Brewer v. School Board of the City of Norfolk, Virginia Brief for the United States

    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Nos. 14,544 & 14,545

CARLOTTA MOZELLE BREWER, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant,

v.
THE SCHOOL BOARD OF THE CITY OF 

NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for 
the Eastern District of Virginia

BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES

JERRIS LEONARD
Assistant Attorney General

DAVID L. NORMAN
Deputy Assistant Attorney General

J. HAROLD FLANNERY 
CHARLES K. HOWARD, JR. 
Attorneys
Civil Rights Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530



8

10

13
17
21
29
31

34
37
40
49
52

53

59

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ------------------------- -
STATEMENT

A. Procedural History -----------------
B. Recent Proceedings----- -------------
C. Evidence

1. Student and Faculty Desegregation
in 1969-70 and 1970-71 ----------

2. Reenforcement of the Dual System
Since 1954 ----------- ----------

3. Residential Segregation --------
4. The Terminal Plan ---------------
5. Alternative Approaches ------ -
6. Pupil Transportation ------------

ARGUMENT
INTRODUCTION -------------------------------

A. De Jure Segregation--------- --------
B. The Terminal Plan -------------------
C. The Relief --------------------------

CONCLUSION -----------------------------------
APPENDICES

A. Chart - Faculty Desegregation -------
B. Chart - Student Desegregation System

W i d e --------- ----------------------



Page

C. Chart - Student Desegregation by School 
with Projected Enrollments Under
Approved P lan-------------------------  60

D. Chart - A Sample of Contiguous Zoning -- 67
E. Chart - A Sample of Non-Contiguous

Zoning---------------------  68
F. Chart - Projected Enrollments Under

Elementary Grouping Plan --------------- 69



TABLE OF CASES
Page

Andrews v. City of Monroe, ___ F. 2d ___ (No.
29,358, 5th Cir., April 23, 1970) ------------  43

Anthony v . Marshall County Board of Education,
419 F. 2d 1211 (5th Cir. 1969) ---------------  47

Beckett v. Norfolk School Board, 181 F. Supp. 87
(E.D. Va. 1959) ------------------ ------------ 5, 6

Brewer v. Norfolk School Board, 349 F. 2d 414 
(4th Cir., 1965), 269 F. Supp. 118 (E.D. Va.,
1967), 397 F. 2d 37 (4th Cir., 1968), 302 F.
Supp. 18 (E.D. Va., 1969) --------------------  7, 8

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) 43, 47
Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School Board,

396 U.S." 290 (1970) --------------------------- 42
Ellis v. Board of Public Instruction of Orange

County, ___ F. 2d ___ (No. 29,124, 5th Cir.,
February 17, 1970) ----------------------------  43

Gaston County v. United States, 395 U.S. 285
(1969) ------ ---------------------------------  47

Green v. County School Board, 391 U.S. 430 (1968) 45
Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960) ----  44
Henry v. Clarksdale Municipal Separate School

District, 409 F. 2d 682 (5th Cir. 1969) ------  40, 45
Kemp v. Beasley, F. 2d ___ (No. 19,782, 8th

Cir., March 17, 1970) ---------- -------------- 43



Page

Keyes v. School District No. 1 of Denver, 303 F.
Supp. 279 (D. Colo. 1969); 303- F. Supp. 289
(D.Colo. 1969); ___ F. Supp. ___ (C.A. No. •
C-1499, D. Colo., March 21, 1970) -----------  45

Monroe v. Board of Commissioners, 391 U.S. 450
(1968) ------------- -------------------------- 46

Nesbit v. Statesville City Board of Education,
418 F. 2d 1040 (4th Cir., 1969) -------------  1, 9, 41

Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School
District, ___ F. 2d ___ (No. 29226, May 5,
1970) ---------------------------------------- 48

Spangler and United States v . Pasadena City
Board of Education, ___ F* Supp. ___ (No.
68-1433-R, C.D. Calif., March 12, 1970) ------ 45

Taylor v. Board of Education, 191 F. Stipp. 181 
(S.D. N.Y., 1961), affirmed, 294 F. 2d 36 (2nd 
Cir. 1961), cert, denied, 368 U.S. 940 (1961) 45

United States v. Greenwood Mimicipal Separate - 
School District, 406 F. 2d 1086 (5th Cir.,
1969) --------   40

United States v. Indianola Municipal Separate 
School District, 410 F. 2d 626 (5th Cir.
1969) ---------------------------------------- 45

United States v. School District 151, 286 F.
Supp. 786 (N.D. 111. 1968), 404 F. 2d 1125 
(7th Cir. 1968), 301 F. Supp. 201 (N.D. 111.
1969) ---------- --------------------------- 39, 44, 51



QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Following more than eleven years of litigation, including 
eleven appeals here and two trials since this Court's last 
remand for further proceedings, the court below (per Hon. Walter 
E. Hoffman, J.), for reasons set forth in two Memorandum

J JOpinions, gave permanent approval to the school board s
terminal plan of desegregation. That plan provides for faculty
desegregation as required by this Court in Nesblt v. Statesville
City Board of Education, 418 F.2d 1040 (4th Cir. 1969), but
not until 1971-72; and for 1970-71, 69.5 percent of the Negro
children and 26.5 percent of the xdiite children will attend

2./segregated schools, approximately as follows:

1/ The opinion of May 19, 1969, is reported at 302 F. Supp.
L8 (E.D. Va. , 1969), the unreported opinion and order of 
December 30, 1969, and January 9, 1970, have been furnished 
to this Court under separate cover. The former opinion will 
be referred to below by its Federal Supplement citation, the 
latter by, 2 Mem. Op. ______.
2 / Defined here as any school attended ninety-eight percent 
or more by children of one race. Some evidence in the record 
suggests that any school attended ninety percent or more by 
children of one race must be considered, for educational and 
practical purposes, segregated (302 F. Supp. at 25). Using 
that standard the number of white and Negro children in segre­
gated schools would rise slightly. If one were to use the 
defendants' criterion of a school providing inferior educational 
opportunity, i.e., one attended by more than 30 to 40 percent 
Negro children, the number of Negro elementary children in such 
schools would exceed eighty percent.



Negro children in White children in
all-black schools all-white schools

Elementary 10,800 (76.47.) 6,945 (39.37o)
Junior High 3,055 (62.5%) 1,475 (21.37o)

3 /
Senior High 2,268 (53.7%) 0 (07)

Total 16,123 (69.57o) 8,420 (26.57c)

Viewed from the standpoint of schools, the results for 1970-71
are:

Total Schools White Negro Desegregated
Elementary 53 11 ‘ 19 23
Junior High 10 1 3 6
Senior High 5 0 1 4

The area-based terminal plan is derived from numerous
’’principles" which were approved and adopted by the court 
below and which may fairly be reduced to two: first, desegre­
gation is educationally self-defeating in any school attended

3 / The defendants have opted in their plan to balance racially 
the senior high schools, but not until 1972-73 (at the earliest), 
since implementation of this portion of the plan is contingent 
upon construction of a new high school which will, in effect 
but at a different site, replace the present Booker T. Wash­
ington Senior High. Since 1970-71 enrollment will remain 
substantially the same, the high school statistics shown 
above are based on 1969-70 enrollment figures.

- 2 -



by more than 30 to 40 percent Negro children, i.e., beyond 
that point the intended benefits to Negro children are not 
realized and white children are harmed\ secondly, fulfillment 
of the implications of the foregoing principle in a 60 percent 
white school district, such as Norfolk, is not a realistic 
alternative because Norfolk's extreme residential segregation 
would necessitate a degree of pupil transportation that 
would conflict with the neighborhood school concept and 
would be administratively undesirable and economically 

inadvisable.
Therefore, the questions on appeal are:
1. Whether the court below, by improper application of 

racial and geographic criteria, erroneously limited Norfolk's 
obligation to achieve racially unitary elementary and junior 

high schools.
2. Whether that court abused its discretion in post­

poning beyond the school year 1970-71 completion of faculty 
desegregation and achievement of senior high school desegre­

gation.
3. If the court below committed error and abused its 

discretion, what further relief should be required.

- 3 -

A



STATEMENT

A. Procedural History
This case was filed by private plaintiffs on 

4 /
May 10, 1956. The district court, by decree filed on 
February 26, 1957, enjoined the school board "from refusing, 
solely on account of race or color, to admit to, or enroll or 
educate in any school under their operation, control, direction 
or supervision, directly or indirectly, any child otherwise 
qualified for admission to, and enrollment and education in, 
such school." As a result of appellate proceedings the injunction 
did not become effective until October 21, 1957.

The school board subsequently adopted and filed with the 
district court on July 28, 1958, "Standards and Criteria" to 
be applied to children desiring to transfer from an all-Negro 
school for initial enrollment in a previously all-white school, 
or from a white school to a Negro school. (Resolution, pp. 2 
and 3, filed as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, July 28, 1958). The 
"Standards and Criteria" provided in substance that, the 
assignment shall: not interfere with proper instruction of 
pupils already enrolled in the school, be made only after 
consideration of the applicant's academic achievement and the

~l£j The course of this litigation is recapitulated at 2 Mem. Op. 
13-14, note 8.

- 4 -



academic achievement of students already in the school to 
which he is applying, consider the physical and moral fitness 
of the applicant, consider the mental ability of the applicant, 
take into consideration the social adaptability of the applicant, 
and shall take into consideration the cultural bacground of 
the applicant and the pupils already enrolled in the schools.
The school board also established certain procedures to be 
followed, which included testing and interviewing applicants

_5/
under the above standards and criteria.

For the 1958-59 school year 134 of 151 applications 
for transfer by Negroes were denied on the basis of these 
standards and procedures. This Court affirmed the district 
court as to the 17 Negro children whose applications were 
granted, and dismissed plaintiffs appeal with regard to the 
134 denials as premature because the district court had 
reserved for further consideration questions on the validity 
of the standards and procedures contained in the July 17, 1958 
resolution. School Board of the City of Norfolk v. Bee ke11,

5 / A study of Court Exhibits 1, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 
24”, 34, and 47, entered in evidence August 21-22, 1958, and the 
Court Exhibits 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13, entered in 
evidence on August 27, 1959 discloses that the privilege of 
transferring from the Negro system to the white system was 
sparingly granted, e.g., the rejection rate in 1958-59 was 
approximately 88 percent. The record does not disclose that 
any white pupils availed themselves of the transfer appli­
cation procedures to attend Negro schools.

- 5 -

r



260 F.2d 18 (4th Cir. 1958). By Memorandum and Order filed 
on May 8, 1959, the district court held the standards and 
procedures constitutional on their face and approved the 
action of the school board in denying the 134 applications. 
Beckett v. School Board of the City of Norfolk, 181 F. Supp.
87 (E.D. Va. 1959). There was no appeal from this decision.

These standards and procedures remained in effect,
with minor modifications, until the 1963-64 school year. For
each of the school years 1959-60, 1960-61, and 1961-62 there
were district court proceedings involving denial of transfer 

6 /
applications.

On July 11, 1963, Carlott.a Mozelle Brewer and others 
moved to intervene and for further relief. In response to 
this motion, the school board filed a plan for-desegregation 
of the Norfolk schools based upon certain "Principles". This 
plan involved some freedom of choice within certain geographic 
zones, with each zone usually containing one white and one Negro 
schools. Other students were assigned to schools on the basis 
of zones, while at the senior high level all students had a 
choice of Booker T. Washington, the at-large Negro school,

6 / The number of denials of request for transfer by Negro stu­
dents can be determined to some extent by the number of children 
involved in subsequent court actions. In addition to the 134 
denials in 1958-59, there were 33 in 1959-60, 16 in 1960-61 and 
63 in 1961-62. We can further determine from Answers to Inter­
rogatories filed by defendants on November 1, 1963, (number 6) 
that there were at least 28 in 1962-63 and 94 in 1963-64, a six 
year total of 368.

6



as well as the school in their zones. (Defendants' Exhibit 1 and
Plaintiff's Exhibit 1-A-l through l-A-4, filed December 7, 1963).

7_/
This plan was first implemented for the 1963-64 school year.

This limited free choice plan was, in effect, ratified 
by the district court in a Memorandum Opinion filed July 30, 1964. 
(unreported). Plaintiff appealed and this Court remanded the 
matter for further consideration in light of certain of its 
supervening decisions. Brewer v. School Board of City of 
Norfolk, 349 F.2d 414. (1965).

The United States was allowed to intervene under Title 
IX of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. 2000h-2) on February 
23, 1966. Shortly thereafter, on March 17, 1966, a consent 
decree was entered approving a freedom of choice (within zones) 
desegregation plan at the elementary and junior high school 
levels which, with some modifications, is presently in effect.
(Plan, dated and filed March 17, 1966). The prior senior high 
school procedures remained in effect, but were modified to a 
system of assignment by zones at the behest of white intervenors 
on June 2, 1967. Brewer v. School Board, 269 F. Supp. 118 

(E.D. Va. 1967).

77 It appears from Plaintiff's Exhibits 2-B-2, 2-B-3 and 2-C, 
"filed December 7, 1963, that many applications for transfer made by 
Negro students were denied for the 1963-64 school year on the 
grounds that such applications were made after May 31, 1963, which 
was about two months before the new plan became public or operative 
but which had been the transfer application cut-off date under the 
prior plan.

7



Following plaintiffs' subsequent appeal, this order 
was affirmed in part and vacated in part by this Court and 
remanded for further proceedings, Brewer v. School Board 
of City of Norfolk. 397 F. 2d 37 (4th Cir. 1968). The 
instant appeal grows out of these further proceedings.
B. Recent Proceedings

The initial recent hearings below, in April and May
of 1969, followed several months of negotiations among
the parties which did not produce an agreed plan for 1969-70.

An early version of next year's area-based terminal
plan, as qualified by the percentage Negro doctrine, was
referred to by counsel for the school board and xvas the
subject of some testimony and pre-trial discovery by both
appellants here. (11 Tr. 11-31; 12 Tr. 84-85; deposition of

8/
Assistant Superintendent McLaulin, April 16, 1969, pp. 24-28). 
Both parties appellant, while asserting the inadequacy of that 
proposal with respect to both faculty and students, urged 
that it be adopted with modifications as a minimum starting

8/ We are advised that the private appellants have arranged 
with the Clerk of this Court to place on each volume of tran­
script the arabic number corresponding to their identification 
by roman numerals in the record on appeal transmitted by the 
district court by letter dated April 10, 1970. Our transcript 
citations will conform to that system, e.g., 1 Tr. 1, and wit­
nesses will be identified by name. Exhibit references will be 
to the offering party, the April or October, 1969, trial, and 
where appropriate to transcript page.

8



point for 1969-70, instead of another year of the board's 
freedom of choice/high school zones plan. However, the school 
board contended and the court held (302 F. Supp. at p. 28) 
that insufficient time remained to finalize the terminal 
plan for implementation in 1969-70.

Unlike the procedure at the spring trial, the appellants 
here were required at the October hearing to proceed first 
with their proof, but the basic issue was the acceptability 
of the school board's terminal plan in the light of more 
promising alternatives assertedly available for 1970-71.

During final arguments on December 8, 1969, following
this Court’s decision in Nesbit v. Statesville City Board of
Education, 418 F.2d 1040 (4th Cir. 1969), plaintiffs and the
government renewed their arguments that certain relief,
particularly with respect to faculty and senior high school
desegregation, should become effective prior to the fall 1970

_9_/
school term. Except as noted below, such relief was denied.

In its Memorandum Opinion of December 30, 1969, followed 
by its Order of January 9, 1970, the court below adopted the 
defendants' terminal plan virtually in tact. On the basis of

9/ The arguments are presently being transcribed, but counsel's 
notes reflect that the court's view was that the law of Nesbit 
and its companion cases as to timing was not applicable to 
Norfolk, that the court had proceeded expeditiously with the 
Norfolk case and would continue to do so, and that further argu­
ment with respect to time would not be heard.

9



evidence of space availability in certain white schools, and 
representations by the defendants concerning feasibility, the 
court directed the board, in its discretion, to fill such 
vacancies with Negro pupils for the second semester of 1969-70.
(2 Mem. Op. 31, n. 24; Order of January 9, 1970, para. 2.) 
According to a subsequent report by the school board, 213 Negro 
pupils from 3 schools - accompanied by their teachers - were 
transferred to 6 white schools. The Order also required court 
approval of any use of Booker T. .Washington as a regular high 
school after construction of the proposed new facility (Order 
of January 9, 1970, para. 1).

C. Evidence
1. Student, and Faculty Desegregation in 1969-70

10./and 1970-71.
Government Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 (10/69), which appear 

in the Appendix hereto, reflect current pupil and faculty 
desegregation by school as well as pupil desegregation for 
1970-71 under the terminal plan (Def. Ex. 1, 10/69). It was 
not possible to project 1970-71 faculty desegregation by school

10/ The figures used in this section were as of the times 
of trial and are not adjusted for the transfers of Negro pupils 
effected in February of this year; nor do they project transfers 
which may result from the qualified transfer provision in the 
terminal plan (Def. Ex. 1, p. 7).

- 10 -



since the terminal plan provides only for complete desegre­
gation by 1971-72 with half that goal to be reached for 

1970-71.
The data disclose that the Norfolk system educates 

approximately 56,628 students of whom 32,621 are white and 
24,007 are black. There are 5 senior high schools (4 desegre­
gated and one all-Negro); 11 junior high schools (of which 
4 are all-Negro, and a fifth is 91 percent Negro, while 3 
others are 3, 4, and 8 percent Negro, respectively); and of 
56 elementary schools, 21 have 15 or fewer white pupils and 
9 have fifteen or fewer Negro pupils. Thus, of 4220 Negro 
senior high students, fewer than, half (46.3 percent) currently 
attend formerly white schools; of 5903 Negro junior high students, 
fewer than a quarter (24 percent) attend formerly white schools; 
and of 13,884 Negro elementary children, fewer than a fifth 
(19 percent) attend formerly white schools.

For 1969-70 the system employs 2475 regular classroom 
teachers, of whom 840 (about 34 percent) are Negro and 1635 
(about 66 percent) are white. Four hundred and seven (slightly 
over 16 percent) of these teachers are presently assigned 
across racial lines, and at only 2 of the districts' 73 
schools do the faculties reflect approximately the racial

11



composition of the entire teacher corps. (Govt. Ex. 1, 10/69.)
The terminal plan of desegregation will result even­

tually in 5 desegregated, racially balanced high schools 
when a proposed new facility is completed(for 1972-73, at the
earliest), but the status quo of 4 desegregated high schools

JJ/
and one all-Negro high school will obtain until that time.
(21 Tr. 141, Thomas; 21 Tr. 150-151; 28 Tr. 14-16, McLaulin.)

Of ten junior high schools, which will be fed by 
specified elementary schools, 3 will be ninety-eight percent 
or more Negro, 1 will be all-white, and 6 will be desegregated. 
(Def. Ex. 16, 10/69.)

At the elementary level more than half of the schools 
will be all-white (11) or all-black (19) (Def. Ex. 15, 10/69). 
Thus, more than three-quarters of the Negro elementary children 
(approximately 10,800 of 14,130) and almost two-thirds of the 
Negro junior high pupils (about 3055 of 4890) will go to

11 / As presented, the defendants' plan projected two possible 
future uses of Booker T. Washington: (1) to accommodate any
excess of Negro students over their percentage quotas at 
the other schools, and (2) to accommodate black separatist 
students (27 Tr. 153-156, McLaulin). The court below explicitly 
condemned the latter proposal in its second Memorandum Opinion 
(p. 51) and conditioned the school's future use as a regular 
facility upon prior judicial approval (Order of January 9, 1970, 
para. 1); the Negro overflow option, however, apparently remains. 
Other non-regular-school uses were also proposed.

12



schools that are 98 to 100 percent black. (Gov't Ex. 3, 10/69.) 
Similarly, almost 40 percent of the white elementary children 
(about 6945 of 17,655) and more than one-fifth of the white 
junior high pupils will be assigned to schools that are 98 
to 100 percent white.

In addition, the plan provides that Negro pupils may
transfer to any school which has space available and where
the 30 percent Negro quota has not been reached. (2 Mem. Op.

12/
23, n. 16.) The efficacy of this transfer provision is un­
certain especially since the pupils will bear any transportation 
expense involved (see undated school board report of

1JL/approximately February 10, 1970, pp. 2-3). (And see 12 Tr. 
179, Lamberth; 28 Tr. 177-180, Bash.)

2. Reenforcement of the Dual System Since 1954 
Although both trials below focused primarily upon 

whether the school board's plan adequately disestablishes

12 / The transfer option does not refer to Negro pupils by race 
but it does so by implication since 30 percent is the Negroes - 
per school ceiling in other parts of the Board's plan. Pre­
sumably, although it is not set forth,white children have an 
analogus option to transfer to schools that are at least 70 
percent white.
13 / Fuller consideration of the school board's plan and 
the assertedly feasible alternative approaches suggested by 
educational experts who testified for plaintiffs and the 
government appears in part C, below.

13



the dual system in comparison with more promising alternatives 
that were testified to be educationally sound and administratively 
and economically feasible, some evidence was adduced tending 
to show that, for years after this litigation began, a number 
of school board policy decisions were based upon perpetuation 
of the racially dual system.

For example, in 1957-58 Gatewood, Lee, and Madison 
were schools in which all white teachers taught all white 
pupils (Court Ex. 13-A, August 22, 1958). In 1963-64 Lee 
and Madison were schools in which all black teachers taught 
almost all black pupils (Pi. Ex. 1-A, December 7, 1963). 
Superintendent Lamberth testified (Hearing of December 7,
1963, Tr. 26-27) about the change at Lee:

Q. I believe that prior to the close of the last
school session - that is during the 1962-63 school 
session - and in prior years, the Lee school - the 
Lee Elementary School was predominantly white as 
far as student body was concerned?

A. Was prior to - it was predominantly white prior to 
the present [1963-64 school session, yes.

Q. And the faculty and staff was all white?
A. Yes sir, that's right.
Q. And I believe that now the faculty is all Negro?
A. Yes
Q. Mien was the change made, sir?
A. July 1st, 1963.

14



(And see Govt. Ex. F-31, 4/69, Minutes of the Informal 
School Board Meeting Held December 28, 1961.) The conversion 
of Madison, among others, was projected at the school board 
meeting of November 17, 1960 (Gov't Ex. F-29, 4/69):

Superintendent Lamberth stated that 
Madison could be remodeled for use as 
a junior high school v.7ith the help of 
an architect and the application of 
colored children to other schools in 
the area would be greatly curtailed.
He complimented the Board on its willingness 
to turn over schools to the colored students 
(i. e. Ruffner, Brambleton, Berkley, Madison).

(And see Govt. Ex. F-27, item 11, 4/69.) Gatewood in 1966-67 
was attended only by Negroes who were taught by an all-Negro 
faculty (Govt. Exs. 1, 3, 10/69).

Similarly, faculty segregation practices were operative 
as recently as this school year and last. The spring testimony 
(12 Tr. 135-142, Brewster) of the system's personnel director, 
considered together with his fall testimony (25 Tr. 13-18, 
Brewster) and that of a research analyst witness for the 
government (25 Tr. 39-57, Ross), disclose that the substitute 
teacher roster was maintained by race, that assignments across 
racial lines were "exceptions," and that during an eight-day 
random period in the current school year white teachers on 
the roster received 120 assignments to white schools (75 per-

15



cent or more white pupils) and 4 assignments to Negro 
schools (75 percent or more Negro pupils). Simultane­
ously, Negro teachers received 160.5 assignments to 
Negro schools and 18 assignments to white schools. 
Overall, substitute teachers were assigned to schools 
where their race predominated more than ninety-three 
percent of the time. (See Govt. Ex. 21, 10/69, tendered, 
accepted, and rejected, 25 Tr. 55-56.)

The defendants’s position appeared to be that some 
substitutes decline to teach across racial lines (25 
Tr. 41-42).

16



3. Residential Segregation
In its most recent opinion (397 F. 2d at 41-42) 

this Court directed that inquiry be made into the origins 
of Norfolk's residential racial segregation; and the 
court below inquired of counsel concerning that part of 
this Court's opinion (12 Tr. 160-164, 4/69). Eighty 
percent of Norfolk's Negro population resides in the 
southwestern quadrant of the City with the balance in 
smaller enclaves in the northwestern (TitustoWn) and 
central (Oakwood, Coronado, Rosemont) portions (Govt. Exs. 

B-l, B-2, 4/69)
The evidence, consisting of expert and lay testi­

mony and documents, confirmed that the racial composition 
of schools and neighborhoods are interdependent phenomena,

17



and that Norfolk's present residential segregation has 
resulted substantially from public and private racial 
discrimination.

First, the laws of Virginia from 1912 through 1947 
explicitly authorized legally compelled residential 
segregation (12 Tr. 165-167). Similarly, the ordinances 
of Norfolk from 1920 until approximately May 1, 1951, 
required residential segregation (12 Tr. 167-169). And 
the testimony of an expert witness, that the effects of 
such restrictions upon the racial composition of neigh­
borhoods persist after the restrictions have been formal­

ly/'
ly removed, was not challenged (16 Tr. 137-138, Jackson).

Second, expert testimony was adduced to the effect 
that, at least prior to 1964, it was the practice of 
public housing authorities to select sites for projects 
and to assign tenants on a racially segregated basis 
(16 Tr. 111-116, 120-121, Jackson), and that such prac­
tices affect the racial composition of schools -

14/ As the witness's answer reflects, the second word in 
line 10 at page 137-was "including" rather than "exclud- 
mg' .

18



especially where the school is planned in conjunction 
with the project (16 Tr. 118-119, Jackson). In that 
connection, Govt. Exhibits F-l through F-31 and M,
M-l disclose a long history of close cooperation be­
tween the school board and the Norfolk Housing and Re­
development Authority (see esp. F-22, 28, 30, and 31,

15./4/69). Moreover, the G series of exhibits (G-l through 
G-20, 4/69) confirms that degree of cooperation from 
the Authority's standpoint and reveals that racial con­
siderations, including the segregated racial composition 
of present and future schools, were prominent factors in 
the deliberations of the board and the Authority. Examples

1_5/ As expressed in a letter, dated February 15, 1950, 
from School Superintendent Brewbaker to the Authority: 
"Gentlemen: This confirms conversations concerning the
interlocking of our school program with your double program 
of redevelopment of slum areas and construction of housing 
on vacant land sites." (Govt. Ex. G-13, 4/69). And, at a 
meeting with the Exectitive Director of the Authority on 
January 2, 1958, "(9) The school Board raised the question 
as to where he thought the families would relocate from the 
Downtown Project. Mr. Cox stated that he did not think 
that it would involve such encroachment on the existing 
white areas." (Govt. Ex. G-18, 4/69)

19



of schools serving children of one race and that were 
considered in conjunction with Housing Authority develop­
ment plans are: Bowling Park (Project No. Va 6-7, Govt.
Ex. F-16 and G-6, 4/69); Diggs Park (Project No. Va 6-6, 
Govt. Exs. F-16 and G-6, 4/69); and Roberts Park (Govt. 
Ex. G-3, 4/69).

Third, it was undisputed that (presently unenforce­
able) racially restrictive covenants appear frequently 
in deeds to Norfolk residential property (Govt. Exs.
E-l through E-2-A, 4/69). In that regard, some evidence 
adduced by defendants as well as the govenment. tended to 
show that the restrictive effects of racial covenants 
have persisted to the present and even now burden the 
transfer of property. (16 Tr. 137-138, Jackson; 19 Tr. 
278-282, Robertson.)

Fourth, testimonial and documentary evidence with 
respect to private racial discrimination indicated that, 
as recently as the spring of 1967, fewer than half of the 
off-base rental housing facilities of five or more units 
were available to Negro military personnel. (16 Tr. 149- 
153, Pearce; Govt. Exs. L-l, L-2, 4/69).

20



Lastly, evidence from various other sources was 
introduced that private discrimination presently af­
fects housing opportunitites for Negroes in Norfolk. 
(E.g., 16 Tr. 207, James; 19 Tr. 296-297, Ferebee; 16 
Tr. 190, DeJournette; and 16 Tr. 230-231, Pearson.)

The defendants’ initial position at the spring 
hearing appeared to be that evidence of residential 
segregation was inadmissible as irrelevant to the in­
terim plan (12 Tr. 180-181). It was also suggested 
that, at least now, housing is available to Negroes 
on a non-dlscriminatory basis (19 Tr. 289, Ferebee).

The school board’s position in the fall was that 
its plan, while neighborhood-based, took residential 
segregation into account to the extent feasible, but 
not to the extent of coming into conflict with its 
percentage Negro doctrine (see, e.g. 28 Tr. 155-158, 
McLaulin).

4. The Terminal Plan (Def. Ex. 1, 10/69)
The defendants' terminal plan provides for pupil 

desegregation within two limitations: first, Norfolk’s

21



residential racial segregation, combined with the board' 
selection of a neighborhood plan and the° economic and 
administrative inadvisability of more pupil transporta- 
tion, limit desegregation a priori; secondly, and more 
importantly, for reasons of school system stability and 
educational quality, no desegregated school can accommo­
date more than 30 percent (perhaps 40 percent in excep­
tional cases) Negro children. The second limitation re­
ceived extensive treatment below by all parties because 
its implementation in Norfolk relegates so many Negro 
children to schools denominated inferior, and because it 
drastically limits in this district the use of such 
traditional techniques of desegregation as zoning, con­
tiguous pairing and grouping, and revised bus routes - 
where a school less than 60 to 70 percent white would 
result. (See, e,g., 29 Tr. 194-196, Lamberth; and 28 
Tr. 155-158, McLaulin.)

The defendants' extensive testimonial and documen­
tary evidence in support of the plan was offered to show

22



(a) that a school's social class composition is the 
principal determinant of its quality; (b) that a mid­
dle class school is educationally better for all 
children; (c.) that in Norfolk white and Negro are sub­
stantially synonomous with middle and lower class, 
respectively; (d) that as the number of Negro children 
in a school rises above 30 to 40 percent the intended 
benefits to them disappear and the effects on the edu­
cation of white children are increasingly adverse; (e) 
that the educational unsoundness of the 30 percent-
plus Negro school induces white flight -- to the

16./eventual detriment of the entire system.
The appellants' challenges to this doctrine were 

several. First, the doctrine and assertedly support­
ing data were objected to as irrelevant if they were

-] / It was made clearer at the second trial that 
the School Board seeks to avoid middle class flight 
irrespective of race. (Compare 13 Tr. 234-235, 
Thomas, and 18 Tr. 22-23, McLaulin; with 31 Tr. 45, 
Pettigrew. But see 27 Tr. 129-130, McLaulin, and 
21 Tr. 147, Thomas.) The operative effect of that 
dictinction in a system which eauates class with 
race, and which proposes to maintain 60 to 70 percent 
white schools because they are the middle class, 
remains less clear.

23



being offered as a limitation -- on account of race -- 
of the defendants' obligation to disestablish dual 
schools. The objections were overruled. * (19 Tr. 
188-190.)

Second, evidence introduced by plaintiffs and 
the government focused upon the selected data being 
relied upon by the defendants and tended to show:
(a) that the studies were inapposite to, and not 
intended for, the use to which they were being put;
(b) that some of the data were mutually inconsistent 
while others contradicted certain conclusions drawn 
by the School Board; and (c) that certain crucial 
inferences were in fact highly tentative, fragmentary, 
or uncertain of uniform application.

For instance, certain studies are not studies 
of the process of desegregation but, rather, are a 
series of snapshots about particular children of 
particular races at one point in time, i.e., the 
studies are not longitudinal. (28 Tr. 146, McLaulin;
22 Tr. 119, Foster; 31 Tr. 109, Pettigrew; id., 111-112.)

24



Also, the principles are contradictory (22 Tr. 154- 
155, Foster) and the data and studies upon which they 
are based is inconclusive and subject to differing 
interpretations (28 Tr. 150, McLaulin; 22 Tr. 131- 
133, Foster; 24 Tr. 45 to 48, Stolee; 16 Tr. 64-65, 
Stolee.) Social class becomes the one supreme factor 
to the exclusion of many other proven factors which 
have historically and universally been used in the 
field of education in developing sound educational 
policy, (22 Tr. 119-120, Foster; 26 Tr. 108-110,
Brazziel) and social science research is used without 
regard to its limitations (22 Tr. 102-108, Foster).

Third, the defendants' witnesses testified to 
their reliance upon certain findings cited, but they 
also testified that no inrtuiry was made into whether 
the findings in general applied to Norfolk in particular. 
Nor was any effort made to compare specific data 
assertedly relied upon with similar Norfolk data to 
test the reliability, or at least the applicability, 
of the former.

25



For example, studies introduced in support of 
the percentage Negro doctrine were said to show that, 
as the number of Negroes rises above 30 or so percent, 
the performance of white children begins to decline 
and the improvement in Negro performance slows and 
then also declines. As noted above, problems in the 
methodology of such studies undermine their validity 
(28 Tr. 147-149, McLaulin) (Def. Ex. 24, 10/69, 
p. 38 and 63); but the evidence also showed that 
this system, which has a test5.ng program and schools 
of varying Negro percentages, made no examinations of 
its own data from this standpoint (28 Tr. 150, McLaulin). 
And when the system’s pertinent test results were col­
lected in a trial exhibit (Govt. Ex. 4-64a, 10/69), it 
was apparent and agreed that no conclusions upon which 
to base school policy could be drawn (31 Tr. 114, 116- 
117, Pettigrew).

Finally, the evidence showed that the plan was 
promulgated without systematic inquiry as to the cor­
relation in Norfolk between race and social class

26



(28 Tr. 123-125, McLaulin), that different School 
Board witnesses were determining social class by 
different criteria (Dr. Pettigrew used parents edu­
cation and Dr. McLaulin used income data. 31 Tr. 
127-128, Pettigrew; 28 Tr. 66, McLaulin; Dr. Brazziel 
disagreed with the criteria and their use, 26 Tr. 
112-116, Brazziel), and that, while race and social 
class were said to be independent variables in their 
effects upon school performance (31 Tr. 125, Pettigrew; 
and see Def. Ex. 1, 4/69), no one -- from all that 
appears -- has sought to quantify eiJher in terms of 
Norfolk or its plan.

The senior high school portion of the plan pro­
vides for racially balanced high schools when a new 
facility opens, at the earliest in 1972-73 (Def.
Ex. 7, 10/69; 21 Tr. 141, 10/69, Thomas). That will 
entail significantly increased Negro pupil transporta­
tion. (2 Mem. Op. 49, n. 34.) The School Board 
declines to desegregate the high schools at once 
because there are not enough white pupils who could 
be zoned into Booker T. Washington consistent with

27



the percentage Negro doctrine, and desegregation by 
transportation now is unacceptable. (21 iTr. 143- 
150, Thomas.) The plan provides that Booker T. 
Washington may be used as a regular facility for 
blacks after the new school is in operation in order 
to maintain the prescribed racial quotas elsewhere, 
and there was testimony for the defendants that 
black separatist students might go there. (Def.
Ex. 1, p. 7, 10/69; 27 Tr. 153-156, McLaulin.) The 
trial court's order of January 9, 1970, requires 
prior approval of any future use of Booker T. as a 
regular facility.

28



Finally, desegregation of faculty and staff, by an 
approximate racial balance formula, will be implemented 
for 1971-72 (Def. Ex. 1, p. 9). It was suggested that 
the accomplishment of this objective was being delayed 
to permit additional in-service teacher training (2 Mem. 
Op. 80). Other testimony indicated, however, that 
teacher reassignments were made for 1969-70 independent­
ly of such training (25 Tr. 11-13, Brewster), and that, 
while such training is often helpful, it is most effec­
tive when it accompanies, rather than precedes, teacher 
desegregation {15 Tr. 514-517, Stolee).

5. Alternative Approaches
The government's view below was that the School 

Board had a non-delegable duty to come forward with a 
plan that promised realistically to work then. Conse­
quently, the practice of presenting a comprehensive, 
detailed plan for adoption by the district court in 
tact, which has become current in the wake of recent 
Supreme Court decisons, was not followed. At both 
trials, however, the government presented a detailed,

- 29 -



illustrated series of approaches that expert witnesses
testified were options available to this district to
produce greater desegregation within the framework of
educational soundness and administrative feasibility.
And in the words of the School Board’s principal in-
house expert (27 Tr. 174-175, McLaulin):

...and I think I stated before that I don't 
really thinlc I could do a much better job 
than [the government -expert] did with even 
considerable local knowledge. We might 
change a boundary line here and there, but 
the plan would look essentially as his plan 
looks without any substantive modification 
of the program,,

(Plaintiffs' expert witness agreed (26 Tr. 152-154) 
Brazziel.)

The suggested approaches began with the use of con­
ventional methods, such as zoning, contiguous pairing 
and grouping, and revised minimally increased transpor­
tation, which would have produced a modest but signifi­
cant increase in desegregation. The other options, 
each accompanied by maps, overlays, pupil assignment 
computations and explanatory testimony as to educational

30



soundness and administrative feasibility, would increas­
ingly employ related techniques, e.g., non-contiguous 
pairing and more transportation, with a corresponding 
increase in the desegregation achieved. Even educational 
parks were touched upon. (14 Tr. 447-462, Stolee; 23 Tr. 
87, et seq., Stolee; Govt. Exs. 18 through 18--B-2; 23 Tr. 
179, Stolee; Govt. Ex. 18-D-l.)

In the last analysis, the suggested approaches could 
not surmount the scissors effect of the School Board’s 
"principles." The modest options which accommodated the 
neighborhood concept were fouiid to conflict with the per­
centage Negro doctrine; whereas approaches embodying the 
Board's preference for preponderantly white schools would 
sacrifice the neighborhood school concept.

6. Pupil Transportation
Approximately 8000 pupils are now transported to 

schools in Norfolk (18 Tr. 74-75, McLaulin), and under 
the School Board's plan that number will increase when 
the new high school is in operation. Neither the School 
Board nor the appellants presented to the court below an

31



analysis of the district's economic capability with 
respect to increased transportation expenditures. To 
be s\ire, evidence of grossly increased costs was pre­
sented (and challenged); and the court below placed 
great emphasis on the projected costs. The School 
Board's position, however, during closing arguments on 
December 9, 1969 (and see 29 Tr. 132-133, Lamberth), 
seemed to be that, while mon.ey could be found for 
transportation at its most expensive estimate, such ex­
penditures should not be required at the sacrifice of

18/
other programs, and neighborhood schools.

Evidence was adduced by the plaintiffs to the ef­
fect that the Board's cost estimates were unreal, that 
the Board's projected bus routes did not-take into 
account the suitability of presently available public 
transportation and were inexpertly prepared without the

12/ The preponderance of the expert testimony was that 
pupil transportation has no independent educational 
significance. (23 Tr. 12.8-130, Stolee;. 28 Tr. 90, 
McLaulin; 15 Tr. 500-503, Stolee.)

- 32 -



technical assistance available from the state, that 
state funds to which the district would be entitled 
for non-capital outlays had been omitted, and that 
the actual costs of pupil transportation in nearby 
Virginia cities were wholly inconsistent with the 
Board's figures.

33



ARGUMENT
INTRODUCTION

Certain portions of the opinions below which 
characterize the government’s view of the applicable 
law suggest that the court misunderstood our position. 
(See, e.g., 302 F. Supp. at 31.) It bears reiteration, 
if only because it is also our position here.

The Constitution ordains no one method of 
pupil desegregation, but it does require the con­
version from duai to unitary systems. The district 
courts, in their implementation of that mandate, 
should require the adoption of that plan which 
promises best, within the framework of educational 
soundness, administrative feasibility and economic 
resources, to end de jure segregated schools. Courts 
often measure the adequacy of plans in terms of the 
extent, to which white and Negro children go to school 
together, and it is the school board's burden to 
justify continued racial separation of children where 
more promising alternatives are apparently at hand.

34



On the other hand, it is not our view that the 
Constitution rectuires the racial balancing of pupils, 
although the discretion vested in school boards would 
permit that option. The circumstances of some dis­
tricts may be such that some schools in a unitary 
system will be attended disproportionately by children 

of one race.
We find the legal applicability of these princi­

ples to Norfolk not difficult. Many of the techniques 
associated with de jure segregation have, at one time or 
another, been employed by this district. That is 
relevant here in two ways: first, it provides a
reliable measure of the extent to which the existing 
racial dualism results from the policies of the Board; 
and secondly, the Board's educationally ingenious, 
but presumably not harmful (race aside), aevices 
employed in furtherance of segregation,

35



illustrate how venturesome it can and must be in further-
y/

ance of desegregation.
We recognize, too, however, practically speaking, 

that the Norfolk school system serves a racially segre­
gated, sizable urban area. This Court is surely not un­
mindful that children and buildings are where they are, 
and that such factors cannot be disregarded. We would 
emphasize, however, and the record is clear to this ef­
fect, that people and facilities are in their present 
places often as a result of racial discrimination; and 
the Board may not rely upon the present effects of 
policies to which it contributed as the bulwark of today’s 
passive resistance to desegregation.

lfy Of course, we do not refer to methods such as the 
attendance of 2400 Negro pupils at a school (L. I. 
Washington, 1967-68, Govt. Ex. 3, 10/69) with a rated 
capacity of 1800 (Govt. Ex. 15, 10/69), and an under­
capacity white school (Lake Taylor) reasonably accessible 
(That problem has been improved, 302 F. Supp. at 21.) 
Rather, we refer to such techniques, familiar to this 
system, as racially oriented zoning, pairing, and grade 
restructuring.

36



A . De Jure Segregation
By a somewhat novel analysis, involving statutes of 

other states dealing with miscegenation, Indian rights, 
and Mongolians, the court below was led to the conclu­
sion that " . . .  the de facto-de .jure issue is not a 
determinative factor in arriving at what is required 
under Brown I and the subsequent cases." 2 Mem. Op. 75-79 

and Appendix.
We reach the same conclusion, with respect to hoi.** 

folk, by a different route. Even disregarding the effects 
oh the composition of Norfolk’s schools of the longstand­
ing ordinances requiring residential segregation, the 
evidence shows that much of today’s dualism stems from 
the interlocking segregationist policies'of the School 
Board and the Housing Authority in the 1940's and 1950’s.
Of course, the issue is not the legality of such policies 
when some of them were made. The point, rather, is that 
even if Norfolk never had school segregation lavs, or if 
after 1954 it had been racially neutral concerning schools, 
its legal burden would be the same today because the

- 37 -

r



placement of schools by race (many in conjunction with 
the Housing Authority's placement of people by race), 
and related supplementary policies, were de jure acts 
whose effects have yet to be undone.

In an article (citing, inter alia, a report of the 
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights) written for a scholarly 
publication, Dr. Thomas F. Pettigrew, one of the School 
Board's principal witnesses, summed it. up as follows

(Govt. Ex. 22, p. 105, 10/S9):
Norfolk, Virginia is a good illustration 

of *the extreme use of residential separation 
to achieve racially-separate public education.
To strengthen the exploitation of existing 
housing patterns, many of the city's new 
schools are small, three-to-four room struc­
tures for the first three to four grades.
These little boxes are carefully located to 
maximize de facto school segregation (footnote 
omitted).

We conclude, therefore, with the district court, 
that today's racial separation of pupils in Norfolk is 
entirely de 'jure, even irrespective of the Board's non­
performance of its affirmative responsibilities since 19j>4.

A word as to faculty. Desegregation is lagging im­
permissibly and that will be treated further, briefly,

38



below. In addition, however, the evidence showed -
with respect to the present school year as well as last
- that substitute teachers were designated on the roster
by race and, with rare exceptions, were being assigned
to schools attended predominantly by children of their
own race. Although we think the court below erred in

19/
its denial of relief and dismissal of that contention, 
we acknowledge that it is less than the heart of this 
matter. The significance of this evidence, however, is 
that such flagrant de jure segregation, so directly with­
in the control of the Board and so easily cured, is not 
consistent with the "good faith" so often claimed by, 
and attributed to, this Board. (See, e.g., 2 Mem. Op.
2-3). United States v. School District 151, 301 F. Supp.

iy Evidence with respect to this problem was presented 
in the fall as well as the spring. In its second Memo­
randum Opinion the court below held (p. 83); "There is 
no merit to the contention that discrimination has been 
shown in the assignment of substitute teachers. It does 
not justify any discussion." The Board's position ap­
pears to be that some substitutes decline to accept as­
signments across racial lines (25 Tr. 41).

39



201, 229-230 (E.D. 111., 1969); Henry v. Claries dale 
Municipal Separate School District, 409 F. 2d 682,
684 (5th Cir. 1969).

B. The Terminal Plan
We believe that the plan approved below is unaccept­

able in its premises and, in light of the feasible alter­
natives shown, it is equally unacceptable in its results.

Two issues, in our view., can be disposed of briefly 
before turning to the Board's use of the neighborhood 
school concept and its reliance on the percentage Negro 
doctrineo The court below declined to require faculty 
desegregation during 1969-70 or even for 1970-71 (2 Mem. 
Op. 80-83)o Its reasons were the desirability of addi­
tional in-service training and teacher reluctance in a 
"seller's market". The latter reason is impermissible 
(United States v. Greenwood Municipal Separate School 
District, 406 F. 2d 1086 (5th Cir. 1969); and the former 
reason is belied by the record in two respects. First, 
there was expert testimony that such training, while de­
sirable, is more effective as part of desegregation

- 40 -

r



rather than beforehand. Secondly, the Board's Director 
of Personnel acknowledged that such training was not a 
criterion in the transfer of teachers for 1969-70. We 
urge this Court to require the acceleration of the Board's 
faculty racial balance plan, including with respect to 
summer programs and student teachers and substitute 
teachers. Nesbit v. Statesville City Board of Education, 

supra.
The defendants senior high school plan, which was ap­

proved by the court, proposes to balance racially the 
schools at that level by a combination of zoning and bus­
ing. The problem, however, is that implementation of the 
plan is contingent upon construction of a new high school 
which cannot be ready before 1972-73. Meanwhile more than 
half of the Negro high school pupils will continue to at­
tend all-black Booker T. Washington. In addition, the 
plan projects the possible future use of Washington as a 
regular high school for Negroes should that become 
necessary to keeping the other high schools 60 to 70 

percent white.
- 41



There was testimony that the Board had considered 
zoning in several hundred white students, but injected 
that on account of the percentage Negro doctrine. The 
option of busing whites in and blacks out was also con­
sidered and rejected, although the school could be de­
segregated in that way with less busing than is contem­
plated for 1972-73. Lastly, the court rejected a plan, 
offered by the government’s expert witness, that would 
have paired Lake Taylor with Washington, resulting in 
two 47 percent white schools. And from all that appears 
that same result could be achieved by combining the Lake 
Taylor and Washington zones.

Senior high school desegregation may not be 
deferred pending construction of new facilities or the 
fulfillment of any other contingency. Carter v. West 
Feliciana Parish School Board, 396 U.S. 290 (1970). We 
agree with the district court (2 Mem. Op. 51) that 
Booker T. Washington should not become a segregated 
school for black separatists. But we cannot agree that 
it may become a segregated school to accommodate the

- 42



percentage Negro doctrine elsewhere; and this Court 
should explicitly disapprove such tise. Brown v. Board 
of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

According to the defendants and the court below 
(2 Memorandum Opinion, 58), the neighborhood school 
concept is one of the plan's two key elements. (And 
see 21 Tr. 166-168, Thomas.) In our view, this case 
does not involve the validity of neighborhood schools.
(Cf. Kemp v. Beasley, ___ F. 2d ___, slip. op. p. 14
8th Cir., No. 19,782, March 17, 1970.)) First, rather 
than assigning children on the basis of proximity and 
school capacities, this plan involves zone lines, man­
made and natural topographical factors, and the per­
centage Negro doctrine. Compare Ellis v. Board of
Public Instruction of Orange County, Florida, ___ F.
2 d ___ (5th Cir., No. 29, 124, February 17, 1970),
with Andrews v. City of Monroe, ___ F. 2d ____ (5th. Cir.
No. 29,358, April 23, 1970, slip. op. pp. 4-6).

Second, the record here does not show that schools 
have been located on the basis of pupil need independently

- 43



of the racial composition of neighborhoods. Indeed, 
even putting aside the racial structuring of neigh­
borhoods undertaken by Norfolk's authorities, this 
record is conclusive to the effect that the School 
Board located and built schools not for children in 
the area, but for Negro children in the area contem­
poraneously with other schools for white children in 
the same or adjacent areas.

Of course, neighborhood schools is a familiar 
principle of educational organization. But that 
principle, like any other, may not be manipulated so 
as to create and maintain racially dual schools.
United States v. School District 151, 404 F.2d 1125 
(7th Cir. 1968) (affirmance of preliminary injunction); 
same, 301 F. Supp. 201 (N.D. 111., 1969) (permanent 
injunction); Taylor v. Board of Education, 191 F. Supp. 
181 (S.D. N.Y., 1961), affirmed, 294 F.2d 36 (2nd Cir.

44



1961), cert, denied, 368 U.S. 940 (1961); Keyes v.
School District No. 1 of Denver, 303 F. Supp. 279 
(D. Colo., 1969); same, 303 F. Supp. 289 (T). Colo.,
1969); same, ____F. Supp. ____ (C.A. No. C-1499,
D. Colo., March 21, 1970) (permanent injunction),
Spangler and United States v. Pasadena City Board_of
Education, ____ F. Supp. ____ (No. 68-1438-R, C.D.
Calif., March 12, 1970). See also Gomillion v.
Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1964).

Third, the Supreme Court has indicated that 
" . . .  a geographical formula is not universally appropri 
ate. . . ." for the establishment of unitary schools.
Green v. P.rmntv School Board, 391 U.S. 430, 442, n. 6 
(1968). And see United States v. Indianola Municipal 
Separate School District, 410 F.2d 626 (5th Cir. 1969) 
and Henry v. Clarksdale Municipal Separate School
District, 409 F.2d 682 (5th Cir. 1969).

In the last analysis, however, we do not believe 
that this case presents to this Court the nuestion or the 
outer limits of the affirmative obligations of a neighbor, 
hood schools-oriented board confronted by extreme

45



residential segregation not of its own making. This 
Board's location of schools, manipulation of grade 
structures, and drawing of zone lines to permit white 
students to avoid nearer Negro schools make the ques­
tion easier here.

20/
We come last to the Negro quota. To the extent 

that it manifests the opposition of the white majority 
to school desegregation it is impermissible. Monroe v. 
Board of Commissioners, 391 U.S. 450, 459 (1968).

We believe also that the educational hypotheses 
involved are highly tentative and, concededly, there 
has been no effort to measure them by the circumstances 
of this district. (28 Tr. 138-139, 149-150, McLaulin.) 
Moreover, some School Board witnesses agreed that the

20/ At one point (2 Mem. Op. p. 12), the court below 
interpreted the doctrine as not reouiring white children 
to go out of their "proper and legal zone" to attend a 
majority Negro school. That is not the way it was 
described by the Superintendent, however: ". . .but if
you draw the line and you see you get a 60 percent Negro 
school and you say 'Principle Number So-and-so-that says 
40 percent is the maximum,' than you change the line"
(29 Tr. 183, Lamberth).

- 46



correlation between race and the educational or socio­
economic disabilities of some students, upon which the 
hypotheses are based, is itself the product of prior 
discrimination, including school segregation. (21 Tr. 
126-128, Thomas; 28 Tr. 133-137, McLaulin.)

In a sense, therefore, this Court is being asked 
to affirm not only the continuation of a slightly modified 
dual system, but also to endorse the principle that prior 
inequities may be the basis for present ones. Cf. Gaston 
County v. United States, 395 U.S. 285 (1969). Whether or 
not the schools that will be attended by a majority of 
the Negro pupils in 1970-71 under the Board's plan may 
fairly be characterized as the "academic scrap heap"
(22 Tr. 96-99, Foster), it seems irrefutable that the 
Board candidly proposes to maintain one set of quality 
schools for most whites and some blacks and another set 
of lesser schools for most blacks and a few whites. And 
to ascertain which are the inferior schools one need only 
look at their racial composition. Cf. Brown v. Board of

Education, supra, at p. 494.
The United States urges, however, that this Court 

need not sit as an educational tribunal. This case can 
and should be decided upon the basis that the court below

- 47



erred when it permitted the Board to rely upon these 
notions for a plan of segregation rather than desegre­
gation. Anthony v. Marshall County Board of Education, 
419 F.2d 1211, 1219 (5th Cir. 1969). For instance, by 
the standards favored by the defendants’ principal 
expert witness, Dr. Pettigrew, eight of fifty elementary 
schools would be desegregated (31 Tr. 89-93, Pettigrew).

The School Board’s legal obligation is to estab­
lish unitary schools by ". . . the best available 
alternative.” Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate
School District, ____F. 2 d ____, slip op. p. 11 (5th
Cir., No. 29226, May 5, 1970). Educators may be skepti­
cal of the theories employed, but so long as they meet 
that requirement and do not otherwise entail racial dis­
crimination, the racial desegregation retirements of 
the Constitution are satisfied.

Presumably, this Board believes these theories. 
And whatever their intrinsic merit, we find no constitu­
tional impediment to their use as part of an otherwise 
acceptable plan. As the expert Assistant Superintendent 
testified, Norfolk’s racial percentages would permit the 
almost unnualified implementation of these doctrines by

48



racially balancing the system. (28 Tr. 152, McLaulin.) 
And among the options testified to by the government's 
expert were several which illustrated how to do just 
that--based on the Board's, not the government's, 
asserted preference. (24 Tr. 81-82, Stolee.)

We conclude, therefore, that the defendants may 
establish unitary schools by a formula uniformly 
applied or several other methods. But on the facts 
of this record neither this method nor any other, alone 
or in combination, may be used to preserve unlawful 
segregation.

C. The Relief
We believe that this case should be remanded to 

the district court with the following specific instruc­
tions .

(1) Faculty desegregation, including with 
respect to student teaches and substitute 
teachers, must be completed, by the formula 
already adopted in the School Board's plan, 
not later than the beginning of the 1970 
summer session.

- 49



(2) That now and hereafter the Board must 
operate desegregated senior high schools 
not later than the beginning of the 1970- 
71 school year, by the use of any proposal 
now part of the record; or, should the 
board opt for a different plan, such plan 
shall be presented to the court below not 
later than July 6, 1970, and plaintiffs and 
the government shall be heard promptly with 
respect to any objections they may make.
(3) With respect to the elementary and 
junior high schools, we urge that the 
defendants be required to adopt that edu­
cationally sound plan or plans which 
accomplish pupil desegregation, to the 
maximum extent feasible, within the 
resources of the district.
As described above in detail, this district 

has long transported pupils and it may not now decline 
to do so, in order to preserve segregation, to the 
extent that it resources permit. We believe that

50



the record reflects that Norfolk can afford, by its 
own funds and others apparently available, significantly 
increased transportation expenditures. We recognize, 
however, that no definitive analysis of the district's 
financial capability has been done, and such may well 
be appropriate upon remand. Compare United ..States v. 
School District 151, 301 F. Supp. 201, 221-226 (N.D.
111. 1969). That analysis, in our view, need not be

made here.
We would recommend, in view of the extensive 

studying and planning that has already been done, 
and to enable the parties appellant to make objection 
below, if appropriate, that the defendants be required 
to file a new terminal elementary and junior high 
school plan by July 6, 1970. Also, we respectfully 
remind the Court and the parties that the United 
States Office of Education stands ready to assist

in the finalizing of the plan.
We are hopeful, despite prior disappointments,

that a general direction by this Court requiring the 
Board, with or without extra-system technical assistance

51



illustrated below orand by means of the options 
otherwise, to accomplish elementary and junior 
high school desegregation, as defined above, will

be fulfilled.
CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we urge that the 
Judgment and Order of the district court should be
reversed and remanded with directions.

Respectfully submitted,

JERRIS LEONARD
Assistant Attorney General

DAVID L. NORMAN
Deputy Assistant Attorney General

J. HAROLD FLANNERY 
CHARLES K. HOWARD, JR. 
Attorneys
Department of Justice



i

FACULTY ASSIGNMENTS IN THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 
FALL, 1966 - FALL, 1969 

NORFOLK, VIRGINIA

1966-67 1967-63 1968-69 1969-70

LnLO

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS W N T %N W N T 7oN W N T 7oN W N T 7oN

Ballentine -- 0 -- 0 9 1 10 10
•

10 1 11 9 9 2 11 18

Bay View 33 2 35 6 28 2 30 7 30 2 32 6 28 2 30 7

Bowling Park 0 - - -- 100 1 30 31 97 3 39 42 93 6 31 37 84

Calcott -- 0 _ _ 0 27 2 29 7 31 2 33 6 28 2 30 7

Campostella 6 2 8 25 5 3 8 38 4 3 7 43

Carey 0 -- -- 100 2 13 15 87 3 16 19 84 3 13 16 81

Chesterfield 25 2 27 7 22 4 26 15 26 6 32 19 16 10 26 38

Coleman Place -- 0 -- 0 28 3 31 10 33 3 36 8 26 5 31 16

Coronado
(Norview Annex) •' 0 -- -- 100 2, 4 6 67 2 3 5 60 6 2 8 25

Crossroads -- 0 -- 0 37 2 39 5 41 2 43 5 36 3 39 8

Diggs Park 2 18 20 90 2 19 21 90 4 23 27 85 6 17 23 74

16 1 17 15 3 18 17 15 3 18 17 14 3 17Easton 18



1966-67
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS W N T %N

East Ocean View _ _ 0 -- 0

Fairlawn -- 0 -- 0

Gatewood 0 -- -- 100

Goode 0 -- -- 100

Granby Eleru. -- 0 _ _ 0

Ingleside 14 2 16 13

Lafayette -- 0 _ _ 0

( Lakewood 27 2 29 7
On■p' Lansdale -- 0 -- 0

Larchmont -- 0 -- 0

Larrymore 27 2 29 7

Lee 5 19 24 79

Liberty Park 0 _ _ -- 100

Lincoln 0 -- -- 100

Lindenwood 3 22 25 88

Little Creek Elem. 23 2 25 8

Little Creek Prim. 20 2 22 9

1967-68 1968-69 1969-70
W N T %N W N T %N W N T %N 1

5 1 6 17 5 1 6 17 (See Pretty Lake)

16 1 17 6 17 2 19 11 16 2 18 11
AZ 18 20 90 3 19 22 86 5 16 21 76

0 -- -- 100 1 16 17 94 3 14 17 82

21 1 22 5 29 2 31 6 23 2 25 8

16 2 18
•
11 16 2 18 11 16 2 18 11

9 1 10 10 11 1 12 8 7 2 9 22

21 3 24 13 23 2 25 8 21 3 24 13

22 2 24 8 • 24 2 26 8 23 4 27 15

23 2 25. 8 24 2 26 8 23 2 25 8

34 2 36 6 36 3 39 8 33 3 36 8

5- 15 20 75 6 18 24 75 11 14 25 56

0 -- -- 100 1 21 22 95 3 18 21 86

4 15 19 79 4 17 21 81 7 16 23 70

4 21 25 84 4 24 28 86 7 23 30 77

22 3 25 12 25 3 28 11 21 4 25 16

20 2 22 9 24 1 25 4 21 3 24 13



1966-67
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS W N T 7oN
Madison 1 5 6 83
Marshall 17 4 21 19
Meadowbrook 22 2 24 8
Monroe 31 6 37 16
Norview 22 2 26 8
Oakwood 5 18 23 78
Oceanair -- 0 -- 0
Ocean View -- 0 -- 0
Pineridge -- 0 -- 0
Poplar Halls 18 2 20 10
Pretty Lake -- 0 -- 0
Roberts Park 0 -- -- 100
Rosemont 2 5 7 71
St. Helena 4 11 15 73
Sewells Pt.

(Annex & Elem.) 17 5 22 23
Sherwood Forest 23 2 25 8

1967-68 
W__N_T__
3 8 11
15 7 22
20 2 20 
32 7 39
16 2 18
3 14 17
-- 0 -- 
30 3 33
11 1 12 
19 2 21 
-- 0
4 16 20
1 2  3
3 12 15

19 6 25
2 26

1968-69 1969-70
%N W N T 7oN W N T %N

73 3 9 12 75 See Jr■. High

32 18 11 29 38 10 18 28 64

9 21 3 24 13 20 3 23 13
18 29 16 35 46 19 24 43 56

11 13 5 18 28 14 3 17 18

82 3 16 19 84 4 14 18 78

0 24 5 29 17 20 2 22 9
9 31 3 34 9 29 8 34 15
8- 9 2 11 18 8 2 10 80

10 20 2 22 9 19 2 21 10

0 . 4 1 5 20 3 2 5 40
80 4 16 20 80 5 15 20 75
67 4 3 7 43 See Jr. ]high
80 4 12 16 75 4 11 15 73

24 27 4 31 13 27 7 34 21
8 24 1 25 4 21 3 24 1324



ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

Smallwood
Stuart
Suburban Park
Tarrailton
Taylor
Tidewater Park
Titus
Titustown
Tucker
West
Willoughby 
Young Park

w 1966N -67T YoN

0 -- _ _ 100
28 2 30 7
21 2 23 9
22 2 24 8
-- 0 -- 0

4 18 22 82

0 -- -- 100

3 11 14 79

0 -- -- 100

0 -- -- 100
-- 0 -- 0

3 19 22 86

1967-68W N T %N
2 17 19 89

29 3 32 10

17 2 19 11

20 3 23 13

14 2 16 13-

3 18 21 86

0 - - - - 100

0 - - - - 100

0 - - - - 100

0 - - 100

20 3 23 13

4 16 20 80

1968-69W N T %N
4 16 20 80
28 6 34 18
21 1 22 5
22 3 25 12
16 2 18 11
4 18 22 82
3 20 23 87
1 11 12 92
0 -- -- 100

2 19 21 90

21 4 25 16

3 21 24 88

1969-70W N T %N
7 12 19 63

24 10 34 29
19 2 21 10
19 4 23 . 17
14 2 16 13
8 15 23 65
6 17 23 74
3 8 11 73
3 16 19 84
3 18 21 86
20 4 24 17
5 18 23 78

Faculty represents full-time classroom teachers.
Sources: School Board Reports to the Court, 1966-1968. 1969 Statistics^as provided by
Dr. McLaughlin in Sept. 1969. (Schools with uniracial faculties were omitted from the
the reports. In those instances, the % Negro is based on the traditional racial composition
of the school.)



FACULTY ASSIGNMENTS IN THE JR. HIGH SCHOOLS 
FALL, 1966 - FALL, 1969 

NORFOLK, VIRGINIA

JR. HIGH SCHOOLS W
1966
N

-67
T 7oN W

1967
N

-68
T %N W

1968-69
N T 7oN W

1969-70
N T %N

Azalea Gardens 63 3 66 5 67 3 70 4 68 3 71 4 67 6 73 8

Blair 68 5 73 7 67 8 75 11 67 9 76 12 64 12 76 16

Campostella 8 46 54 85 7 45 52 87 8 50 58 86 13 44 57 77

Jacox 6 60 66 91 8 57 65 88 9 61 70 87 13 61 74 82

Lake Taylor 61 3 64 5 65 2 67 3 67 2 69 3 69 4 73 5

Madison 2 15 17 89 4 21 25 84 5 2 27 81 13 32 45 71

Northside 71 3 74 4 71 4 75 5 70 5 75 7 65 9 74 12

Norview 53 2 55 4 48 6 54 11 50 6 56 11 50 7 57 12

Rosemont 5 8 13 61 7 15 22 68 9 13 22 59 10 14 24 58

Ruffner 3 60 63 95 5 58 63 92 8 57 65 88 15 48 63 76

Willard 32 2 34 6 32 ' 3 35 9 32 4 36 11 33 4 37 11

TOTALS 372 207 579 36 381 222 603 37 393 232 625 37 412 241 653 37

Faculty represents full-time classroom teachers.
Sources: School Board Reports to the Court, 1966-68. 1969 Statistics as provided by Dr.
McLaughlin in September, 1969.



FACULTY ASSIGNMENTS IN THE SR. HIGH SCHOOLS 
FALL, 1966 - FALL, 1969 

NORFOLK, VIRGINIA

1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70SR. HIGH SCHOOLS W N T %N ' W N T %N W N T %N W N T YoN
Granby • 105 2 107 2 103 5 108 5 103 5 108 5 99 9 108 8
Lake Taylor 76 8 84 10 102 9 111 8 101 8 109 - 7
Maury 104 3 107 3 94 5 99 5 102 8 110 7 9712 13 11012 12

i
NorviewCO 114 3 117 3 105 6 111 5 105 7 112 6 103 8 111 7

1 Washington 7 101 108 94 17 95 112 85 17 99 116 85 27 90 117 77

TOTALS 330 109 439 25 395 119 514 23 429 128 557 23 42712 128
1

555 2 23

Faculty represents full-time classroom teachers.
Sources: School Board ReDorts to the Court, 1966-68. 1969 Statistics as provided by Dr.
McLaughlin in September, 1969.



TOTAL .PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY RACE AND LEVEL 
FALL, 1966 - FALL, 1969 
NORFOLK PUBLIC SCHOOLS

RACE ELEM. JR. HIGH SR. HIGH ALL LEVELS

1966-67 W 19,923 6,907 6,486 33,316
N 14,443 4,092 3,190 22,535
T 34,366 11,809 9,676 55,851
7oN (42) (42) (33) (40)

1967-68 W 19,164 6,904 7,235 33,303
N 14,173 5,258 3,632 23,063
T 33,337 12,162 10,867 56,366
%N (43) (43) (33) (41)

1968-69 W 18,563 6,853 7,086 32,502
N 14,188 5,533 3,793 23,514
T 32,751 12,386 10,879 56,016
7oN (43) (45) (35) (42)

1969-70 W 18,302 7,082 7,237 32,621
N 13,884 5,903 4,220 24,007
T 32,186 12,985 11,457 56,628
7oN (43) (45) (37) (42)

Sources: School Board's Annual Reports to the Court, 1966-1968.
1969-70 Enrollment figures as provided by School Board 
in September, 1969.

59



PUPIL ENROLLMENTS IN THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 
FALL, 1966 - FALL, 1969 

AND
PROJECTED ENROLLMENTS 

UNDER SCHOOL BOARD’S LONG RANGE PLAN

1969 1969 1966-67 1967-
School Grades Capacity W N T %N W N.

Ballentine 1-6 270 302 0 302 0 253 1

Bay View 1-6 795 1066 0 1066 0 856 0
Bowling Park 1-6 925 0 931 931 100 0 962
Calcott 1-7 795 842 0 842 0 846 0
Camp Allen 1-6 735 — -~ --

CampoStella 1-6 245 47 155 202 77 50 155
Carey 1-6 545 0 519 519 100 0 418
Chesterfield 1-7 735 285 481 766 63 193 547
Coleman Place 1-6 925 910 0 910 0 925 0
Coronado 1-3, 215 0 176 176 100 0 158

5-6

- 60 -

Projected

68
T %N

1968-69 
W N T 7oN

1969-70
W N T

1

7oN
Long Range 

Plan
W N T

254 0 247 0 247 0 252 TJL
1

253 0 505 170 675 
(Combined 
with
Lafayette)

856 0 814 19 833 2 874 0 874 0 850 0 850

962 100 0 963 963 10C 0 934 934 100 0 850 850

846 0 825 3 828 0 841 0 841 100 850 0 850

205 76 48 145 193 75
(To be con­
structed)
45 136 181 75

550 185 735 
55 170 225

418 100 0 393 393 100 0 366 366 100 0 500 500

740 74 90 635 725 88 15 671 722 93 110 615 725

925 0 893 0 893 0 865 0 865 0 875 0 875
100 0 118 118 100 107 103 210

("Norview
Annex")

49 (Combined
with

Norview)



Proj ected 
Long Range



School
1969

Grades
1969

Capacity
1966-67

W N T

Lincoln
Lindenwood
Little Creek 

Elera.
Little Creek 

Prim.

1-6
1-6
4-6

1-4

570
680
655

570

0 516 516 
0 722 722

858 0 858

667 0 667

Madison
Marshall
Meadowbrook
Monroe
Norview
Oakwood
Oceanair
Ocean View
Pineridge
Poplar Halls

4-6 (See Jr. 
High)

0 505 505

1-7 655 42 471 513

1-7 570 705 19 724

1-6 925 64 988 1052

1-6 705 532 199 731

1-5 545 0 519 519

1-7 735 643 0 643

1-7 925 807 7 814

1-6 435 302 8 310

1-6 545 628 1 629

Proj ected 
Long Range 

Plan
W N T

100 0 453 453 100 0 ^16 416 100 0 378 378 100 0 450 450

100 0 725 725 100 0 770 770 100 0 713 713 100 0 550 550

0 766 0 766 0 684 0 634 0 578 2 680 0 675 0 675

0 638 ' 0 638 0 642 0 642 0 576 0 576 0 575 0 575

100 C 309 309 100 0 312 312 100 (See Jr. - - 0 750 750 
(All ele.)High)

92 20 554 574 97 11 561 572 98 10 525 535 98 0 675 675

3 600 33 633 5 605 50 655 8 561 41 602 7 460 115 575

94 25 1145 1170 93 5 1115 1120 100 13 1185 1198 99 0 1000 1000

27 350 134 484 28 343 116 459 25 299 170 469 36 48Q ,nq w ot L>Cn£urSCl VZLuTlCoronado)
100 0 516 516 100 0 434 434 100 0 442 442 100 Closed

0 612 0 612 0 659 19 678 3 678 29 707 4 750 0 750

i 953 42 995 4 966 61 1027 6 1QC2 811083 7 785 90 925

3 338 14 352 4 248 16 264 6 245. 10 255 4 385 40 435

C 626 2 628 0 572 10 582 2 560 22 582 4 475 50 525

62 -



Proj ected
Long Range

School
1969

Grades
1969

Capacity
1966- 

W N
67
T %N

1967-
W N

68
T %N w

1968-69
N T %N

1969-70 
W N T 7oN

Plan 
W N T

Pretty Lake 1-4 175 114 0 114 0 105 0 105 0 131 0 131 0 124 0 124 0 150 0 150

Roberts Park 1-6 545 0 588 588 100 0 536 536 100 0 499 499 100 0 513 513 100 0 525 525

Rosemont 6 (See Jr. 0 265 265 100 0 83 83 100 21 1C 6 127 2 (See Jr. -- (Jr, High
High) High) Only)

St. Helena 1-6 435 0 367 357 100 0 386 386 100 0 361 361 100 4 357 361 99 0 325 325

Sewells Point 1-6 600 617 189 806 23 638 256 894 29 690 213 903 24 603 275 878 31 450 150 600
(Elem. & Annex)
Sherwood Forest 1-7 735 756 0 756 0 696 0 696 0 668 0 668 0 666 0 666 0 750 15 720

Smallwood 1-4 435 0 533 533 100 0 523 523 100 0 450 450 100 0 474 474 100 (Closed)

Stuart 1-7 845 821 63 884 7 703 206 909 23 349 437 786 56 281 559 840 67 330 220 550

Suburban Park 1-7 625 621 69 690 10 474 39 513 8 581 41 622 7 542 36 578 6 550 75 625

Tarrallton 1-5 850 744 7 751 1 669 12 681 2 625 14 639 2 631 14 645 2 825 0 825

Taylor 1-7 435 437 0 437 0 424 0 424 0 411 0 411 0 383 0 383 0 340 60 400

Tidewater Park 1-6 435 0 551 551 100 0 558 558 100 0 526 526 100 0 513 513 100 0 425 425

Titus 1-6 570 0 564 564 100 0 522 522 100 0 533 533 ICO 0 519 519 100 0 550 550

Titustown 1-7 410 22 371 393 94 0 283 283 100 0 284 284 100 0 277 277 100 (Closed)

- 63



School
1969

Grades

PUP

1969
Capacity

IL ENROLLMENTS IN 
FALL, 1966

A
PROJECTED

UNDER SCHOOL BOARD 

1966-67
W N T %N

THE ELEMENTARY SCKC 
- FALL, 1969 
ND
ENROLLMENTS 
sS LONG RANGE PLAN

1967-68
W N T %N

)OLS

1968-69
W N T %N

i

|
I

1969-70
W N T 7,N

Proj ected 
Long Range 

Plan
W N T

Tucker 1-6 515 0 459 459 100 0 497 497 100 0 500 500 100 0 477 477 100 0 500 5CO

West 1-6 570 0 585 585 LOO 0 540 540 100 0 485 485 ICO 0 472 472 100 0 400 400

Willoughby 1-6 600 - 637 34 671 5 695 38 733 5 750 36 786 5 540 60 600

Young Park 1-6 625 0 591 591 LOO 0 549 549 100 0 562 562 100 0 572 572 100 0 575 575

Total Elementary 19223 14443 34356 42 19164 14173 33337 43 18563 14183 32751 43 133G2 13384 3ZLS6 43
Enrollment

i

- 64 -



_JN
0
45
98

100

20

10

12

2d
100

40

PUPIL ENROLLMENTS IN THE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 
FALL, 1966 - FALL, 1969 

AND
PROJECTED ENROLLMENTS 

UNDER SCHOOL BOARD’S LONG RANGE PLAN

1969
Capa­
city

1966-67 
W N T 7oN

1967-68
W N T %N

1968-69 
W N T %N

1969-70
W N T %N

1315 1448 10 1458 1 1560 36 1596 2 1504 51 1555 3 1560 51 1611 3

1276 761 705 1466 48 704 696 1400 50 615 875 1490 59 651 759 1410 54

1120 0 1065 1065 ICO 0 1003 1003 100 1 1062 1063 100 1 1150 1151 100

1028 0 1382 1382 100 0 1427 1427 100 0 1413 1413 100 0 1183 1183 100

1247 1550 22 1572 1 1486 33 1519 2. 1565 45 1610 3 1374 117 1491 8

815 0 205 205 100 0 427 427 100 0 427 427 100 1 670 67 2* 100

1207 1644 86 1730 5 1618 80 1698 5 1461 83 1544 5 1543 66 1609 4

1509 832 111 943 12 865 193 1053 18 1011 231 1242 19 1181 221 1402^ 16

928 0 198 198 100 0 305i 305 100 0 278 278 100 41 409 450V 91

1360 0 1112 1112 100 0 1033 1033 100 1 1015 1016 100 1 1174 1175 100

972 672 6 678 1 671 20 691 3 695 53 748 7 729 103 832 12

6907 4902 11807 42 6904 5258 

65 -

12162 43 6853 5533 1238 6 45 7082 5903 12985 

* Including Ele

45

men

1475 0 1475
530 645 1175
20 880 900
0 925 925

980 245 1225
Closed 

Elem. Only
1080 120 1200
1190 160 1350
1060 265 1325

0 1250 1250
600 400 1000

:ary Grades



PUPIL ENROLLMENTS IN THE SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 
FALL, 1966 - FALL, 1969 

AND
PROJECTED ENROLLMENTS 

UNDER SCHOOL BOARD’S LONG RANGE PLAN

School
1969

Grades
1969
Capa­
city

1966-67
W N T %N

1967-68
W N T 7>N

1968-69 
W N T 7.N

1969-70
W N T 7,N

Granby 9-12 1918 2373 88 2461 4 2250 135 2385 . 6 2009 166 2175 8 2022 291 2313 13

Lake Taylor 9-12 2184 1724 25 1749 1 2220 23 2243 1 2220 220 2440 9

Maury 10-12 1954 1698 552 2250 25 1180 725 1905 38 1006 850 1856 46 926 1047 1973 53

Norvlew 10-12 1973 2415 273 2688 10 2075 345 2420 14 1841 358 2199 16 2062 394 2456 16

Washington 10-12 1814 0 2277 2277 100 6 2402 2408 100 10 2396 2406 100 7 2268 2275 100

Total Sr. High 6486 3190 9676 33 7235 3632 1)867 33 7086 3793 D879 35 7237 4220 11457 37
School
Enrollment

'

- 66 -

Proj ected 
Long Range 

Plan
W N T 

1400 750 2150 
1525 725 2250 
1050 850 1900 
1425 750 2175 
1500 800 2300 
(New School)



A SAMPLE OP CONTIGUOUS ZONING

Elementary 
School Groupings

School
No.

Proposed
Grades Capacity

Proj ected
Enrollment % Black

Liberty Park 25 5-6 625 525 45
Ingleside 18 1-4 435 480 45
Poplar Halls 37 1-4 545 590 45

Bowling Park 3 5-6 925 750 40
Fineridge 36 1-4 435 450 40
Coleman Place 9 1-4 925 950 40

Madison 53 5-6 800 580 50
Larchmont 22 1-4 680 730 50
Taylor 46 1-4 435 435 50

Oakwood 54 6 545 395 40
Calcott 4 1-5 795 900 35
Crossroads 10 1-5 925 1000 40
Titus 48 Closed
Roberts Park 39 5-6 545 500 35
Balientine 1 1-4 270 270 40
Sherwood Forest 42 1-4 735 735 35

Lindenwood 27 5-6 680 560 45
Lafayette 19 . 1-4 325 350 45
Lakewood 20 1-4' 735 775 45



A SAMPLE OF NON-CONTIGUOUS ZONING

i
cr>co

Elementary 
School Groupings

School
No.

Proposed
Grades

Tucker 49 5-6
Easton 12 1-4
Fairlawn 14 1-4

Goode 16 5-6
Lansdale 21 1-4

Carey 7 1-2
Granby 17 3-7
Suburban Park 44 3-7

Marshall 30 5-7
Sewells Point 41 1-4
Meadowbrook 31 1-4

Caoacity
Proj ected

Enrollment 7,Black

515 489 35
545 487 40
545 525 30

515 375 45
735 750 45

545 570 40
815 775 35
625 580 35

655 725 50
600 575 50
570 550 50



Projected Elementary School Enrollments 
Under Elementary Grouping Plan

Elementary
School School Proposed Pro j. 7/oFeeder Zone Groupings Number Grades Cap. Enrol. Black

I. Granby Hi. Sch.
A. Northside Jr. 

Hi. Sch.
1. Oceanair 34 4-6 735 660 50

■ Young Pk. 52 1-3 625 660 ' 50
2. Oakwood 54 6 545 395 40

Calcott 4 1-5 795 900 35
Crossroads 10 1-5 925 1000 40
Titus 48 Closed - - -

B. Rosemont Jr. 
Hi. Sch.

1. Suburban 
Park

44 4-6 625 545 50

Carey 7 1-3 545 . 545 50
2. Lee 24 5-6 570 460 50

Granby 17 1-4 815 900 50
II. Lake Taylor 

Hi. Sch.
A. Campostella 

Jr. Hi. Sch.
1. Campostella 6 1-6 245 225 75
2. Liberty Pk . 25 5-6 625 525 45

Ingleside 18 1-4 435 480 45
Poplar
Halls

37 1-4 545 590 45

69



B. Lake Taylor 
Jr, Hi. Sell.

1.

4.

2.

III. Maury Hi.Sch.
A. Blair Jr.

Hi. Sch.
1.
2.

Diggs Park 11 3-6
E. Ocean 
View

13 1-2

Pretty
Lake

38 1-2

Chester­
field

8 1-7

Tucker 49 5-6
Fairlawn 14 1-4
Easton 12 1-4
Bowling
Park

3 4-6

Lansdale 21 4-6
Pineridge 36 1-3

Stuart 43 1-7
Marshall 30 5-7
Meadow-
brook

31 1-4

Sewells
Point

41 1-4

Madison 53 5-6
Larch-
mont

22 1-4

Taylor 46 1-4

600 600 50
175 150 50

175 150 50

735 725 85

515 489 35
545 525 30
545 487 40
925 984 50

925 575 50
435 395 50

845 625 50
655 725 50
570 550 50

600 575 50

800 580 50
680 730 50

435 435 50

70



B. Willard Jr 
Hi. Sch.

IV. Norview Sr. 
Hi. Sch.

A. Norview Jr. 
Hi. Sch.

B. Azalea
Gardens Jr. 
Hi. Sch.

V. Washington 
Sr. Hi. Sch.

A. Ruffner Jr. 
Hi. Sch.

1. St. Helena 40 5-6 435 360 40
Lakewood 20 1-4 735 715 40

2. Ballentine 1 6 270 204 60
Lafayette 19 4-5 325 408 60
Lindenwood 27 1-3 680 610 60

1. Norview 33 1-6 705 700 30
2. Monroe 32 5-6 925 850 35

Sherwood
Forest

42 1-4 735. 750 35

Coleman
Place

9 1-4 925 900 35

1. Little 
Creek El.

28 5-6 655 650 30

Little 
Creek Prim. 29 3-4 570 518 40
Lincoln 26 1-2 570 525 40

2. Gatewood 15 5-6 625 475 45
Larrymore 23 1-4 925 925 40

West 50 5-6 570 450

Tarrallton 45 1-4 850 880
- 71 -

40



2. Bay View 2 4-6 795 850 50
Goode 16 1-3 515 425 50
Tidewater 47 1-3 435 425 50
Park

B. Jacox Jr.
Hi. Sch.

1. Camp 
Allen

5 1-6 735 735 25

2. Roberts 
Park

39 5-6 545 650 40

Willoughby 51 1-4 600 500 40

Ocean View 35 1-4 925 750 40

- 72 -



Big

60
50
50
35
25
75
50
85
35

40

50
40
50
30
45
50
50
45

Projected Elementary School Enrollments 
Under Elementary Grouping Plan

Capacity
Pj-o j ected 
Enrollment Grades

1. Ballentine 270 204 6

2. Bay View 795 850 4-6

3. Bowling Park 925 984 4-6

4. Calcott 795 900 1-5

5. Camp Allen 735 735 1-6

6. Campostella 245 225 1-6

7. Carey 545 545 1-3

8. Chesterfield 735 725 1-7

9. Coleman Place 925 900 1-4

10. Crossroads 925 1000 1-5

11. Diggs Park 600 600 3-6

12. Easton 545 487 1-4

13. E. Ocean View 175 150 1-2

14. Fairlawn 545 525 1-4

15. Gatewood 625 475 5-6

16. Goode 515 425 1-3

17. Grandy 815 900 1-4

18. Ingleside 435 480 1-4

19. Lafayette 325 408 4-5
73 -



40
50
50
40
50
45
40
60
30
40
50
50
35
30
50
40
50
45
50
40
40
50
35
50
50

20. Lakewood 735 715 1-4
21. Lansdale 735 . 575 1-3
22. Larchmont 680 730 1-4
23. Larrymore 925 925 1-4
24. Lee 570 460 5-6
25. Liberty Park 625 525 5-6
26. Lincoln 570 525 1-2
27. Lindenwood 680 610 1-3
28. Little Cr. El. 655 650 5-6
29. Little Cr. Prim. 570 518 3-4
30. Marshall 655 725 5-7
31. Meadowbrook 570 550 1-4
32. Monroe 925 850 5-6
33. Norview-Coronado 705 700 1-6
34. Oceanair 735 660 4-6
35. Ocean View 925 750 1-4
36. Pineridge 435 395 1-3
37. Poplar Hills 545 590 1-4
38. Pretty Lake 175 150 1-2
39. Roberts Park 545 650 5-6
40. St. Helena 435 360 5-6
41. Sewells Pt. 600 575 1-4
42. Sherwood Forest 735 750 1-4
43. Stuart 845 625 1-7
44. Suburban 625 545 4-6

74



45
50
50

35
40
40
50
50
40

880 1-4Tarrallton 850
Taylor 435
Tidewater Pk. 435
Titus Close
Tucker 515
West 570
Willoughby 600
Young Park 625
Madison 800
Oakwood 545

435 1-4
425 1-3

489 5-6
450 5-6
500 1-4
660 1-3
580 5-6
395 6



Projected Junior High School Enrollments 
(Under Elementary Grouping Plan)

School Capacity Proiected Enrollment 70 Negro

Azalea 1315 1325 35

Blair 1276 1300 45

Campostella 1120 1280 50

Jacox 1028 1060 30

Lake Taylor 1247 1350 35

Northside 1207 1425 35

Norview 1509 1285 30

Rosemont 928 975 45

Ruffner 1360 1205 40

Willard 972 910 45

76 -