pupils per
room, is it not? A. That’s class size. And pupil-teacher
ratio is a different matter from class size.
Q. Well, did you have team teaching at East in 1953?
A. Not necessarily. We had a lesser number of teachers
for the number of pupils, proportionately.
Q. In other words, you disagree that in 1953 East
[2033] was being overutilized? A. I didn’t say that. I
said it was capable of rendering or offering a suitable
achievement educational program and the pupils could
achieve well with a higher pupil-teacher ratio and they
were. I didn’t comment on the utilization.
Q. Well, I’m not trying to argue with you, Doctor; I’m
trying to find out whether—I mean, the school district
does use the terms overcapacity and undercapacity, does
it not, in describing enrollments at schools? A. It does
on occasion, yes. And I indicated my reservations yester
day about that and tried to explain.
Q. Well, is there some term that you would prefer
that I use to describe those two phenomena? A. No, I
don’t think you could use any other term.
Q. Well, do you have a term that you would prefer?
A. When we were talking with people about capacity
of buildings, we tried to go into the programs, as I ex
plained yesterday, and this was a matter that we usually
had to discuss with respect to a particular school. And
you cannot use a formula such as that and apply it to a
program.
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants— Cross.
1409a
This was a figure from which you worked. That’s all
it was.
Q. Now, I take it, then, that in 1953 you had some
[2034] projections in existence, did you not, as to what
the projected enrollment at East would be in the future;
what the projected enrollment at Manual would be in
the future? A. Are you referring to a specific year,
Mr. Greiner? 1953, did you say?
Q. Yes. A. It would have been normal to have pro
jections. We had annual projections for the following
year and at stated periods we did have projections for
as much as five or more years.
Q. And you recall, do you not, Doctor, that those pro
jections showed, one, that East would continue to ex
pand its enrollment year after year after year? A. This
was because— Yes, let me qualify it, also. —because
Denver was expanding to the east and southeast. And
the East High School was housing those pupils.
Q. Then you also projected that Manual would stay
at the very same pupil population, is that right ? A.
Somewhere in that, I think, relatively level population.
Q. Would you agree with me, Doctor, that with respect
to those projections at East, that at some point those
projected figures reached a number where you might agree
that East would have been overcapacity? A. Yes. We
had to make judgments of that sort. But [20351 there
was no specific number at which that occurred.
Q. So there were no standards, is that right? A. I
did not say that.
Q. No precise standards? A. I said there was no
specific number at which you made that decision, and it
varied with schools. And it did—in other words, there
was no cutoff point. You’re trying to imply that there
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants—Cross
1410a
was a specific cutoff point with each school and there
was none.
Q. But there was in fact a cutoff point for each school?
A. A decision was made in that case as it is in each indi
vidual school. But there is no point that can be applied
to all schools as I’m trying to say.
Q. Now, new Manual when it opened had a capacity
of what? About 1,600 students? A. As I recall, fifteen
to sixteen hundred; in that neighborhood.
Q. 1,525 or—- A. Something of that sort.
Q. And its enrollment when it opened was about 1,200
students? A. Here again, you’re getting* into the ques
tion of time of program and the application of the thirty
pupils per room. And using that application, the capacity
was [2036] 1,525.
Q. Yes. And the enrollment was about 1,200. A. The
enrollment actually was, I think, lower.
Q. And it was clear, was it not, from, your projection
that it was East that was going to be under the most
pressure in terms of continued increases in enrollment?
A. Yes, because of the area from which the children
were coming, the pupils.
Q. But you made no attempt at all, I believe you will
agree with me, to relieve East by using Manual, isn’t
that right? A. We did not.
Q. The Court asked the question as to what I would refer
to as a tipping point in a school, Dr. Oberholtzer, a point
at which the minority population gets at a certain point
and then just continues on until it is a predominantly
minority school. Now, are you aware of any instance in
Denver, for example, where a school had reached, say,
40 or 50 percent minority and then had a reverse, so
that the Anglo population increased from that point on?
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants—Cross
1411a
A. It was my impression that the Park Hill area—that
there were concerted efforts to create what was called an
integrated community, and I believe that there was a
change in that instance. I can’t recall specific figures
but that is my general impression.
[2037] Q. That was the result of some affirmative action
by the community? A. By the citizens of the community,
yes.
Q. And without that affirmative action, do you think
that same result would have obtained? A. It would be
doubtful, yes.
Q. Because there is no other experience in our current
recent history in Denver, is there? A. I know what you
have said is the general trend, but I know of no specific
turning point that you have referred to. I really don’t.
Q. Now, when you were planning new Manual, there
was a great deal of consultation with the school’s commu
nity, is that right? A. There was a study made and con
sultation with the community, yes.
Q. And in that community I believe you will agree it
was black and Hispano, was it not? A. A large part of it.
Q. Now, were you aware—and I take it that there were
a few Anglos, were there not, in new Manual when it
opened? A. I have made some reference to it previously.
I know there was some there. I can’t recall how many.
Q. Do you know where they lived? [2038] A. No, I
do not.
Q. Did you have any idea in 1950, ’51, ’52, and ’53 where
the edge of the Negro population was at that time? You
did, didn’t you? A. I was aware of certain general moves
of the population, but as to a specific street, no, I cannot
indicate that.
Q. You did not know whether or not there were few,
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants'— Cross
1412a
if any, Negroes living east of York or even east of Wil
liams at that time? A. What time?
Q. 1953. A. I don’t recall any specifics of that sort of
that date. No, I do not.
Q. Now, did you have a consultation with the principal
of new Manual concerning the establishment of bounda
ries for new Manual? A. There must have been such a
conference. I cannot now say definitely when. Yes, we did
have that in practically all instances.
Q. Was the subject of the eastward movement of the new
Manual boundary discussed at that conference? A. In
general, the boundaries would have been discussed, in all
directions. I don’t recall specifically eastward. All boun
daries would have been discussed.
£20393 Q. Do you recall whether the principal pointed
out to you at the time that the Anglo enrollment of Manual
could be increased by moving the boundary eastward? A.
I do not.
Q. You don’t know whether that was—A. I do not recall
any such comment.
Q. Now, the boundary for new Manual was placed—the
eastern boundary was placed what? About a half a block
from the school, mandatory to the attendance area? A.
There were two types of boundaries; one mandatory, one
optional.
Q. Was there any other senior high school in the dis
trict at that time, Doctor, that had its building right up
against its boundary line that way? A. That’s a relative
term, right up against. But, I don’t recall any as close as
that.
Q. Now, turning your attention to the 1956 boundary
changes, you mentioned that there were meetings that you
attended in the black community; for example, at a meet
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants—Cross
1413a
ing at Manual High School. Do you recall that meeting?
A. I think I did attend a meeting, yes.
Q. And there were also appearances before the school
board in its public meetings, is that correct? A. Eight.
Q. And the school board and you personally were made
[2040] aware at that time, were you not, Dr. Oberholtzer,
of the racial considerations, the racial results of the
boundary changes which you were then proposing? A.
There were some statements made about that, yes.
Q. Did you disagree with those statements? A. I didn’t
express either agreement or disagreement. My response
then was, I think, as well as I recall, that we were not
then taking into account the racial or ethnic factors in
establishing the boundaries of the schools.
[2041] Q. It was clearly pointed out to you, was it not,
what the effect of those boundaries would be, the racial
effect would be? A. There were some statements to that
effect, yes.
Q. Could you verify those statements as to whether or
not they were accurate? A. We did not have any counts
at that time of racial or ethnic population, and we did not
attempt to verify or to comment on them.
Q. Did you have any doubt of their veracity? A. I sim
ply received their statements for consideration.
Q. Is it my understanding, Dr. Oberholtzer, that you felt
that your hands were tied, that you simply couldn’t con
sider that kind of information? A. The policy of the Dis
trict at that time was not to take into account the matter
of racial and ethnic factors.
Q. Did you get an opinion from counsel in 1956 concern
ing that? A. That specific issue, no, I did not, that I
recall.
Q. Were you aware at that time of any of the desegre
Kenneth Oberholtzer— for Defendants—Cross*
1414a
gation moves that were made in the South in the Brown
decision? A. I was aware in general of some moves.
Q. You were aware of the fact that in order to desegre
gate you had to take into consideration the race of the
pupils involved? [2042] A. Yes.
Q. But again you didn’t think that that would apply in
Denver? A. That was not the policy of the District at
that time.
Q. Well, I take it that the policy of the District was
mandated in your view by the Colorado Constitution, is
that right? A. This was certainly one aspect of it, yes.
My duties, as chief executive, were to administer the policy
of the District.
Q. Was another reason, Dr. Oberholtzer, the fact that in
order to integrate or desegregate Denver Public Schools at
that time you would in essence have had to abandon the
neighborhood school policy? A. We were not then con
sidering, may I say again, any policy of what you call
desegregation or integration, because the policy of the
District was not to take into account racial or ethnic factors.
Q. I take it that during this period of time, at least,
you felt that there was no educational premise to desegre
gation or integration, is that right? A. This was not then
a factor in the determination of our policies or in the appli
cation of our policies.
Q. Now, as I understand it, the factors that were used
[2043] with respect to boundary changes were such fac
tors as capacity utilization, distance, safety, convenience of
pupils. Do you think of any others offhand? A. Natural
features.
Q. Natural hazards ? A. Hazards and such, and the type
of program in the building.
Kenneth Oberholtzer-—for Defendants-—Cross
1415a
Q. Now, when yon were present at those meetings in
1956, didn’t you find that you were being presented with
proposals which talked about alternatives to the boundary
changes which you had proposed, in terms of your own
criteria that you have just mentioned to me! A. There
were some, a few proposals, yes.
Q. For example, you recall the fact, don’t you with re
spect to distance, I believe the whole area east of Colorado
Boulevard, north of 28th, was in fact closer to Manual than
to East, is that right? A. I am sorry, would you repeat
that again?
Q. East of Colorado Boulevard, the entire area north
of 28th Avenue or Street, whichever it is. A. North of
28th I think it would be.
Q. Would be closer to Manual? A. Probably closer,
yes.
Q.And it was pointed out to you that the transportation
from that area of the city was basically east-west; in
12044] other words, that the public transportation avail
able to such schools as Manual and Cole was better than
it was to East and Smiley, is that right? A. These were
some factors, but not all factors taken into consideration,
yes.
Q. Now, was there a natural hazard that made you
hesitant about expanding Manual’s boundary to the east?
A. I don’t recall any, no.
Q. All right.
Is there any other facet of pupil convenience other
than distance that you can think of? A. Principally that.
Q. Pardon? A. Principally that.
Q. Distance and accessibility of public transportation?
A. Right.
Kenneth Oberholtger—for Defendants—Cross
1416a
Q. Well, then, what was it, Doctor, in the terms of
the criteria which you have described for me? A. A pro
gram of the school and the utilization of that school, its
capacity, that was the main reason. We felt there was
not the capacity at that school for additional pupils.
Q. Now, you knew at that time, did you not, that
eventually you would either have to add on to East or
build a new high school, is that right? A. That was one
thing in prospect, because the growth [20453 of the area
was to the east and to the south, nearest to East High
School.
Q. You just told me, though, Doctor, that north of 28th
it wasn’t closest to East High School.
The Court: He said that in another context. He
said the reason he knew he had to build a new high
school was that the largest growth was nearest to
East High School, to the east and south. He wasn’t
quibbling with you on that point.
A. I don’t intend to quibble on that point. I know that,
yes.
Q. So the basic question, then, is the question of ca
pacity utilization, is that right A. You had a high school
which was then offering a program to the pupils and
the capacity and utilization of that school appropriate
to the achievement level and the pupils in the school, yes,
that was the basic and it usually is the most important
consideration.
Q. Because the School District, I take it, throughout
this whole period was strapped for money, was it not?
A. Generally to construct buildings.
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants— Cross.
1417a
Q. So your natural inclination would have been to use
all the available capacity that there was at East?
The Court: He said it was a good school. It
had a national reputation, did it not?
[2046] The Witness: They did have a national
reputation. But again, refer to the achievement
levels of the school—
The Court: You said you wanted to make full
utilization of that facility. Wouldn’t that have been
a factor?
The Witness: This was not the primary factor.
It was because this school had a high achievement
level relatively, and they could accommodate, with
out affecting that achievement level, more pupils.
This was the basic consideration. And this, in the
reverse, was the case in Manual.
The Court: Its averages were higher than any
other school, I would imagine. I expect you wanted
to use it as a show place, too, didn’t you?
The Witness: There was no particular intent on
our part to use it at that time as a show place.
The Court: Well, to set a standard.
The Witness: It was one of the best high schools.
The Court: It was a yardstick school?
The Witness: Well, again, our policy then, as I
have indicated, I think, I am not sure, we were not
trying to compare high schools and to indicate
necessarily one better than another.
The Court: This was a fact, though, wasn’t it?
The Witness: It was a fact that the achieve
ment level at East High School was high and a
good school, yes.
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants—Cross
1418 a
B y M r. G reiner:
Q. I take it, then, with respect to [20473 the children
in Manual that you felt it would be better to keep those
children in Manual where they could get the benefit of
this lower pupil-teacher ratio? A. The policy of the Dis
trict was to offer a school to children living in different
areas and to make adjustments and to endeavor to offer
the best program we could for those children. There are
great variations in children all over the District.
Q. Now, for example, when you send a black child into
a predominantly white school, Doctor, you generally send
them from an environment in the sending school that
had a low pupil-teacher ratio into an environment where
its class size is going to be larger and the pupil-teacher
ratio is going to be greater, do you not? A. When we
send?
Q. Yes. A. That would be a fairly typical situation but
not always the case.
Q. Well, for example, the busing out at Stedman that
finally took place in 1966, that was the occasion there,
wasn’t it, that’s what happened? A. This was at the re
quest of the parents and at their option.
Q. Are you saying that those parents wTere making a
bad educational decision? [20483 A. I am saying that
they made the decision in response to the question that
you have asked me. I did not make that decision. It. is
a matter of individuals, and I cannot give you a general
class or group answer, and by and large, the children
who I think opted, I would expect them, although I can’t
recall, to be the ones who were achieving better than
others. This would be the natural inclination for them.
Q. Why do you say that? A. I say this is the natural
inclination for them to do it, because I know at that
Kenneth Oberholtger—for Defendants— Cross<
1419a
time I heard some parents express doubt as to the wisdom
of doing this, they were apprehensive about what their
children would achieve in the new schools. I heard this
expressed at the Stedman School. Not all parents were
favorable to the idea. Some of them did want to do it.
I don’t think you can generalize, as you have indicated.
Q. Well, for example, the busing out at Stedman in
1966, there were approximately how many children bused
out of Stedman? A. In 1966? My recollection is about
a hundred or so.
Q. Not all of those children were black, is that right?
A. I frankly don’t know the composition, but probably a
majority were.
Q. But also some Anglos were bussed out of Stedman?
A. Let me remind you again there was no requirement
of black or Anglo to be transported.
£2049] Q. So both blacks and whites left Stedman in
that busing program? A. The option was with the parent
without regard to race.
Q. Were there many whites left in Stedman after that
busing program was instituted? A. I do not recall the
composition of the school.
Q. Now, with regard to the Negroes, then, who were
bused out of Stedman into predominantly Anglo receiving-
schools, that was a fact, was it not? A. They were, yes,
that was the request.
Q. Now, did you make an effort, Doctor, in the receiving
schools to lower the pupil-teacher ratio into classes which
were to receive those black children? A. No, there was
no effort to lower the pupil-teacher ratio generally, as I
recall, but there was an effort made to receive them well
in the school and to try to offer them the best educational
Kenneth 0 berholtser—for Defendants— Cross:
1420a
program. I don’t recall any general lowering of pupil-
teacher ratio, no.
Q. Now, you also mentioned with respect to the bound
ary proposals in 1956 in East, Manual, Smiley, Cole pro
posals, that you had private meetings where you called
in representatives of the community, is that right? A.
I did.
Q. About how many such meetings were there, Doctor?
[2050] Let me remind you this was under consideration
for about six months. A. Yes, over a period of several
months, and there must have been at least ten different
meetings.
Q. Now, were these meetings—first of all, were there
any of these meetings that were attended by both blacks
and Anglos at the same time? A. As I recall, in each in
stance.
Q. In each instance? A. Yes. I am talking now about
the meetings in the Board room where I met with people.
Q. Bight. Now, during the course of those meetings
were there expressions from Negroes? A. There were.
Q. Were there Negroes who didn’t want Anglos to go
to Manual? A. I don’t recall that specific question or
answer.
Q. Were there Negroes who didn’t want their children
to be forced to go to East? A. I don’t recall in that con
text of being forced. I do know that there were many who
said they were pleased and wanted to remain at Manual
and didn’t want any changes.
Q. Now, were there Anglos who didn’t want their chil
dren to be forced to go to Manual? A. I don’t recall any
such instances.
[2051] Q. Then I take it there was no community senti
ment on this boundary proposal? A. There was commu
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants—-Cross•
1421a
nity sentiment, a divided sentiment, some wanting changes,
some not wanting changes.
Q. Well, did I miss some alternatives, Doctor? Whites
being forced to go to black schools, blacks being forced to
stay in the black schools, blacks being forced to go to the
white schools, the whites being forced to stay in the white
school? A. Perhaps I am confused by your emphasis upon
forced. There was no discussion of force.
Q. I am sorry. A. The question was basically your com
ments about the boundary lines and should they be changed.
There was no question of forcing people, that I recall, that
ever came up in those discussions.
Q. Well, now, did some of the people that you talked to
live in the area north of City Park? A. There was a ran
dom selection of people, as far as I recall, over the general
area affected.
Q. Between York and Colorado Boulevard, is that right?
A. There were some from that area.
Q. Did you find many black representatives from that
area, Doctor? A. I don’t recall the specific locations of
people, [2052] Negro or whites, but they were from the
general area.
Q. Do you recall that the people in that area, the racial
composition in that area—it was still predominantly Anglo,
was it not, in 1956 between York and Colorado Boulevard?
A. As well as I recall it, it would have been, yes.
Q. So that if you had moved the boundary of Manual to
the east, say, to Colorado Boulevard, you would have picked
up a lot of Anglo children, is that right? A. If we had
done that, probably we would have, but there were other
factors; we were not considering racial factors at that
time.
Q. Weren’t there Anglo parents in that area who were
concerned about the fact that if you made such a change
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants— Cross'
1422a
their children would have to go to Manual? A. There
were some expressions by Anglo and black, concerned both
ways, yes.
Q. Now, that area between York and Colorado Boule
vard after 1956 remained optional, did it not, between
Manual and East? A. A part of it did, as I recall.
Q. Now at that time there were still a great many op
tional zones scattered throughout the city at all levels of
education, is that right? A. There were several, yes.
Q. Now, as I understand it, every once in awhile you
[2053] would make a change or a revision in an optional
zone, for example, the 1956 boundary proposal was just
such a change, was it not? A. This was one, yes.
Q. Do you recall, Doctor, the fact that you would every
once in awhile make an analysis of who was going where
out of optional zones? A. An analysis not on racial or
ethnic factors but simply numbers of pupils.
Q. Yes. And you could locate those pupils geographi
cally, could you not? I mean the principals, for example,
of the two schools that might be the subject of an optional
zone, they would know what students were— A. There
would be generally what we called a spot map made by the
principal showing the location of the pupils affected.
Q. I take it that when an area which had previously been
optional, when you find that the experience was that no
one was exercising the option, then you would stop the
optional zones? A. This was a general practice, and this
was the principal reason for moving a boundary, yes, from
optional to mandatory. This would be the principal reason,
yes.
Q. Because the primary rationale of these optional zones
was to accommodate parent sentiment, was it not? [20541
A. It was basically to do that. In the case of high schools
and junior high schools primarily.
Kenneth Qberholtser—for Defendants— Cross>
1423a
Q. To give them a choice? A. Give them a choice, be
cause we found whenever we tried to set school boundaries
you usually found people on either side of that boundary
in disagreement as to wThich way it should he, and one way
of determining a decision was to make option areas, then
they could make their choice between the two schools.
Q. Now, in 1962—well, let’s look at Barrett, I guess, next.
Planning for Barrett began when, in April of 1958, is that
right? A. It was about 1958, as I recall.
Q. Do you recall at what point in time the School Dis
trict became irrevocably committed to the building of Bar
rett? What is that event? A. I am sorry.
Q. What is the event that makes you irrevocably com
mitted to a school building? A. That would be-—the
awarding of a contract to the construction would be the
last time, but we have several steps preceding that which
commits you to a school.
Q. Do you recall when the contract on Barrett was let?
A. I am sorry, I do not. I think I recall that I made a
recommendation to the Board in December of ’58 with re
gard [20553 to Barrett School. That would be where I
entered into the situation.
Q. All right. Do you recall when you first began getting
expressions of concern from the local community about the
location of Barrett? A. About the location of Barrett?
Q. Yes, sir. A. I can’t recall a specific date. It would
have been probably somewhere in that general area, ’58, ’59.
Q. In other words, at the time that you were receiving
these expressions of concern it wasn’t too late to stop the
building of Barrett? A. There were some expressions, but
not many expressions of concern.
Q. Well, it was pointed out to you, was it not. Doctor,
that when Barrett opened it would be predominantly
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants— Cross'
1424a
minority? A. There were some people who did so, yes,
not very many.
Q. You didn’t have any doubt but what that was true?
A. There was a trend, a movement of population into that
area, yes.
Q. There was a movement of black population, was there
not? A. To a large degree.
Q. For example, you knew that Columbine was pre
dominantly black by that time, didn’t you? [20563 A. It
must have been, yes.
Q. And that Harrington was predominantly black? A.
Would have been changing rapidly. Harrington and Colum
bine were contiguous north and west, I believe, at that time.
Q. Yes. And you knew that there were a great many
black children being bused out of the Harrington area down
to Park Hill Elementary School? A. There were some,
yes.
Q. There were about 200 of them, were there not? A. I
think that was the number, yes.
Q. How, who did you consult with with respect, first to
the size of Barrett? A. Well, here again we were dealing
with a specific area of land, so to speak, of the city. We
consulted—are you talking now about personnel, persons
we consulted with? The staff would have made studies of
the area and of overcrowding, the population particularly
of the contiguous school areas.
Q. How, is it true that the planning of Barrett contem
plated that children would be diverted from Harrington to
Barrett, A. As I recall, this school was built primarily
because of overcrowding occurring at Columbine and Har
rington.
Q. Was it then contemplated that some Harrington chil
dren would be sent to Barrett? [2057] A. Yes.
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants— Cross.
1425a
Q. And it was also contemplated that some Columbine
children would be sent to Barrett! A. This was the main
reason for building the school.
Q. And it was also contemplated that the optional zone
between Harrington and Park Hill would be terminated,
was it not ? A. I believe that was part of the consideration.
Q. So the busing from that area into Park Hill of these
200 children was to stop? A. We were endeavoring, yes,
to eliminate that and to find a more permanent home for the
children.
Q. Were you aware of the eastern edge of the Negro
population movement in 1958! A. I could not define any
edge, no, we had no racial counts at that time, or ethnic.
Q. Do you have a general idea? A. A general idea of
where people were located, but no specifics.
Q. You knew, didn’t you, that there were very few blacks
living east of Colorado Boulevard at that time? A. In
1956?
Q. ’58. A. ’58. I would judge there would be relatively
few.
Q. And the same condition obtained in 1959? [20583 A.
I ’m not sure about that because there were some rapid
changes occurring in the late 5Q’s and I can’t pinpoint where
or when.
Q. WTiat was the school immediately east of Colorado
Boulevard? A. There were lots of schools immediately
east of Colorado Boulevard. If you are talking about where
Barrett is located, yes, Stedman.
Q. Stedman didn’t have many blacks in it, did it, in 1959!
A. You are asking me about figures in specific schools. I
cannot recall, I don’t know, but I am just going to assume
that there would not be very many.
Q. The condition at Stedman didn’t change very radically
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants—Cross
1426a
in 1960, did it? A. Well, here again yon are asking me
about a specific school. I was aware of some rapid changes
approximately from 1958 on, and whether it affected Sted-
man I don’t recall at the moment.
Q. So with regard to the building of Barrett you were
told that when it opened it would be predominantly minor
ity, is that right? A. As I recall, it was predominantly
minority.
Q. Do you recall that very shortly after it opened it was
practically 99 percent black? [2059] A. I am sorry, I can
only give you the general impression. I did not have a
count.
Q. So with that knowledge you went ahead and built
Barrett, the knowledge of what the results would be? A.
We did not know what the final results would be. We were
aware of conditions and changing conditions.
[2060] Q. Now, by 1962 Barrett was on a very large
site, was it not? A. It was on a site intended originally
as a junior high school site.
Q. And Barrett only took up a very small portion of
that site? A. A small part of it at the southwest part,
I believe.
Q. So in 1962 you made a proposal to build a junior
high school at 32nd? A. That’s right.
Q. On what? At the area just north of where Barrett
was located? A. It would have been located at the north
ern edge of that site, yes.
Q. And do you recall when that proposal was first
made? A. For the junior high school?
Q. Yes, sir. A. That was in 1962.
Q. Was it in January? Or was it midyear or late year?
Would it help you to put it in relationship to the—
A. There was a report issued at that time, a building
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants—-Cross
1427a
£2061] report. I think you have it in your records some
where.
Q. Is that Exhibit 405? A. Would you mind my see
ing that?
Q. That’s dated February 1962. A. It would have been
a part of that report.
Q. A part of this report? A. Yes.
Q. That’s Exhibit 405? A. I couldn’t recall whether
it was January or February. But February.
Q. Now, I take it that with respect to the building of
the junior high school that you were told eventually the
same things about it that you had been told about Bar
rett, is that true? A. We were told, yes. That was sev
eral years later.
Q. Two years later? A. After the opening of Barrett.
But not after we planned Barrett.
Q. What had happened, Doctor? A. Well, as I told
you—
Q. What had happened in the interim that made your
response to the community reaction to the junior high
school differently than what your response had been to
the building of Barrett? A. Well, there was a genuine
community response in [20623 this instance. A concern
that there would be segregation if a junior high school
were built in that area. I must say when we were con
sidering Barrett there was not such a community response.
There were some individuals, but there was certainly a
divided opinion in the community at that time about
Barrett.
Q. Well, in other words, in 1962, because of a larger
community response, you felt that it was constitutionally
acceptable to take race into consideration? A. I felt that
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants— Cross<
1428a
it was advisable to give heed to their views and to re
consider the matter at that time.
Q. Did you get a further opinion from Mr. Henry at
that time? A. It was at about that time or a little later
when— This occurred at about the time a special study
committee was set up, too.
Q. Not quite, I believe. That was set up in June. A..
It was a little later. But the study committee was set
up partly as a result of differing views that were ex
pressed.
Q. I believe I asked you.if you got a legal opinion from
Mr. Henry at that time. Would you answer that ques
tion? A. I don’t recall a specific legal opinion at that
particular juncture, no.
Q. Now, when was the field trip reflected in £20633
Exhibit HM taken? Do you recall that? Do you have
that exhibit in front of you, Doctor? A. Let’s see. I
must have it. HM.
Q. Yes. That’s the transcript of notes taken. A. I
don’t seem to have the exhibit.
Q. Here we go. I’m handing you Exhibit HM, Doctor.
Does that refresh your recollection as to when the trip
was taken? A. Yes.
Q. How long was that trip? A. As I recall, we were
away about two weeks.
Q. Where did you go first? A. Philadelphia.
Q. What was the situation in Philadelphia with respect
to the racial composition of the school district there?
A. I don’t recall a special composition. But they were
much concerned because there were apparently—there
were large numbers in Philadelphia, and large numbers
of Negro pupils.
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants-—Gross
1429a
Q. Was it predominantly black by that time! A. I
don’t recall. By that you mean majority or more!
Q. Yes. A. I don’t recall the specific compositions of
any of those cities but I know there was enough to be
of great £2064] concern and they were making studies.
Q. Now, had there been any previous studies of the
problems of Philadelphia in this respect? A. By then?
Q. Yes. A. Well, they had in Philadelphia what was
called a fellowship commission that is referred to in this
report that had been apparently studying this matter over
a period of years. I don’t know how long. But for some
years.
Q. Did you talk with some representatives of that com
mission? A. Yes. There were some in attendance I met
at meetings in the superintendent’s office where there
were a variety of people present. I don’t recall specifically
who all was there.
Q. Had that commission issued any kind of an interim
report? A. There were some reports at that time. I
don’t recall whether they were annual reports or what.
Q. Were you given copies of those reports? A. We
did look at some, yes.
Q. Did you bring some back to Denver with you? A.
No, I did not, not that I recall now.
Q. Do you recall—what was the subject of that re
port? £20653 A. The subject of the reports were pri
marily in the general field of human relations; what to do
with respect to a better understanding particularly among
the different ethnic groups of the city.
Q. This was to try to break down the attitudes of dis
crimination or prejudice? A. I think primarily so.
Q. Would you say that that was its primary emphasis
rather than improving educational opportunity in Phila
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants—Cross*
1430a
delphia ? A. Well, it was related to that. It was an at
tempt to improve the school community relationships,
frankly, with respect to racial and ethnic matters.
Q. Now, in 1962, Doctor, was Philadelphia assigning
black teachers in white schools? A. I do not recall the
answer to that specific question.
Q. Do you recall asking that question at the time? A.
I don’t remember now specific questions that were asked.
We were in extended periods of discussion. I ’m sure
personnel was one of the matters, yes.
Q. Did you also discuss the assignment of administra
tive personnel who were in minority and white schools?
A. We generally discussed the areas of personnel, cur
riculum, buildings, human relations, a variety of sub
jects.
Q. All right. Anything else you recall, Doctor, about
[2066] what you learned in Philadelphia? A. Not at this
moment, no.
Q. Then where did you go? A. To New York City.
Q. Now, New York had been the subject—its school
district in Manhattan and boroughs—those school dis
tricts have been the subject of many reports, have they
not? And studies? A. Yes.
Q. Had you, before going to New York, reviewed any
of those reports which were already in existence? A. I
had been aware of some reports and New York probably
had issued more reports than any other school system up
to that time. But I can’t recall the title of a specific
report. They did have a commission on integration that
did some publications. I’m sure I must have read or
more of their reports before I went but I don’t have a
specific recollection at this moment.
Q. I take it from the resume contained in Exhibit HM
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants-—Cross<
1431a
that the scope or the direction of the New York program
was broader than just community relations, is that right?
A. It was much broader than in Philadelphia.
Q. It was broader than the Philadelphia program?
A. Yes.
Q. And it included concern with educational opportunity
[2067] in these minority schools? A. Yes. There were
a variety of subjects and the basic interest was an equal
ity of educational opportunity.
Q. And they also were considering the problem of as
signment of minority teachers in white schools, were
they not? A. That’s right.
Q. And also the assignment of minority administrative
personnel in white schools, is that right? A. They were
giving much more active consideration than Philadelphia
at that time.
Q. Well, were they giving it more active consideration
than Denver was at that time? A. Consideration of the
assignment now of people?
Q. Yes. A. Yes.
Q. Now, did you get any current reports from the New
York commission to study? A. My recollection is that
we did have some reports. But again, I can’t at this stage
remember the title.
Q. Do you know whether or not one of the subjects
of those reports of the commission on integration in New
York was whether or not there was a relationship be
tween concentrations of minority students and equality
of educational opportunity? [2068] A. I do not recall
a specific on that, no.
Q. You do recall that that was under consideration?
A. It was one of the considerations, but I do not recall
anything specific on that.
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants—Cross*
1432a
Q. And you don’t recall that they had reached any
conclusions in New York? A. At that time?
Q. Yes, sir. A. I don’t remember any, no.
Q. Anything else that you learned in New York in talk
ing with these people? A. Well, of major importance to
us was, as we looked at our situation, was their procedure
of having citizens’ advisory committees to help them as
sess the situation, to make a study. Also, their employ
ment of a specialist in this area, in the staff, and these
were two major recommendations. We were looking es
sentially for procedural ways of looking at our situation;
how they looked at their situations, what they had done.
And these were two major things we brought back from
New York.
Q. New York, relatively, has a high population of
Puerto Ricans, does it not? A. It does, yes. Manhattan
does. I think Manhattan does.
Q. Did this interest you? Did you see any parallel
[2069] between the Puerto Rican problems in New York
and the Hispano problems of Denver? A. The question
again was, did I see any relationship or what?
Q. Yes. A. There were discussions, as I recall, dur
ing our visit there and I was aware of—-yes, of Hispanos
in Denver, and in New York the Puerto Ricans there.
They’re not in Denver, however. I think you have quite
different situations in New York than you have in Denver.
Q. So you didn’t see that you could learn anything
that might have utility in Denver with respect to New
York City experience? A. Here again, I want to reem
phasize what I said just a moment ago. We were trying
to find procedures and ways of studying the situation
and what we ought to do; not primarily substantive mat
ters that you’re referring to.
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants—Cross
1433a
Q. But substantive matters were not ignored? They
must have come up in these conversations. A. That’s
right. And we took that into account. But my comments,
if you will note, with respect to the board, were related
only to the procedural matters, and that is what this re
port is.
Q. Yes. I noted that. Now, then, did you go to De
troit? £20703 A. We did.
Q. And how long did you spend in Detroit? A. I don’t
recall, several days.
We spent several days in each case.
Q. You don’t recall what the racial composition of the
Detroit school district was in 1962? A. I do know there
was a substantial number. I can’t recall the composition.
Q. You don’t know whether it had sprung over the 50-
percent minority at that time? A. I could not testify as
to that, no.
Q. Detroit was also studying its problems? A. It was.
Q. And had there been any interim or final reports by
its study group? A. Well, there were two reports referred
to in my statement; one was the general citizens advisory
committee on school needs and out of that was set up a
study committee on equality of opportunity.
Q. Pardon me. Which one was the Bomney Committee!
A . That was the first one set up in 1957. The citizens ad
visory committee of the school, chaired by Mr. Bomney,
and this was to take a look at the school needs of the city
generally. They had five subject committees and, in a
large way, we finally fashioned our so-called study [2071]
committee after the Detroit experience. They had, growing
out of this so-called Bomney Committee, appointed another
committee which did a special study with respect to
Kenneth Oberholtger—for Defendants— Cross<
1434a
equality of opportunity, and that was the one that we were
mainly interested in because it related to our question.
Q. Was the subject committee operating at the same
time with the base committee that was operating? Is that
right? A. You’re talking about the five subject commit
tees referred to in this report?
Q. Yes. A. This came at a later date. You see, the first
committee was appointed in 1957. The second committee
was appointed in 1960. And this is the one appointed on
equal educational opportunity. It is the one that had the
five subject committees, if you’re looking at the report. It
shows at the bottom of Page 3. And then continues over to
Page 4.
Q. Now, had that committee that was studying equality
of educational opportunity in 1962 issued any kind of a
report? A. As I recall, there were several reports which
we looked at in the assistant superintendent’s office.
Q. Did that report find a relationship between inequality
of educational opportunity and concentrations [2072] of
minority students?
Mr. Brega: Object to the question. It calls for a
hearsay answer.
The Court: Overruled.
# * * # &
£2073] * * *
C ross-E xam ination by M r. G reiner (Cont’d ) :
Q. Dr. Oberholtzer, this morning we were discussing the
standards that the School District was employing, namely,
that in certain of the schools of the District it was felt that
because of the programs being carried on in those schools
a lower teacher-pupil ratio was required. Do you recall,
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants—Cross*
1435a
Doctor, when you first lowered the pupil-teacher ratio at
Manual, was it done for old Manual? A. There was no
particular stage at which you said there will be lower. As I
recall, there was a gradual lowering of the pupil-teacher
ratio.
Q. Was the lowering process of the pupil-teacher ratio
at Manual still in progress when you left as Superinten
dent? A. Yes. The most recent principal, Mr. Ward, had
requested further lowering.
Q. Do you recall when the lowering began? A. I can’t
remember any specific date, no.
Q. Do you recall when the District formulated the policy,
[2074] when it made the determination that it would he
advisable to lower the pupil-teacher ratio in these low-
achieving schools? A. This was one of the early determi
nations when I came to Denver, and I think there had been
some recognition of that prior to my coming, but not as
much as subsequently.
Q. Now, were there schools at the time of your departure,
Doctor, which had achieved what you believed to be the ap
propriate pupil-teacher ratio? I am talking still about the
low achievement schools. A. Appropriate to particular
schools. Again, there was no formula. It was an individual
matter.
Q. Can you identify some of those schools for us? A.
Well, we were working toward that—certainly one of the
most recent studies that I recall was at Stedman School.
Q. Do you recall what the ratio had been at Stedman
before this policy began to be implemented? A. I can’t re
call a precise figure, but it must have been between 25 and
30, and we were endeavoring to get it below 25.
Q. That was over a relatively short period of time, was
it not, since Stedman, say, in 1960 was still a predominantly
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants— C ro ss
1436a
Anglo school? A. Are you making an observation or a
question?
Q. Well, did the program begin sometime after Stedman
became a predominantly minority school? [20753 A. The
particular program I am talking about came as the result
of the recommendations of the advisory council.
[2076] Q. So that would have been sometime after the
spring of 1964 ? A. After 1967.
Q. Ob, after ’67? A. After ’67 I’m talking about. This
particular marked reduction.
Q. All right. Can you identify any other schools where
at the time of your departure you felt that the pupil-teacher
ratio had been reduced sufficiently? A. Well, we were in
the process of doing this at the Greenlee School, as I re
call, and the pupil-teacher ratios were approximately the
same.
Q. Now, as I understand it, is it fair to say, Doctor, that
your overall objective in these low achieving schools was to
get the ratio down at least as low as twenty-five to one?
A. Twenty-five or below, preferably.
Q. Now, as I recall the statistics published by the school
district in 1968, and I have reference to an exhibit in evi
dence, Exhibit 83, some of the schools in the district had
pupil-teacher ratios significantly below twenty-five to one.
Is that correct? A. Some did.
Q. Some were as low as sixteen to one? A. Sixteen,
seventeen; in there, yes.
[2077] Q. And the ratios for example at Moore and
Morey and Cole were quite low, were they not? A. They
were relatively low. And the situation at Morey is unique
in that it was also a special education center for junior
high schools.
Q. Well, as I understand it, special education teachers
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants—-Cross
1437a
and pupils were not included in those ratios, were they,
generally ?
Mr. Bis: If the Court please, I think it’s only
fair to the witness—if he’s referring to—if counsel
is referring to a specific exhibit, that the witness be
given an opportunity to see the exhibit.
Mr. Greiner: I’m asking in general whether special
education was considered.
Mr. Bis: May I finish my objection? To see
whether the matter that he is referring to is as
stated in that exhibit.
The Court: Well, if there is some particular in
formation that you have at hand, you might call it to
Ms attention. It would save time that way, I think.
The Witness: Let me answer your question to this
extent, that the attempt at Morey—I know was to
reduce significantly the pupil-teacher ratio.
Q. I’m handing you what’s in evidence for example as
Exhibit 83 and at the back that represents pupil-teacher
[2078] ratio data, in rank order. I am showing you the
page that lists the junior high schools. Do you know
whether or not that statistic as it appears in Exhibit 83 in
cludes special education pupils and teachers ? A. I do not,
no. This was in 1968.
Q. What was the practice while you were superintendent ?
A. I think generally that it was not the practice to include
it.
Q. Now, I take it, Doctor, that some of the schools which
were the subject of this lower pupil-teacher ratio have been
low achieving schools for a number of years. I’m talking
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants— Cross.
1438a
principally now about the core city schools. A. Relatively
speaking, yes.
Q. What do you mean, relatively speaking? A. Rela
tively low.
Q. Well, they were the lowest in the city, were they not?
A. Some of them—One has to he the lowest.
Q. That’s a good point, Doctor; hut, on the average, they
were all below the city average, wTere they not ? A. Most of
them were.
Q. In the core area? A. Yes.
Q. And you started the triennial testing program in 1950',
is that right? [20793 A. We started it in 1950, yes.
Q. And you had been testing—I suppose you were testing
for achievement after your very first year here as superin
tendent, is that right? A. The triennial program was in
troduced in 1950, but individual schools had their own test
ing programs aside from that.
Q. When did you first become aware of the identity of
some of these lower achieving schools, Doctor? A. Notably
in 1950, with the first triennial survey.
Q. Now Doctor, I take it that you reviewed the results of
this triennial program every three years, is that correct?
A. We did.
Q. Did you find, Doctor, that this lowering of the pupil-
teacher ratio had any significant impact on raising achieve
ment in the schools ? A. I t did have an impact and through
the years there was some improvement in the schools.
Q. Would you say, Doctor, that the achievement was up
to grade level in those schools? A. In terms of the stan
dardization achievement tests generally, no.
Q. Well, I take it the situation at Manual was similar,
was it not, when we compare the achievement, for example,
of [2080] old Manual with the achievement of new Manual?
Kenneth Oberholtser—-for Defendants—Cross
1439,a
A. Well, the achievement of old Manual I don’t recall. We
began as I said the triennial survey in 1950. That would
be the first results.
Q. I guess that would have been the only result that you
would have been familiar with of old Manual? A. The only
one, yes, and it was relatively low.
Q. And then it was still low when you left the school
district, was it not? A. It was still low but there was im
provement in the achievement of the pupils.
Q. Was it up to grade level? A. No.
Q. Now, I’d like to call your attention to the boundary
changes which were proposed in 1962 for the Park Hill area
elementary schools. Do you recall that, at least initially,
there was a proposal made to relieve overcrowding at
Stedman Elementary School as one of those changes? A.
You’re talking now, I think, about the matter that was
brought up yesterday in testimony in which, I believe, there
was some question as to whether there were proposals
anticipated in 1962 or 1964.
Q. That’s right. And the thrust of my question, Doctor,
is whether there was an initial proposal and for some reason
it was changed, or whether there never was such £20813 a
proposal? A. No, the intent—I think the intent was to
make the proposal for 1964, not for 1962.
Q. Now, do you recall whether or not it’s true, Doctor,
that in 1962 Stedman was the most over-utilized of those
Park Hill schools? A. I do not recall that point.
Q. Would you accept the fact that there is evidence in
this record of that fact? A. Of what schools now are we
talking?
Q. Talking about Smith, Park Hill, Philips, Hallett and
Stedman.
Kenneth Oherholtser—for Defendants—Gross
1440a
Mr. Ris: If the Court please, I think, if there is
evidence to this effect, whatever the exhibit is, the
witness should be furnished with it.
The Witness: I would like to see the evidence, if
there is such.
The Court: Well, he may if you have it.
The Witness: I don’t recall that.
Q. I’ll try to find that for you in just a moment, Doctor.
The Court: You’re talking about overcapacity—
or population in excess of rated capacity?
Mr. Greiner: Yes, and my question goes to—
The Court: At Stedman, more than the other
[2082] schools?
Mr. Greiner. I t’s Exhibit 51.
Q. This is Exhibit 51, which is in evidence, which is a
bar graph purporting to show the capacity utilization in
1961 at Stedman, Smith, Hallett and Park Hill. Now, at
least according to that exhibit, which is in evidence, Sted
man was the most overcapacity, is that correct? A. This
exhibit shows that, yes.
Q. And do you know, also, Doctor, whether or not Sted
man also had the highest Negro population at that time of
those schools shown on that exhibit? A. I could not testify
to that effect, but it was probably so because of its location.
Q. Now, if I understand what you have been telling us,
Doctor, a school which is over-utilized and has minority
population—significant minority population, it in effect gets
over-utilized faster than a school that doesn’t have minority
population. Isn’t that true? A. It would be generally so,
yes.
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants—•Cross
1441a
Q. Well, can you explain then why the decision was made
not to—why Stedman wasn’t proposed for immediate relief
in 1962, if that’s what the fact was? A. I ’m trying to re
call, hut I think there was some reduction in Stedman con
templated later. And we contemplated some changes in
1964.
[2083] Q. That is correct, but my question is, why wait
two years?
The Court: If you remember.
A. I don’t recall the reasons, frankly, at this time.
Q. Now, I believe you recall the subject of the actions
taken at Harrington, Columbine and Stedman Elementary
Schools? A. When?
Q. I believe that was in 1951, the school year begin
ning 1952. A. We have talked about several situations.
I am not sure.
Q. Do you have any recollection of what the reasons
for those changes in the boundaries was? A. In ’51-’52?
Q. Yes. A. I am sorry, I don’t recall.
Q. But you do recall telling me, do you not, Doctor,
that optional zones were not one of the devices used by
the District to relieve overcrowding? A. That’s a gen
eral policy, yes.
Q. You mentioned the opening of a parochial school
near Smith, and I don’t believe that the record shows
when that school was opened. Do you recall? A. It was
opened, I believe, in the early 1960’s. I can’t give you a
precise date.
[2084] Q. And do you recall that Smith was built in
1955? A. Yes.
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants— Cross•
1442a
Q. And the addition that you had reference to in your
testimony was built in 1957, was it not? A. That’s right.
Q. So by the time 1964 rolled around, both of those
events that you have described had already taken place?
A. I believe that is correct, yes.
Q. Now, handing you what has been marked for iden
tification Exhibit 245, which is a newspaper clipping, I
wonder if that refreshes your recollection, Doctor, as to
whether the school District, and this speaks as of 1952,
owned any other School sites east of Colorado Boulevard
that might have been used for the Park Hill area? A.
Are you referring now to an elementary school site?
Q. You built Barrett on the junior high school site so
I guess no, I don’t limit my question to that. Any school
site. A. There were some in existence at that time, yes,
east.
Q. And where were they? A. This map doesn’t show
any street designations.
Q. It shows— A. I am sorry, it does indicate 35th
and Dahlia, 36th and Jasmine.
[20851 Q. 36th and Jasmine is where you ultimately
built Smith, did you not? A. That would be the Smith
School, yes.
Q. Now, you also mentioned, I believe, Doctor, that in
the May 6, 1964 Board meeting quite a few important
policies were passed by the School Board in response to
the 1964 study committee report; do you recall that?
A. I do, yes.
Q. Now, one of the recommendations of the study com
mittee report—or can you tell me whether one of the
recommendations concerned the use of transportation to
relieve overcrowding? A. There was such a recommen
dation and a policy recommended.
Kenneth, Oberholtzer—for Defendants— Cross.
1443a
Q. Now, you have reference, do you not, to Policy 1226A,
which I will show to you? It is identified as Plaintiffs’
Exhibit 34. I believe it is over on the second page, is it
not, designated multiple pupil transfers? A. Yes.
Q. Just so the record is clear, Doctor, I’d like to point
out to you that that particular provision was not passed
until February 2nd, 1966, was it? If you will note the
reference on the first page of the exhibit. A. This policy
is effective February 3, yes.
Q. 1966? A. ’66, correct.
[20861 Q. So you agree we do have the May 4, 1964,
Board minutes identified as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 32, and
I think that if you would look there you would find there
is no reference in the 1964 meeting* to this provision.
A. I will take your word for it. I didn’t think so.
Q. Now, if that policy had been recommended, Doctor,
in March of 1964, why did it take some two years before
the Board adopted it as policy, do you recall? A. I do
not recall any specific reason for that, no.
Q. Now, you have on your desk in front of you two of
the defendants’ exhibits, I believe, that deal with com
pensatory education expenditures. I have reference to
Exhibits EM and EN. Do you have those? A. Yes, I
do. I have EN and EO.
Q. All right, we will take those, then. EN purports to
show the expenditure of federal funds in junior high
schools, is that correct? A. From ’68 to ’69. That was
after my date.
Q. Were there any federal funds being spent in junior
high schools during your tenure on such programs? A.
My recollection is that there were some, yes. The Edu
cation Act was made effective at an earlier date, during
the period when I was Superintendent.
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants—-Cross
1444a
Q. That was what, about 1965! A. I was thinking it
was a little earlier. Might have E 2087 3 been ’65, ’64, in
that neighborhood.
Q. We are talking about the elementary and secondary
schools! A. ESEA, right.
Q. What were the criteria for receiving federal funds,
Doctor ? First of all, did the District have to put up match
ing funds to qualify for this assistance! A. I don’t re
call that there were matching funds there. I think there
were two basic requirements. First of all, you could not
apply for funding unless the school was within the desig
nated target, so-called target area, which was essentially
an area of low income families.
Q. What did you use, the 1960 census data to determine
that! A. My recollection is they were using the ’60
census figures at that time, and the other was that you
could not use funds in lieu of or in substitution for any
programs that you had. They had to be either in addition
to or new programs. Those were the essential criteria.
Q. In order to continue the funding for a given pro
gram in a school, would you have to submit any kind of
an evaluative report on the program to the federal gov
ernment! A. There were some requirements in connec
tion with the application. You did have to have a plan
of evaluation, yes, sir, testing and such.
[20881 Q. How often did you have to send in these
evaluations! A. My recollection is that that was an annual
matter.
Q. I take it that some of these programs were abandoned
because the evaluation did not show the improvements which
had been anticipated? A. There was no abandonment that
I recall during my tenure.
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants—Cross
1445a
Q. Well, did these federal programs work in raising
achievement? A. There was some increase in achievement,
but generally not significant changes in achievement.
Q. Now, in addition— A. Let me qualify, please.
Q. I am sorry. A. For some of the programs. Because
I want to point out that there were some programs where
there were significant differences. May I add that?
Q. Certainly. A. One of the most significant programs
was one that we instituted in the way of summer school
opportunities for elementary school children in the low-
achieving areas, and my recollection is that they were run
about six weeks and we had those centers in various parts
of the city, and we concentrated on the reading program at
first and we’d spend the entire morning, for example, simply
on reading, which meant we were [2089] spending from
two to three hours on reading only, and the results of those
programs were significant. We did have achievement levels
raised during a six-week period, as I remember, all the way
from one to two and more years reading level. It demon
strated to us the necessity of concentrated programs, par
ticularly in the basic subjects, and thereafter we did make
some adjustments in time in the regular program. And
where we were able to do that we did get some differences,
significant differences.
Q. Now, do you recall how many students participated
in that summer reading program? A. I can’t recall be
cause it started with a relatively small number of centers,
as I remember, five or six centers, and expanded, and there
would be, I think, two or three rooms at a center, and the
general practice was to have groups of, my recollection is,
15 to 20 children, a relatively small group, and concentrated
time available for study. We later instituted programs in
arithmetic. The first programs were in reading.
Kenneth Oberholtzer-—for Defendants—Cross
1446a
Q. That was a District Y program, was it not! A. This
was in various parts of the city, wherever there were low-
achieving groups in schools, and we were trying to put them
in centers where it would be relatively convenient for them
to come to it from their homes.
Q. Did you find that it was possible to re-create the
[2090] summer school situation in the regular classroom?
A. It was feasible to create it in some instances, and we
did endeavor to reduce the class sizes, more especially in
the lower elementary school grades.
Q. Did you find that the children retained, Doctor, their
increased achievement levels in reading? A. Unfortu
nately, there is a rate of forgetting as well as a rate of
learning, and there was, in many instances, a rapid rate of
forgetting as between the close of that period and the open
ing of school. So we did institute, as the result of that, some
changes, with more concentrated efforts on the part of the
teachers and the schools in the beginning of the school year
to overcome the deficiencies.
Q. Do you recall during your last year in office, Doctor,
approximately how much in the way of theses federal ESEA
funds were received by the District? A. I am sorry, there
was a substantial sum, but I can’t recall the amount.
[2091] Q. Well, for example, EM shows that in 1968-69
some $601,000 was spent on secondary schools—pardon me,
the elementary schools. Do you recall whether during your
tenure similar amounts of money were being spent! A. In
elementary schools?
Q. Yes. A. My recollection is that there was a lesser
amount. I’m not positive about that. The figure of six
hundred thousand sticks in my mind as a recommendation
and I can’t put it in point of time.
Q. Now, did you ever make any determination of the
Kenneth Oberholtger—for Defendants—Cross
1447a
cost per student of this type of program? A. There were
some determinations—now, this type of program? Are we
talking about the regular program in the school year?
Q. I ’m sorry. I ’m talking about compensatory programs
that were undertaken in the schools. A. During the school
year?
Q. Yes. A. There were some cost figures but I don’t
have them in my mind, frankly. If you were going to ask
me about them, I can’t recall. They were substantially
larger. But generally speaking, those programs would run
in the neighborhood of 51 percent or more per pupil above
the normal average cost.
[2092] Q. What is the normal average cost ? A.
When?
Q. Well, let’s take your last year in office. A. It varied
as between elementary, junior and senior high schools.
Q. Well, if you recall, why don’t you give it to us for
each level? A. Well, it would have been on the order of,
I suspect, around five hundred dollars for elementary,
six hundred for junior and seven hundred for senior high
schools. Something of that order. That would be the
relative order of it.
Q. How much was it at the elementary level? A. I
thought around five hundred. It might be-—might have
been less.
Q. Then you’re saying that the federal programs in
fused another $250 per student? A. That would be gen
erally the case in those programs.
Q. Do you know whether or not there was a great
decrease in per-pupil expenditure after you left from the
federal program? A. No, sir, I do not know.
Q. For example, EM, which you now have in front of
you, shows that in the selected 20 minority schools there
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants— Cross<
1448a
was a little over a half million dollars spent, is that right!
£2093] A. Well, for the year 1968-69, yes.
Q. And there were approximately 13,000 students in
those schools which would come out to he about forty
dollars per student, according to my arithmetic! A.
Well, let me just remind you that the program was not
applied equally to all students. There were selected pro
grams within those schools. This isn’t a grand total
for the school. You had programs within the schools.
Q. I see. So far any given program you might only
have a selected number of students participating, is that
correct? A. That’s correct. You would have those that
were deficient in achievement, would be the general rule.
It didn’t apply equally to all pupils.
Q. Now, I wasn’t sure what your response meant, Doc
tor, and I ’d like to clarify it with respect to the busing
out at Stedman to relieve overcrowding there. Did you
say that there was no integrating purpose behind that
busing out! A. There was at that time some idea of that
purpose, yes. We’re talking about 1964 now?
Q. 1960—
The Court: 1966.
Q. 1966, I believe. A. Yes. That was one of the ele
ments in it.
£2094] Q. Then why were Anglo students allowed to
be bused out? A. Because at that time we were not
making a distinction in any school in the matter of trans
portation as to whether he was Negro or white. And we
gave them the option of going. This was then a voluntary
matter on the part of the parent.
Q. During your tenure, was it always voluntary? A.
It was always voluntary.
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants—Cross
1449a
Q. Had you set some sort of a goal for the number of
students that you wanted to get out of Stedman? A. We
had not at that time set goals of that nature, no.
Q. Subsequently, did you1? A. No.
Q. Now, at the time of the junior high school proposal
in Northeast Denver, that was in 1962, there was also
then under consideration a series of changes in the at
tendance areas between Morey, Cole and Byers, were
there not? A. I believe there were, yes.
Q, And do you recall that there was opposition to those
changes on the basis of the racial results which might be
achieved by them? A. I think there were such comments,
yes.
Q. Now, was this about the same time that you were
[2095] considering the junior high school in Northeast
Denver? A. In the relatively same period of time, I
believe.
Q. Was there as much opposition to those junior high
school boundary changes as there was to the proposal to
build a new junior high school? A. I do not recall. I
can’t state a proportion.
Q. But the same factors were being mentioned? A.
Similar, yes.
Q. And can you recall why you decided, Doctor, not
to build the junior high school on the one hand but that
you did decide to go ahead and make the boundary changes
on the other? A. We were faced with the situation in the
one instance of an immediate action, and the other of a
long period. The construction of a new high school is
different—quite a different matter than changing a bound
ary line, and we were confronted then with the matter of
the relative capacity of the schools and the programs of
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants-—Cross•
1450a
the schools. This was a matter of concern then. And we
were not concerned with the racial or ethnic factors.
Q. Well, yon were concerned with those factors up at
that 32nd location. A. We were not intially concerned.
May I remind yon, it became a part of our concern in
subsequent time.
Q. Yesterday you mentioned as the most important
[2096] factor affecting achievement, Doctor, something
you called native ability. What is native ability? A. I ’m
talking here of what is generally reflected as the ability,
the intellectual ability in this instance, to do school work;
the capability of a child. You call it brightness; intelli
gence and such. This is a general term.
The Court: I think he wants to know what the source
of it is according to your belief.
A. Well, I ’ll be glad to—
The Court: Is it inherited? Is it a product of the
exposure to educated parents? I think you indi
cated that.
A. Well, I have indicated, I think, that I felt that there
were some innate capacities in terms of intelligence, but
I do not confine it to that. I think there are many im
portant environmental influences, though it’s a combina
tion— What a child is able to do is a combination of
these factors.
The Court: Does that answer your question?
Mr. Greiner: Not quite, Your Honor. I ’d like
to pursue it just briefly if I might.
Q. I take it then that native ability is something you’re
born with, is that right? A. That’s the intent of that
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants—Cross
1451a
statement, yes. You £2097] are born with certain genes
with respect to the color of your hair and your eyes and
your physical makeup and you are also with your intelli
gence.
Q. Now, are yon familiar—I think you said it’s called, I
think the Jensen Report? A. I am in general familiar with
it.
Q. Is that what you have reference to? A. No, I do not
agree with the Jensen Report.
Mr. Greiner: I have no further questions, Your
Honor.
C ross-E xam ination hy M r. B r e g a :
Q. Doctor, I’d like to ask you a few questions about the
1956 boundary changes at the time that you had Hill Junior
High opened and then the contiguous areas changed.
The Court: The series of junior high boundary
changes? Is that what you’re referring to?
Mr. Brega: Yes.
Q. I think we have had an inference here that the only
change that was of any concern was the Cole-Morey-Byers
change. And I ’d like to know if, during this period of time,
in 1956 at the time these changes were being considered,
whether all of these areas were involved. In other words,
did they all come out of Hill? Is that where they started?
A. The reason for the considerations at that particular
E2098] arose from the opening of the new Hill Junior High
School. That was the beginning. "When you make a change
in one situation, you also affect other represented situations
that are contiguous. But it also afforded the opportunity
for considering other situations.
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants— Cross-
1452a
Q. Well, I gather then that, had Hill not have been opened
at that time, there probably would not have been any other
boundary changes in Cole and Morey and Byers? A.
That’s probably so, yes.
Q. In other words, the Hill construction was what caused
you to think about these other boundary changes? A.
Eight.
Q. And at the time these changes came up I presume that
you published these for the general populace of Denver to
see what you intended to do? A. As I recall, they were
rather widely reported, yes.
Q. You weren’t trying to hide the fact that you were go
ing to make any changes? A. No. All such proposals are
made at a public meeting of the Board of Education at the
regular or special meetings, and they are subsequent to
press comment and other kinds of public comment and in
formation.
Q. Now, regarding the type of information that was pre
sented to you about how the Cole-Morey changes would
affect the racial balances of the schools, did anyone pre
sent [2099] figures to you of the percentage of blacks or
whites being taken out of any one of the areas, for instance,
in the Cole-Morey change? Did anyone come up and say,
“You’re going to take 75 percent of the black students out”
or— A. I don’t recall any such figures. We had no studies
with respect to that, I ’m certain of. But whether we were
presented with them, I don’t recall specific figures, no.
Q. To the best of your recollection, then, is that people
were just talking about generalities of what would happen?
A. That’s my present recollection, I would guess.
Q. And there were several different groups that were
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants—Cross
1453a
advocating different positions, I presume, at those meet
ings? A . Are we now talking about 1956?
Q. Yes. A. It is my recollection that there were several
viewpoints yes, as to that.
Q. And, if I am correct, you mentioned that there were
blacks wTho were in favor of the changes and blacks who
were opposed to the changes at the Cole-Morey site? A.
Well, if you are now referring to the series of meetings
that I held in the Administration Building, yes. This was
so.
Q. And these people really represented their own [2100]
interests? In other words, rather than as a community
interest to you? A. We were endeavoring to get a ran
dom sampling of people in various geographical parts of
the area affected, though they were not representative of
any groups so far as I know; only of themselves.
Q. Now, you mentioned in this regard that at this time
you were not considering the racial factor in your chang
ing of boundaries, and I just would like to touch on that
a moment.
Does that mean that you were treating all of the races
and ethnic groups equally in your determination of these
boundary changes? A. I simply meant that this was not
a factor in our considerations.
Q. In other words, you were dealing with pupils regard
less of what their background was? A. Simply dealing
with numbers of pupils, not with respect to their racial or
ethnic factors.
Q. And at the time of these 1956 boundary changes, did
you have any studies that indicated proposed mobility of
the black community in this part of Denver? A. Studies
of such?
Q. Yes. A. I do not recall any such studies. We had no
[2101] studies based on race or ethnic factors.
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants—Cross
1454a
Q. Did anybody present any studies to you at the time?
A. I don’t recall any.
Q. I would like for you to consider in this light—in light
of what you thought or knew at that time, rather than what
we have now to us—the facts that we now have—in con
sidering the Barrett site, did anyone present a study to
you indicating what the percentage of black and white stu
dents was on the east side of Colorado Boulevard? A. I
don’t remember any such studies, no.
Q. And did you have any of your own? A. I did not
have.
Q. Did you have any idea that the black population on
the east side of Colorado Boulevard would increase from
1960 to 1966 at the annual rate of 67 percent a year? A.
We had no statistics or no predictions of such.
Q. In the exhibits before the Court it indicates between
1963 and 1968 that the population of the black students in
the Denver Public Schools increased 45 percent. Did you
have any idea that that was going to happen? A. We had
some idea of a probable increase but not of a percentage.
And this again was a general figure.
Q. Now, at the same time that you were dealing with
these problems in 1966, Stedman, Smith and that area, the
[2102] school situation in Denver was such that most of
your schools were overcrowded at that time, were they not ?
A. (No answer.)
Q. Let me refresh you. The 1967 report—it indicates
that in 1966 fifty-three percent of all schools in Denver
wore overcrowded during that year. A. If you are using
this formula—and they did use that formula—I don’t have
a specific recollection of figures.
Q. Well, what I ’m getting at—is the only problem you
were facing in the Denver area—was it just Northeast
Kenneth Oherholtser—for Defendants—Cross.
1455a
Denver? A. Well, there were relative degrees of over
crowding. When you take this figure now—I think you’re
probably taking the so-called rated capacity and anything
above that rated capacity would be considered overcrowd
ing. Is that what you’re talking about?
Q. Yes. Would that same condition have existed in
Southwest Denver and Southeast Denver and other parts
of the city? A. It was rather general over the city. It
was not confined to any one. But there were certain areas
where it was more marked than others. At that time the
Northeast area was one of the most crowded.
Q. Now, you mentioned that there were several steps
[2103] before the letting of the contract in Barrett that
actually committed you to the site. Would you tell us what
you mean by that? A. Well, as a general rule, the steps
are the superintendent or some member of his staff rec
ommends that plans be made for a new school at a par
ticular location. And the first step is to draw up some
preliminary plans. Ahead of all this recommendation are
some other steps. But insofar as the specific board ac
tions, these are the steps. Then the preliminary plans are
presented for consideration before the Board of Educa
tion. It either approves or rejects or it defers. Then there
is an authoriaztion at that time to proceed to working
drawings and the final plans.
The next step upon completion of those is to receive
bids for the construction of the approved final plans. There
is a time when those final plans are approved. The final
step is to receive the bids for the construction of the school
and to act upon them. Then you are committed to the
school.
[2104] Q. And when you were involved in the considera
tion of Barrett did the staff investigate the traffic count
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants—Cross’
1456a
on Colorado Boulevard as one of its important aspects?
A. This would be in general one of the aspects of our
consideration in the environment, streets and such.
Q. And did it— A. I would have to answer yes, it
must have been a part of it. I have no specific recollection
of count as such.
Q. And you also, I presume, then, were studying the
new construction that was taking place or going to take
place on Colorado Boulevard? A. Yes.
Q. I believe the 1967 report indicates—excuse me.
The Court: Advisory?
Mr. Brega: No, I had the wrong one.
Q. In your consideration of the 1964 report, the Voor-
hees report, and you made those assignments out to the
staff, the staff, as I understand it, filed a report with the
Board of Education that “The busing of large numbers of
students back and forth across the city to achieve racial
balance would maximize to a serious extent the school’s
strangenesses and emotional strains of those students.”
A. May I see that?
Q. Yes (handing document to the witness).
Mr. Greiner: Is that an exhibit?
[2105] Q. Does this refresh your recollection?
Mr. Greiner: Pardon me. Is that an exhibit?
Mr. Brega: No.
Mr. Greiner: I would object to counsel reading
from something that is not an exhibit.
Mr. Brega: I am asking him to refresh his recol
lection. I will make it an exhibit if you want. It is
just another—
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants—Cross
1457a
The Court: We will let Mm look at it. I don’t see
how that could do any harm.
The Witness: It might help.
B y M r. B rega:
Q. This was prepared by your staff? A. Well, no, this
was prepared by the executive board of the committee on
instruction. This is not a part of my staff. This is an
other group. It is a professional staff, so to speak, a rep
resentative group from different schools in the city. But
there were instruction committees and there was an execu
tive board, and that I believe is what—let me see. Yes,
this is the executive committee of the committee on instruc
tion. I did request them to make a study of the recommen
dations of the committee, and this is a part of that re
sponse. It is not my assignment to the staff that we were
referring to earlier.
Q. Bight. And they were requested to make a study
partially on the advisability and feasibility of busing
students? [2106] A. They were to make a, study of all
of the recommendations of that committee.
Q. And does this refresh your recollection on what their
response to that was? A. Yes, in this particular instance.
Q. Would you tell us what that response was? A. You
want me to read it?
Q. That would probably be the easiest.
Mr. Greiner: Well, I object, Your Honor. If he
is going to read it, I would ask that it be marked
as an exhibit, that it be identified.
The Court: This is a report of a committee to
evaluate the advisory committee’s report, as I get
it, is that right?
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants— Cross•
1458a
Mr. Greiner: I am not sure it has been established
that he ever received it.
The Court: It hasn’t been.
The Witness: I would be glad to indicate that I
did receive such a report.
Mr. Greiner: You did? All right, then, we would
have no objection to his reading it.
The Court: We can always Xerox that page and
make it a part of the record.
Mr. Brega: The whole report, Your Honor, is a
response to this, to the advisory committee’s recom
mendations. £2107] I don’t have any hesitancy about
putting it in. It is just another huge volume of
recommendations.
The Court: We wouldn’t necessarily need the
whole thing. Just take the page.
The Witness: I am sorry, we are now talking
about the study committee, not the advisory com
mittee.
Mr. Brega: That’s right.
The Witness: The 1964. We are not talking about
1967.
The Court: You are not saying the Berge com
mittee recommended compulsory busing?
Mr. Brega: No, the Yoorhees committee.
The Witness: This is the first committee.
Mr. Brega: If we did, we would be in real trouble;
this is the ’64 committee.
The Court: I see.
B y M r. B r e g a :
Q. Would you read that section we are referring to?
Let’s start again. A. The paragraph is headed “Bounda
Kenneth Oherholtzer-—for Defendants— Cross.
1459a
ries, Busing and Emotional Security.” Incidentally, the
choice of subjects and the arrangement was the commit
tee’s choice. I don’t know why they have this particular
one.
“Busing large numbers of pupils back and forth across
the city to achieve racial balance would maximize to a seri-
out extent the school’s strangenesses and emotional [21083
strains which already undermine learning for so many
yougsters. The recommendation that this not be done (that
was recommendation 6) seems sound.
Q. Stop right there. Recommendation 6 refers to the
Yoorhees report? A. Of the Yoorhees report or the study
committee report.
Q. All right. I wanted to ask you if you agree that this
transportation of students did have an adverse effect upon
their ability to achieve. A. This transportation, what are
we talking about now?
Q. As we mentioned here, the mass busing of students
back and forth the city, I want to know what the strange
nesses and the emotional strains we are referring to are.
A. Let me point out that this was an opinion expressed
about a contemplated situation. That’s all that is.
Q. We are facing that in this lawsuit.
The Court: He says he can’t evaluate it until it
is an accomplished fact. I take it that is what he
said.
The Witness: We are talking simply about an
opinion here.
Q. Do you have an opinion as to what it would do?
A. I do not have a general opinion. I think it is possible
that there could be such an effect, but I would not want
to generalize.
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants— Cross,
1460a
Q. Now, I would like to call your attention to Exhibit
[2109] 83, which is the triennial test scores of 1968, and
I am going to give yon an example, if I may, of two schools,
Knight Elementary and Gilpin Elementary, and for Grade
Level 5, the word meaning test score for Gilpin was 4.7
and for Knight was 6.7. And that indicates two grade dif
ferences, I presume, then, between the students and the
word meaning. In the report it also reflects that the Gilpin
median family income in that subdistrict area is $3,680
and that the median income for the Knight subdistrict is
$10,000 plus, and I want to ask you if in your opinion the
income level does have or can have any effect on the achieve
ment level of those students.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, I would object. The
income data which counsel has reference to is 1960
data. The test results which counsel has reference to
are the 1968 tests. I don’t think there is any proof
—it is an apple and an orange. He has come up with
a peach.
The Court: Can you answer the question? Do you
understand?
The Witness: I am not familiar with the report,
Judge. This is a 1968 report. I can only answer in
general terms as to his question.
I have previously indicated to you that there have
been studies which pretty well establish that the in
come of a family is one of the good indicators, only
one, that has some bearing upon the achievement of
pupils, but I would not [2110] rest on any one indi
cator.
Q. And also in this study in 1968 the average daily at
Kenneth Oherholtzer—for Defendants—Cross
1461a
tendance of Gilpin was 88.7 percent, and at Knight it was
94.5 percent. I will ask you if in your opinion—
The Court: Are you talking about different years
now?
Mr. Brega: No, no, same year, under the triennial
testing report, two schools, one of which has a high
achievement level and one of which has a low achieve
ment level. I am asking now if in the Doctor’s opin
ion the difference in the attendance percentage at
these schools in his opinion has any effect on the
achievement level of these schools.
A. I would have to answer only in general terms that
there is an effect, and in general the better the attendance
the more probability of higher achievement. It again is one
factor that has to be considered, and you are talking about
generalities. This varies tremendously among individual
pupils.
Q. Let’s carry this on.
The Court: I think we can all agree that good
attendance is desirable in this problem, and then we
can get on to the next point. I don’t want to hurry
you, though.
Mr. Brega: I don’t want to hurry on this, either,
if I don’t have to.
The Court: No, not necessarily. I just think that
[2111] is fairly obvious, that attendance affects the
results.
Mr. Brega: Tour Honor, I believe the whole tenor
of the plaintiffs’ case is that the reason that we have
low-achievement schools and the reason vTe have
high-achieving schools is because one is minority and
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants— Cross.
1462a
the other is Anglo, and I want to bring out that
there are as many other reasons as there are—
The Court: You go right ahead.
B y M r. B rega:
Q. Now, Doctor, in consideration of these factors of
achievement, is it your opinion that race has anything to
do with the achievement level of students? A. I have an
swered that question, I think, several times, that I do not
think so, not race per se, no.
The Court: I don’t think the plaintiffs have main
tained that, have they?
Mr. Brega: Well, every one of their schools that
they have presented to you—
The Court: I hadn’t understood that they main
tained that there is anything constitutionally inferior
about a person of a minority race. I have not heard
anything like that.
Mr. Brega: We don’t maintain that, either.
The Court: You are not suggesting that they are
suggesting it?
Mr. Brega: No, except that they are suggesting
if you take minority students and put them in a
school that is [2112] predominantly Anglo, there
achievement record is going to suddenly change.
The Court: You go ahead. As I say, don’t mind
me.
Mr. Brega: I won’t. It is an academic exercise.
B y M r. B rega:
Q. While you were Superintendent did you have various
grouping levels within a grade in your clases? A. There
was no plan for grouping which was applied generally
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants— Cross.
1463a
throughout the school system. This was at the option
of a school or a teacher. There was some grouping par
ticularly in the elementary schools, in reading, I think you
would customarily find within any given grade, and I
am talking particularly where they had the so-called home
room or self-contained classroom with one teacher in
charge throughout the day, and if that teacher were teach
ing reading the chances are there might be two or three
groups within that class.
Q. And in your opinion is that a sound educational
system? A. Well, this is a means for the teachers to work
effectively with groups of children where there are less
individual differences in a particular group.
Mr. Brega: No further questions.
R edirect E xam ina tion by M r. R i s :
[2113] Q. Dr. Oberholtzer, do you still have Exhibit 34
there? A. 34?
Q. Yes. A. Can you tell me what it is about?
Q. 1226A. A. I ’m not sure. I have got a lot of papers
here.
Q. Here it is. I believe this was referred to you by Mr.
Greiner, in particular, reference to page 2 and a date
shown on page 2 being February 3, 1966, is that correct!
A. Correct.
Q. What does that February 3, 1966, refer to? A. It
says the effective date of the policy.
Q. All right, sir. Will you look on page 1 at the very
top, second paragraph, entitled “References”? A. Yes.
Q. What is the first reference ? A. Minutes of the Board
of Education, May 6th, 1964.
Q. What does that mean? A. Well, it means that one
Kenneth Oberholtser-—for Defendants—Redirect
1464a
of the references in the development of this particular
policy were the minutes of that meeting.
Q. Do you recall that the initial draft of this policy was
prepared and enacted at the May 6, 1964 meeting? A.
Well, that was my recollection, and I was wondering when
this matter was presented to me. I couldn’t recall a [2114]
deferral for two years, and I thought all of those proposals
were acted upon that night.
Q. Would you like to take a look at the minutes of that
meeting?
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants—Redirect
The Court: I think this arose, if I may make a
suggestion—
Mr. Ris: Yes, sir.
The Court: —in connection with the testimony
that the Stedman meeting was in 1966 to formulate
a policy to relieve overcrowding. He said, “why
did you wait two years after the announcement of
Policy 1226A was put in effect?”
Mr. Bis: The original one was in effect in ’64 and
the original enactment was in ’64. That’s all I am
trying to establish. Counsel left the impression it
was in ’66, which was impeaching—
The Court: You mean started busing them out of
Stedman ?
Mr. Ris: Which was impeaching testimony with
respect to his testimony on cross.
If you will agree the original enactment was in
’64, that takes care of it.
Mr. Greiner: No, I will not. I have the ’64 minutes
here. It is not in them.
Pardon us, Your Honor. I am talking about
multiple pupil transfer.
1465a
[21153 Mr. Bis: You are talking about an amend
ment, then, to the basic document?
Mr. Greiner: That was not passed until 1966, and
that is what the busing out to relieve overcrowding
was all about.
The Court: I think you brought out yesterday,
Mr. Bis—
Mr. Bis: We may be talking about two different
things.
The Court: I think that’s probably right.
Mr. Bis: Bather than belabor it, we will compare
a little later and we may call Dr. Oberholtzer back.
Mr. Greiner: If you are right, I will so stipulate.
Mr. Bis: All right. We may be talking about two
different portions.
The Court: Here was the testimony yesterday,
that Dr. Henderman went to Smith, Dr. Oberholtzer
went to Stedman. There were citizens interested in
the overcrowding problems at both schools. This
was in January 1966. Then I suggested to you that
you pursue the Stedman meeting. Do you remember
that?
Mr. Bis : Yes, sir.
The Court: And you did it.
Mr. B is: Yes.
The Court: He said they solved the problem at
[2116] Stedman differently than they had at Smith,
remember ?
Mr. B is: Yes.
The Court: They decided to use busing to relieve
overcrowding at Stedman?
Mr. Bis: Bight.
The Court: But not Smith.
Mr. Bis: That is right. What I was getting at
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants—Redirect
1466a
here was some testimony this morning concerning
the May ’64 meeting at which various policies were
adopted, and I thought Mr. Greiner was attempting
to impeach him that some of those policies were not
adopted at that time. If he was getting off on
another point, I was drawing a different point of
inference. That is our point of difference.
The Court: I think the dispute is whether the
School Board authorized busing to relieve over
crowding at Stedman in 1964.
Mr. Greiner : Or anywhere else. Our position is
that they didn’t, they didn’t do that until this Febru
ary ’66 meeting.
Mr. Ris: I misunderstood. So I will go on to my
next point.
The Court: All right. I think I ’m about ready to
take the afternoon recess anyway; then perhaps you
can solve the problem.
Mr. Ris: I will take care of it during the recess.
[21173 The Court: All right. You may step down.
(Whereupon, the trial was recessed at 3:25 p.m.)
(Following the recess, the trial resumed at 3:41
p.m.)
Mr. Ris: If the Court please, with respect to Ex
hibit 34, we have resolved the matter. Apparently
the items on Page 1, A, B and C, were a result of
the 1964 action, and Paragraph D—Part D, Page 2,
1966 action of the board. So we’re in agreement on
that.
B y M r. R is:
Q. Dr. Oberholtzer, prior to 1963 when new Manual was
being planned, with all of the various aspects, site size and
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants—Redirect
1467a
so forth—at that time was there any projection of any
substantial increase in the general population in the Man
ual area? A. There was not at that time.
Q. Now, with respect to the increase at East, that tran
spired and you were asked specifically on that, I believe,
with respect to the 1953 period. Were there projections at
that time with respect to potential population increase in
the east with respect to specific school sites for secondary
schools out there? A. Yes, we had anticipated some in
crease generally in that direction some years before that,
as a matter of fact.
Q. Had the district acquired a site further east for
[2118] a potential high school? A. We had acquired a
site at the eastern edge of the city, I believe, or pretty well
toward it at that time, at 6th and Monroe, somewhere.
The Court: Monaco.
A. Monaco. I ’m sorry. Yes. Monaco.
Q. What year was that site acquired? A. 1948.
Q. What happened to that site? A. That site was sold
but we did acquire another site which became the George
Washington High School which was further south and we
were obliged to make this change as wTe did in some other
sites because of the rapidly changing situation and annex
ations and development of the city in the eastern part.
Q. Increasing population in that area? A. Yes.
Q. At the time of the George Washington site—at the
time it was purchased, where wTas it with respect to the
city limits? A. As a matter of fact, the site itself was out
side the city limits and we were obliged to get action of
the City Council to bring it in the city limits. It was con
tiguous to the city limits.
Q. What year was that site acquired? [21193 A. Let’s
Kenneth Oberholtzer—for Defendants— Redirect
1468a
see, that must have been about—it was in the ’50s, around
1956, I would guess.
Q. And then George Washington was built on that site
in 1960, as I understand? A. The school was opened in
1960 on that site.
The Court: Well, you took that site in preference
to 6th and Monaco because of the movement to the
south and to the southeast? Is that it?
The Witness: It was primarily because that par
ticular site was too far north, Judge, in relation to
the developing population. You see, the eastern
boundaries of the city was Aurora and the popula
tion moved south and the annexations were all south
east. So this was an attempt to meet the crowded
condition at East High School and also to accommo
date the rapidly developing annexed areas to the
southeast that were expected.
Q. To the immediate east of 6th and Monaco, you have,
of course, Lowry Air Force Base and beyond that you had
Aurora? A. Well, there were boundaries—-fixed bounda
ries to the east. The expansion was to the southeast.
Q. In view of the city limits of Aurora, that was your
ultimate boundary in that direction at that time? A.
Bight.
Q. Dr. Oberholtzer, in the ’50s, particularly when [2120]
you were planning Barrett in 1958, did you have any gen
eral knowledge or any general information available to
you from which you could reasonably predict or project
what historically may now show happened to that north
east area and Park Hill as to the numbers of Negroes that
moved into that area, the speed with which they moved in
and the geographical area that resulted because of it? A.
Kenneth Oberholtser—for Defendants—Redirect
1469a
Well, let me answer that in two parts: In the first place,
again, we had no racial statistics or data. We were aware,
as I think I have previously testified, of some movement
of population. But we certainly were not aware of the
rapidity or the extent to which this took place, as you look
back on it now. We were not aware of that.
Mr. Bis: I have no further questions.
# * # # *
[21831 * * *
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, the plaintiffs’ only re
buttal witness will be Hr. Han Hodson, whom we now
call.
H an H odson, a witness called by and on behalf of plain
tiffs, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testi
fied as follows:
The Court: Give us your name and address,
please.
The Witness: Han Hodson, 4 Washington Square
Village, New York City.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor will recall that Hr.
Hodson was qualified at the summer hearing, and
we are offering Hr. Hodson as an expert witness.
And I wish to inquire of counsel as to whether they
question the foundation or the adequacy of it.
Mr. Bis: No. He was so qualified in July, and
that qualification still stands. We would ask that
his testimony be limited to rebuttal and not a repe-
tion of what went on in—
Mr. Greiner: We will try not to be repetitious.
B y M r. G reiner:
Q. Hr. Hodson, with respect to the evidence which has
been adduced by the plaintiffs in this case, with respect to
Dan Dodson—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1470a
certain characteristics of the schools which the plaintiffs
[21843 have designated as predominantly minority schools
in this School District, we have evidence, for example, that
these schools experience a higher rate of teacher turnover
than the normal schools of the District; that these schools
have more brand new teachers than the average in the Dis
trict; that these schools have more probationary teachers
than the average school in the District; that these schools
have fewer teachers with ten or more years’ experience,
and that the median years’ experience of the teachers in
these schools is lower than that of the average for the
School District.
We have also had in evidence that there are in these
minority schools concentrations of compensatory educa
tional programs; that these are in fact the schools which
received such programs; especially those federally funded
under the Elementary and Secondary Schools Act. We
also have evidence that at the secondary level these schools
contain greater numbers of sections of the so-called modi
fied sections of courses which were the courses designed
for slow learners. There has also been some evidence that
in comparison with a group of Anglo schools, that these
differences which I have just described to you between the
so-called minority schools and the so-called predominantly
Anglo schools—that these differences are even greater
when we compare the minority and the Anglo schools than
when we compare the minority schools with the averages
for the District.
[2185] Now, I’d like you to comment, Doctor, if you can
-—Plus, we have had the fact that the achievement in the
minority schools has for a number of years been signifi
cantly lower than the achievement for example in these
predominantly Anglo schools. There is also evidence that
Dan Dodson—for Plaintiffs—-Direct
1471a
the minority schools have by and large older physical
plants, smaller site sizes.
Now, Doctor, taking these factors which I have related
to you into consideration, can you relate to the Court how
if at all the combination of these factors affects the minor
ity child’s ability to learn school?
Mr. Brega: I object to the question. I t’s improper
rebuttal. He has predicated it on a hypothesis basis
on facts entered at the plaintiffs’ case and not any
thing introduced by the defendants or the interve-
nors. The hypothetical question is one which is
based upon certain facts which have not been dis
closed by the evidence and which has been contra
dicted by the evidence. We don’t believe it’s—-
Mr. Ris • The defendants also object for the same
reasons stated by counsel and also for the reason
that there is wholly an insufficient foundation. Mere
ly conclusions as to broad summaries of what coun
sel says the evidence is.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, the point of the ques
tion is that we heard the day before yesterday for
most of the afternoon, and part of the morning
yesterday, that these E2186] minority students come
to the school clothed and cloaked with so many dis
abilities, that the implication is that the school is
helpless to educate them. We would like to point out
through the witness that these disabilities can in
fact be overcome and that it is the school itself, the
minority school which ultimately causes the minority
student this unequal educational opportunity.
The Court: Well, I think we ought to ascertain
first whether he has an opinion on the subject. I
assume he has.
Dan Dodson—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1472a
Mr. Greiner: I believe be does, Tour Honor.
Mr. Ris: We will stipulate that be has.
The Court: Ordinarily, though, we do ask an ex
pert whether he feels he can give an opinion.
Is that right?
The Witness: Yes, I would have an opinion.
The Court: Do you have an opinion as to causa
tion in terms of ability of the response of the child
to this, whether it stems from his having grown up
in a home that is economically and culturally de
prived, or whether the substantial factor is the
school itself? I think that’s really our issue. I mean,
as a cause factor?
The Witness: Yes, I would have an opinion on
that.
The Court: I don’t see why he can’t discuss that.
It’s been the big issue in the case. The evidence on
the [21873 part of the plaintiff has been presented,
"which prima facie tended to establish that the schools
themselves were deficient. The defendant has offered
evidence showing that they have put forth special
effort, that the facilities are actually superior at a
school like Manual; that the extent of their effort is
greater at these institutions because of the fact that
the subjects are handicapped in many ways. Dr.
Oberholtzer said that the real problem is that they
haven’t had the start that the child has who comes
from a home where the parents are pretty well edu
cated and he sees the only remedy as being a Head
Start program that starts at the—that commences
at age three, to bring them into line with these other
students by the time that they commence the first
grade. So I think that this is an important issue in
Dan Dodson—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1473a
the case. So we will let Mm comment on it. And
the objections will be overruled for the reasons
stated.
B y M r. G reiner:
Q. Do you have the question in mind now, Doctor! A.
I think so. I hardly know where to begin with it. But I
think that the point of takeoff would be that the school it
self is reflective of the broader society or the dominant
power arrangement of the community, and that when it
comes to dealing with the children of minority, it has a
problem of adjusting its programs that are designed for
a majority to serve minority children for very definite
reasons. Usually £21883 it is a teacher who is less experi
enced; usually it is a school that is older and so on. Usu
ally it is a school by the time it becomes segregated that
is looked upon by the whole community as being inferior.
And when it is looked upon as being inferior this does make
it indeed so, because you can’t keep up the morale of the
teachers nor the children, nor you can’t keep up the ex
pectations for performance and achievement in the schools.
Teachers feel less privileged when they are sent there to
teach and escape as quickly as they can. More than this,
they come to look at these children as being less worthy
and of whom less is expected. Consequently there has de
veloped what’s called the self-fulfilling prophesies; that
because nothing is expected, no standards are held. And
consequently the person comes to fulfill the prophesy that
you had of him. in the beginning. Some evidence of this
is that the differences are not this great between children
when they first come to school between the majority and
the minority, and that with each succeeding year these
children of the minority tend to fall further behind. The
Dan Dodson—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1474a
alternative that I would pose to the position that the
trauma resides—or the limitation reside in the pre-school
experience, is that all this combines to teach these children
of the minority that they are powerless people and conse
quently as all people tend to do when they feel powerless,
they resign in apathy and that the limitations to learning
is not in [21893 their cognitive apparatus nor abilities nor
in the lack of pre-school stimulation, but resides instead
in the apathy that stems from a pervasive powerlessness
and impotence in the community.
Q. Now, Doctor, I believe that you were in court yester
day when Dr. Oberholtzer was testifying regarding the
summer school reading program at which minority stu
dents had participated. Do you recall that? A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall the fact that he said that the results of
that program were that in some instances reading levels
were advanced by between one, two and three grade levels ?
A. Yes.
Q. And you also recall that he testified that the children
also had a rate of forgetting just as they had a rate of
learning so that they didn’t retain that? A. Yes.
Q. Now, could you comment on the fact that these chil
dren were able to improve their reading ability? "What does
that demonstrate to you ? A. I think what Dr. Oberholtzer
suggests is that these kids are not dumb; that they are not
incapable of learning; that they can learn these skills. But
they learn for keeps what is required of them to cope with
the life of which they are a part, and reading skills in a
school that teaches them [21903 that they are powerless
is not one of those skills that is needed to cope with the
world of which they are a part.
Q. Well, is there an effect then on minority—on a minor
ity child’s motivation brought about in these minority
Dan Dodson—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1475a
schools? A. This is the problem of motivation. I worked
with the—I studied the unrest in the White Plains High
-School recently in New York—a suburb of New York. And
I was impressed there that when these children got a dose
of this black militant etiology, when there was something
they could invest their lives in that they thought had sig
nificance for them, that their teachers reported they were
carrying around “Senones V/retched of the Earth” (first
word phonetically spelled) which is the bible of the new
Left, and many of them were carrying around the Kerner
Commission Report. A lot of these non-readers I’m talking
about now were carrying around reports of this sort, that
they read when there was something that motivated them to
read. And it was not a limitation of innate skill at learning
or ability. The school teaches them fundamentally to be
dumb.
Q. Now, Dr. Oberholtzer testified as to a number of fac
tors which in his opinion affected the achievement of these
minority children. And I might relate some of them to you.
One was the question of native intelligence. Secondly was
the home environment, the educational level of the parent,
[21913 the presence of reading materials in the home, the
attitude demonstrated in the home towards the school. I
wondered if you could relate in your opinion how these
factors which Dr. Oberholtzer felt had to be corrected at a
preschool age; how these factors relate to these causative
factors that you have described that are present in the
minority school. A. The question I would have on this is
whether poor folks’ and black folks’ children get stimulation
or don’t get stimulation and this kind of thing. And I think
that in our attempt to discover why children don’t learn,
we tend to look for the limitations in the potential of chil
dren rather than to look for the limitations of the establish
Dan Dodson—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1476a
ment itself. And that consequently we find what we tend
to look for. The minority has always looked to the school
to be an instrument of social change which would produce
for its children an entree into the broad life of the com
munity. Robert Lind’s study of “Middletown” a midwest
urban community—
Mr. Brega: Just a moment. I am going to object
to any editorializing on someone else’s study.
The Court: Overruled. This is not offered, I am
sure, to establish the truth of the matter that he is
citing. He is simply citing it to illustrate his con
clusions, as I understand it. So, I will permit him to
do it.
A. Lind quoted the taxi driver who said he realized he
would never make it, but “By George, his kids would.” He
[21921 would pay the price and education would take them
out of the status of life which they had and make them into
people who participated in the main stream. This has been
traditional in American life; that the minority looks at the
school as an instrument that would provide the gateway
through which its youth would move into the main stream.
But, the black population has never been encouraged to be
lieve that it could make the main stream up to very recent
times; so very recent that it’s very hard for them. They
now look to the school to be the instrument of change. You
can’t tell me that the black parent doesn’t have aspirations
for his child. Unless and until, as so often happens, he too
finds that the school is not going to provide this kind of
service, then he either does one of two things; he becomes
extremely militant and becomes a pressure to the reform
of the school, or else, he just resigns in apathy and says
“What’s the use of trying to do anything?”
Dan Dodson—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1477a
I think it’s this kind of thing that we’re dealing with that
revolves around the expectations of the school that I think
is involved with parent attitudes and with whether or not
there is a motivation from the home and so forth for black
children.
Q. Now, Doctor, with respect to these problems of edu
cating a minority child in a minority school, first of all with
regard to the question of efficacy of compensatory [21931
education programs that are undertaken in these schools,
are you familiar with the question of whether or not these
compensatory programs have proven to be effective in
raising the achievement levels of minority students in these
minority schools ? A. There is a considerable body of evi
dence on this—data on this, I should say.
Q. Can you relate some of this evidence to us, please?
Mr. Ris: May we have some background from the
doctor as to what his experience has been on this;
whether he has done any studies or just what his back
ground is?
The Court: I think he ought to describe the basis
of his knowledge and his ability to make or offer the
opinion.
Q. Can you describe for us, Doctor, your acquaintance
ship with this problem? A. Well, I have been director for
the Center for Human Relations and Community Studies
of Newr York University for the past ten years, up to a
year ago, and I have been pretty well related to all of this
material. Now, I have not evaluated compensatory educa
tion programs, except I have been involved with the litera
ture and helped in the literature of the researches that have
accrued on it.
Dan Dodson—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1478a
Q. So you personally have conducted no studies, is that
right? [2194] A. To evaluate compensatory programs,
that’s right.
Q. But you are familiar with the literature in this field ?
A. Relatively so, yes.
Q. And you work with it and apply it, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you describe or identify for us some of the liter
ature which you have reference to?
Mr. Brega: Well, Your Honor, I ’m going to enter
an objection to this testimony. There isn’t any evi
dence that shows that there’s a proper foundation
for him to testify as to the literature on that basis.
The Court: All he’s going to do now is describe
the literature in the field. I can’t see anything wrong
with that. Now, the next question may he objection
able when he tried to summarize it. So, we will look
forward to hearing from you then.
Mr. Brega: I guess I’ll be back.
A. There are four or five studies that I would consider
crucial in this. One was the High Horizons program of
New York in which they spent first around a hundred dol
lars per child extra, trying to raise the aspiration levels of
children in junior high by taking them to concerts, by
trying to enrich a background, raise their horizons. Two
hundred and fifty dollars extra per child at the high school
level. They [2195] thought they had found considerable
results in the first—
Mr. Ris: Just a moment. I am going to object to
his testimony as to the results.
The Court: Let’s just describe the literature first.
Dan Dodson—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1479a
Q. Now, was there a report on that High Horizons pro
gram! A. It is included in “Racial Isolation in the Public
Schools” produced by the United States Commission on
Civil Rights.
Q. And what is another study that you have familiarity
with ? A. If I could just say—this data we were encourag
ing to them—
Mr. R is: I am going to object and move that that
part he stricken.
Q. Well, we will get to that. Let’s just describe the
project in general. A. When they tried to put it in opera
tion on any large scale with any large state with $80' per
child compensation they found no significant—
Mr. Ris: Just a moment. Could the witness just
tell what his studies have been?
The Court: Just tell us what studies.
The Witness: This is the first. The second is
[21963 called The All Day Neighborhood Schools
of New York City, and here there was the attempt
to put people into extra counseling and work with
the children, kept them after school and so on. And
this ran for several years in the New York City
community.
Q. Was there a program in Rochester or Syracuse, New
York, that you have familiarity with? A. A program in
Rochester in which they tried to use reduced class size and
they very carefully had a comparison between the class
size of twenty of the desegregated programs that they com
pared them with. But, that was the Rochester study.
Dan Dodson—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1480a
The Court: Well, these programs—these presump
tions or suspicions wouldn’t apply only to minority
children, would they? I mean they would apply to
anybody who is economically handicapped, 1 expect,
white or black? It doesn’t make any difference?
The Witness: It so happened all these were minor
ity situations.
The Court:Well, there is no basis for distinction
here, is there?
The Witness: No.
The Court: In other words, this handicap that
exists in certain areas is perhaps common to whites
as well as to blacks, isn’t it?
The Witness: Except, Your Honor, that color
stands [2197] as a badge of identity that doesn’t
allow the black child to escape into the main stream.
If as when he does something for himself and—
If he can he absorbed into the main stream, there
is no problem. The black child doesn’t have this
prerogative.
The Court: I mean the problem of getting over
this initial hump in terms of being able to speak
acceptably and in terms of being able to read and
do certain other fundamentals on a competitive basis
-—that doesn’t exist as much for the—
The Witness: I would say these are not racial-
problems altogether at that level.
The Court: Right.
Q. Doctor, was there also a program in St. Louis, Mis
souri? A. Yes, the Banniker District program led by Sam
Shepherd gained national attention in an attempt to take
compensatory education and raise the aspiration levels, to
raise the achievement scores.
Dan Dodson—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1481a
Q. Now, you have in front of you what’s been marked
for identification as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 27, entitled “Racial
Isolation in the Public Schools.” You have mentioned the
St. Louis program. Are the results of that program
reported in Exhibit 27? A. Yes.
[2198] Q. And what about the New York program which
you described? A. Yes.
Q. And was there also a program in Berkeley, California,
on compensatory education? A. Yes.
Q. And are the results of that program described in
Exhibit 27 ? A. That’s right.
Q. Now, was there also a program in Rochester, New
York? Have you described that for us? A. Yes, the Roch
ester program I have made reference to already, and it—I
believe it is not described in here. It is described in a study
done by the Board of Regents of the University of the State
of New York called “Racial and Social Class Isolation in
the Schools.”
Q. Now, Doctor, we have had evidence in this case—
The Court: I’d like to find out first the extent of
your personal exposure to any of these studies. How
you come to know them.
A. I have had an intimate relationship with the High Hori
zons, the All Day Neighborhood Schools, and a consider
ably contact with Shepherd in the Banniker District,
Q. And you are familiar with how those programs were
established, how they functioned? £21993 A. Yes.
Q. And how they were evaluated? A. Yes.
Q. And you are also then familiar, are you not, with the
results of those evaluations? A. That’s right.
Q. Now, Doctor, we have had evidence in this case that
various types of compensatory education programs have
Ban Dodson—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1482a
been conducted in the minority schools of Denver; that
there have been efforts, for example, to reduce the. pupil-
teacher ratio, to reduce the class size, to provide remedial
reading and arithmetic teaching to the minority child. And
yet, we have also had evidence, Doctor, that these compen
satory efforts have not been able to bring these children up
to grade level with respect to achievement. And I would
ask you if this is an experience unique to Denver!
Mr. R is: If the Court please, I am going to object
to that. There is an insufficient foundation again.
The Court: Overruled.
A. There is no evidence in any of this that the compen
satory education has ever made up for these deficits. The
evidence from the data seems to be that you cannot by
compensation overcome these limitations.
Q. Now, the— A. Let me say—so much that the Board
of Regents after [2200] having this study to which I have
referred—
Q. That’s the Rochester study? A. That’s the one which
included the Rochester material. But, it was a review of
the whole material. It arrived at the conclusion that—
Mr. Brega: Just a moment. Now, I am going to
object to conclusions arrived at by the Board.
The Court: Overruled.
A. •—that the compensatory education is—that they are
not against compensatory education but that compensatory
education by itself has not produced results that the aims
of the programs have set out to accomplish.
Q. And this is a report published by whom? A. It is a
study done by the State Department of Education, its Divi
Dan Dodson—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1483a
sion of Evaluation, of New York State, looking at national
data and drawing up recommendations which the Board of
Regents of the State of New York adopted as their own.
Q. Now, you’re not of the opinion that has no value, this
compensatory effort!
The Witness: They would say that the compen
satory education has not produced the kinds of re
sults that the aims set out to accomplish.
The Court: Well, they are nevertheless using it
wisely. As a matter of fact, Harvard started with a
Head [2201] Start program for law students a few
years ago, and it’s been very successful. Now, most
law schools in the country run a summer program
to bring these college graduates into a place where
they can compete with entering law students, isn’t
that right? And the same is true with Ilispano.
They’re doing this in Denver. You don’t think this
kind of program has any value?
The Witness: Ordinarily they have done some
other things, haven’t they, like taking them out of
an environment, out of a melieu into some—
The Court: Well, at that level I suppose they are
living on the university campus.
The Witness: Exactly.
The Court: But I think Harvard brought these
students out of southern Negro schools.
The Witness: But they took them out of a melieu
and out of a segregated pattern into something that
they thought would offer wider—a wider world for
them.
The Court: You think then that under those condi
tions that compensatory education can have a real
value ?
Dan Dodson—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1484a
The Witness: Their position was that as between
compensatory education and desegregation, they had
many evidences that desegregated education did
achieve results where they had careful measurements
as between students who were left behind, and they
produced compensatory educations, [22,02] and stu
dents who were desegregated without the compen
satory education. And they said we need the com
pensatory education but that this by itself is not
enough; that it has to be paralleled with a rearrange
ment of the encounters of children in the school
system.
Q. In other words, I take it, Doctor, that compensatory
education would still have some value but that it would be
most valuable in an integrated setting? Is that the con
clusion ?
Mr. Ris: I’m going to move to strike that. I object
to the question. It’s a leading question. Anything
that he wants to ask the doctor—
The Court: Well, it’s a summing up. He has
already said that.
Do you have anything else to say on that?
The Witness: The thing that compensatory edu
cation does not deal with is the inherent inequality
that stems from segregation.
The Court: From isolation?
The Witness: From isolation.
The Court: Is this a factor—is this a result of the
fact that young people seem to go in groups and they
think in groups and whatever the normal group is,
why, they seem to go—
The Witness: The Coleman report—
Dan Dodson—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1485a
[22033 Mr. Brega: Just a minute. I hate to do
this but I have to object. He’s editorializing on other
reports and things like that that aren’t in evidence.
The Court: Look, this is a sociological issue to a
degree and I don’t see how you can close your eyes
to all of the literature and study that has been done
on the subject. I mean, we can’t bring it all into
court and read it. If I have a witness who wants
to put an interpretation—
Mr. Brega: I appreciate that.
The Court: —on it, then— If you have got an
interpretation different than this, why, you’re free,
of course, to put it in. But I must overrule your
objection because I don’t see how I can try to find
some answers here if you close the doors to some
of these sources. So I’m going to permit him to
answer.
The Witness: The Coleman report, done for the
Department of Health, Education and Welfare, a
national study, concluded as one part of it that the
greatest impetus to learning was to be in groups
of wide ranges of ability as against the narrowed
range of abildy that isolation produces. That’s where
they had the contacts with youngsters who were
further ahead of them or whatever, that they did
better than in the isolation kind of thing. This, of
course, went for whites as well as blacks, but as
[2204] a general educational principle. The other
problem of compensatory education tends to leave
the impression that the limitations are in the chil
dren and consequently they must be compensated
for and not in these things that I have described
that are the limitations of the school system itself.
Dan Dodsoftr—jor Plaintiffs—Direct
1486a
So that by the time you have set up compensatory
education and set children off apart to be compen
sated, you have already created the psychological
climate at that point and it makes it impossible to
compensate for even the psychological damage of
being set apart. And it keeps the attention focused
on the limitation of the person which further trau
matizes him.
The Court: I might add, in commenting on this
evidence, I don’t know that it’s all relevant to a
decision in this case, because some of it is material
that would be properly submitted to the legislature.
It may not hit the constitutional law target that we
are shooting for here, you know. So I’m not here
ruling, and I want the record to be clear on it, that
this is all necessarily relevant to the decision that
we will ultimately have to make.
Mr. Greiner: Yes, Your Honor. What we’re sim
ply trying to do, I think, is to fill out the picture of
the inequality that exists in these minority schools.
The Court: I understand.
[2205] B y M r. G re iner:
Q. The evidence from the defendants, Doctor, has also
discussed the factor of pupil mobility as having an effect
upon the achievements of children. First of all, with re
spect to mobility, is that generally expressed as a percent
age; turnover? A. The most common reference to it
would be, what percent of people would you need to enroll
during a year to keep your register to the level at which
you started at the beginning of the year.
Q. Now, for example, a school that has—that had a turn
over rate of even as high as 100 percent—does that mean
Dan Dodson—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1487a
that the entire school population has turned over? A. Not
necessarily. I had a doctoral candidate who was principal
of a school where the turnover was one hundred and some
percent, something over a hundred. But when he analyzed
it he found that 80 percent were there the whole year and
the rest was just a revolving door of 20 percent who did
the turnover, that added to the 100-percent-turnover figure.
Q. Now, we have also had evidence, Doctor, that schools
—particularly schools in Northeast Denver, have undergone
transitions from once being predominantly Anglo schools
to the point where they are now predominantly minority
schools. And I wondered if you had had occasion to study
any of the after effects of such a transition on the achieve
ment [22063 in those schools.
Mr. Bis: Excuse me. May I ask—are you refer
ring to Denver? Or generally?
Mr. Greiner: In general. In particular, I’m refer
ring to a study that was undertaken in Newark.
A. Traditionally the standards have tended to—that is,
the norms for reading or other achievement indicia of
achievement, have fallen when these changes have taken
place, particularly if it is a rapid movement, because this
is a mass movement of people rather than a slow, gradual
long-range change. And I’m working now in Newark, New
Jersey, and the pattern seems to be there that when the
community starts changing the norms of reading started
going down and went down until the school had changed
its composition. Then it leveled off for a bit and then it
plummeted again and it is at this point, it seems to me
as I examine that data, and look at it, that at this point
the school lost any legitimacy in the community, the re
Dan Dodson—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1488a
jection by the whites of the blacks, leaving it segregated,
and so on, created a loss of any confidence that the school
was their school or that it was a legitimate institution in
their community. And it’s about at the bottom of that
drop that Newark burned and it seems to me the frustra
tion that comes from this sense of segregation and isola
tion, creating the despair that has attended, has come in
the wake of that [22073 thing in the Negro community,
and has created schools that are really custodial institu
tions. They are not really—when a school loses its legiti
macy, when it is not—when the authority is not by consent
of the governed in the school, it becomes a custodial insti
tution. At that point its growth and development tends to
stop because no custodial institution has produced growth
and development of the people.
Q. Now, the effects of the Head Start program have also
been discussed and evidence presented, and I wondered if
you were familiar with any studies regarding the effects
of this Head Start program. A. The New York study to
which I have referred already concludes as the result of
its evidence that Head Start has produced no discernible
achievement.
Q. Is there generally any sort of a followup program
for Head Start children? A. You mean—
Q. Was there? A. They move from Head Start usually
into public schools.
Q. Now, we have also heard some evidence, Doctor, that
in schools that are undergoing transition, that, for exam
ple, schools which may be 50 or 60 percent minority, those
schools would then begin receiving these compensatory
[2208] education programs. I wonder, from your experi
ence, if you can tell us how the Anglo community views or
what holding effect upon the white majority these compen
satory education programs of the schools have.
Ban Dodson—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1489a
Mr. Ris: If the Court please, I don’t think that
the facts stated by counsel are in evidence in this
case. I object to it for that reason.
The Court: I don’t know what he hoped to get
from the witness. I suppose—Mr. Brega asked a
witness the effect of the majority community on
compulsory busing; whether that has an effect on
it. But I take it that this is in that area, is it not?
Mr. Greiner: I t’s the question, Your Honor, of
how the whites who remain or who are left behind
in the school in transition—how they view that
school and the effects that it has on their decision
of whether or not to depart from that school.
The Court: Well, we have had some evidence to
the effect that they leave pretty fast, once it becomes
committed. I don’t know that this has any real
value. I think it’s pretty obvious what happens.
Have you got another question?
Mr. Greiner: We have no further questions, Your
Honor.
Mr. Ris: If the Court please, could we have about
[2209] fifteen minutes recess at this time to confer
with Dr. Oberholtzer, primarily, before cross-exam
ination of Dr. Dodson?
The Court: Yes, indeed.
Is there a point where the concentration of minor
ities accelerates? Is there a percentage point where
it reaches a particular level and then the process of
concentration accelerates? I mean, have you con
ducted any studies that reveal—
The Witness: There is a concept called “tipping
point,” and I have written on that a little from the
observations and work that I have done. And we
Dan Dodson-—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1490a
have always been curious about what is a tipping
point if one indeed exists. There are so many other
factors that have to be taken into account that it
makes it very difficult and dangerous to take a figure
out of a hat and say this constitutes a tipping point,
Many of the high schools in New York, when they
reached about 25 percent, you begin to get a polari
zation of black and white. When you get about 35
percent you begin to get the withdrawal of the
whites. But this does not take into account so fre
quently the kind of quality of program that makes
a climate conducive to people staying there. In the
New Rochelle community, I did study that and—
The Court: Now, at what point do you think a
[2210] stabilization must occur in order to prevent
changing the entire character of the school!
The Witness: This again depends much more on
what the size of the black community is and what
its proximity is to the particular school that is in
question. In other words, in communities that have
completely desegregated, so that all schools have
some blacks and no schools are all black, there seems
to be—
The Court: Where are these?
The Witness: -—there seems to be no problem
with this.
The Court: Where are these communities?
The Witness: New Rochelle, White Plains, Coates-
ville, Pennsylvania. Well, these come from my mind
offhand. And where they have just completely de
segregated the school system, this has taken the pres
sure off any schools reaching a tipping point and it
has provided a stability of those communities that
Dan Dodson—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1491a
lias been outstanding. New Rochelle, particularly—
which particularly has the longest experience, I
think, stands out in that regard. And they have a
school—the Mayflower School that was 44 percent
black when I studied it before the Kaufman decision
on New Rochelle, and the year before last, when I
studied it again, it had still held 44 percent black
over eight years’ time. But they had desegregated the
[2211] whole school system in the interim. But it
had remained a desegregated school with that high
proportional—the elementary school at that high pro
portion of black over that period of time. But, if a
school is at the edge of the ghetto and there is a
greater fear and anxiety about what’s going to hap
pen, and so on, then the tipping point is much lower,
and you begin to get mass withdrawal at a much
lower proportion.
The Court: All right. We will be in recess. You
let us know when you’re ready.
(Whereupon, the trial recessed at 10:30 a.m. and
resumed at 10 :52 a.m.)
The Court: Before you start, I have a question
I wanted to ask. Do your studies reveal that the
segregation of Hispanos or the Spanish-speaking or
Spanish-surnamed presents identically the same
problem as the Negroes?
The Witness: Mine has been with Puerto Ricans.
But I would say identically the same problems.
The Court: In other words, that these produce the
same isolation that you speak of and the same re
strictive influences?
The Witness: The same sense of impotence, of
apathy, withdrawal. Yes.
Dan Dodson—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1492a
The Court: And in this community I think there
is some evidence to indicate that the Spanish-sur-
named have [22123 populated the areas that the
Negroes have abandoned. And as Negroes have
moved eastward, why, I think there has been a ten
dency on the part of—I expect, first, the Irish lived
there.
The Witness: Probably,
The Court: You know, of course, that they put
the Irish in the same category as the Anglos; an
astonishing conclusion. They have never before in
history been called Anglos, prior to this trial.
The Witness: Each group has come through the
same process, seems to me, of being washed, in a
sense, of being alienated—the bright ones, at least
—and made over ultimately and absorbed into the
main stream. The difference with the black, even
more than the Hispano, is that the color stands
as a badge of identity when they’re ready to join
the establishment. And, consequently, it keeps them
set off in a way that is very difficult for them to
gain acceptance and this makes race a factor in it
that was not there for the others. When the others
learned the language, the manners and the dress,
they could escape identity. The blacks couldn’t do
that.
The Court: Well, in that respect, then, the Span-
ish-surnamed people are not subject to the same
problems ?
The Witness: Not the same. There is a difference.
There is much more escaping or passing, as the blacks
would [2213] call it, or being transmuted from iden
tity with the ghetto Spanish-background people into
Dan Dodson—for Plaintiffs—Direct
1493a
mainstream with the Spanish than there would with
the black in our area, by far.
The Court: Go ahead.
Cross-Examination by Mr. Ris:
Q. Dr. Dodson, when you were in Denver you testified,
and you testified last July—you indicated you made no
studies at all of the Denver situation. A. That’s right.
Q. Have you made any since then! A. No.
Q. Have you ever been a member of a school board?
A. No, sir.
Q. Have you ever been a superintendent of schools!
A. No, sir.
Q. Have you been on the administrative staff of a school
district? A. No, sir.
Q. You stated that you have studied or made some stud
ies of the Puerto Ricans. Would that have been in the
Harlem area of New York? A. Principally, yes.
Q. Where else? A. There was some Puerto Rican ele
ment in the [2214] Mt. Yernon community, a suburb of
New York City.
Q. It was all in the New York City metropolitan area?
A. That’s right.
Q. Were most of those people individuals who had come
either originally or were just one generation removed from
Puerto Rico? A. That’s right.
Q. And speaking a Spanish language? A. That’s right.
And a few Cubans.
Q. Have you made any studies of the so-called Hispano
group in the Denver area? A. No sir.
Q. Or anywhere in the West? A. No, sir.
Q. So you really have no knowledge of the Hispano
Dan Dodson—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1494a
group so you could make comparisons with the Puerto
Ricans, is that correct? A. No, sir.
Q. Is that correct? A. That’s correct. I have not.
Q. I think we understood each other but sometimes it
looks peculiar on the record. A. Yes.
Q. At the very beginning of your questioning by Mr.
Greiner, he mentioned various facts in evidence. For
£22153 example, the age of a school building. Does that
have anything to do with equality of educational oppor
tunity in your opinion? A. I think it does. If the ten
dency is that the majority of the black population tends
to be relegated to these outworn, overused, old buildings,
it stands as a symbol of their impotence in the community,
that they don’t have facilities comparable to the others.
And it lends to the aura produced in the community that
this is a place of less choice, and you go there only be
cause you’re not able to require that you be allowed to go
someplace else.
Q. It’s a psychological thing then? A. That’s right.
Q. But insofar as the age of a building itself, if it has
been properly maintained and modernized and—it would
be just as good physically as a new building, would it not?
A. I have had a doctoral thesis on this problem and it
tends to say that the new building, at least in a short run,
didn’t make that much difference; that there was not a
great amount of difference.
Q. A doctoral thesis by one of your students? A. That’s
right. But it is the psychological effect of it that is in
volved.
Q. That is tied in directly, the fact that in many £22163
instances families of a lower socioeconomic status move
into the older areas of the city, is that not true? A. That’s
right.
Dan Dodson—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1495a
Q. So that’s a matter of normal population movement
rather than anything the school district has done at that
point! A. I would say it’s the typical pattern.
Q. Now, with respect to the experience of a teacher,
are younger teachers today, as compared to five, ten years
ago, better trained in human relations? Do they have any
different social outlooks with respect to racial and ethnic
relations, do you think? A. We would hope that maybe
they are better trained. But I would doubt it.
The Court: They probably have more spirit and
drive and idealism at the outset, don’t they? Doesn’t
that make up for something?
The Witness: You don’t escape the problem.
Hunter College recruited 100 young people, trained
them specifically to work in the ghetto, helped them
to develop all the understanding they could about
this great challenge of working* in the ghetto, and
fifty of them resigned their appointments when they
understood they were going to Central Harlem. You
just can’t escape the pervasive, do what you will,
the pervasive feeling; the less privileged, when you’re
£2217] assigned to the ghetto community.
Q. Well, you’re a professor of education, aren’t you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you are educating people to be teachers? A.
I am alleged to be, yes, sir.
Q. Isn’t that what you’re hired for? A. That’s what
I’m getting paid for.
Q. Well, isn’t that one of the things you’re attempting
to do? A. Yes, sir.
Dan Dodson—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1496a
Q. Train these teachers to accept this situation and work
with it? A. Well, I hope I’m not training them to accept
the situation. I hope I’m—
Q. I mean, to recognize the situation and to— A. To
correct the situation, yes.
Q. To correct it? A. Yes. But I do not believe to train
them to just accept and go to work in that situation—
Q. Well, to correct it. A. —does them service either
way. My students are trained to try to understand these
conditions and situations but I would hope that they would
understand also the context I have tried to describe here;
that this can’t £22183 be a substitute for a creation of
community schools that bring all the community together
in a common encounter.
Q. Well, then, one of the problems is that people who
come to you to be educated as teachers, come with fixed
ideas, whether from whatever source? A. Yes, they come
with—well, a normal range of attitudes, I would guess.
Q. And you think that they’re leaving your school now
with no different attitudes than as of ten years ago when
teachers graduated? A. Well, I would hope so but I don’t
think, by and large, teacher education has made that much
difference in ten years.
Q. What are you doing about it? A. Well, I’m attempt
ing to train a different teacher, one who works also to
change the structure through which people relate to each
other. At the same time, that she has to begin with the
kinds of conditions into which she is going to go.
Q. You’re still trying? A. Beg pardon?
Q. You are still trying? A. Still trying.
Q. Then you havn’t achieved your aim in that regard
either, have you? £2219] A. I certainly have not, In all
humility, I confess.
Dan Dodson—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1497a
Q. Now, you have referred time and again to the power
lessness of minority pupils. Can you expand on what you
mean by powerlessness in that context? A. Wherever
there are social orders, there is a status arrangement for
ordering of people. And the consensus on dominant values
and so on makes some people then able to have their inter
est taken into account in the communal decision making
and others do not have that capacity when decisions are
made affecting their destiny. Consequently, there is a
power arrangement in the community in which people
who are relatively speaking powerful, and others who are,
relatively speaking, powerless, and the issue that we are
dealing with, all out of proportion, in my judgment is this
of power relations and that the people who are powerless
tend to resign in apathy in the face of pervasiveness,
powerlessness, and that this is the fundamental phenome-
num we’re dealing with.
Q. Well, you have the same breakdown as in decision
making in all—in any group, do you not? A. You have
sub-subgroups in which there would be a power arrange
ment within the group.
Q. Right. A. But when the groups come up against
each other, then there are the powerful and powerless.
[2220] Q. You are taking the two different groups again
here ? But in each group you have the very same thing, down
to the small—
The Witness: There is an element of power.
Q. —you have the so-called pecking order in every group,
don’t you? A. There tends to be some.
Q. Now, with regard to programs in the Denver Public
Dan Dodson—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1498a
School system, in the so-called predominantly minority
schools, there has been substantial evidence here concerning
such programs. You didn’t hear that evidence and I don’t
presume you have read the transcript, have you? A. No.
Q. You have made no study of the programs so you don’t
know how the Denver programs particularly at Manual
and Cole Junior High School compare to any of the pro
grams in any of the cities you studied? A. No.
Q. So you’re expressing no opinion as to the specific
Denver programs ? A. That’s right.
Q. Now, with regard to the handicap a child coming from
a family in a neighborhood and a lower socioeconomic
status, you wouldn’t deny that those children are handi
capped as compared to me, would you, before they ever get
into [2221] school? A. I would deny that the experience
that they have brought with them, the experience through
which they have come by the time they are of school age,
has so impaired their sensory mechanisms that they do not
have the capacity to acquire and organize, experience in
ways comparable to what you or I might have done at a
comparable stage of our lives. I would be planting corn
in East Texas today if teachers had seen the low socio
economic status kid and the limitations of him and his in
ability to learn because he didn’t have all these things and
had believed them.
Q. You aren’t alone in the courtroom in that regard. But
you will concede that they do come handicapped as to a
child coming from a middle-class neighborhood, middle-class
family, and with the opportunities that have been offered
that child at three, four, or five years old, would you not?
A. A scholar named Hune—J. McVey Hunt best described
Dan Dodson—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1499a
my position on this. He said that the computer was devised
with the mind—the way the mind works in view as a model,
but once the computer was developed it then was some
thing that could be compared with the mind and the way
the mind works. He said the computer is a marvelous
instrument but it works on only that which it is pro
grammed to work on. And I would say that is a compa
rable kind of [2222] thing; that each of us out of the
heritage from which we come have that computer between
our ears, programmed to work on what was required for
us to do in order to cope with our environment. If you
doubt that, take a well sandpapered middle-class child and
put him in a slum environment and see how he copes and
who is the dumb one and who is the bright one, because the
slum child learns to cope with the environment out of
which he comes.
Now, because that program—because that computer be
tween his ears is not designed to work on a lot of education
doesn't mean he is not capable of learning; doesn’t mean
he’s not capable of being re-programmed. It does mean
some different context in dealing with it, but it doesn’t
mean by any means he is dumb or incapable of acquiring
experience and so on.
Q. I don’t feel—you still haven’t answered my question.
A. All right. I think that if the school is going to present
these children with a standardized body of middle-class
mythology, values and rituals and knowledge, and measure
his work by the extent to which he comes up to—acquires
this material, that he is at a disadvantage. Consequently,
it is the limitation of the school in not beginning with the
child where he is in expanding his world of environment
from where he is, to take him through a [22233 process
that brings him into growth and development. He is handi
Dan Dodson—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1500a
capped only because the school presents him with this kind
of a standardized pattern that teaches him he is different
and apart. And that’s the sort of disadvantage rather than
the limitation in the potential of the child.
Q. And so, by putting a man into a middle-class inte
grated school—isn’t that exactly what you’re doing? A.
If the school is simply going to put him there and then say
“There, you’re dumb because we’re not going to make any
allowance for the fact you’re here,” it may create some
problems. Although the data tends to say that, put into
these situations, under these circumstances, they learn
better than with compensatory education segregated.
Q. Well, you don’t deny that compensatory education
has a valid function in the educational system, do you,
Doctor? A. If compensatory education is not used for
continued segregation, which it often is, and— The British
learned a long time ago that the way to control tensions in
the colonies was to squirt a little more welfare on them
and that would keep them sufficiently tranquilized in Egypt
that they wouldn’t dissent to the Promised Land. Conse
quently, their use of welfare as a tranquilizing function is
well developed in this country and compensatory education
[22241 in large measure is squirting welfare to keep down
tension and to control, to make people acceptable to segre
gated patterns rather than to help produce a desegregated
society.
Q. You don’t know that that is done in Denvor, do you?
A. I would be surprised if it were not.
Q. I say, you don’t know, do you? A. No, I don’t know.
Q. Getting back to this power relationship, do you think
it’s the function of the school to change this power rela
tionship among citizens? A. The school—
Dan Dodson—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1501a
Q. Is that one of the duties of the school system? A.
The school system seems to he the handmaiden of the power
arrangement, and consequently, its local program is geared
to support the power arrangement that is. Consequently,
its aim and objective is what is called socialization, that is,
to socialize everybody into the values and the mythologies
of the dominant society. If the black is really socialized
into this, the Kerner Commission report says it’s a racism
society. It means that he is socialized into that which
teaches him that he is a second-class citizen. He has to
become socialized to the fact that he is a second-class citi
zen. The result is that the minority community presses for
the school to [22251 be an instrument of social change
rather than simply socialistic and this is the big conflict
in education today.
Q. And there is a conflict in that, is there not? A. Yes,
exactly. There is a big issue between the black community
and the dominant society.
Q. The question as to whether the school is to educate it
and go beyond it or be an instrument of social— A.
Whether it is to be socialistic or whether it’s going' to be
an instrument of change that is going to provide school
experience wThere all children can be educated comfortably
together.
Q. Now, Doctor, what happens to a first grader if he is
sent to a middle-class integrated school and every night
he goes back to his home, which is again in the ghetto area,
and his ghetto community and ghetto neighborhood and so
forth? Does the fact that he is still a resident of this
community and of this family environment have any effect,
in your opinion? A. This would depend on howT his family
interpreted it and it would depend on the—and I ’m assum
ing you are assuming that he got a good experience at the
Ban Dodson—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1502a
integrated school. I would say that would be a window that
would open his vision to the vistas on the horizons and give
him something- to aspire toward, even though he came back
to squalor or to a segregated, poor environment.
[2226] Q. But would that make the difference, you think,
then, between the law students who a.re taken into com
pletely new environments where they live and spend their
leisure time? A. I think this would be part of it. That
depends in part on what is the readiness of a person and
sometimes depends on many other kinds of things. But I
would not say that you would relegate a child, even in his
schooling, to a second-class citizenship thing if you could
help it. That would be an opportunity for him to see the
world beyond.
The Court: You mentioned that you were talking
about aims of education. Do you think that integra
tion indeed does have a tendency to increase polari
zation of the races, consistent with what you have
said here before?
The Witness: This depends on how it is handled,
Judge. The mixing of bodies doesn’t guarantee that
people are going to love each other. Getting to know
you may mean, “I don’t like you as well as if I didn’t
know you so well,” in spite of a beautiful little lyric.
But that depends on the kind of climate that is pro
duced when they are brought together in the en
counter. It depends on the climate of the encounter.
Q. There is no guarantee then? A. There is no guaran
tee. But it is a certainty that, if they are not brought to
gether, that these problems are [2227] not healed.
Dan Dodson—for Plaintiffs—-Cross
1503a
The Court: But, surely, this is an objective, I
assume, from a sociological standpoint, to decrease
polarization?
The Witness: It is hoped that, wherever these en
counters are arranged through education, that there
would be a cutting down of the polarization, the
growing differences of goals and objectives. And in
most desegregated situations, if it is handled at all
well, this is what tends to happen.
The Court: So then the object of the educational
process even the one you’re talking about, is not to
develop a militant black segment?
The Witness: No.
The Court: I think that that inference was left
by one of your questions, Mr. Ris.
The Witness: On the contrary, I wTould say that the
alternative to militancy, as to the—as in New York
and other large cities, they are now pressing for the
local school—to break up the school construction and
make for local control. The alternative to it is a
desegregation program that would arrange so that
everybody has a stake in every school and that there
wouldn’t be this polarization, and I think it’s bound
to come until we do make these common schools
mean that they serve everybody rather than these-
schools-are-ours-and-those-schools-are-theirs bind of
[2228] thing, that come through segregation.
The Court: So then, concentration—the result of
it is going to be a complete polarization, a militancy
that goes with it, I suppose?
The Witness: I think a parallel could be drawn—
Well, yes. The increased concentration with the in-
Dan Dodson—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1504a
creased difficulty of segregation, I think, undoubtedly
makes for increased polarization.
Q. But it sometimes has some very adverse results, does
it not? A. The polarization?
Q. Yes. A. Oh, yes.
Q. Washington, D.C., is an illustration of that, is it not?
A. Not particularly, I would say. The whites didn’t stay.
They fled to the suburbs.
The Court: That’s what he means.
Q. That’s exactly what I mean.
The Court: He says, if you have integration, why,
it will result in concentration because, he says, all of
the whites will leave. They won’t submit to it.
A. There are two points I would make on Washington, D.C.
The first is, while I helped to draw up the plans for the
desegregation of the schools of the district, if I were
[2229] to do it again I would do it differently in light of
the experience that we had.
But the second is that I would doubt seriously that the
public schools of Washington, D.C., that the core city of
Washington, D.C., is any more segregated than is the core
city of Chicago, where they fought desegregation to the
very bitter end; that it was a phenomenon of blacks taking
over the entire city and suburbs being lily-white to where
a black could not get in, so there was not the opportunity
of the blacks spreading out and the Capitol district being
so restricted as an inner-core city area. I doubt seriously
that the schools’ desegregation made a great contribution
to that living arrangement that is the Capitol district now.
Dan Dodson—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1505a
Q. Well, Dr. Dodson, is it true then that it depends a
great deal on the local situation as to the population over
all, the percentage of minorities to the overall population?
A. I think the size of numbers is a factor. I would also
say that policies of schools become a factor, too. I was in
a case in Little Rock, Arkansas, in the federal court on
desegregation and here the board’s policy of ringing off
their school and the next one to it as the neighborhood
expanded as being black schools and so on, meant that the
housing arrangement—the schools’ policies created [22303
segregated patterns within the city itself and was the major
contribution to the segregation within the residential pat
terns of living.
Q. Well, let’s get back to my question. It makes a sub
stantial difference as to the local variables, does it not,
as to the size of the city itself? A. Each city is different,
yes. ■
Q. You have constantly referred to New Rochelle and
White Plains. Those are the cities where you have done
most of your studies, is that correct? A. Where I have
done two of my studies.
Q. Have you done any others? A. Yes.
Q. Where? A. Mt, Vernon; Orange, New Jersey; En
glewood, New Jersey—
Q. And you found substantial—-
Mr. Greiner: Could the witness be allowed to fin
ish his response?
Mr. Ris: Yes.
The Witness: This is sufficient.
Q. And there were substantial variations in those com
munities with respect to the geographical size of the city?
Dan Dodson—for Plaintiffs—•Cross
1506a
A. Yes. All these happened to be suburban-type [2231]
communities. Yew York City, where I have served as con
sultant at various times—I was consultant at the time of
the boycott and the severe turbulence there—and that would
be a different kind of problem to the suburban community.
Q. You really can’t compare White Plains with Man
hattan, can you? A. No, that’s right.
Q. So that the various generalizations you have made
here are just broad generalizations and not applicable spe
cifically to any one city in every respect? A. They would
be generalizations based on the impression of experience
with whatever data I have to back them, yes.
Mr. Bis: That’s all. Thank you, Dr. Dodson.
C ross-E xam ination by Mr. B rega:
Q. Doctor, in relation to Denver, have you had occasion
to visit any of the Denver Public Schools? A. No, sir.
Q. Have you seen the older schools or the new schools?
A. No, sir.
Q. Have you analyzed any of the maintenance programs
on in these schools? A. No, sir.
[2232] Q. In other words, the opinion that you gave on
the school buildings having effect was just a general over
all opinion of yours? A. That’s right.
Q. Have you had occasion to study in Denver the Hispano
and Negro groups? A. No, sir.
Q. Have you studied the mobility of the Negro and
Hispano groups anywhere? A. Yes.
Q. In regard to those studies, have you found that gen
erally they tend to live in clusters? A. They tend to be
segregated in urban communities, yes.
Q. In other words, they moved in with like race or ethnic
Dan Dodson—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1507a
groups? A. There may be reasons for that but that is the
fact, yes.
Q. Now, in looking at the situation in Denver, have you
studied the mobility of the blacks or Hispanos in this city?
A. No, sir.
Q. Have you given any study to the historical back
ground and their origin in Denver? A. No, sir.
[22333 Q. In regard to Denver, have you— And when
you discussed the schools that you mentioned that were
black, were you referring to schools that were all black or
all white? A. Predominantly so. What I would refer to
here, that by the time the imbalance occurs in either direc
tion, to the point where the community begins to say—
where one part of the community begins to say, “These are
our goals,” and the others begin to say, “These are ours,”
why, then, you have lost the content of the community
school and these have become schools that are then iden
tified with whatever type group it is.
Q. I see. And that’s where you reach this tipping point?
You mean then it goes predominantly black? A. That’s
right.
Q. Do you have any explanation why Manual High School
in 1969 in Denver was 60 percent Negro and in 1968 was
76 percent Negro? A. I don’t.
Q. And it reversed in this case to the—
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, I object to that because
the question doesn’t reflect what was happening’ to
the Hispano enrollment in Manual. I think it is quite
unfair and misleading.
The Court: Overruled.
[22343 A. I know nothing of the problems of any of your
schools in Denver.
Dan Dodson—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1508a
Q. And yon don’t know or do yon know that Denver does
not have an all-white or all-black school in its entire system?
A. This I do not know.
Q. Now, yon mentioned the Coleman report and Mr. Ris
questioned yon about the preschool factors of environment,
home life, and yon mentioned that yon didn’t think that
was something that would he a permanent block, I presume.
A. Yes.
Q. Are yon familiar with the portion of the Coleman
report which states that the school brings little influence
to bear on a child’s achievement; that that is independent
of his background and general social context? Are yon
familiar with that part of the Coleman report? A. That’s
part of the findings of the study. But because there is a cor
relation doesn’t mean necessarily that there is causation.
Q. Well, there is some correlation, is there not? A.
There is correlation but it doesn’t mean there is causation.
Q. Now, isn’t it also true that in your study you found
that race is not causally related to the achievement level
in these minority schools? [2235] A. That’s right.
Q. It is causally related probably because of socio
economic stature of many of these areas racially oriented?
A. And because the dominant society defines race and be
haves with reference to race in the way that it does.
Q. But now, in considering these achievement factors,
the socioeconomic class is one very significant factor, is it
not? A. It is highly correlated with—
Q. Achievement? A. —achievement.
Q. And also correlated with achievement is a motivation
of the parents of the child? A. This I know of no solid
data on.
Q. Well, certainly, your opinion would be that that would
be a correlating factor? A. I think, where parents en
Dan Dodson—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1509a
courage the children, it would be better. The issue here
though is whether poor folks encourage their kids or not.
And I think you’re grabbing at a stereotype when you
conclude that, because they are poor, they don’t encourage
their children.
Q. No, I haven’t said that. A. You didn’t say it but
I ’m adding it as a qualification to what you’re asking.
Q. Well, the educational background of the parent
[2236J is significant, isn’t it? A. Not necessarily. If it
were, a lot of us would be condemned now because we came
from backgrounds where our parents were not educated.
Q. Well, I suppose that’s right. Isn’t it also significant
that it is important in some cases ? Do you think it’s totally
unrelated to achievement? A. I think it does not present
insuperable barriers to a school that wants to do a job.
Q. We’re not talking about insuperable barriers. We’re
talking about whether it has effect on the achievement. A.
If you mean by this that this in some way limits his ca
pacity to learn, I would say no. If you mean by this that
the school then begins to look at him as a person who comes
from this kind of background and begins to behave toward
him this way, sets standards for him that are not relevant
to his heritage, then he faces increasingly mounting prob
lems that are of the school’s making, not his.
Q. In other words, you think, then, that it’s the school’s
problem? A. I certainly do.
Q. And so your opinion is that the school has an obliga
tion for a social change? A. That’s right.
Q. For the entire community? [2237] A. That’s right.
Q. Not for just the—not for the achievement or academic
aspect of the school? A. That’s right.
Q. I presume you include in that housing patterns in the
various communities? A. I would say there is a—I was
Dan Dodson—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1510a
just saying a few minutes ago that there is a very definite
relationship between policies of boards of education in
many of these places and the housing patterns that are
there. As I tried to say in my testimony last time when I
was questioned on this point, the housing patterns cannot—
community housing patterns cannot stand in the way of a
child having his chance; that the school has an obligation
to intervene in his behalf to the end that the circumstance
of his birth and where his parents were forced to live shall
not deprive him of his chance, and the school has this as a
definite obligation.
Q. Is it your opinion then that the school system or the
school board has the obligation to create housing patterns
to integrate the races? A. It doesn’t have the obligation
to create the housing patterns but it has an obligation to
overcome the limitations that are set by housing patterns.
Q. In other words then, you mean that the board must
[2238] cure any racial imbalance created by housing pat
terns in their school system? A. I think that’s right.
Q. Now, merely by bringing people together is not going
to achieve integration, isn’t that right? A. But it’s cer
tainly—you’re not going to achieve it unless they are
brought together.
Q. But if you forcibly bring them together, isn’t it a fact
that they have more militancy than before ? In other words,
than if they had voluntarily come together ? A. Not neces
sarily. There is not a high correlation between the resist
ance that the whites put up at the time of the desegrega
tion. Desegregation—once it is instituted—-
Q. Didn’t you do a study in two schools, one of which
there was resistance to the integration and the other went
along smoothly and they found, in the resistance school,
that they had trouble all along? A. There is no guarantee
Dan Dodson—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1511a
—Well, you find differences in the acceptance of desegrega
tion. Mt. Vernon district on Long Island fought to the
Supreme Court against desegregation; fighting the Com
missioner of Education’s order that they desegregate. Once
it was clear that the pattern was changed and that this was
going to be the way it was, they turned right around and
very quickly passed appropriate measures to develop a
school that would he an educational [2239J park in the
middle of the district and the whole thing was forgotten
within a year’s time.
Q. You are also familiar with Atlanta, are you not, that
forcibly integrated eight years ago and is now virtually
and totally segregated because of the resistance? Are you
familiar with that? A. I don’t think that you can say it
was because of the desegregation. But I ’m aware of the
problem that Atlanta has faced, yes.
Q. What I ’m getting to, really, is the point that if the
people are brought in on a voluntary program such as
New York had and that Dr. Fox—or Mr. Fox studied, whom
I’m sure you know— A. Yes.
Q. And this was a voluntary open enrollment program,
was it not? A. That’s right.
Q. And wasn’t it thought that this voluntary program
would have more benefit or could be more beneficial than
a forced program? A. No. It was a stopg'ap measure,
because there were other things that the community would
not go along with at the time. The voluntary program or
whatever, is a very limited method of dealing with the
problem. It places the whole onus on the parent who wants
to see desegregated £22401! education for his child. It
siphons off his leadership from the community that would
press for more education if he stayed to fight for education
for everybody. It relieves the board of education of any
Dan Dodson—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1512a
responsibility for doing what is its obligation, which is to
arrange the encounter between children to the ends that
they learn the skill of the citizenship with the era of which
they are a part.
The Court: Are you talking now’ about uncondi
tional free choice? Or in this reciprocal kind that
they have put into effect here? That is, whereby you
have to get a corresponding white person to ex
change? Do you think there is any difference between
the two?
The Witness: No, sir. I would take the position
that, as long as you leave it to the parents to seek
his civil rights, the board of education is reneging
on its responsibility; that it’s the function of the
school system to arrange these encounters for every
body and not for the few.
Q. Well, I presume then it’s your opinion that all of the
schools in the district must be racially balanced? A. That
would be my hope.
Q. And you consider that, then, the obligation of the
school board? A. That is correct.
Q. Now, I ’m sure you are familiar with the studies
[2241] in New York where the enrollment programs show
that there was no basic difference in achievement level af
ter those children wrere bused and put in a new school for
integration purposes ? A. I would say that this experience
with open enrollment, and I did a comparable study of six
schools and found almost comparably what they found on
it, that this kind of experience did not show a dramatic
difference in results. But this does not preclude the need
for— It doesn’t take into account the citizenship values. It
Dan Dodson—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1513a
doesn’t take into account the length of the operation of the
program, and it doesn’t take into account many other fac-
ors that I could relate to. It does say fundamentally that
the open enrollment did not accomplish miracles.
Q. And New York started in 1962? They have been
working now seven or eight or nine years on it! A. That’s
right.
Mr. Brega: No further questions.
Mr. Greiner: No further questions.
Mr. Bis: Nothing further.
The Court: Very well. You may be excused.
(Witness excused.)
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, at this point the plain
tiffs rest.
Mr. Bis: We have no rebuttal.
Ban Dodson—for Plaintiffs—Cross
1514a
Memorandum Opinion and Order of District Court
(March 21, 1970)
Reprinted in Appendix to Petition
for Certiorari, pp. 44a-98a
See 313 P. Supp. 61
M EILEN PRESS INC. — N. Y. C. 219