Estes v. Dallas NAACP Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

    IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

NOLAN ESTES, ET AL,
Petitioners,

METROPOLITAN BRANCHES OF THE 
DALLAS N.A.A.C.P., ET AL,

Respondents.

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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

WARREN WHITHAM 
210 Adolphus Tower 
Dallas, Texas 75202 
MARK MARTIN 
1200 One Main Place 
Dallas, Texas 75250 
Counsel for Petitioners

OCTOBER TERM, 1978

No.

versus

S C O F IF ID S '  Q UA LIT Y  PRINTERS. P. O. BOX 63096, N. O.. L.A. 70153 504/822-1611



INDEX

Opinions Below ..........................................................  2
Jurisdiction ........................................   2
Question Presented.....................................................  2
Constitutional and Statutory Provisions In­

volved ...........................................      3
Statement of the Case ........       3
Reasons for Granting the Writ

1. The Court Below Has Decided A
Federal Question In A Way In Conflict 
With This Court’s Decision In Swann 
v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of 
Education, 402 U.S. 1 .........................  12

2. The Court Below Has Decided A
Federal Question In A Way In Conflict 
With This Court’s D ecision  In 
Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267 
{Milliken IT) ...................................    15

3. The Importance Of The Issue And The
Need For Clarification ................................... 16

Conclusion ............................................    18
Proof of Service ....................................... ............ 19
Appendix “A ” — Identity and Names of All 

Parties ......................................  la
Appendix “B” — Opinions, Orders and Judg­

ment of the District Court
March 10, 1976, Opinion and Order .....................4a
March 15, 1976, Supplemental Order ............  45a

Page



INDEX (Continued)

April 7, 1976, Supplemental Opinion and 
O rd er ................................................... ...............46a

April 7, 1976, Final Order ................................... 53a
April 15, 1976, Supplemental Order ............ .. 121a
April 20, 1976, Supplemental Order ................126a
August 18, 1976, Supplemental Order

Changing Attendance Zones of James 
Madison High School and Lincoln High 
School ............................   127a

Appendix “ C” — Opinion of the United States 
Court of Appeals for the Fifth C ircu it............ 130a

Appendix “D” — Letter from Clerk of the 
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth 
Circuit advising the Court had denied Peti­
tion for Rehearing .................     146a

Appendix “E” — Motion for Stay of Mandate 
filed May 26, 1978, in the United States 
Court of Appeals for the Fifth C ircu it............ 148a

Appendix “F” — Summary Examples of Non- 
Student Assignment Requirements In­
cluded in the District Court’s April 7, 1976,
Final Order ............................................................. 152a

Page



Ill
CITATIONS (Continued)

Cases:
Green v. County School Board of New Kent 

County, 391 U.S. 430 (1968) .......... .....................  13
Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267 (Milliken II)

(1977) ................................................... . 3,11,13,15,16
S.E.C. v. United Benefit Life Insurance Com­

pany, 387 U.S. 202 (1967) ............................ ........... 16
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of 

Education, 402 U.S. 1 (1971) . . . . . .  3,5,12,13,15,16,18
Tasby v. Estes, 444 F.2d 124 (5th Cir., 1971) ___... 5
Tasbyv. Estes, 517F.2d 92 (5th Cir., 1975),cert. 

denied, 423 U.S. 939 .................   5
Tasby v. Estes, 412 F.Supp. 1192 (N.D.Tex.,

1976) ......................................................   2,15
Constitutional and Statutory Provisions:
28 U.S.C. Section 1254(1) ......................      2
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth 

Amendment ................................................................. 3

Page



IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER TERM, 1978

No.

NOLAN ESTES, ET AL,
Petitioners,

versus

METROPOLITAN BRANCHES OF THE 
DALLAS N.A.A.C.P., ET AL,

Respondents.

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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Petitioners, the members of the Board of Trustees of 
the Dallas Independent School District and its 
General Superintendent (Dallas Independent School 
District or DISD), pray that writ of certiorari issue to 
review the judgment and opinion of the United States 
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit entered in this 
proceeding on April 21, 1978. The names and iden­
tities of Petitioners and the many parties Respondent, 
as well as Amicus Curiae, are set forth in Appendix 
“A ” .



2

OPINIONS BELOW

The opinions, orders and judgment of the District 
Court are set forth in Appendix “B” (pages 4a-129a) 
and are reported in part at 412 F.Supp. 1192. The opin­
ion of the Court of Appeals is set forth in Appendix “C” 
(pages 130a-148a) and is reported at 572 F.2d 1010. 
Denial by the Court of Appeals of Petitions for Rehear­
ing is not reported and is set forth in Appendix “D” 
(pages 148a-147a). Petitioners’ Motion for Stay of Man­
date was filed May 26,1978, in the Court of Appeals. As 
of the date of printing of this petition on August 10, 
1978, said Motion for Stay of Mandate had not been act­
ed on by the Court of Appeals.

JURISDICTION

The judgment of the Court of Appeals was entered on 
April 21, 1978. A timely Petition for Rehearing was de­
nied on May 22, 1978. This petition for certiorari was 
filed within 90 days from that date. The jurisdiction of 
this Court is invoked under the provisions of28U.S.C. 
Section 1254(1).

QUESTION PRESENTED

Among the issues before the Courts below was the 
constitutionality of the remedy formulated by the Dis­
trict Court to eliminate the vestiges of a state-imposed 
dual school system in the large urban school system 
described in this petition and by the Courts below. The 
question presented is:

Whether as to such school systems, the elimination 
of all one-race schools is the controlling factor to be



3

considered in determining whether a remedy for­
mulated by the District Court is consistent with the 
Equal Protection Clause and this Court’s decisions in 
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 
402 U.S. 1, and Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267 
(Milliken II).

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY 
PROVISIONS INVOLVED

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth 
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
provides in pertinent parts as follows:

. . nor shall any State * * * deny to any per­
son within its jurisdiction the equal protec­
tion of the laws.”

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The Dallas Independent School District and the 
federal courts have been on intimate terms in school 
desegregation matters since 1955 immediately follow­
ing Brown II. The instant action is not the first but is a 
second and separate Dallas school desegregation 
case. At the time the instant action was filed there was 
also pending in the United States District Court for the 
Northern District of Texas an existing class action 
desegregation proceedings, in which continuing 
jurisdiction is exercised by the District Court and in



4

which the various proceedings involving desegrega­
tion of the DISD have been determined.1

This second action was brought in the District Court 
against DISD on October 6, 1970, by both Blacks and 
persons alleging to be Chicanos asserting de jure 
segregation of each class and seeking the estab­
lishment of a unitary school system for each class. 
These original Plaintiffs (Respondent-Plaintiffs) in­
voked the jurisdiction of the District Court pursuant to 
Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 alleging this action arises 
under the Fourteenth Amendment and the amount in 
controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, 
the sum of Ten Thousand ($10,000.00) Dollars and pur­
suant to Title 28 U.S.C. Sections 1343(3) and (4), alleg­
ing this to be a civil action seeking injunctive relief to 
end denials of equal protection of the law and alleging 
that this action was further filed pursuant to the 
provisions of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981,1983,1988,20Q0c-8 
and 2000d.

On June 3, 1971, in a decision entered as a result of an 
appeal from an order denying the Respondent- 
Plaintiffs’ first motion for preliminary injunction, the 
Court of Appeals directed the District Court to make 
full written findings of fact and conclusions of law on

1 The various proceedings in that action in part may be found at 
Bell v. Hippy, 133 F.Supp. 811 (N.D.Tex., 1955),Brown v. Rippv 233 
F.2d 796 (5th Cir.. 1956), cert, denied, 352 U.S. 878; Bell v. Hippy, 146 
F.Supp. 485 (N.D.Tex., 1956); Borders v. Rippy, 247 F'.2d 268 (5th 
Cir., 1957); Rippy v. Borders, 250 F.2d 690 (5th Cir., 1957); Boson v. 
Rippy» 275 F.2d 850 (5th Cir., 1960); Borders v. Rippy, 184 F.Supp. 
402 (N.D.Tex., 1960); Boson v. Rippy, 285 F.2d 43 (5th Cir 1960V 
Borders v. Rippy, 188 F.Supp. 231 (N.D.Tex., 1960); Borders v. Rip­
py. 195 F.Supp. 732 (N.D.Tex., 1961); Britton v. Folsom, 348F.2d 158 
(5th Cir., 1965); and Britton v. Folsom, 350 F.2d 1022 (5th Cir., 1965).



5

the merits of this action in the light of principles enun­
ciated in Swann. Tasby v. Estes, 444 F.2d 124 (5th Cir., 
1971). The District Court did so in August, 1971. The 
Respondent-Plaintiffs again appealed.

On July 23, 1975, the Court of Appeals, among other 
things, vacated the student assignment plan for­
mulated by the District Court and remanded with 
directions to formulate elementary and secondary stu­
dent assignment plans which comport with the direc­
tives of the Supreme Court and the July 23, 1975, 
Opinion-Mandate of the Court of Appeals. Tasby v. Es­
tes, 517 F.2d 92 (5th Cir., 1975), cert, denied, 423 U.S. 939.

On October 25,1975, and over Petitioners’ objections, 
the District Court allowed the Metropolitan Branches 
of the Dallas N.A.A.C.P. (Respondent-NAACP) to in­
tervene.

On February 2, 1976, hearings on fashioning a stu­
dent assignment plan once again commenced in the 
District Court. These hearings culminated in the Dis­
trict Court’s A pril 7, 1976, Final Order, as
supplemented, containing the remedy formulated by 
the District Court and here in question.

On December 11, 1976, the voters in DISD voted in 
favor of authorizing bonds in the amount of $80,000,-
000.00 for the purpose of the construction and equip­
ment of school buildings in DISD and the purchase of 
necessary sites therefor. $30,000,000.00 of these bonds 
have been sold to date and committed to this purpose. 
(T. 5, 6, 7, II Appeal)



6

Both Courts below have correctly recognized the ur­
ban metropolitan nature of DISD and that DISD is not 
a small rural school system but is the eighth largest 
urban school district in the United States.

The District Court by order of July 16, 1971, directed 
that the Mexican-American student be considered as a 
separate ethnic group and as a “minority” for pur­
poses of a desegregation plan. Hence in DISD the 
problem exists of formulating a tri-ethnic remedy and 
the phrase “Anglo” is used in lieu of “white” under 
such circum stances. This circumstance alone 
magnifies the problem of formulating a remedy in a 
minority Anglo system.

There is no actual total population census of DISD. 
The boundaries of the City of Dallas and DISD are not 
coterminous. The population of the City of Dallas is 
800,000 to 900,000. The ethnic composition of the total 
population of DISD, as distinguished from student 
enrollment, approximates the ethnic composition of 
the population of the City of Dallas which is estimated 
to be 25% or 30% black. 10% to 15% Chicano and the 
remainder Anglo. (V.I. 279, 405, 406) This is far dif­
ferent from the ethnic composition of the student pop­
ulation.

DISD contains approximately 351 square miles 
within the 900 square miles of Dallas County. From 
DISD’s furtherest northernmost point to its fur- 
therest southernmost point there is a distance of 
approximately 35 miles viewed from the northwest to 
the southeastern part of the district. It is about 25 
miles from what is called the southwest quadrant in



7

Oak Cliff just below Hulcy Junior High School to the 
northernmost point near the Dallas County line. (V.I, 
405)

The Court of Appeals has correctly recognized that 
in 1971 the DISD student body was 69% Anglo and that 
in 1975 it was 41.1% Anglo, 44.5% Black, 13.4% 
Mexican-American and 1% “other.” This Court is ad­
vised that as of March 11, 1978, the Anglo student body 
was 35.38%.

At the time of trial on February 2,1976, DISD had lost 
approximately 40,000 Anglo students during the 
pendency of this second action. As the students 
become younger there is a decided drop in the num­
bers and percentage of Anglo students. (Deft. Exs. 13;
11, pp. 1, 2)

Petitioners estimate that in 1980 the percentage of 
Anglo enrollment will be 26% of the total school pop­
ulation as opposed to 41%, that Black enrollment will 
be 57% as opposed to 44.5%, and that Mexican- 
American enrollment will be 18% of the total student 
enrollment as opposed to 13.4%. (V.I, 67, 68)

In addition to being faced with the problem of 
fashioning a remedy for an ever increasing minority 
Anglo school system, the District Court also had the 
problem of preserving naturally integrated areas and 
schools which had naturally integrated due to chang­
ing housing patterns. All of the plans before the Court 
submitted by all parties and Amicus Curiae recog­
nized and accepted the concept that there was no 
reason to disturb already desegregated neighborhood



8

schools and each plan proposed to leave certain areas 
and schools alone as those areas and schools were 
naturally integrated. (V.I, 104, 105; Hall’s Ex. 5, pp. 14- 
19; V.IV, 15,16,19; PI. Ex. 16, pp. 9,41; V.III, 241-242,259, 
330, 355, 406, 410)

Further the District Court had to consider the loca­
tion within the DISD of these naturally integrated 
areas and schools in relationship to the areas con­
taining the remaining predominantly Anglo students 
and the areas containing predominantly Mexican- 
American or Black enrollment. The area containing 
the only remaining predominantly Anglo students 
lies generally in a strip along the north and certain 
eastern portions of the system. The predominantly 
Mexican-American or Black students reside to the 
south and southeast in areas distant from the pre­
dominantly Anglo students. Separating the remain­
ing predominantly Anglo students and the pre­
dominantly Mexican-American or Black students are 
areas containing large parts of the naturally integrat­
ed areas and schools. (Deft. Ex. 2,3; V.I, 77,78,79,80,81)

R espondent-P laintiffs have recognized the 
problems of the District Court in fashioning the 
remedy in question. One of their student assignment 
plans submitted to the District Court states the reason 
for leaving one-race schools. In three separate places 
that plan states: (PI. Ex. 16, pp. 34, 36, 38; V. Ill, 377)

Distance from the majority white areas, 
capacity of schools, DISD enrollment patterns 
and generally good physical facilities were 
factors resulting in South Oak Cliff retaining



its present student assignment patterns.” 
(Emphasis ours)

The “South Oak Cliff” referred to is the area now re­
ferred to as East Oak Cliff in the District Court’s Final 
Order. Thus by written proposal and testimony 
Respondent-Plaintiffs admit that the long distance of 
the East Oak Cliff Subdistrict from areas containing 
Anglo students is so great that the continued existence 
of Black one-race schools in East Oak Cliff is justi­
fied. (V.III, 378, 379); that the “ enrollment patterns” in 
DISD, i.e., an ever expanding scholastic population in 
East Oak Cliff, the numbers of Black students and the 
numbers of Anglo students in DISD and the absence of 
Anglo student growth in DISD, further justify the con­
tinued existence of Black one-race schools in East Oak 
Cliff. (V.III, 379-381, 407, 408)

Respondent-Plaintiffs in the District Court by 
motions filed on April 2,1976, and April 5,1976, sought 
an award of attorneys’ fees in this action under Section 
718 of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 on the 
theory that they were the “ prevailing party.” On April 
30, 1976, Respondent-Plaintiffs filed a brief in support 
of their motion for attorneys’ fees which contained the 
following statement: (5/11/76 S.R. 1, p. 4)

“Finally, the plan adopted by the Court in its 
order of March 10, 1976, together with 
Supplemental Opinion and Orders dated April 
7, 1976, and April 15, 1976 adopt and/or incor­
porate almost every precept proposed by 
plaintiffs for student assignment and non­
student assignment features o f the remedy.” 
(Emphasis ours)

9



10

The District Court agreed and awarded attorneys’ 
fees to Respondent-Plaintiffs.

Throughout Respondent-NAACP has insisted that 
the existence of some one-race schools invalidates the 
student assignment portion of the remedy. However, 
Respondent-NAACP publicly admits it does not have 
a solution. In a newspaper interview this public ad­
mission was made by the attorney of record for the 
Respondent-NAACP:

“And even the NAACP admits that it is having 
some trouble finding a way to break up the all­
black nature of the subdistrict. ‘If I knew the 
answer, I’d give it to you,’ says NAACP at­
torney E. Brice Cunningham. ‘I admit that we 
have not yet come up with an alternative to 
some all-black schools. But we will still 
challenge it in court.’ ” Dallas Morning News, 
August 15, 1976, at 1, col. 2.

Respondent-NAACP demands racial balance in 
each school and year-by-year adjustments in such 
quota assignments. The NAACP plan states:

“ (a) Every school should have a racial 
balance comparable to the racial balance in 
the District, which will not deviate more than 
Ten Percent (10%) up or down.” (Emphasis 
ours) (NAACP Ex. 2, p. 7)

* * * *

“2. The first magnitude of desegregation and 
the attaining of an Unitary School System



11

should be to achieve a racial balance of black 
and white students in each school and then 
follow through with the integration of other 
minorities into the system.” (Emphasis ours) 
(NAACP Ex. 2, p. 7)

*  *  *  *

“5. Any set plan should have written into it 
automatic mechanisms for change based upon 
conditions which may arise in the communi­
ty.” (NAACP Ex. 2, p. 7)

*  *  *  *

“ 13. Monitoring procedures are to be so 
specified that assignment adjustments will be 
acted upon when trends of racial changes are 
noted. These procedures are to be made 
specific with respect to degrees of change and 
timing of remedial actions to be taken.’ 
(NAACP Ex. 2, p. 8)

The Judge of the District Court has presided in this 
second case from its beginning. From its March 10, 
1976, Opinion and Order it is obvious that the District 
Court has recognized and considered all the many 
complex factors involved in fashioning a desegrega­
tion remedy for DISD. Over the strenuous objections 
of DISD, the District Court anticipated the subsequent 
June 27, 1977, decision of the Supreme Court in 
Milliken II and ordered comprehensive non-student 
assignment provisions in the remedy. As used, non­
student assignment provisions involve judicial 
remedies in desegregation proceedings going beyond 
student assignment plans and pertaining to (a) the



12

operation and management of the business and affairs 
of DISD, and (b) the education, curriculum and 
program aspects of DISD.2 Summary examples of the 
non-student assignment requirements included in the 
District Court’s remedy are set out in Appendix “ D” .

The Court of Appeals appears to recognize the 
careful study and consideration that the District Court 
had given the case and the many complex factors in­
volved in fashioning the remedy. Nevertheless, the 
Court of Appeals considered the number of one-race 
schools as controlling and remanded the case to the 
District Court for the formulation of a new student 
assignment plan and for findings to justify the 
maintenance of any one-race schools that may be a 
part of that plan.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

1. The Court Below Has Decided A Federal 
Question In A Way In Conflict With This 
Court’s Decision In Swann v. Charlotte- 
Mecklenburg Board o f Education, 402 U.S.
1.

Among the issues before the Courts below was the 
constitutionality of the remedy formulated by the Dis­
trict Court to eliminate the vestiges of a state-imposed 
dual school system in a large urban school system and
2 Nothing contained in this petition is to be construed as a waiver 
by DISD of its right on remand to object to the introduction of all 
evidence and to all parts of any plan or proposal as might pertain 
to non-student assignment matters and to object to the inclusion of 
non-student assignment provisions in any remedial order and 
DISD specifically reserves its right to so object.



in particular such a school system that is now a 
minority Anglo system with an ever decreasing 
percentage of Anglo students that requires a tri-ethnic 
remedy and that has been the object of ongoing litiga­
tion to formulate a remedy since Brown II. It is ob­
vious from the directions given the District Court on 
remand that the Court of Appeals considers the num­
ber of one-race schools to be the controlling criteria 
for determining the appropriateness of a remedy for 
such school systems. This is not what this Court said 
concerning one-race schools in Swann. This is not 
what this Court in effect construed Swann to mean in 
Mi Hi ken II.

This one-race school criteria seized on by the Court 
of Appeals is an example of how Green v. New Kent 
County3 thinking can bring lower courts to an 
erroneous interpretation of Swann in cases involving 
these large urban school systems. In the instant case 
we are dealing writh a system of some 800,000 to 900,000 
persons, operating some 183 school buildings with 
approximately 140,000 students of whom 41.1% were 
Anglo, 44.5% were Black and 13.4% were Mexican- 
American. In Green the school system operated only 
two schools in a rural county of some 4,500 population. 
One was_ a white combined elementary and high 
school and one was a Negro combined elementary and 
high school. The school system served approxi­
mately 1,300 pupils, 740 of whom were Negro and 550 
of whom were white. Facts and conditions are not the 
same. It is one thing to think in terms of no one-race 
schools in New Kent County, Virginia, with only two 
schools in that entire rural system, but to focus on 
such an overly simplistic approach in considering a

13

3 Green v. County School Board of New Kent County. 391 U.S. 430



14

remedy for this large urban system has brought the 
Court below to an erroneous construction of Swann 
and to a decision in conflict with Swann when read in 
its entirety.

A national educational crisis exists in such large ur­
ban school systems because some federal courts 
refuse to come to grips with the fact that Swann must 
be interpreted in light of the urban condition as it ex­
ists in such school systems. The District Court was 
one federal court that did recognize that Swann must 
be interpreted in light of the urban condition in such 
school systems. The District Court’s March 10, 1976, 
Opinion and Order well states the anguish and agony 
that district courts must go through in formulating 
remedies in such school systems. In the District 
Court’s language in part:

“ In this complex and ever-changing area of 
the law, it is difficult if not impossible to dis­
cover hard and fast rules for the Court to 
follow.”

*  *  *  *

“ . • • school districts are like fingerprints — 
each one is unique. Although the goal of a uni­
tary, non-racial system is a constant, the 
method or plan for achieving that goal must be 
tailored to fit the particular school district in­
volved. A plan that is successful in a district 
having a small student population or occupy­
ing a small area geographically, a rural dis­
trict, a county-wide district, or a majority 
Anglo school district, will not necessarily be



15

successful in a large urban district such as the 
DISD.” (Emphasis ours) 412 F.Supp. at 1195

Granted that the judicial goal must be the develop 
ment of a decree that promises realistically to work 
and prom ises rea listica lly  to work now, it 
nevertheless defies all logic and common sense not to 
allow a district court to choose a plan that takes into 
account the urban condition in such school systems. 
Otherwise the judicial goal of a plan that promises 
realistically to work now in such school systems is 
reduced to a shambles.

The Court of Appeals has reached a decision in con­
flict with Swann and this Court is urged here to 
resolve the conflict in view of the difficulty that the 
nation’s lower courts are having in finding a satisfac­
tory solution to school desegregation matters in large 
urban school systems.

2. The Court Below Has Decided A Federal 
Question In A Way In Conflict With This 
Court’s Decision in Milliken v. Bradley,
433 U.S. 267 (Milliken II).

The decision below does not refer to this Court’s 
decision in Milliken II. Thus the decision below in 
effect interprets Swann to mean that the non-student 
assignment provisions included by the District Court 
in the remedial order in question, including remedial 
educational programs, are not to be considered as 
desegregation tools or techniques under Swann. The 
Court below has made a too limited reading of Swann 
in the light of this Court’s decision in Milliken II. Con­



16

trary to Milliken II, the Court below has decided that 
certain remedial educational programs may not be 
considered as desegregation tools or techniques under 
Swann.

3. The Importance Of The Issue And The 
Need For Clarification.

A national educational crisis exists in urban areas 
and will continue unabated unless and until this Court 
addresses the matter of desegregation remedies in 
large urban school systems as described here. The 
issues here involved are especially important to such 
school systems and to their millions of school patrons 
throughout the nation. Cf. S.E.C. v. United Benefit Life 
Insurance Company, 387 U.S. 202, 207, where cer­
tiorari was granted because of the importance of the 
issue and the need for clarification.

If integrated school systems in large urban 
metropolitan centers are the true goal of groups such 
as the Respondent-Plaintiffs and Respondent- 
NAACP, then that goal becomes an impossibility 
when public education is required to exist under con­
ditions that do not appeal to many school patrons. The 
constant and unrelenting uncertainty and pressure of 
never ending school desegregation litigation is a con­
dition that does not appeal to many school patrons. 
When conditions exist that do not appeal to school 
patrons, they seek more satisfactory conditions 
elsewhere; some in the suburbs, some in private or 
church-related schools. The search for more satis­
factory conditions elsewhere is not always related to a 
racial bias but to a fam ily’s sense of frustration with



17

conditions that decrease the total educational oppor­
tunity for one’s child. One condition that decreases the 
total educational opportunity for one’s child is con­
stant desegregation litigation over the remedy and the 
resulting prospect of ever expanding busing in a large 
metropolitan area. Uncertainty destroys parents’ 
patience and confidence. It is not just Anglos who 
become dissatisfied with these adverse conditions in 
urban school districts. Black families and Mexican- 
American families value education also; and they will 
leave as they can, just as Anglos leave as they can.

This case presents the Court the opportunity to ad­
dress these matters and to make clear to the lower 
courts that Swann is to be interpreted in light of the 
facts of the urban condition as exist in school systems 
such as Dallas. If, in the words of Respondent- 
NAACP’s counsel, the Respondent-NAACP has “ . . . 
not yet come up with an alternative to some all-black 
schools,” then the Court of Appeals should not read 
Swann to require the District Court to be wiser than 
the Respondent-NAACP.

Unless the District Court’s realistic approach to 
such a school system is affirmed by this Court, then 
desegregation litigation involving such school sys­
tems will go on and on over the years and will end only 
at that point when these school systems become vir­
tually all-black or virtually all-black and Mexican- 
American. Unitary these school systems may then be, 
but virtually all-black or all-black and Mexican- 
American they will be also.



18
Lower court interpretations of Swann, as in the 

Court below, create such dilemmas and uncertainties 
with respect to school systems such as Dallas that 
nothing is resolved. Such lower Court readings of 
Swann create such unfortunate social and economic 
circumstances in metropolitan cities that the results 
have become a national educational tragedy. A ll that 
now occurs under Swann with respect to school sys­
tems such as Dallas is constant district court hear­
ings, appeals and remands. The District Court had a 
solution for a national problem. The Court of Appeals 
rejected this solution. Further word from this Court is 
needed.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this Petition for a Writ of 
Certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

Warren Whitham 
210 Adolphus Tower 
Dallas, Texas 75202

Mark Martin 
1200 One Main Place 
Dallas, Texas 75250

Attorneys for Petitioners 
Dated: August 11, 1978



19

PROOF OF SERVICE

We, Warren Whitham and Mark Martin, Attorneys 
for Petitioners herein, and members of the Bar of the 
Supreme Court of the United States, hereby certify 
that on the 11th day of August, 1978, we served three 
copies of the foregoing Petition for Writ of Certiorari 
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Cir­
cuit upon the following Counsel for Respondents:

Mr. Edward B. Cloutman, III 
8204 Elmbrook Drive, Suite 200 
P. O. Box 47972 
Dallas, Texas 75247
Ms. Vilma S. Martinez 
Mexican-American Legal Defense 

and Educational Fund 
28 Geary Street
San Francisco, California 94108 
Mr. Nathaniel R. Jones 
1790 Broadway, 10th Floor 
New York, New York 10019
Mr. Lee Holt, City Attorney
New City Hall
Dallas, Texas 75201
Mr. John Bryant
8035 East R. L. Thornton
Dallas, Texas 75228
Mr. James G. Vetter, Jr.
555 Griffin Square Building 
Suite 920
Dallas, Texas 75202

Mr. Thomas E. Ashton, III 
Dallas Legal Services 

Foundation, Inc.
912 Commerce Street, Room 202 
Dallas, Texas 75202
Mr. E. Brice Cunningham 
2606 Forest Avenue, Suite 202 
Dallas, Texas 75215
Mr. Robert H. Mow, Jr.
Mr. Robert L. Blumenthal 
3000 One Main Place 
Dallas, Texas 75250
Mr. James A. Donohoe 
1700 Republic National Bank 

Building
Dallas, Texas 75201 
Mr. Martin Frost 
777 South R. L. Thornton 

Freeway, Suite 120 
Dallas, Texas 75203

and to the following Respondent pro se:

Mr. James T. Maxwell 
4440 Sigma Road, Suite 112 
Dallas, Texas 75240



20

and to the following Counsel for Amicus Curiae:

Mr. H. Ron White
1907 Elm Street, Suite 2100
Dallas, Texas 75201

by mailing same to such Counsel and Respondent pro 
se at their respective addresses and depositing the 
same in a United States mail box in an envelope prop­
erly addressed to such addresses with first class 
postage prepaid.

We further certify that all parties required to be 
served have been served.

Warren Whitham

Mark Martin

Attorneys for Petitioners



APPENDIX “A ”
la

IDENTITY AND NAMES OF ALL PARTIES

Petitioners are the members of the Board of Trustees 
of the Dallas Independent School District and its 
General Superintendent. At the time of filing this Peti­
tion Bill C. Hunter, Sarah Haskins, Robert Medrano, 
Kathlyn Gilliam, Bradford N. Lapsley, Jill Foster, 
Harryette Ehrhardt, Robert L. Price and Gerald M. 
Stanglin are the Trustees of the Dallas Independent 
School District and Nolan Estes is its General 
Superintendent. Petitioners were Defendants in the 
District Court and Appellees and Cross-Appellants in 
the Court of Appeals.

The Respondent-Plaintiffs were the original Plain­
tiffs in the District Court and Appellants and Cross- 
Appellees in the Court of Appeals. The Respondent- 
Plaintiffs are Eddie Mitchell Tasby and Philip Wayne 
Tasby, by their parent and next friend, Sam Tasby; 
Evelyn Denise Lafayette and Darline Lafayette, by 
their parent and next friend, Ludie Ann Cobbin; John 
L. Morgan, Leon M. Morgan, Emanuel Morgan and 
Jacqueline Morgan, by their parent and next friend, 
Mary Jane Morgan; Jacqueline Denise Yarborough, 
Katherine Yvette Yarborough and Willie Jackson, by 
their parent and next friend, Bettye Jackson; Nelba 
Ann Crouch, Allen LaMeche and Danny O’Keefe, by 
Thelma Lee Crouch; Nettie Marie Cates, by her parent 
and next friend, Bobbie Lean Cobbin; Tony Jefferson, 
Beulah Jefferson, Arthur Jefferson, Yolanda Jefferson 
and Jacqueline Jefferson, by their parent and next 
friend, Ruth Jefferson; Ora Clara Woods and James



Edward Woods, by their parent and next friend, Helen 
Woods; Angela Medrano and Yolanda Medrano, by 
their parent and next friend, Richard Medrano; and the 
alleged class or classes they seek to represent in this 
action.

The Respondent-Intervenors are various parties 
who at various times have been permitted to intervene 
in these proceedings. The Respondent-Intervenors 
are:

1. Donald E. Curry, Gerald A, Van Winkle, Joe M. 
Gresham, Edmund S. Rouget and Robert A. Overton, 
Individually and as next friends for their children.

2. James T. Maxwell.

3. Donald Abercrombie, his wife, Helen Abercrom­
bie, and their children, Donna and Donald; C. S. 
Ludwick, his wife, Ann Ludwick, and their children, 
Connie, Mark and Scott; Jerry Hamilton, his wife, 
Martha Hamilton, and their children, Pamela, Jeri and 
Patricia; Wayne Dickenson, his wife, Betty Dickenson, 
and their children, Delisa and Drew; Anthony 
Bascone, his wife, Rebecca Bascone, and their chil­
dren, Kathy, Karen and Amy; R. D. Morgan, his wife, 
Janice Morgan, and their child, Carol; and R. H. 
Mason, his wife, Joyce Mason, and their children, 
Susan, Mark and William; also known collectively as 
“ Oak Cliff Citizens.”

4. Herman Bond, et ux, Individually and as next 
friend for his son, Steven Bond, as representative of 
the class of Oak Cliff residents in the Kimball-Carter-

2a



3a

South Oak Cliff School District areas and areas adja­
cent thereto in the City of Dallas.

5. The City of Dallas.

6. The Metropolitan Branches of the Dallas 
N.A.A.C.P., the John F. Kennedy Branch, the Oak Cliff 
Branch and the South Dallas Branch (Respondent- 
NAACP).

7. Dr. E. Thomas Strom, Charlotte Strom, Charles 
Pankey, Norma Pankey, Donald K. Boldt, Dan and 
Mary Ann Boyd, Dr. R. S. Buchanan, Dolly M. Buen- 
ting, Fannie Demery, A. Douglas and Jill Foster, 
Thomas E. and Denise Gray, Calvin R. Heath, Bobbie 
Hickson, Lloyd G. Jones, Ruth L. Keefer, Peggy L. 
Kirkland, Margaret Leo, Lou O’Reilly, Pat and 
Marilyn Patterson, Dottie Pennebaker, W. R. and Ann 
Swaney, Virginia Trousdale, Gordon C. Yates, Rev. 
Montie W. Stewart, D. B. Barksdale, Mrs. Buford T. 
Bird, Clyde and Nellie Blevins, Wilma E. Borchardt, 
Gene and Arlene Boyd, Nancy Ruth Cawthon, Bob 
Chaffin, Louise Clayton, Jack O. Davis, Mr. and Mrs. 
Pedro Guillen, Denise Jenkins, Mr. and Mrs. Paul 
Jones, Mr. A. A. Kerby, Mr. and Mrs. G. R. Langford, 
David Langton, Mr. and Mrs. Marlin E. Langton, Mrs. 
L. D. McManus, Buddy and Barbara Pettway, Olen and 
Wanda Weaver and Mr. and Mrs. H. A. Wells, a group of 
individuals residing in and having children attend­
ing schools in the Dallas Independent School District.

8. Ralph F. Brinegar, Wallace H. Savage, Evelyn T. 
Green, Craig Patton, Dr. John A. Ehrhardt, Richard L. 
Rodriguez and Alicia V. Rodriguez, Mr. and Mrs.



4a

Salomon Aguilar, Marjorie M. Oliver, Mr. and Mrs. 
Ruben L. Hubbard, Robert L. Burns, Dr. Percey E. 
Luecke, Jr., Dale L. Ireland and Barbara J. Ireland, and 
Evelyn C. Dunsavage, Individuals residing in the 
Dallas Independent School District.

9. The Dallas Alliance and the Education Task 
Force of the Dallas Alliance, Amicus Curiae.

APPENDIX “B” 

OPINION AND ORDER

Filed: Mar. 10, 1976

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION

EDDIE MITCHELL TASBY and PHILIP WAYNE 
TASBY, by their parent and next friend, SAM TASBY,

ET AL

versus CA 3-4211-C

DR. NOLAN ESTES, GENERAL 
SUPERINTENDENT, DALLAS INDEPENDENT 

SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL

The task presented to this Court is to adopt and im­
plement a desegregation plan for the Dallas Indepen­
dent School District (DISD) which will finally con­
clude the tortured history of this litigation and which



5a
will establish a unitary, nonracial system of public 
education in the DISD, as required by Brown v. Board 
of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). This cause is here on 
remand from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ deci­
sion of July 23, 1975,1 which affirmed in part and re­
versed in part this Court’s 1971 desegregation order. 
The Fifth Circuit has instructed this Court to for­
mulate a student assignment plan which will remedy 
the dual nature of the DISD found to exist in 1971.

I. The Parties

The cast of legal characters in this desegregation 
drama has changed since 1971, with the addition of 
new interveners and the departure of interveners 
previously in the case. The present actors still include 
the plaintiffs, representing a class of black and 
Mexican-American students in the DISD; the defen­
dant DISD; the Curry interveners, representing a 
group of North Dallas students; the intervenor James 
T. Maxwell, representing himself; and the City of 
Dallas.2 Additionally, the Metropolitan Branches of 
the National Association for the Advancement of 
Colored People (NAACP) were granted leave to in­
tervene on August 25, 1975; the Strom interveners, 
representing a class of persons living in naturally in­
tegrated areas of Western Oak Cliff and Pleasant 
Grove, were granted leave to intervene on August 25, 
1975; and the Brinegar intervenors, representing a 
class of persons living in the naturally integrated area

1 Tasby v. Estes, 517 F.2d 92 (5th Cir. 1975).
2 The City of Dallas remained a party to this phase of the pro­
ceedings but did not play an active role during this phase.



of East Dallas, were given leave to intervene on 
September 17, 1975.

On September 16 the Court challenged the business 
leaders of Dallas to become involved and further 
pointed out that everyone in the district had a job to do 
— that it was not a job for the Court alone. The busi­
ness leaders have responded to the challenge and have 
shown their sincere interest. Many churches, their 
leaders, and many organizations have expressed 
significant interest and offered to assist the Court. 
Additionally, a group of citizens formed a committee 
composed of six blacks, seven Mexican-Americans, 
one American Indian and seven Anglos. This group 
became an affiliate of the Dallas Alliance and became 
known as the Educational Task Force of the Dallas 
Alliance. The Dallas Alliance is a community service 
organization designed to act on and aid in the solution 
of urgent issues of the community. It consists of a for­
ty member Board of Trustees, and seventy-seven cor­
respondent organizations in the Dallas area.

This Task Force met for a period of four months and 
spent approximately 1500 hours together in devising 
concepts and principles for a desegregation plan for a 
D1SD. They sent various members of their group to 
cities around the country to discover all possible tools 
for desegregation, and met with or talked with thirty 
leading figures in the desegregation field. Finally, on 
February 17, 1976, the Alliance group filed their plan 
for the DISD with the Court. The Court granted them 
the status of Amicus Curiae for the purpose of present­
ing their ideas and plan to the Court, and heard 
evidence from Dr. Paul Geisel regarding the plan.

8a



7a

The Court has before it several student assignment 
plans, offered to remedy the dual nature of the DISD. 
The School Board, being charged with the respon­
sibility of devising an acceptable plan,3 filed its plan 
on the 10th of September, 1975. The NAACP devised a 
student assignment plan which was also filed on 
September 10. The Court was not wholly satisfied with 
either of these plans, as it indicated in a hearing on 
September 16. Therefore, the Court employed an ex­
pert in the field of education and desegregation, Dr. 
Josiah C. Hall of Miami, Florida. Dr. Hall presented a 
student assignment plan to the Court which was filed 
December 29, 1975. The plaintiffs meanwhile were 
working on a student assignment plan, and ended up 
filing two plans on January 12, 1976. Likewise, the 
Education Task Force of the Dallas Alliance met for 
several months considering concepts for a desegrega­
tion plan for the DISD, and filed their results with the 
Court on February 17, 1976. In addition, the Court re­
ceived and has considered other plans and 
suggestions from various citizens and groups.4

II. Applicable Law

In this complex and ever-changing area of the law, it 
is difficult if not impossible to discover hard and fast 
rules for this Court to follow. Certainly, the “transi­
tion to a unitary, non-racial system of public educa­
tion was and is the ultimate end to be brought about.”
3 Brown v. Board of Education (II), 349 U.S. 294 (1955).
4 A group of students at Skyline High School drew a student 
assignment plan for the DISD and submitted it to the Court. Others 
were submitted by the Alliance for Integrated Education and a 
number of other groups and concerned parents.



8a

Green v. County School Board, 391 U.S. 430, 436 (1967); 
Alexander v. Holmes County Board o f Education, 396 
U.S, 19 (1969); Brown v. Board of Education II, 349 U.S. 
294 (1955). Similarly, this Court recognizes that “ [t]he 
objective today remains to eliminate from the public 
schools all vestiges of state-imposed segregation.” 
Swann v. Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 15 (1970).

Nevertheless, school districts are like fingerprints 
— each one is unique. Although the goal of a unitary, 
nonracial system is a constant, the method or plan for 
achieving that goal must be tailored to fit the par­
ticular school district involved. A plan that is 
successful in a district having a small student popula­
tion or occupying a small area geographically, a rural 
district, a county-wide district, or a majority Anglo 
school district, will not necessarily be successful in a 
large urban district such as the DISD. As the Supreme 
Court observed in Brown II, supra at 299:

Full implementation of these constitutional 
principles may require solution of varied 
local school problems. School authorities 
have  the p rim ary  resp on sib ility  for 
elucidating, assessing, and solving these 
problems; courts will have to consider 
whether the action of the school authorities 
constitute good faith implementation of the 
governing constitutional principles. Because 
of their proximity to local conditions and the 
possible need for further hearings, the courts 
which originally heard these cases can best 
perform this judicial appraisal.



9a

Throughout the proceedings on remand, this Court 
has held forem ost in its mind the unique 
characteristics of the DISD, in order to insure that a 
feasible, workable plan is adopted which will 
realistically establish a unitary system in the DISD.

The Fifth Circuit remanded this case with instruc­
tions to formulate a new “ student assignment plan.” 
The DISD has maintained throughout these proceed­
ings that the Court can consider nothing except a bare- 
bones student assignment plan. Although this Court 
recognizes that the mandate from the Fifth Circuit re­
ferred consistently to formulating a “ student assign­
ment plan,” it does not interpret that language as 
limiting this Court to a plan which merely provides 
for moving bodies between buildings. As the Fifth Cir­
cuit held in Calhoun v. Cook, 522 F.2d 717 (1975), 
rehearing denied, 525 F.2d 1203 (1975):

The aim of the Fourteenth Amendment 
guarantee of equal protection on which this 
litigation is based is to assure that state sup­
ported educational opportunity is afforded 
without regard to race; it is not to achieve 
racial integration in public schools.

A student assignment plan cannot operate in a 
vacuum; it must include whatever additional tools are 
necessary to carry out the mandate that equal 
educational opportunity be provided, and to insure 
that a truly unitary system is established.

In adopting a student assignment plan, this Court is 
required to arrive at a delicate balance — the dual



nature of the system must be eliminated; however, a 
quota system cannot be imposed. The Supreme Court 
ruled in Swann, supra at 28, that

[t]he district judge or school authorities 
should make every possible effort to achieve 
the greatest possible degree of actual 
desegregation and will thus necessarily be 
concerned with the elimination of one-race 
schools.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court held that

[tjhe constitutional command to desegregate 
schools does not mean that every school in 
every community must always reflect the 
racial composition of the school system as a 
whole.

Ibid, at 24.

In arriving at this balance, the practicalities of the 
situation are to be taken into account. Davis v. School 
Commissioners of Mobile County, 402 U.S. 33, at 37 
(1970). These practicalities include travel time and 
distance, and the age of the children.

An objection to transportation of students 
may have validity when the time or distance of 
travel is so great as to either risk the health of 
the children or significantly impinge on the 
educational process. . . It hardly needs stating 
that the limits on time or travel will vary with 
many factors, but probably with none more 
than the age of the students.

10a



11a

Swann, supra at 30.

The Fifth Circuit instructed this Court to use the 
techniques discussed in Swann to dismantle the 
vestiges of the dual nature of the DISD. The Supreme 
Court said in Swann that “ [desegregation plans can­
not be limited to the walk-in school,” if this will not 
produce a unitary system. Swann, supra at 30. All 
available techniques are to be considered in the for­
mulation of student assignment plans, including the 
restructuring of attendance zones and the pairing of 
both contiguous and noncontiguous attendance zones. 
Swann, supra; Davis, supra.5

The Supreme Court’s decision in Swann also 
emphasized the equitable nature of the remedies 
phase of a desegregation case. It quoted the following 
language from Brown II:

In fashioning and effectuating the decrees, the 
courts will be guided by equitable principles. 
Traditionally, equity has been characterized 
by a practical flexibility in shaping its 
remedies and by a facility for adjusting and 
reconciling public and private needs.

Swann, supra at 12. Later it stated:

In seeking to define even in broad and general 
terms how far this remedial power extends it 
is important to remember that judicial powers

5 The pairing of noncontiguous attendance zones and the use of 
transportation is of course limited by the practicalities mentioned 
above.



may be exercised only on the basis of a con­
stitutional violation . . .  As with any equity 
case, the nature of the violation determines the 
scope of the remedy.

This Court has kept in mind throughout these pro­
ceedings that its findings in 1971 were that the 
“vestiges” of a dual school system remained in the 
DISD, and not that the DISD was a dual system at that 
time. The plan adopted now must therefore remedy 
these vestiges without exceeding this Court’s 
equitable powers to balance public and private needs.

Finally, guidance as to the role of this Court has 
been given by the Supreme Court in Green, supra at 
439:

12a

The obligation of the district court, as it 
always has been, is to assess the effectiveness 
of a proposed plan in achieving desegrega­
tion. There is no universal answer to complex 
problems of desegregation; there is obviously 
no one plan that will do the job in every case. 
The matter must be assessed in light of the cir­
cumstances present and the options available 
in each instance. It is incumbent upon the 
school board to establish that its proposed 
plan promises meaningful and immediate 
progress toward disestablishing state- 
imposed segregation. It is incumbent upon the 
district court to weigh that claim in light of 
facts at hand and in light of any alternatives 
which may be shown as feasible and more 
prom ising in their effectiveness. . . .



13a

Moreover, whatever plan is adopted will re­
quire evaluation in practice, and the court 
should retain jurisdiction until it is clear that 
the state-imposed segregation has been com­
pletely removed.

With this task in mind, the Court heard testimony 
regarding the feasibility and effectiveness of these 
plans presented by the parties during hearings which 
lasted continuously from February 2 to March 5. All 
the plans utilize, to varying degrees, the concepts of 
pairing and clustering schools, and of transporting 
students for the purpose of establishing %n integrated 
or unitary school system, as approved by the Supreme 
Court in Swann, supra. Each of the plans incorporates 
other tools, as well as transportation, to help insure 
that an integrated school system is achieved. The 
Court finds some meritorious suggestions in each of 
the plans, including the concept of magnet schools 
suggested by the DISD, the plaintiffs and others; the 
majority to minority transfer program advocated by 
all parties; and the concept of a monitor or auditor pro­
posed by the plaintiffs, the NAACP and the Dallas 
Alliance Task Force. The Court is convinced that the 
plan of the Educational Task Force of the Dallas 
Alliance will effectively establish a unitary system of 
education in the DISD and that it promises 
realistically to work now.” Green, supra at 439.

III. Present Characteristics of the DISD

The most significant feature of the DISD now as op­
posed to 1971 is that the DISD is no longer a 
predominantly Anglo student school system. In the



years which have intervened since this Court’s 1971 
order, the percentage of Anglos in the DISD has de­
clined from 69% to 41.1%, and projections show no 
reversal of this trend to a predominantly minority dis­
trict. According to the most recently compiled 
figures,6 the racial composition of the DISD student 
body is 41.1% Anglo, 44.5% black, 13.4% Mexican- 
American, and 1.0% “other.” In the 1970-71 academic 
year, the DISD enrolled 163,353 students in grades 1- 
12, whereas in December, 1975, the DISD enrolled only 
131,757 students. Over the past five years the DISD has 
lost, for one reason or another, 40.9% of its Anglo stu­
dent population.7

Nevertheless, the DISD continues to be the eighth 
largest school district in the nation, covering an area 
of approximately 351 square miles. Its 180 separate 
cam puses house 141,122 students (including 
kindergarten), and its total expenditure for the 1975-76 
academic year is $164,788,000.

Although the DISD in 1975-76 cannot be considered 
to be wholly free of the vestiges of a dual system, 
significant strides in desegregation have been made 
since the Court's 1971 order as a result of natural 
changes in residential patterns in the past three years. 
In the 1970-71 school year, 91.7% of all black students 
in the DISD attended predominantly minority schools, 
whereas in the 1975-76 school year, the percentage has 
dropped to 67.6%. Testimony during the hearings

6 Dec. 1, 1975, DISD Hinds County figures. See Appendix A for 
racial composition of each grade level.
7 An HEW Report shows that in October 1969 there were 97,103 
Anglo students in grades 1-12, and in October 1975 there were 57,- 
426 Anglo students in grades 1-12.



showed that large areas of Dallas which formerly 
reflected segregated housing patterns are now in­
tegrated, namely Western Oak Cliff, Pleasant Grove, 
East Dallas, the area of North Dallas included in the 
attendance zone for Thomas Jefferson High School.8

Testimony also established that the DISD has un­
dertaken in good faith and on its own to equalize the 
educational opportunity for all children during recent 
years. The plaintiffs introduced a 209-page Report of a 
Study of Instruction in the Dallas Independent School 
District 1974-1975 which was conducted by Dr. Francis 
S. Chase and eight staff associates. This report was in­
itiated by the School Board, but Dr. Chase testified that 
he and his staff, who had no connection with the DISD, 
were not impeded in any way in conducting this study 
or presenting their findings. Their findings included 
the following passage:

The staff of the Study of Instruction has iden­
tified a number of characteristics in which the 
Dallas Independent School District is either 
preeminent or close to the top among public 
school systems. Some of these characteristics 
which hold high potential for the improve­
ment of education are:

1. The commitment to, and the heavy in­
vestment of resources in, curriculum, design, 
development, and implementation.

2. A broadly conceived and well-staffed 
program of research and evaluation to define

8 See Appendix B, an exhibit introduced by the Strom in­
terveners which shows the changes in racial composition of 
formerly predominantly Anglo secondary schools.

15a



needs, inform decisions, assess the effec­
tiveness of programs and services, and in­
dicate deficiencies in program implementa­
tion or operation.

3. The creation of an extensive network of 
communications through which community 
organizations and large numbers of teachers, 
students, parents, and other citizens may 
learn about and participate in educational 
decisions and programs.

4. Frank acknowledgment of barriers to 
equal educational opportunity, followed by 
constructive measures such as the Affir­
mative Action Program, the extension of 
Multi-Ethnic Education, the implementation 
of Plan A for better treatment of learning dis­
abilities, and support for inner-city school 
renewal projects.

5. The number and variety of innovations 
initiated and the continuing search for ways of 
responding to the demands for improved 
education.

6. The extensive program of personnel 
development through released time, other 
special programs, and four area teacher 
centers which work in cooperation with seven 
colleges and universities.

7. The planning, development, and opera­
tion of career education programs and 
emphases — with continuing efforts to extend 
and improve career education at all levels.9

16a

9 Study of Instruction, pp. 35-36.



17a
In spite of the DISD’s efforts, Dr. Chase’ study con­

cluded that there is still a gap between intent to 
provide equal educational opportunity and the 
achievement of this goal. But the study also concluded 
that the DISD is accepting the continuing challenge to 
speed progress and close this gap.

The Dallas Independent School District, in re­
cent years, has acknowledged frankly the ex­
istence of persisting inequalities and inade­
quacies in its provisions for education. In­
stead of regarding these conditions as in­
evitable, the District has moved progressively 
to treat them as challenges with which it must 
cope swiftly and effectively. A ll school 
systems, and especially those in our larger 
cities, are faced with the urgent necessity of 
alleviating the learning disabilities which 
have their roots in poverty, prejudice, and 
other forms of discrimination. No other school 
district offers a better prospect for significant 
progress in this direction.10

The study thoroughly evaluated the DISD s 
programs, pinpointing areas which needed improve­
ment and making recommendations to that end.11 Dr. 
Chase testified that this study was unique in the 
amount of response it elicited from the School Board 
and the Administration; he testified that there is not 
one item cited that the Board and Administration have 
not responded to in some way. His testimony was that 
there can never be a perfect school system, but that at

10 Ibid, p. 200.
11 Ibid, pp. 205-209.



18a

least the DISD is conscientiously on the road to 
providing equal educational opportunity for all.

The plan which this Court is ordering to be im­
plemented promises to continue this trend of 
desegregation and will, when fully implemented, 
remove all vestiges of the former dual system in the 
DISD, The Court is convinced that this plan will, at the 
same time, “ assure that state supported educational 
opportunity is afforded without regard to race.” 
Calhoun, supra at 396. Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 
717, 740-741 (1974); Alexander v. Holmes County Board 
of Education, 396 U.S. 19, 20 (1969); Brown v. Board of 
Education, 349 U.S. 294, 301 (1955).

IV. An Analysis o f the Plans Before the Court

A. DISD’s Plan

The DISD’s plan was devised by the staff of the DISD 
under the direction and supervision of Dr. Nolan Es­
tes. The district is divided into three categories for the 
purpose of student assignment — the integrated parts 
of the school district,12 the remaining predominantly 
Anglo parts of the district,13 and certain minority 
parts of the district. The DISD’s plan proposes to re­
tain the present student assignment patterns for the 
naturally integrated areas,14 as desegregation has
12 These areas are integrated due to residential housing 
patterns.
13 These areas lie generally across the far northern and eastern 
portions of the DISD.
14 “Integrated” was defined by the DISD as not more than 75% 
Anglos or more than 75% combined blacks and Mexican- 
Americans.



19a

already occurred in these areas.15 Pairing and cluster­
ing techniques, both contiguous and noncontiguous, 
were used to desegregate grades 4-1216 of the 
predominantly Anglo areas of the district. The grade 
configurations were proposed to be:

K - 3 Elementary Schools

4 - 5 Intermediate Schools

8 - 7  Middle Schools

8 - 9 Junior High Schools

10 - 12 Senior High Schools.17

The remaining predominantly minority areas of the 
districts would continue to be served by predominant­
ly one-race minority schools.18

In addition, the DISD proposed to set up 17 magnet 
schools to serve the entire district. Ten of these 
magnets would be for the elementary level, and would 
offer “ fundamental” programming19 or “ individually

15 There are 55 schools meeting this criteria.
16 Grades K-3 would continue to attend schools closest their 
homes.
17 There are 72 schools in this category.
18 There are 48 schools in this category serving 42 attendance 
zones.
19 “ Fundamental” programming was described as concen­
trating on reading, writing, and arithmetic, and being a highly 
structured environment.



20a
guided” programming.20 Seven of the magnets would 
operate on the secondary level (grades 8-12 in six of 
the seven cases), and would offer a variety of 
programs oriented toward careers, the creative and 
performing arts,21 transportation and technology,22 
and world cultures. These programs are all in ex­
istence now in the DISD and are proving extremely 
successful.23

Finally, the DISD’s proposal included the retention 
of the majority to minority transfer program present­
ly in existence in the DISD.

The analysis showed that 13,947 students would be 
transported for desegregation purposes,24 and that the 
total cost to implement25 would be $6,811,240, causing 
a 9$ tax increase.26

20 “ Individually guided” programming was described as using a 
diagnostic prescriptive approach in a highly flexible setting. 
There would be approximately one teacher for every 15 students, 
and the students would be able to move along at their own pace.
21 This magnet would be located near Fair Park and would have 
those cultural facilities available.
22 This magnet would be located at Love Field, the airport recent­
ly closed.
23 Skyline Career Development Center, serving grades 10-12, is 
recognized as one of the outstanding magnet schools in the nation.
24 In the Western Oak Cliff area, the DISD’s proposal would 
transport 1500 black students to predominantly minority schools.
2 5  This includes the cost of buses, bus monitors, building 
modifications, portable classrooms, and magnets.
26 Ch. 20.04d of the Texas Education Code, based on Art. 7 § 3 of 
the Texas Constitution, limits the assessment of school taxes for 
any school district in Texas to $1.50 per $100 property value. The 
tax rate for the DISD presently is $1.40 per $100 property value. 
Thus any plan which increases the taxation rate more than 10$ 
would cause an increase in class size past the present 27 students, 
or else cause a reduction in enrichment programs.



21a

B. Plaintiffs’ Plans

Plaintiffs’ proposed plans were devised by the plain­
tiffs’ attorneys, using guidelines laid down by Dr. 
Charles Willie of Harvard.

1. Plan A

Under Plan A, the DISD would be divided into seven 
elementary subdistricts. An attempt was made to have 
each school reflect the racial composition of that sub­
district. The naturally integrated elementary schools 
retained their present student assignment patterns.27 
All other schools were paired or clustered for grades 
1-12 28 The grade configurations proposed were grades 
K, 1-3, 4-6, 7-9, and 10-12.29

Plaintiffs proposed the use of magnet schools con­
structed in the inner city to draw Anglos into those 
areas. They suggested the retention of the majority to 
minority program. They suggested that the DISD ex­
pand and improve its in-service training program for 
faculty and staff. Finally, they proposed a system of 
accountability to insure that the DISD complies with 
this Court’s order and with the goal of quality educa­
tion for each student enrolled in public school.

An analysis of Plaintiffs’ Plan A showed that ap­
proximately 69,000 students would be transported, and

27 There were 13 elementary schools in this category.
28 Kindergarten children would attend the schools closest their 
homes.
29 This was done wherever possible. Other grade configurations 
do appear, such as K, 1-4, 5-6, 7-9, 10-12.



22a
that the projected total cost to implement30 would be 
$22,030,590, causing a 29.4$ tax increase.

2. Plan B

Under Plan B, the DISD would be divided into eight 
elementary level subdistricts. The residentially in­
tegrated areas were not included in the new student 
assignment patterns.31 One of the subdistricts would 
remain predominantly minority and would retain its 
present assignment patterns,32 but would become a 
“ m odel cluster ’ ’ with enhanced facilities and 
programs. The other areas were paired and clustered 
to achieve desegregation.

In addition, Plan B calls for magnet schools in all 
schools which had a predominantly minority enroll­
ment prior to this year to enhance the attractiveness of 
these schools.33 Plan B proposes the expansion of the 
DISD’s present bi-lingual program.34 Other features 
such as the majority to minority transfer program, in- 
service training, and a monitor or system of accoun­
tability mentioned above would also be included in 
Plan B.

30 DISD’s projection based on the elements of Plan A, including 
cost of buses, bus monitors, building modification, and portable 
classrooms.
31 There are 39 elementary schools in this category.
32 This is the South Oak Cliff area, and included twelve elemen­
tary schools, two junior high schools, and one high school.
33 This would include renovations and curriculum revision.
3 4  Testimony from several experts indicated that the DISD’s bi­
lingual program is the best in the nation. Dr. Estes testified that 
the DISD is presently attempting to expand this program to all 
schools as rapidly as possible, but that the demand for bi-lingual 
instructors is presently greater than the supply.



23a

An analysis of Plan B showed that approximately 
47,000 students would be transported under this plan. 
The estimated cost of implementation35 is $14,963,680, 
which would necessitate a 20<P tax increase per $100 
property value.

C. NAACP Plan

The NAACP’s proposal was drawn by Dr. Charles 
Hunter of Bishop College. It contained a number of 
concepts and proposals to be utilized by the DISD in 
implementing the plan, as well as a rough outline of 
schools to be paired and clustered to achieve 
desegregation. The naturally integrated areas were 
left with their present assignment patterns, and the 
rest of the schools were paired and clustered so that 
every school would have a racial balance comparable 
to the racial balance in the district (with a 10% 
variance up or down).36 Innovative programs would 
be fostered in the inner city schools, as well as in 
magnet schools, which would operate on a district­
wide basis. Among other suggestions,'' the NAACP 
plan proposed monitoring procedures which would be 
a v a ila b le  to make adjustments in student 
assignments when changes in racial patterns are 
noted.

35 Using the same criteria mentioned above.
36 The NAACP proposed to achieve racial balance between 
blacks and Anglos first and then follow with other minorities.



24a

An analysis of the NAACP’s plan indicated that ap­
proximately 40,000 students would be transported. 
The estim ated  partial cost37 is $7,163,310, 
necessitating a 15-1/20 tax increase for the buses and 
bus monitors alone.

D. Dr. Hall’s Plan

The student assignment plan submitted to the Court 
by Dr. Hall is similar to those of the DISD and Plain­
tiffs’ Plan B, in that it divides the district into the 
categories of residentially integrated areas,38 paired 
and clustered areas, and predominantly minority 
areas. The naturally integrated areas would retain 
their present assignment patterns.39 Schools in 
predominantly Anglo areas are paired clustered with 
schools in predominantly minority areas to the 
greatest degree possible.40 The grade configuration 
for this category of schools is K -l (nearest schools), 2- 
5, 6-7, 8-9, and 10-12. If the time and distance proved to

37 It was not possible to give an estimated total cost because ex­
penditures for building modification, moving portables and 
equipment could not be determined under their plan.
38 Dr. Hall’s guideline for determining an integrated school is no 
more than approximately 75% nor less than approximately 30% of 
combined minority groups.
39 There are approximately 55 schools in this category.
40 The factors of time and distance were taken into account by all 
parties — the DISD and Dr. Hall limited time of transportation to 
30 minutes each way. The Plaintiffs strove for this, but acknowl­
edged that in their plans greater time was involved. The NAACP’s 
plan limited time of transportation to 40 minutes.



25a
be too great, then the schools would retain their pre­
sent assignment patterns.41

In addition, Dr. Hall proposed the establishment of 
Early Childhood Centers in Title I42 areas. These 
centers would be for ages 5 and 6, and hopefully age 4, 
and would provide enriched programs, using State 
and Federal Compensatory Education funds, with a 
pupil-teacher ratio of approximately 20-1. Additional 
personnel would also be provided as well. Dr, Hall 
also recommended using these centers as Community 
centers.

Dr. Hall recommended the continuation of the DISD 
Metropolitan Learning Centers for secondary school 
students who do not respond to the traditional school 
setting. He suggested maintaining the present magnet 
school of Skyline Center for Career Education, and ex­
panding the magnet concept wherever possible.

An analysis of Dr. Hall’s plan indicates that ap­
proximately 20,000 students would be transported for 
desegregation purposes. The estimated cost of his 
plan43 would be $7,163,310, and would necessitate a tax 
increase of 9.6$.
41 The statistics regarding time and distance on these schools 
were carefully documented. There are 34 predominantly minority 
schools in this category. Five of the schools were elementary 
schools who would move on to integrated junior high and high 
schools. The schools in this category were considered by Dr. Hall 
to be superior schools (with the exception of renovation at three 
schools) in terms of facilities and the environment in which the 
schools are located. Nineteen of the schools in this category were 
at one time predominantly Anglo schools.
42 This refers to funds provided for certain areas under the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
43 This cost estimate was again provided by the DISD using the 
same criteria mentioned above.



26a

E. The Dallas Alliance Plan

The student assignment plan proposed to the Court 
by the Dallas Alliance Task Force on Education 
utilizes many of the concepts or tools used in the other 
plans, and also introduces new concepts, Like the 
plaintiffs’ plans, the Alliance plan divides the DISD 
into smaller subdistricts. These attendance areas or 
subdistricts would in general reflect the Northwest, 
Northeast, Southeast, South Oak Cliff, and Southwest 
geographical sections of the district. Every sub­
district except South Oak Cliff would have ap­
proximately the same student population and would 
have minority ratios which would approximate that of 
the whole DISD, plus or minus 5%. Grade levels would 
be standardized on a K-3, 4-8, 9-12 basis. For grades K- 
3, new attendance zones would be drawn to achieve as 
much natural desegregation as possible, and students 
would be assigned to the nearest school which would 
promote integration, not to exceed four miles from 
home. Attendance zones in K-3 would not necessarily 
consider the five attendance zones.

On the K-3 level, special teaching strategies and en­
riched program options would emerge for students in 
all areas. The Alliance plan proposes that efforts to 
maximize parent involvement following the Early 
Childhood Education model from California be intro­
duced in September 1976 and completed by September 
1979. This K-3 approach would, be primarily 
diagnostic-prescriptive. It would result in an adult- 
student ratio in instruction of approximately 1-10. 
(Adult is a teacher aide, a parent, an older student 
tutor, etc.)



27a

For grades 4-8, students would only be assigned to 
schools within the attendance subdistrict in which 
they live. Areas that are naturally integrated would 
retain their present student assignment patterns (ex­
cept that 8th grade would be added to the lower 
grades). Students in areas that are not naturally in­
tegrated would attend schools in the center of each 
subdistrict in which they live, in a manner so that each 
school’s minority ratio reflects the minority ratio of 
the 4-8 student population of the area, plus or minus 
10%. Magnet schools for 4-8 would also be established, 
with a priority on magnets in the South Oak Cliff area. 
The magnets would be open to all 4-8 students in the 
DISD on a voluntary basis. The magnets would also 
reflect the minority ratios of the 4-8 student popula­
tion in all areas (with the exception of South Oak 
Cliff), with allowance for a 10% plus or minus varia­
tion from the percentage of all minority students in the 
DISD.

For grades 9-12, the Dallas Alliance proposes 
Magnet High Schools and Magnet Comprehensive 
High Schools.44 These would be open to all 9-12 
students on a voluntary basis, but with minority ratios 
of the 9-12 student population of the DISD, with 
allowance for a 10% plus or minus variation from the 
percentage of all minority students in the DISD. 
Partnerships and working relationships between in­
stitutions of higher learning, the business and the 
cultural communities would be encouraged with each 
magnet high school. During the 1976-77 school year, at 
least four additional magnets would be opened in the

44 A Magnet Comprehensive High School includes regular high 
school curriculum as well as special career and other programs.



central area of the city,45 and at least three additional 
magnets would be established by 1979-80. Each 
magnet would accommodate a minimum of 1,000 
students, and would open as rapidly as it fills. Seven 
magnets would be therefore considered a minimum, 
not a maximum number to be implemented. Until all 
students attend magnet high schools, grades 9-12 
would attend the nearest area high school in the sub­
district in which the students live.

Aside from student assignment concepts embodied 
in the K-3, 4-8, and magnet 9-12 arrangement, the 
Alliance plan addresses itself to other facets of a uni­
tary school system. With regard to personnel, it 
proposes the development of recruiting and employ­
ment policies to insure that competent personnel are 
employed at all levels and that the percentages of 
white, black and brown administrators, principals, 
teachers approximate DISD-wide the respective 
percentages of those races represented in the City of 
Dallas in 1976, as a minimum, within three years. The 
DISD would rely on expanded scope of positions, 
reassignment, and attrition to meet that goal. It 
proposes that the top salaried line administration 
positions (currently established at 185 in number)

45 These were suggested as
1) a new magnet comprehensive Lincoln High School, 

costing approximately $14,500,000
2) a magnet for Business Education and Management at 

Crozier Tech, established in cooperation with the busi­
nesses in the Central Business District (the downtown 
Dallas area)

3) a magnet for the creative arts of Madison High School, 
due to its proximity to the Fair Park Music Hall and 
other cultural facilities

4) a magnet for aviation training at Love Field, the air­
port partially closed due to the opening of the Dallas- 
Fort Worth Regional Airport, etc.



29a

reflect the percentages of the ethnic makeup of the 
DISD student population (approximately 44% Anglo, 
44% black, and 12% Mexican-American) by 1979. This 
transition would occur on a schedule of one-third by 
9/1/77, one-third by 9/1/78, and one-third by 9/1/79.

The Alliance plan also proposes training for 
teachers to improve their proficiency and their ability 
to perform in a multicultural setting, assessment on a 
regular basis of the competence of personnel, and a 
system of internal and external accountability 
measures to insure that a unitary system was in fact 
achieved.

Although the exact numbers of students transported 
and the exact cost could not be determined,46 it has 
been established by the DISD that approximately 20,- 
000 students would be transported at a cost of $5,830,- 
000, necessitating a tax increase of 7.8b. The funds for 
the capital expenditure of $16,500,000 for magnet 
schools the first year would be accommodated by the 
present bond issuance, without any additional tax in­
crease. The annual operating cost of this plan has been 
estimated at $5,000,000. This plan therefore is 
economically feasible without the increase in class 
size or decrease in established programs.

V. The Plan to be Implemented

The Court has carefully considered the various con­
cepts suggested in the plans briefly summarized 
above, and finds that the following tools will be most

48 The administration and staff of the DISD need to work out the 
details of this plan.



effective in addressing and solving the problem of 
vestiges which remains in this large urban district of 
ours.

A. The Subdistrict Concept

Several experts, including the plaintiffs’ Dr. 
Charles Willie, testified that with a city as large as 
Dallas, a series of subdistricts (each with elementary, 
middle, and high schools) is more effective than one 
large district. This will give parents and students a 
sense of community and control over their schools, 
which the Supreme Court has recognized as so impor­
tant to the successful functioning of our schools.

No single tradition in public education is more 
deeply rooted than local control over the 
operation of schools; local autonomy has long 
been th ou gh t essen tia l both to the 
maintenance of community concern and sup­
port for public schools and to quality of the 
educational process. See Wright v. Council of 
the City o f Emporia, 407 U.S. 451, at 469. Thus, 
in San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez,
411 U.S. 1,50 (1973), we observed that local con­
trol over the educational process affords 
citizens an opportunity to participate in 
decision-making, permits the structuring of 
school programs to fit local needs, and en­
courages “experimentation, innovation, and a 
healthy competition for educational ex­
cellence.”

Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, at 742 (1973). 
Moreover, it helps minimize the transportation dis­

30a



31a

tance and time, since this is limited to each sub­
district.47

Each subdivision will approximate the racial 
makeup of the DISD as a whole, with the exception of 
South Oak Cliff.48 Due to the geographic layout of the 
DISD, and the factors of time and distance, this South 
Oak Cliff area was left predominantly black in every 
plan proposed to the Court, with the exception of 
Plaintiffs’ Plan A, which proposed to establish an ex­
act racial balance in every school and which would 
have necessitated the transportation of 49,000 
students. The Court is of the opinion that, given the 
practicalities of time and distance, and the fact that the 
DISD is minority Anglo, this subdistrict must 
necessarily remain predominantly minority or black. 
However, this does not mean that the goal of equal 
educational opportunity for all cannot be achieved. In 
terms of facilities, Dr. Hall testified that with the ex­
ception of Budd and Harllee Elementary Schools and 
the site at Roosevelt High School, the facilities in this 
area can be categorized as superior. Additionally, Dr. 
Hall testified that the environment in which each 
center is located, i.e., the property immediately adja­
cent to the schools, as well as the residential area

47 Magnet schools would be on a city-wide basis, however.
4 8  Estimates show that the racial makeup would be as follows:

Anglo
44%
41%
46%

Black
39%
42%
46%
98%
27%

Mexican -Ameri can
I. Northwest
II. Northeast
III. Southeast
IV. South Oak Cliff
V. Southwest 42%

16%
17%

8%
2%

31%



32a

served by them, can be classified as superior. Dr. Hall 
testified that educational opportunities in terms of 
facilities or programs would not be improved by com­
plete redistribution of all pupils, and in some 
situations, they would be lessened.

With the renovation of some of the facilities in this 
area, this subdistrict could be a model for the district 
and the nation, and attract Anglos to it on the basis of 
its superior programs and facilities.

B. The K 3 Diagnostic-Prescriptive Concept

The Court adopts the Dallas Alliance’ concepts 
regarding grades K-3 for a number of reasons. As the 
Supreme Court observed in Swann, the most impor­
tant factor to consider in implementing a transporta­
tion plan is the age of the children in relation to the 
time and distance travelled. Dr. Estes testified that the 
DISD’s plan left the K-3 grades in the schools nearest 
their homes due to the fact that the children had not 
matured sufficiently to cope with the problems of safe­
ty and fatigue associated with significant transporta­
tion. The Court finds that this conclusion is sound, in 
terms of age, health, and safety of children in grades 
K-3.

Furthermore, there appears to be no deprivation of 
the right of the minorities to equal educational oppor­
tunities on the K-3 level. As Dr. Chase testified, the 
disparity, if any, is in favor of the lower socio­
economic areas on the K-3 level, due to the special 
programs and efforts of the DISD in those areas.



Finally, the diagnostic-prescriptive concept so 
successfully used in California will insure that 
children everywhere in the district will be afforded 
equal educational opportunity and that any remain­
ing vestige of a dual system (if it in fact exists on the 
K-3 level) will be eliminated.

C. The 4-8 Central Area Concept

The concept of locating grades 4-8 close to the center 
of each Area or Subdistrict is based on pragmatic con­
siderations. Transportation distance and time will be 
minimized for all students in these grades, no matter 
where they live in each subdistrict. By bringing all 
students in each subdistrict together in these grades, 
the plan assures that no group is deprived of equal 
educational opportunity. By locating special magnet 
programs in the South Oak Cliff area in grades 4-8, 
this area will attract students of all races from the dis­
trict as a whole, and will insure that this area is not de­
prived of educational opportunities.

D. The 9-12 Magnet Concept

The magnet concept, widely used in other school dis­
tricts, attracts students because of special career, 
vocational, or other programs that the magnet school 
offers. It is undisputed that the Skyline Career 
Development Center, which offers a myriad of career- 
oriented programs, is a model for the nation and that it 
demonstrates the success magnet schools can have in 
drawing students of all races and in offering quality 
education for all.49
4 9  The student body at Skyline presently reflects an ethnic pop­
ulation of approximately 60% Anglos, 33% blacks and 6% 
Mexican-Americans.

33a



34a

Moreover, this Court must adopt a plan which 
promises to be effective in eliminating the vestiges of 
a dual system. The Court is convinced that the magnet 
school concept on the 9-12 grade level will be more 
effective than the assignment of students to achieve a 
certain percentage of each race in each high school. 
The Court tried this method of student assignment in 
1971, and it has not proven wholly successful in 
achieving the goal of eliminating the vestiges of a 
dual system in these grades. The evidence shows that 
of approximately 1,000 Anglos ordered to be 
transported to formerly all-black high schools under 
this Court’s 1971 student assignment plan, fewer than 
50 Anglo students attend those schools today. 
Whatever the cause might be for the non-attendance of 
Anglos in those schools today,50 this Court finds that it 
can in no way be attributed to official actions on the 
part of school authorities.

50 As a result of the offer of evidence of the Curry interveners, the 
battle of the sociological experts developed. The Curry inter­
veners took the position that a “forced busing” order would cause 
resegregation and a further reduction of the Anglo student popula­
tion of the DISD. Plaintiffs responded that desegregation orders, 
even those including “ forced busing,” are not the prime factor in a 
decrease in Anglo school population. Whatever may be the 
strength or weakness of the opinions of these experts and the bases 
on which such opinions were reached, the fact remains that in the 
DISD between the 1971 desegregation order and today the Anglo 
student population has decreased by approximately 40,000. It is a 
well-settled principle of law that “the vitality of these constitu­
tional principles cannot be allowed to yield simply because of dis­
agreement with them.” Brown II, at 300. Nevertheless, this Court 
cannot control the prejudice or anti-busing sentiment which 
might exist in the minds of some private individuals. The mandate 
of the Supreme Court is to adopt the plan which promises 
realistically to be most effective, and after our experience with the 
9-12 level, this Court is of the opinion a magnet school approach 
will accomplish this goal. See Mapp v. Board of Education, 525 
F.2d 169 (1975).



35a

While some blacks are still transported today to 
previously all-Anglo schools, these students could 
continue to do so under the majority to minority 
program, or could attend any magnet high school in 
the district. It should also be noted that changes in 
demographic patterns have resulted in the drastic 
reduction of predominantly Anglo high schools in the 
DISD.

The most realistic, feasible, and effective method for 
eliminating the remaining vestiges of a dual system 
on the 9-12 level, and for providing equal educational 
opportunity without regard to race, is the institution 
of magnet schools throughout the DISD. In this way, 
students of all races will join in working in areas of 
their special interest. Although these magnet schools 
cannot be created with the wave of a wand, they can be 
established at an accelerated pace with the help, finan­
cial and otherwise, of the business community of 
Dallas. The Court requests and sincerely believes that 
the business community will provide its resources 
and talents to help the DISD in this way. The Adopt-a- 
School program, presently operated by the DISD and 
such major corporations asXerox and Bell T elephone, 
provides an example of what can be achieved through 
the cooperation of DISD administrators and educators 
on the one hand, and the business, educational, and 
cultural communities on the other hand. With the crea­
tion of this network of magnet schools, there can be no 
doubt that all vestiges of a dual system are eliminated.



E. The Concept of Naturally Integrated Areas

As mentioned above, there is a substantial number 
of schools in the DISD in which the racial makeup of 
the student population reflects naturally integrated 
housing patterns. Two groups of intervenors repre­
sent parents and students living in several of these 
residentially integrated areas — namely the Strom in­
tervenors, representing Western Oak Cliff and Plea­
sant Grove, and the Brinegar intervenors, represen­
ting East Dallas. These intervenors maintain that 
where integration in schools has been achieved 
through natural housing patterns, the present student 
assignments should be retained, since no vestiges of a 
dual system remain in these areas. The Court is in 
agreement with this concept. There is no denial of the 
right of educational opportunity in these areas, and, as 
all parties recognized, there would be no benefit, 
educational or otherwise, in disturbing this trend 
toward residential integration.51

F. The Concept of Accountability

As The Supreme Court recognized in Green, supra 
at 439, “whatever plan is adopted will require evalua­
tion in practice

A system of accountability performs three general 
functions:
51  The Brinegar intervenors pointed up the fact that since the 
Dallas Alliance plan does not yet detail student assignments, it is 
difficult to determine its impact on the integrated areas. The Court 
recognizes this problem, and will provide a one-week period after 
the student assignment portions of the plan are filed with the Court 
as hereinafter directed, for recommended modifications, if any, 
regarding the naturally integrated areas.



37a
1) it informs the Superintendent and the 

School Board how the administration is 
responding to the goals and objectives of 
the plan;

2) it provides the Court with an objective 
evaluation of the DISD’s compliance with 
the ordered plan;

3) it informs the citizenry and serves as a 
tool for constructive input.

The Court is adopting the Alliance plan’s concepts 
of accountability. Regarding the internal monitor, it 
will be acceptable for the DISD’s Research and 
Development Department52 to report to the Court. This 
report shall be on December 15 and April 15 of the year, 
until a showing that a unitary system has been 
achieved. This report should include:

1. The number and percentage of pupils by 
ethnicity attending each educational 
center, including magnet schools.

2. The number and percentage of pupils by 
ethnicity being transported for desegrega­
tion purposes.

3. The number and percentage of pupils by 
ethnicity obtaining majority to minority 
transfers (including the exception for 
Mexican-American students).

4. The number and percentage of teachers by 
ethnicity assigned full time in each 
educational center.

52 If the DISD wishes to develop some other monitor or unit to 
report to the Court, it is free to do so.



5. The number and percentage of new 
teachers, administrators, and teacher 
aides by ethnicity engaged by the DISD.

6. The current status of capital outlay pro­
jects.

7. The status of Early Childhood Education 
program.

8. The results of the annual standardized 
achievement tests program by school, 
grade, and ethnicity (April 15 report only).

9. Efforts made by the system to successfully 
implement the order of this Court in the 
following areas:

a. Parent involvement efforts
b. Staff development activities
c. Com m unications and community 

relations programs
d. Student leadership training programs

(April 15 report only).

Subject to the approval of the selection by the Court, 
the DISD shall also secure the service of an indepen­
dent professional firm to evaluate compliance with 
this order and the efforts to achieve a unitary system 
by the DISD. Such report should be filed with the Court 
annually on April 15, until a showing is made that a 
unitary system has been achieved. The criteria for 
monitoring suggested by the Alliance plan should be 
used as guidelines for this external monitor.

The Tri-Ethnic Committee established by the 
Court’s 1971 order has served as community monitor 
for the Court, the School Board, Superintendent, and

38a



39a

the public regarding compliance with that order. The 
Tri-Ethnic Committee will continue its efforts in this 
regard with the same powers, duties, and respon­
sibilities provided in the Court’s 1971 order except that 
it is relieved of any duty to select independent evalua­
tion services from outside the DISD.

Finally, the Court is aware of the fact that 
demographic changes may necessitate revisions in 
student assignments in the future. Therefore the Court 
will retain Dr. Josiah Hall as an advisor to the Court 
and may call on him to recommend revisions or to 
review recommendations of the DISD regarding 
future student assignment.

G. Personnel Concepts

It is well-settled that school administration and per­
sonnel play an important role in the achievement of a 
unitaiy school system. Administrators and personnel 
must be responsive to the needs of all racial groups, 
and must not discriminate against any group on the 
basis of race. In order to achieve and maintain a, truly 
unitary DISD, the Court is adopting the personnel con­
cepts of the Alliance plan. The Court is aware that 
training programs for teachers, principals and ad­
ministrators already exist in the DISD. Naturally, 
these programs should be continued.

H. Majority to Minority Transfer Concept

None of the parties dispute the usefulness of this 
tool in providing educational opportunity without 
regard to race. This program will remain in effect for



40a

all grade levels under the guidelines presently utiliz­
ed by the DISD,53 with the exception that minority to 
majority transfers will be allowed in instances where 
Mexican-Americans comprise less than 5% of the 
originally assigned school. This exception will be al­
lowed in order that the bi-lingual education program 
will be available to all Mexican-American students 
who need it.

VI. Conclusion

The DISD has acted in good faith since this Court’s 
order in 1971 and has made reasonable efforts to fulfill 
the obligations imposed by that order. The DISD has 
further taken good faith steps to eradicate inequality 
in educational opportunity which has previously ex­
isted in the DISD. Had the DISD not shown a 
willingness to impro ve the quality of education for all 
its students, and especially those in the minority areas 
which previously had been neglected, this Court 
might feel impelled to adopt a different remedy. 
However, the vestiges of a dual system remaining in 
the DISD can be realistically and effectively 
eradicated by the implementation of the plan adopted 
herein. This will not mean that the DISD will be 
perfect, for school districts are run by mere mortals, 
and judicial decrees can make them no more. It will 
mean that the DISD has fulfilled its obligation, under 
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amend­
ment to the Constitution, that state-supported 
educational opportunity be afforded without regard to 
race.

53 The use of the four-day school week for majority to minority 
transfer students shall be discontinued.



41a

Accordingly, it is ORDERED by the Court that the 
modified plan of the Educational Task Force of the 
Dallas Alliance filed with the Court on March 3,1976, 
is hereby adopted as the Court’s plan for removal of all 
vestiges of a dual system remaining in the Dallas In­
dependent School District, and the school district is 
directed to prepare and file with the Court a student 
assignment plan carrying into effect the concept of 
said Task Force plan no later than March 24, 1976.

/s /  W. M. TAYLOR, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT 
JUDGE

MARCH 10, 1976



K
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12

Total
9365

11602
11101
10769
10593
11274
11569
11844
11935
12023
11644
9383
8020

141122

Appendix A
Ethnic Composition of the DISD

Anglo % Black %
3254 34.8 4429 47.3
4260 36.7 5274 45.5
4095 36.9 5080 45.7
3947 36.7 5056 46.9
3756 35.5 5098 48.1
4226 37.5 5251 46.6
4543 39.3 5394 46.6
4853 41.0 5356 45.2
5039 42.2 5343 44.8
5231 43.5 5406 45.0
5287 45.4 4943 42.5
4828 51.5 3526 37.5
4704 58.7 2611 32.6

58023 41.1 62767 44.5

Mexican - 
American % Other

1595 17.0 87
1955 16.9 113
1822 16.4 104
1648 15.3 118
1608 15.2 131
1672 14.8 125
1504 13.0 128
1532 12.9 103
1438 12.1 115
1286 10.7 100
1259 10.8 155
936 10.0 93
634 7.9 71

18889 13.4 1443



43a

Appendix B
Ethnic Percentages for Integrated 

Dallas Jr. High Schools

Jr. High Year Anglo Black
Mexican-
American

Atwell 1970 82.0% 16.6% 1.1%
1975 34.6% 61.7% 2.9%

Browne 1970 97.6% 0.1% 1.7%
1975 45.0% 46.5% 7.6%

Cary 1970 89.0% 2.8% 7.9%
1975 63.0% 18.1% 17.4%

Comstock 1970 90.5% 1.3% 8.0%
1975 24.1% 59.8% 16.0%

Florence 1970 96.8% 0.1% 2.9%
1975 73.3% 19.4% 7.1%

Franklin 1970 98.3% 1.0% 0.5%
1975 75.2% 22.0% 2.1%

Gaston 1970 96.9% 0.0% 2.9%
1975 76.7% 16.4% 6.0%

Greiner 1970 85.6% 0.3% 13.5%
1975 50.7% 12.3% 35.3%

Hill 1970 98.1% 0.0% 1.6%
1975 83.2% 12.3% 3.5%

Hood 1970 96.9% 0.0% 3.1%
1975 66.0% 28.4% 4.3%

Hulcy 1970 92.4% 0.2% 6.9%
1975 16.2% 79.6% 3.9%

Long 1970 85.4% 5.2% 8.9%
1975 63.2% 17.3% 19.0%.

Marsh 1970 97.9% 0.6% 1.2%>
1975 84.6% 12.2% 2.4%,

Rusk 1970 45.9% 24.5% 29.4%,
1975 25.3% 21.2% 51.4%

Rylie 1970 96.5% 0.0% 3.2%
1975 91.5% 1.5% 6.6%

Spence 1970 24.4% 35.0% 39.8%,
1975 20.6% 25.1% 53.3%

Stockard 1970 84.6% 0.0% 14.6%
1975 60.8% 5.7% 32.1%

Walker 1970 81.2% 17.4% 1.1%
1975 78.2% 20.5% 0.9%



44a

Ethnic Percentages for Integrated 
Dallas High Schools

Mexican-
School Year Anglo Black American
Bryan Adams 1970

1975
99.2%
86.0%

0.0%
7.6%

0.6%
4.5%

Adamson 1970
1975

73.3%
29.3%

7.4%
48.9%

16.8%
19.6%

Carter 1970
1975

96.6%
30.9%

0.0%
65.2%

3.1%
3.8%

Hillcrest 1970
1975

98.6%
82.5%

0.5%
15.0%

0.7%,
1.2%

Jefferson 1970
1975

92.0%
70.0%

2.6%
19.3%

5.2%
12.7%

Kimball 1970
1975

96.6%
62.5%

0.1%
28.6%

2.9%
8.0%

No. Dallas 1970
1975

30.0%
17.5%

42.7%
30.8%

28.6%
51.2%

Samuell 1970
1975

97.8%
82.5%

0.1%
12.0%

2.1%.
5.3%,

Seagoville 1970
1975

79.7%
79.9%

15.9%
15.4%

4.3%
4.5%

Skyline 1970
1975

94.0%,
60.1%

2.3%
33.6%

3.0%
5.9%

Spruce 1970
1975

96.5%
65.1%

0.3%
26.9%

3.2%
7.5%

Sunset 1970
1975

88.8%
57.4%

0.0%
8.5%

9.4%
33.0%

White 1970
1975

98.3%
82.6%

0.6%
14.8%

0.9%,
1.9%

Wilson 1970
1975

88.8%
62.6%,

4.3%
19.9%

6.5%
15.9%,



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS 75242

45a

W. M. TAYLOR, JR.
Chief Judge

March 15, 1976
TO COUNSEL:

Re: Tasby vs. Estes 
CA 3-4211-C

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I enclose herewith Supplemental Order this day 
entered in the above case. You are advised that the last 
line of this Order referring to the desegregation plan 
for the DISD contemplates that the student assign­
ment and non-student assignment aspects will be em­
bodied in the Court’s Final Order.

Enc.

Yours very truly, 
Is/ W. M. TAYLOR, JR. 

W. M. Taylor, Jr.

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER 

(Number and Title Omitted)

Filed: Mar. 15, 1976

During the process of fleshing out the Court s order 
of March 10,1975, some questions have arisen regard­



46a
ing the Court’s adoption of the Dallas Alliance’s plan. 
So that there is no misunderstanding in this regard, 
the Court intended by the order of March 10 to adopt the 
concepts suggested by the plan of the Educational 
Task Force of the Dallas Alliance. The staff of the 
school district shall take these concepts and adapt 
them to fit the characteristics of the Dallas Indepen­
dent School District. The Court recognizes that during 
this process, a certain amount of flexibility is 
necessary. The Court expects the school district to put 
into effect the concepts of the Dallas Alliance plan. 
The specifics of the desegregation plan for the DISD 
will be embodied in the Court’s Final Order which will 
be entered in approximately two weeks.

/ s/ W. M. TAYLOR, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION AND ORDER 

(Number and Title Omitted)

Filed: Apr. 7, 1976

The Court has before it two motions to alter or 
amend its March 10, 1976, opinion and order, sub­
mitted by the Defendant DISD and by the Plaintiffs. 
The Court also has before it comments of the Brinegar 
and Strom interveners regarding the student assign­



47a

ment plan submitted by the DISD on March 24, 1976. 
The Court will not address the comments of these in­
terveners in this supplemental opinion, as they are 
dealt with in the Final Order entered this date in this 
case. The Court does feel it necessary, however, to re­
spond to the motions of the initial parties to this 
proceeding.

A. The DISD’s Motion

The DISD asks the Court to do two things: 1) approve 
all aspects of the approach, guidelines, standards, and 
interpretations made by the Defendants as to the stu­
dent assignment plan prepared and filed by the DISD 
on March 24, 1976, and 2) accept the student assign­
ment plan as being in compliance with the Court’s 
opinion and order of March 10, 1976.

As to the first request, the Court is unable to approve 
the DISD’s student assignment plan in toto. The Court 
has received and thoroughly considered suggestions 
made by various interveners and by the Amicus 
Curiae Educational Task Force of the Dallas Alliance 
subsequent to the submission of the DISD’s student 
assignment plan on March 24. The Court is of the opin­
ion that many of these suggestions have merit and 
should be reflected in the student assignment plan. 
The Court has thus modified the document submitted 
by the DISD to incorporate many of these suggestions. 
It has further incorporated modifications to the stu­
dent assignment plan which the Court deems 
necessary in order that the spirit of the Dallas 
Alliance’s plan will be implemented to the fullest ex­
tent possible. These changes appear in the Final Order 
entered this day.



48a

Through its second request the DISD asks essential­
ly that the Court omit from the desegregation plan for 
the DISD any reference to non-student assignment 
matters, including course offerings, personnel, 
facilities and provisions for accountability. The Court 
will not hesitate to say that it taxes the Court’s 
patience to have this objection raised again, after it 
was overruled time after time during the hearings, and 
after the Court specifically adopted the concepts em­
bodied in the Dallas Alliance’s plan regarding these 
matters on March 10. If the Court’s response to this ob­
jection has not yet registered in the minds of the 
Defendants, it is this: a student assignment plan can 
not operate in a vacuum, and a unitary school system 
can not be achieved solely by mixing bodies. This 
Court is bound by the Constitution and by the body of 
caselaw in this field to see that the DISD provides 
equal educational opportunity for all its students, and 
the Court must necessarily be concerned about areas 
other than student assignment when it carries out this 
duty.

It is to be recalled that the Court’s 1971 Order con­
tained directives other than a bare-bones student 
assignment plan. In 1971, this Court had occasion to 
comment on the fact that the Fifth Circuit Court had 
found it necessary to enter specific non-student 
assignment orders to meet the many schemes and de­
vices that school boards practiced in order to evade 
their constitutional obligation to provide equal 
educational opportunity. Among these, of course, 
were orders providing for desegregation of faculty 
and staff, site-selection, transportation provided to 
students, and course offerings. To indicate the extent



49a

to which Courts have found it necessary to go to insure 
equal education, the Court would point out that in 
Boston the Court found it necessary to appoint a 
receiver to take over the operation of a school.

So that there can be no mistake about this matter the 
Court will state once again: it has no interest in “ run­
ning the school district” or in playing the role of dic­
tator to the School Board or Dr. Estes and his staff. 
However, the Court will not stand aside where the 
DISD has been found to operate a dual school system 
which discriminates between Anglo and minority 
schools, as was found in 1971 and as was re­
emphasized in the disparity shown in Dr. Chase’s 
report and other evidence introduced during the recent 
hearings. The DISD must provide equal educational 
opportunity for all its students, in non-student assign­
ment matters as well as in the area of student assign­
ment.

The DISD’s motion to alter or amend the Court’s 
Opinion and Order of March 10 is therefore in all 
respects denied.

B. The Plaintiffs’ Motion.

In its motion, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to amend 
or clarify its March 10 opinion in three areas: 1) its 
finding regarding the Chase Report of a Study of In­
struction in the DISD 1974-75, 2) its finding regarding 
K-3 children and their ability to be transported for 
desegregation purposes, and 3) its finding regarding 
the good faith of the DISD after 1971.



50a

With regard to the first item, the Co urt is quite aware 
that one of the central findings of the Chase Report 
was that a disparity rem ains between the 
predominantly Anglo centers and the predominantly 
minority centers in the areas of (a) facilities, (b) staff­
ing patterns, and (c) educational offerings. The Court 
adopted these findings of Dr. Chase on page 9 of its 
Opinion when it said . . there is still a gap between 
intent to provide equal educational opportunity and 
the achievement of this goal.”

The Court is of the opinion that the D1SD can and 
must correct these disparities — that is what 
“providing equal educational opportunity” is all 
about. The Court believes that the plan entered this 
date offers the greatest promise for actually insuring 
that no child in the DISD is discriminated against in 
the type of education he receives.

With regard to the second item, the Court will make 
clear that there were a number of factors that influenc­
ed the Court to adopt the K-3 Early Childhood Educa­
tion concept using the diagnostic-prescriptive ap­
proach to early education. The primary reason for 
adopting this approach is that the Court is convinced 
that parental involvement and individualized instruc­
tion is invaluable at this age. The question of a child’s 
maturity and ability to cope with being transported 
will of course vary with each child, and educators’ 
opinions vary as to what is a “ reasonable” age to begin 
transportation of children. Indeed, several educators, 
including Dr. Hall, testified that children could be 
transported as early as the first or second grade 
without any detrimental effect. The Court is of the



51a

opinion however, that due to the educational benefits 
inherent in the early Childhood Education program, 
children in grades K-3 will be best served by having 
the parental and community involvement which is 
made possible by remaining in neighborhood schools.

Plaintiffs’ third request deals with the finding by the 
Court that the DISD acted in good faith after 1971. By 
that finding the Court showed its awareness of some of 
the efforts of the DISD to provide better educational 
opportunities for students in predominantly minority 
schools. As Dr. Chase pointed out, some of the best 
schools in this school system are in predominantly 
minority areas. This is not to say, however, that the 
DISD has accomplished everything that it could have 
accomplished had it vigorously implemented the 
“ Confluence of Cultures” program. Nor is this to say 
that disparity does not now exist between some 
schools. And, in the light of recent actions of the 
School Board which appear to seek the dilution of the 
expressed intention of the Court regarding equal 
educational opportunity, one wonders whether the es­
tablishment of a unitary school system and the provi­
sion of equal educational opportunity is in fact being 
pursued in good faith.

The conduct of the School Board members and the 
DISD administration in the months and years to come 
will answer that question. This Court sincerely hopes 
that every member of this community will have no 
hesitation in saying that the DISD has implemented 
this Order to the fullest extent and has done so in ut­
most good faith.



52a

The final Order this day entered answers some of 
Plaintiffs’ suggestions regarding the plan to be im­
plemented, and this Supplemental Opinion and Order 
is intended as a clarification, where deemed necessary 
of the Court’s March 10 Opinion and Order.

C. Conclusion.

The Court believes that unique opportunity is 
available to the DISD to desegregate without undue 
disruption and at the same time to provide a model of 
quality education for all. It is time for all parties to 
cast a statesman-like eye on the future of Dallas in 
light of the reality of the requirement to desegregate. 
The success of a desegregation plan, like the future of 
a city, is in many respects a self-fulfilling prophecy. If 
is time for all parties to look past the political ex­
pediency of the present to the hope of the future for 
Dallas and to prophesy idealistically. The Court 
strongly believes that the citizens of Dallas will join 
hands in the joint pursuit of our common ideal — the 
provision of an unsurpassed educational opportunity 
for all the children of Dallas.

It is so ORDERED, this, the 7th day of April, 1976.

/s /  W. M. TAYLOR, JR.
United States District 
Judge



53a

FINAL ORDER

(Number and Title Omitted)

Filed: Apr. 7, 1976

On March 10, 1976, after hearing evidence and 
arguments of counsel, the Court entered an Opinion 
and Order adopting the concepts embodied in the 
desegregation plan of the Educational Task Force of 
the Dallas Alliance. In order to carry out these con­
cepts, the School Board of the Dallas Independent 
School District (DISD) is ORDERED and DIRECTED 
to implement the following items:

I. Major Sub-Districts

The DISD shall utilize six sub-districts for 
student assignment purposes with each hav­
ing approximately the racial makeup plus or 
minus 5 percent of the DISD as a whole, with 
the exception of East Oak Cliff (referred to 
previously as South Oak Cliff) and Seagoville.

The boundaries for the six areas are as 
follows:

1. Northwest Sub-District — The boundary 
is the Dallas-Fort Worth Toll Road commen­
cing at the western boundary of the DISD and 
extending east to Hampton Road; Hampton 
Road north to Singleton; Singleton east to 
Vilbig; Vilbig north to Morris; Morris east to 
Sylvan; Sylvan north to the Trinity River; the



54a

Trinity River north to the Texas & Pacific 
Railroad; east on the Texas & Pacific Railroad 
and Pacific Street to Pearl Expressway; south 
on Pearl Expressway to Commerce Street; east 
on Commerce Street to the Santa Fe Railroad; 
south on the Santa Fe Railroad to Central Ex­
pressway; northwest on Central Expressway 
to Live Oak; northeast on Live Oak to Haskell; 
southeast on Haskell to Swiss; northeast on 
Swiss to Beacon; northwest on Beacon to 
Lindell; west on Lindell to Hubert; north on 
Hubert to Lewis; west on Lewis to Greenville; 
north on Greenville to Miller; west on Miller to 
McMillan; north on McMillan to the alley 
between Morningside and McCommas; west on 
the alley between Morningside and McCom­
mas to Central Expressway; north on Central 
Expressway to Lovers Lane; east on Lovers 
Lane to Skillman; south on Skillman to the 
Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad; east on the 
Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad to Abrams 
Road; south on Abrams Road to Mockingbird 
Lane; northeast on Mockingbird Lane to 
Whiterock Creek.

2. Northeast Sub-District — The western 
boundary of the northeast sub-district is the 
same as the eastern boundary of the north­
west sub-district. The southern boundary is 
the Trinity River from the Dallas-Fort Worth 
Toll Road southeast on the Trinity River to the 
Central Expressway (U.S. 75); north on Central 
Expressway to Harding; northeast on Hard­
ing to Brigham; southeast on Brigham to spur

A



railroad; east on spur railroad to Rosine; 
northwest on Rosine to Pine; northeast on Pine 
to Electra; northwest on Electra to Rutledge, 
northeast on Rutledge to Scyene; east on 
Scyene to Spring; northeast on Spring to 
Cross; northwest on Cross to Fitzhugh, north­
east on Fitzhugh to Seattle; northwest on Seat­
tle to Birmingham; northeast on Birmingham 
to Texas & Pacific Railroad; southeast on Tex­
as & Pacific Railroad to Foreman; southwest 
on Foreman (extended) to Scyene; east on 
Scyene to Buckner; north on Buckner to 
Military Parkway; east on Military Parkway 
to eastern boundary of DISD.

3. Southeast Sub-District — The northern 
boundary of the southeast sub-district is the 
same as the southern boundary of the north­
east sub-district. The western boundary begin­
ning at Central Expressway and the Trinity 
River; southeast along the Trinity River to the 
northern boundary of the Seagoville area; 
eastward along the northern boundary of the 
Seagoville area to the DISD boundary.

4. East Oak Cliff Sub-District — The 
eastern boundary of the East Oak Cliff sub­
district begins at the District line and the 
Trinity River and extends northwesterly 
along the Trinity River to Interstate 35, In­
terstate 35 south to DISD boundary.

5. Southwest Sub-District — The eastern 
boundary of the southwest sub-district is the

55a



56a
same as the western boundary of the East Oak 
Cliff sub-district and the northern boundary is 
the same as the southern boundary of the 
northwest sub-district.

6. Seagoville Sub-District — The northern 
boundary of the Seagoville area is Jordan and 
Alexander Roads extended to the District 
boundary.

II. Student Assignment Criteria Within Sub- 
Districts

The following criteria shall be used to incor­
porate the concepts embodied in the Court’s 
Opinion and Order of March 10, 1976:

1. The DISD is divided into six sub­
districts, reflecting generally the Northwest, 
Northeast, Southeast, East Oak Cliff, 
Southwest, and Seagoville geographical sec­
tions of the District.

2. With the exception of East Oak Cliff and 
Seagoville, the Anglo combined minority ratio 
of the DISD is approximated in each sub­
district plus or minus five percent.

3. Grade level configurations are standar­
dized throughout the district to include grade 
K-3 Early Childhood Education Centers, grade 
4-6 Intermediate Schools, grade 7-8 Middle 
Schools, and grade 9-12 High Schools. Certain 
buildings house K-3 Early Childhood Educa­
tion Centers and 4-6 Intermediate Schools.



57a

4. W here possib le , present student 
assignments are retained in naturally in­
tegrated areas, but grade configurations are 
standardized.

5. Students are assigned to school build­
ings appropriate to their age and number and 
to program needs, with relocatable buildings 
being used where necessary.

6. Students in kindergarten and grades 1-3 
are assigned according to present elementary 
assignment patterns except that K-3 students 
in Booker T. Washington have been assigned 
to Wm. B. Travis, and K-3 students in Stephen 
F. Austin have been assigned to David 
Crockett. If there is no school within two miles, 
students are assigned to the next nearest ap­
propriate school.

7. Generally students in grades 4-8 are as­
signed to centers in areas of centrality. A less 
central location is used where the location will 
meet the ethnic makeup of the sub-district or 
where facilities requirements prohibit a more 
central location.

8. Transportation distance and time are 
minimized to the extent possible.

9. Voluntary enrollment. District-wide, is 
provided in Vanguard schools for grades 4-6, 
in Academies for grades 7-8, and in magnet 
schools for grades 9-12.



58a

10. Attention is focused on Vanguard and 
Academy programming available in the East 
Oak Cliff sub-district on the 4-8 level.

11. For students in grades 9-12 who do not 
desire to attend a comprehensive magnet high 
school or participate in one of the transfer 
programs, the traditional high school in their 
regular attendance zone will constitute their 
assigned school.

Appendix A, attached hereto, provides stu­
dent assignments for the 1976-1977 school 
year, together with figures and percentages.

III. The K-3 Early Childhood Education Centers

The DISD shall provide a comprehensive 
program of instruction in all areas based on 
the developmental needs of young children 
and the D istrict’s Baseline Curriculum 
Program. The K-3 approach shall be primarily 
diagnostic-prescriptive. The approach in the 
DISD Baseline Curriculum implementation 
shall include:

1. Individualization of instruction.

2. Principal and staff planning for im­
plementing the DISD Baseline Curriculum 
Program in each school, in conjunction with 
parent advisory committees at each school 
site.



59a

3. Reduction of the adult-pupil ratio from 
the existing district- wide ratio through tutor­
ing, the use of parents, other adult volunteers, 
older students and the addition of paraprofes- 
sionals. The adult-student ratio of 1-10 shall be 
the goal to be achieved as rapidly as possible.

4. Continuation of a Staff Development 
Program consistent with the State Board of 
Education Plan and conducted to implement 
the DISD Baseline Curriculum, to meet early 
childhood education needs and to further the 
individualization of instruction. This training 
shall involve parents in participating roles.

5. Effective partnerships with community 
groups, business and other agencies which 
serve young children.

6. Efforts to maximize the involvement of 
parents in planning, reinforcing and com­
plementing their children’s learning.

7. Use of the local Early Childhood Educa­
tion Center as the administrative unit which 
has primary responsibility for delivering 
quality learning experiences.

In order to further develop, refine and extend 
the District’s program for early childhood 
education, the DISD will establish in 1976-1977 
at least two exemplary development and 
demonstration classes for children in the East 
Oak Cliff sub-district. The DISD shall continue



60a
to develop prototypic enrichment programs, 
such as those at the Paul L. Dunbar and the 
William B, Travis Centers, for K-3 students.

Booker T. Washington School, scheduled for 
possible use as a Math-Science Magnet, shall 
be closed as an elementary K-6 school and its 
K-3 students reassigned to the Wm. B. Travis 
School. Stephen F. Austin School, scheduled g  
for possible use as a Medical Professions 
Magnet, shall be closed as an elementary K-6 
school and its K-3 students reassigned to the 
David Crockett School.

In order to give priority to all schools in East 
Oak Cliff on the K-3 level, R. L. Thornton and T.
L. Marsalis Centers shall not be used in report­
ing or computing the comparability report 
which is required by ESEA, Title I, of the Unit­
ed States Department of Health, Education and 
Welfare, Office of Education, during 1976-77, 
1977-78, and 1978-79.

IV. The 4-8 Intermediate and Middle School | 
Centers

The DISD shall establish intermediate 
school centers (4-6) and middle school centers 
(7-8). The instructional program in these 4-6 
and 7-8 centers shall follow the DISD’s 
Baseline Curriculum. Each principal and his 
staff shall develop, in conjunction with parent 
advisory committees in his school, plans for 
the im plem en tation  of this Baseline 
Curriculum in his school.



The DISD shall establish 4-6 Vanguard 
schools and 7-8 Academies as needs are iden­
tified with first priority in the East Oak Cliff 
area.

The 4-6 Vanguard schools shall include all 
students presently enrolled. For those student 
stations which remain, District-wide racial 
ratios plus or minus 10% should apply with 
first priority to the ethnic group(s) who are not 
presently represented in the school by 
District-wide ratio. These students may apply 
from anywhere in the District.

Beginning with 1976-77 the DISD shall es­
tablish 4-6 Vanguard schools at Maynard 
Jackson, Mark Twain, Sidney Lanier, and K. B. 
Polk.

The 7-8 Academies shall reserve student 
stations for District-wide attendance as 
follows: The number of Black, Mexican- 
A m erican and Anglo students in each 
Academy shall equal the total student capaci­
ty of that school times the ratio of each group 
of students in the 7-8 student population in the 
Dallas Independent School District as of 
December 1, 1975, plus or minus 10 percent. 
Student stations shall be reserved for all 
groups.

For an Academy which is an add-on to a 
present school such as Oliver W. Holmes, the 
program shall operate as a “ school within a

61a



62a

sch oo l.” Students presently enrolled at 
Holmes shall apply in the same manner as 
students in other district schools. The “ school 
within a school” shall not as such have a par­
ticular attendance zone. A ll 7-8 Academies 
shall have a District-wide attendance zone. 
Beginning with 1976-77 the DISD shall es­
tablish 7-8 Academies at Pearl C. Anderson, 
Sequoyah and Oliver Wendell Holmes.

In order to implement the Court’s Order 
regarding 4-6 Vanguard schools and 7-8 
Academies, these centers shall not be used in 
reporting or computing the comparability 
report which is required by ESEA, Title I, of 
the United States Department of Health, 
Education and Welfare, Office of Education, 
during 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79.

V. 9-12 Magnets and High Schools

The District shall establish at least four new 
senior high magnets in 1976 and at least three 
additional by 1979, as designated by DISD. The 
DISD shall continue its comprehensive 
program at existing high school sites, as well 
as career clusters at Skyline Career Develop­
ment Center, Pinkston, Adamson, and other 
Career Development Centers. The new magnet 
schools may be selected from the following as 
examples:

1. A Math/Science Magnet at Booker T.
Washington



63a

2. A Child-Related Careers Magnet at City 
Park Elementary

3. A Health Professions Magnet utilizing 
Baylor Hospital facilities and Stephen F. 
Austin facilities

4. A Creative Arts Magnet utilizing Fair Park 
facilities and James Madison facilities

5. A Business and Management Academy 
utilizing facilities in the Central Business 
District and Crozier Technical High 
School facilities

6. A Language-Linguistic and Humanities 
Magnet in cooperation with the El Centro 
campus of the Dallas County Community 
College District

7. A Transportation Technology Institute 
utilizing former automobile sales and ser­
vice facilities where available in the down­
town area

8. A C o m p re h e n s iv e  A erosp ace  and 
Transportation Magnet at Love Field.

Final decisions regarding these magnet 
programs shall be made by DISD after 
consultation with the Career Advisory Com­
mittee or other appropriate committee es­
tablished by the Dallas Chamber of Commerce. 
The DISD has the right to make adjustments in 
the future in programs and building locations, 
subject to the requirements regarding new 
construction in Paragraph XIII.



64a
The 9-12 Magnet High School programs 

shall be available on a voluntary basis on a 
full-time or part-time transfer basis for three 
years beginning 1976-77. Beginning 1979-80 
the DISD shall require full-time attendance in 
comprehensive High Schools associated with 
any Magnet program. This shall apply to all 9- 
12 Magnet programs including those at 
Skyline. Students may transfer freely from 
district high schools on a term by term basis.

Any student who enters the 9-12 Magnet 
programs during this three year period may, if 
he/she desires, continue on a part-time basis 
until graduation.

Much of the academic work associated with a 
high school diploma may of necessity be of­
fered at a central location until an adequate 
number of full-time students have enrolled 
(estimated 400) to make an academic program 
cost effective.

The number of Black, Mexican-American 
and Anglo students in each Magnet com­
prehensive High School shall equal the total 
student capacity of that school times the ratio 
of each group of students in the 9-12 student 
population in the Dallas Independent School 
District as of December 1, 1975, plus or minus 
ten percent. Student stations shall be reserved 
for all groups.

The Skyline, Adamson, and Pinkston High 
Schools shall continue to operate as com ­



65a

prehensive high schools with regular atten­
dance zones.

As a policy these Magnet High Schools of 
superior quality should be opened as rapidly 
as they fill, so as to accommodate all students 
who wish to enter the Magnet High School sys­
tem. In other words, the seven called for above 
by 1979-80 are a minimum.

When new campuses and facilities are 
developed, as provided in Paragraph XIII, 
provision shall be made for a comprehensive 
High School program including all extra- 
cu r r i cu la  ac t iv i t ies .  In addition In­
terscholastic League rules shall be provided 
so as to enable pupils attending Magnet High 
Schools to participate fully in Interscholastic 
League activities,

Tenth and eleventh grade students enrolled 
in any high school during 1975-76 within the 
Dallas Independent School District may, in 
1976-77 and 1977-78, choose to continue to at­
tend that high school until graduation. If 
students were transported by the district in 
1975-76, transportation will be continued for 
these two years.

Students presently in grades 10-11 and their 
parents must be informed in writing about 
their program and school options prior to the 
end of the 1975-76 school year. This informa-



tion shall provide as a minimum the following 
options:

A. That a student may continue in the 
school he or she is presently attending, 
or

B. That a student may attend the Magnet 
school of his or her choice, or

C. That a student may elect to transfer un­
der the Majority to Minority provisions, 
or

D. That a student may attend school desig­
nated as his or her regular attendance 
zone.

If, after the 1976-77 school year, an area high 
school is designated as a magnet comprehen­
sive high school, students enrolled in that 
school may choose to attend any school in the 
DISD. An exception is that the student may not 
select a high school which is already in­
tegrated such that it upsets the racial balance 
of that school as hereinabove provided in 
Paragraph II. The school the student selects 
becomes his/her assigned high school.

In order to implement this Court’s order 
regarding 9-12 Magnet schools, these centers 
shall not be used in reporting or computing the 
comparability report which is required by 
ESEA, Title I, of the United States Department 
of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of 
Education during 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79.



67a

VI. Special Programs

A. Career Education

The DISD shall continue to implement its 
career education plan, Grades 1-12, as rapidly 
as possible.

B. Bilingual Education

1. The present Bilingual Program based on 
the State Board of Education Plan shall be ex­
panded as rapidly as possible to all pupils in 
grades K-6. State Senate Bill 121 shall serve as 
reference-guideline for this program's ver­
tical (grade level) and horizontal (school site) 
expansion.

2. English-as-a-Second Language (ESL) 
programming shall be expanded as rapidly as 
possible to serve all Spanish-monolingual 
students, especially in grades 7-8 and 9-12.

C. Multicultural Social Studies Education

The DISD shall provide multicultural social 
studies educational programs for students in 
all grade levels.

D. Plan A  Program

1. The Plan A Program now being provided 
by the DISD shall be administered according



68a

to the State Board of Education Plan and 
Guidelines,

2. Students who require special instruc­
tional techniques and arrangements by reason 
of handicapping conditions shall be served by 
the DISD’s special educational program, con­
sistent with the State Board of Education Plan 
and Guidelines.

VII. Majority to Minority Transfer

The DISD shall fully advise all students of 
this program and encourage participation in 
it.

1. Prior to the beginning of each school 
year the District will determine for that par­
ticular school year the estimated racial com-
position of:

(a) its total K-3 Early Childhood Educa­
tion Center scholastic population,

(b) its total 4-6 Intermediate School 
Center scholastic population.

(c) its total Middle School 
scholastic population,

Center

(d) its total Senior High 
scholastic population,

School

by percentages between Black, Mexican- 
American, and Anglo scholastics.



2. The terms “ attendance Early Childhood 
Education Center,” “ attendance Intermediate 
School,” “ attendance Middle School,” and 
“ attendance Senior High School,” as used 
herein shall mean the particular school to 
which the student would normally be as­
signed by the District in the absence of the 
operation of a special assignment program, 
permission, an order or a regulation, in­
cluding, but not limited to, the majority to 
minority transfer provisions.

3. Any student assigned to a particular 
attendance K-3 Early Childhood Education 
Center serving kindergarten through third 
grade in which the percentage of members of 
his race is greater than the District-wide 
percentage of members of his race for Early 
Childhood Education Centers shall be per­
mitted to transfer to any Early Childhood 
Education Center school in the School District 
containing his grade level in which the percen­
tage of members of his race is less than the 
District-wide percentage of his race for Early 
Childhood Education Centers.

4. Any student assigned to a particular 
attendance Intermediate School serving 
fourth, fifth, and sixth grades in which the 
percentage of members of his race is greater 
than the District-wide percentage of members 
of his race for Intermediate Schools shall be 
permitted to transfer to any Intermediate 
School in the District containing his grade



70a

level in which the percentage of members of 
his race is less than the District-wide percen­
tage of members of his race for Intermediate 
Schools.

5. Any student assigned to a particular 
attendance Middle School serving seventh and 
eighth grades in which the percentage of mem­
bers of his race is greater than the District­
wide percentage of members of his race for 
Middle Schools shall be permitted to transfer 
to any Middle School in the District containing 
his grade level in which the percentage of 
members of his race is less than the District­
wide percentage of members of his race for 
Middle Schools.

6. Any student assigned to a particular 
attendance Senior High School in which the 
percentage of members of his race is greater 
than the District-wide percentage of members 
of his race for Senior High Schools shall be 
permitted to transfer to any Senior High 
School in the District containing his grade 
level in which the percentage of members of 
his race is less than the District-wide percen­
tage of members of his race for Senior High 
Schools.

7. Students requesting Majority to Minori­
ty Transfers must do so prior to one week 
before the beginning of the school year, and 
must agree to attend that school for the entire 
academic school year.



71a

8. All transfers provided for in this section 
shall be permitted on the basis of student- 
station availability, and Majority to Minority 
Transfers will be given preference over other 
transfers.

9. A student’s disciplinary record shall not 
constitute the basis for denying a Majority to 
Minority Transfer, nor for sending him/her 
back to a previously assigned school once this 
transfer has been made. Any discipline 
program shall be handled at the school to 
which a student has transferred.

VIII. Minority to Majority Transfers

Mexican-Americans who comprise less than 
five percent of the school to which they are 
originally assigned, may transfer to a school 
that offers the Bilingual Education Program. 
Transfers provided in this section shall be per­
mitted on the basis of student-station 
availability.

IX. Curriculum Transfers

Students who are physically handicapped, 
mentally retarded, highly gifted, those who 
seek career education courses, and other 
special-course students, shall be permitted to 
attend those schools offering appropriate 
facilities and courses; provided that all such 
transfers shall be on a nondiscriminatory 
basis. Such transfers shall be permitted on a



space available basis with final decisions to be 
made by the DISD.

X. Transportation

1. All students in the Dallas Independent 
School District who are reassigned to a new 
attendance zone or who choose to attend a 
magnet school as their assigned school by vir­
tue of this Court Order, shall be eligible to 
receive free transportation provided by the 
Dallas Independent School District.

2. Where at least twenty students from a 
given community, zone, or point of origin will 
be traveling to a single destination, for any 
reason permitted under this Order, the DISD 
shall provide transportation in the form of a 
DISD bus,

3. Where the number of students moving to 
a given designated school is less than twenty, 
transportation shall be provided in the form of 
special bus tokens or bus cards distributed 
directly to the student involved to be used on 
the regular Dallas Transit System (DTS) 
routes.

4. When the combined one-way distance 
between home to DTS-route and DTS-route to 
school exceeds 2 miles, special arrangements 
for transportation shall be made by DISD.



73a

5. For those students who are transported 
under any of the provisions of this Court or­
der, in the event of emergencies or illness, the 
school shall either arrange transportation to 
home or make other appropriate accom­
modations as deemed necessary by the school.

6. The District shall receive from the Tex­
as Education Agency the maximum total base 
cost for maintenance, operations, salaries, and 
depreciation for each seventy-two passenger 
bus needed to transport students, as required 
by this Court order.

XI. Changes in Attendance Zones

The DISD may adjust attendance zones and 
reassign students as it determines to be 
necessary to conform to building space re­
quirements from year to year so as to most 
effectively utilize facilities and/ or promote 
further desegregation. For the 1976-1977 
school year, adjustments will occur between 
the following attendance zones:

1. Lenore K. Hall and Leslie A. Stemmons
2. Harrell Budd and Roger Q. Mills
3. David Crockett and William Lipscomb
4. William Lipscomb and Robert E. Lee.

The DISD shall have the responsibility for in­
forming all residents of these areas of these ad­
justments.



74a

Before the beginning of the 1977-78 school 
year, the DISD shall review all K-3 attendance 
zones, and adjust them in order to achieve as 
much natural integration as possible, with 
pupils assigned two miles or less from their 
home. If there is no school within two miles of 
their home, then assign student to nearest 
school which would promote integration, if in 
so doing, the student would have to go no more 
than four miles from home. Dr. Josiah Hall, the 
Court’s expert, shall be retained to advise the 
Court on these changes.

Demographic changes which occur subse­
quent to this total review and readjustment of 
K-3 attendance zones will not be attributed by 
the Court to “ state action” of the DISD. Private 
actions which produce changes in housing 
patterns after 1977-78 shall not be the basis for 
mandating the DISD to redraw the K-3 atten­
dance zones to reflect any particular racial 
balance.

XII. Discipline and Due Process

Good order and discipline are essential to 
good education and to the implementation of 
this plan. The DISD, in concert with teachers, 
principals and parents shall develop a clear 
and simply-stated policy on student dis­
cipline, including provision for due process 
procedures. All parents and students shall be 
fully advised by the DISD of these rules and 
regulations governing student conduct in the



75a
classroom, in the school, and on the campus. 
These rules, regulations, and due process 
procedures shall be applied uniformly and 
fairly without discrimination.

XIII. Facilities

The DISD shall continue to improve school 
facilities in accordance with the plan which 
the Board of Education has developed in con­
sultation with the Task Force for Educational 
Excellence.

In addition, the DISD shall take immediate 
steps to construct a new magnet comprehen­
sive Lincoln High School in South Dallas.

The DISD shall make improvements in the 
facilities at North Dallas.

The DISD shall begin immediate construc­
tion of a new K-3 facility and community 
center in West Dallas for the Juarez-Douglass 
area. Benito Juarez and Fred Douglass shall 
remain open to serve grades K-2 and K-3 
respectively until the new school is opened.

The DISD shall have as a priority the 
development of a “ central core” of high 
schools within a two mile distance from the in­
ner highway loop (Central Expressway on the 
east, East Thornton Expressway on the south, 
Stemmons Expressway on the west, Woodall 
Rogers Freeway on the north).



76a
X IV . Personnel

A. Recruiting and Employment

1. The DISD shall develop recruiting and 
employment policies to insure that competent 
personnel are employed and that by 1979-1980 
the percentages of Black and Mexican- 
American personnel approximate the percen­
tages, as a minimum, of 31% Black and 8% 
Mexican-American within each of the follow­
ing groups:

a. teachers
b. principals
c. other certificated professional per­

sonnel (exclu d in g  the 142 top 
salaried administrators mentioned 
below).

2. For the top salaried administrative 
positions of coordinator and above (currently 
established at 142 in number) and for any 
future reorganization covering these 142 top 
positions, the following ethnic percentages for 
these positions ■ are to be achieved by 
September 1, 1979: 44% Anglo, 44% Black, and 
12% Mexican-American. The DISD shall 
achieve one-third of this transition by 
September 1, 1977, one-third by September 1,
1978, and the final one-third by September 1,
1979. A variance of 5% in the percentages for
this top-salaried group shall be permitted. At 
all tim es after September 1, 1979, the



77a
Anglo/Black percentages are to remain equal. 
However, both will decrease if the percentage 
of the Mexican-American enrollment in the 
DISD increases above 12%. (For example, if 
the Mexican-American enrollment increases 
to 14%, Anglo and Black would each decrease 
to 43%.)

3. The DISD may rely on expanded scope of 
positions, lateral reassignments, promotion 
and attrition to meet the goals of the above two 
paragraphs. If there is to be a reduction in the 
number of principals, teachers, teachers aids, 
or other staff employed by the DISD which will 
result in a dismissal or demotion of any such 
staff member, the staff member to be dismissed 
or demoted must be selected on the basis of ob­
jective and reasonable non-discriminatory 
standards from among all the staff of the 
school district. Under no circumstances will 
staff be terminated or promoted solely on the 
basis of race.

B. Personnel Competence Assessm ent

The competence of personnel shall con­
tinually be assessed in accordance with 
policies and procedures established by the 
DISD.

C. Teacher and Principal Assignments

Assignments for teachers and principals 
shall be made in accordance with Singleton v. 
Jackson Municipal Separate School District,



78a

419 F„2d 1211 (5th Cir. 1970). However, if the 
needs assessment of a given school clearly 
demonstrates that special circumstances exist 
and that deviations from the above re­
quirements are necessary in order to best staff 
and administer the programs in predominate­
ly minority schools on such programs as 
special, vocational and bilingual education, in 
any school, the DISD shall have the discretion 
to assign minority teachers to these schools at 
variance with the respective percentages es­
tablished by Singleton.

D. Training

In depth training of teachers, principals and 
administrators shall be provided as needed to 
implement this plan. Attendance shall be re­
quired.

XV. Accountability System and Auditor 

A. Internal Accountability

The DISD shall file a report with the Court on 
December 15 and April 15 annually through 
the school year 1978-79 which includes the 
following:

1. The number and percentage of pupils by 
ethnicity attending each educational center, 
including Vanguard schools, Academies and 
Magnet high schools



79a

2. The number and percentage of pupils by 
ethnicity being transported for desegregation 
purposes to 4-6 and 7-8 centers and to 
Vanguard schools, Academies and Magnet 
high schools

3. Majority to Minority transfers:

a. The number and percentage of pupils 
by ethnicity and by school par­
ticipating in this program

b. The tra n sp o r ta tio n  fa c i l it ie s  
a v a ila b le  and conven ience of 
transportation

c. Efforts made by the DISD to increase 
participation in this program.

4. The number and percentage of Mexican- 
American pupils participating in the minority 
to majority transfer program.

5. The status of the following programs:

a. The Early Childhood Education 
Program (K-3)

b„ 4-8 Van gu a rd  and A c a d e m y  
Programs

c. 9-12 Magnet Programs
(1) Efforts of the DISD to encourage 

student enrollment in magnet 
programs



80a

(2) Course offerings in each of the 
magnet programs in operation

(3) The progress of increasing the 
number of magnet schools and 
their location in terms of the 
timetable set forth in this order.

d. The Bilingual Program
e. The Multicultural Social Studies  ̂

Program

6. The number and percentage of teachers 
by ethnicity assigned full time in each 
educational center, including Vanguard 
schools, Academies and Magnet schools.

7. The progress toward affirmative action 
in attaining the recruiting and employment 
goal, including the number and percentage of 
new teachers and administrators by ethnicity 
engaged by the DISD.

8. The current status of capital outlay pro- | 
jects, and the allocation of bond issue funds in 
relation to the priorities and programs estab­
lished by this order.

9. The results of the annual standardized 
achievement tests program by school, grade 
(grades 2, 4, 8, 8, 9 and 12), and ethnicity.

10. Efforts made by the DISD to success­
fully implement the Order of this Court, in the 
following areas:



81a

*

a. Parent involvement efforts
b. Staff development programs
c. Communications and community 

relations programs
d. S t u d e n t  l e ad er sh i p  t ra in ing  

programs
e. Safety and security (including due 

process procedures).

B. External Educational Audit

An external educational auditor shall be 
appointed and instructed by the Court. It shall 
be a non-political, professional entity, ade­
quately funded, and paid for by the DISD. It 
shall file a report with the Court annually on 
June 1 until the 1978-79 school year which in­
cludes the following:

1. An audit of each item of the internal ac­
countability report

2. An audit of DISD treatment of a selected 
sampling of predominantly minority and 
predominantly Anglo centers (K-3 and 9-12 
non-magnet centers) in terms of:

a. Condition of facilities
b. Edu cat i on a l  of ferings:  course

offerings and teacher allocation
c. Educational resource allocation in 

terms of textbooks, libraries, sup-



83a

plies, tutoring efforts and aids, and 
extracurricular offerings funded by 
the DISD

d. Efforts of the DISD to implement 
schoolsite planning involving prin­
cipals, teachers, parents and com­
munity in ECE program

e. Efforts to encourage parent and com­
m u n i ty  pa r t i c ip a t i o n  in the 
educational process on the 9-12 level.

f. Any other items about which the 
Court may instruct it.

The results of this external educational audit 
shall be publicized in the DISD newsletter and 
the complete audit shall be made available to 
the public and to all parents or guardians of 
students in the DISD. Any party to this suit 
who desires to make comments or be heard 
regarding the content of the internal account­
ability reports or the external educational 
audit may file such comments or motion 
within thirty days after the filing of the exter­
nal educational auditor’s report on June 1.

XVI. Tri-Ethnic Committee

The Tri-Ethnic Committee provided for in 
the Court’s 1971 Order shall continue to 
receive input from the community regarding 
the desegregation of the DISD. The Committee 
shall make reports to this Court at such times 
as the Committee deems necessary. These



83a

*

XVII.

%

reports will advise the Court as to the im­
plementation of this Order, and such other 
matters as the Court may deem to be proper. A 
copy of all reports shall be provided to the 
DISD and the Plaintiffs.

Tri-Ethnic Committee members shall be ap­
pointed by the Court for staggered two-year 
terms beginning July 1, 1976. Lots shall be 
drawn to determine which members will serve 
for a one-year term beginning July 1,1976, and 
which members will serve for a two-year term 
beginning July 1, 1976.

Retention of Jurisdiction

To the end that a unitary school shall be 
achieved in the DISD, the United States Dis­
trict Court for the Northern District of Texas 
retains jurisdiction of this case.

It is so ORDERED, this the 7th day of April, 
1976.

/s /  W. M. TAYLOR, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT 
JUDGE



APPENDIX A
The pupil population for the six areas, grades K-12 by ethnic group utilizing the December 
1, 1975 pupil population figures is as follows:

Sub-districts Anglo % Black
Southwest 12,250 46,0 8,234
Northwest 16,590 48.9 10,031
Northeast 16,019 54.7 10,411
Southeast 12,253 57.1 7,551
Sub-Total 57,112 51.3 36,227
East Oak Cliff 512 1.9 26,202
Seagoville 1,842 80.5 338
GRAND TOTAL 59,466 42.1 62,767

% M/A %
Combined 

Min. % Total
30.9 6,169 23.1 54.0 26,653
29.6 7,298 21.5 51.1 33,919
35.5 2,865 9.8 44.3 29,295
35.2 1,666 7.7 42.9 21,470
32.5 17,998 16.2 48.7 111,337
95.3 783 2.8 98.1 27,497
14.8 108 4.7 19.5 2,288
44.5 18,889 13.4 57.9 141,122

84a



NORTHWEST SUB-DISTRICT 
NORTHWEST

K-3
School Anglo

No. %

Black

No. %

M-A

No. %

Minority

%

Total Bldg.
Cap.

Nathan Adams 177 90.8 16 8.2 2 1.0 9.2 195 800
Gabe P. Allen 69 9.2 32 4.3 647 86.5 90.8 748 1000
Arlington Park 2 1.9 99 95.2 3 2.9 98.1 104 350
James B. Bonham 72 20.1 3 .8 284 79.1 79.9 359 400
C. P. Carr 3 .6 498 96.1 17 3.3 99.4 518 800
George W. Carver 1 .3 330 91.4 30 8.3 99.7 361 1700
George B. Dealey 145 92.9 9 5.8 2 1.3 7.1 156 800
Amelia Earhart -0- -0- 372 99.7 1 .3 100.0 373 800
James Fannin 96 16.6 75 13.0 407 70.4 83.4 578 400
Tom C. Gooch 299 97.1 2 .6 7 2.3 2.9 308 800
Sam Houston 64 20.5 44 14.1 204 65.4 79.5 312 700
Arthur Kramer 133 97.8 1 .7 2 1.5 2.2 136 800
J. W. Ray -0- -0- 311 99.0 3 1.0 100.0 314 400
William B. Travis 5 1.9 95 35.0 171 63.1 98.1 271 800
Harry C. Withers 183 97.9 -0- -0- 4 2.1 2.1 187 800
William L. Cabell 311 96.3 2 .6 10 3.1 3.7 323 1300
DeGolyer, E. L. 175 96.7 2 1.1 4 2.2 1.3 181 800
Navarro, Jose 0 0 619 95.5 29 4.5 100.0 648 750
Tyler, Priscilla 0 0 443 99.5 2 .5 100,0 445 750



NORTHWEST

4-5-6 Bldg.
School X-3fl Anglo 

No. %
Black 

No. %
M-A

No. %
Minority

%
Total Cap.

Burnet. D. G. 495 592 52.3 432 38.1 109 9.6 47.7 1628 1350
Caillet, F. P. 275 238 40.1 109 18.4 246 41.5 59.9 868 800
Foster, S. C. 296 347 49.3 100 14.2 ’ 257 36.5 50.7 1000 800
Longfellow, H. W. 112 323 46.3 326 46.7 49 7.0 53.7 810 800
Maple Lawn 296 149 29.6 108 21.5 246 48.9 70.4 503 700
Marcus, H. 253 197 40.1 30 6.1 264 53.8 59.9 744 800
Pershing, J. J. 168 279 40.0 410 58.8 8 1.2 60.0 865 800
Polk, K. B.** 189 0 0 249 100.0 0 0 100.0 438 800
Preston Hollow 142 151 40.9 86 23.3 132 35.8 59.1 511 1000
Rogers, D. D. 287 290 42.8 190 28.1 197 29.1 57.2 964 800
Williams, S. L. 109 339 42.4 444 55.5 17 2.1 57.6 909 800
Field, T. 114 58 76.3 2 2.6 16 21.1 23.7 190 500
Knight, O. 376 89 37.2 3 1.3 147 61.5 62.8 615 650
Milam, B. 88 20 40.0 3 6.0 27 54.0 60.0 138 800
Hotchkiss, L. L. 173 181 42.2 30 7.0 218 50.8 57.8 602 800
Walnut Hill 165 339 59.4 211 37.0 21 3.6 40.6 736 800

* K-3 students are not included in the ethnic ratios for grades 4-5-6.
** K. B. Polk School will be a 4-6 Vanguard School and 300 student stations will be reserved for integra­
tion purposes. Programming will be provided from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

86a



87a

NORTHWEST

Feeder Schools for 4-5-6 Centers

Burnet
Burnet
Cabell
Carr

Pershing
Pershing
Dealey
Carver/Tyler*

Caillet 
Caillet 
Allen, G.* 
Arlington Park

Walnut Hill
Walnut Hill 
Adams, N. 
Carver, Tyler*

Foster
Foster
Houston
Carver/Tyler*
DeGolyer

Preston Hollow 
Preston Hollow 
Travis (includes 
the former B.T. 
Washington zone)

Longfellow
Longfellow
Withers
Kramer
Earhart/Navarro*

Rogers
Rogers
Ray
Bonham

Maple Lawn

Marcus
Marcus

Williams
Williams
Gooch
Earhart/Navarro*

Allen, G.* Field

Hotchkiss Knight
Hotchkiss
Fannin Milam

Polk

Assigned to more than one school



NORTHWEST 
Middle Schools 

7-8
School Anglo Black M-A Minority Total

No. % No. % No. % %
Cary, Edward H. 521 51.8 343 34.1 142 14.1 48.2 1006
Marsh, Thos. C. 776 55.5 307 22.0 314 22.5 44.5 1397
Rusk, T. J. 446 55.7 103 12.8 252 31.5 44.3 801
Spence, Alex* 162 23.0 170 24.1 373 52.9 77.0 705
Walker, E. D. 881 51.9 794 46.8 23 1.3 48.1 1698

Bldg.
Cap.

1500 
1700 gg 
1000 & 
1000 
2000

Children enrolled in the program for the deaf are included.



89a
NORTHWEST

Feeder Schools for 7-8 Grade Centers

Edward H. Cary

Foster
Burnet
Williams
Longfellow
Polk
Walnut Hill 
Field
E arhart / N a varro*

Thomas C. Marsh

DeGolyer
Cabell
Allen
Withers (West of 

Midway)
Gooch
E arhart/ N avarro*

Thomas J. Rusk

Knight 
Maple Lawn 
Houston 
Arlington Park 
Marcus 
Caillet

Alex Spence

Bonham
Fannin
Travis (includes 

former B.T. Wash­
ington zone) 

Milam

E. D. Walker

Adams, N.
Dealey
Pershing
Withers (East of Midway)
Carver/Tyler
Kramer
Hotchkiss
Rogers
Preston Hollow
Ray
Carr

Assigned to more than one school



NORTHWEST

Senior High Schools 
9-12

School Anglo Black M-A Minority Total Bldg.
Cap.

No. % No. % No. % %
Hillcrest* 1634 96.2 38 2.2 27 1.6 3.8 1249* 1800
Thos. Jefferson 1583 68.4 465 20.1 267 11.5 21.6 2315 2100
North Dallas 280 17.2 620 38.1 728 44.7 82.8 1628 1100
L. G. Pinkston** 108 4,9 1506 68.2 594 26.9 95.1 1633** 3000
W. T. White 2585 96.1 43 1.6 61 2.3 3.9 2689 2600

The former Franklin school will house 450 ninth grade students from Hillcrest High School.
The former Edison school will house 575 ninth grade students from L. G. Pinkston High School.



91a
NORTHWEST

Feeder Schools for Senior High Schools

Hillcrest L. G. Pinkston

Dealey, G. B. Allen, Gabe
Hotchkiss, L. L. Carr, C. F.
Kramer, Arthur Carver, G. W.
Pershing, J. J, Earhart, Amelia
Preston Hollow Navarro, Jose
Rogers, Dan .Tyler, P. L.

Thomas Jefferson W. T. White

Burnet, David G. Adams, Nathan
Caiilet, F. P. Cabell, W. L.
Field, Tom DeGolyer, E. L.
Foster, S. C. Gooch, Tom C.
Longfellow, H. W. Marcus, Herbert
Polk, K. B. Withers, H. C.
Walnut Hill
Williams, Sudie

North Dallas

Arlington Park 
Bonham, J. B.
Fannin, James W. 
Houston, Sam 
Knight, Obadiah 
Maple Lawn 
Milam, Ben 
Ray, J. W.
Travis, W. B. (includes 

former B. T. 
Washington zone)



NORTHEAST SUB-DISTRICT

NORTHEAST
K-3

School Anglo Black M-A Minority Total
No. % No. % No. % %

Brown, John H. 0 0 523 100.0 0 0 100.0 523
City Park 6 3.9 85 55.6 62 40.5 96.1 153
Colonial 0 0 434 100.0 0 0 100.0 434
Frazier 0 0 454 100.0 0 0 100.0 454
Gill 264 91.7 0 0 24 8.3 8.3 288
Harris 0 0 159 100.0 0 0 100.0 159
Hassell 0 0 229 100.0 0 0 100.0 229
Hexter 170 93.9 0 0 11 6.1 6.1 181
Rice 0 0 497 100.0 0 0 100.0 497
Wheatley 0 0 202 100.0 0 0 100.0 202
Reilly 289 92.9 6 1.9 16 5.2 7.1 311
Casa View 303 86.3 1 .3 47 13.4 13.7 351
Urban Park 200 88.9 3 1.3 22 9.8 11.1 225
Kiest 299 89.8 5 1.5 29 8.7 10.2 333

Bldg.
Cap.

800
800
900
900
800
550
550
800

1100
400

1250
1250
800

1250

92a



3 3

NORTHEAST
4-5-6

School K-3* Anglo Black M-A Minority Total
No. % No. % No. % %

Bayles 260 206 54.2 169 44.5 5 1.3 45.8 640
Conner 250 524 56.3 378 40.7 28 3.0 43.7 1180
Jackson, S.** 81 103 67.3 48 31.4 2 1.3 32.7 234
Lakewood 193 396 61.9 160 25.0 84 13.1 38.1 833
Mt. Auburn 287 97 38.0 89 34.9 69 27.1 62.0 542
Rowe, E. 313 420 53.4 330 42.0 36 4.6 46.6 1099
Sanger, Alex 244 385 53.8 290 40.6 40 5.6 46.2 959
Lee, Robt. E. 205 68 47.6 0 0 75 52.4 52.4 348
Lipscomb 461 175 50.1 17 4.9 157 45.0 49.9 810
Crockett 491 74 42.8 14 8.1 85 41.1 49.2 664
Silberstein 217 115 58.1 69 34.9 14 7.0 41.9 415
Reinhardt 295 499 58.1 315 36.7 44 5.2 41.9 1153
Truett 352 446 52.9 367 43.5 30 3.6 47.1 1195
Roberts 319 6 2.5 179 75.2 53 22.3 97.5 557

Bldg.
Cap.

800
800
800
800
700
800 §  
800 
800 
800 
400 
800 

1250 
1300 
600

* K-3 students are not included in the ethnic ratios for grades 4-5-6.
** Children enrolled in the program for the deaf are included.



94a

NORTHEAST

Feeder Schools for 4-5-6 Centers

Bayles Reinhardt

Bayles
Hassell

Reinhardt
Gill
Colonial

Conner Rowe
Reilly
Brown

Rowe
Urban Park

Conner Frazier

Crockett Sanger

Jackson, S.
Sanger 
Casa View 
Wheatley 
Harris

Lakewood

Lakewood Silberstein
Kiest
City Park 
Austin Truett

Lee, R.
Truett
Hexter
Rice

Lipscomb

Roberts
Mount Auburn



NORTHEAST

Middle Schools
7-8

School Anglo Black M-A Minority Total
No. % No. % No. % %

W. H. Gaston 942 56.6 645 38.7 78 4.7 43.4 1665
Robert T. Hill 736 61.1 410 34.0 59 4.9 38.9 1205
J. L. Long 656 58.0 195 17.2 280 24.8 42.0 1131

Bldg.
Cap.

1700
1400
1400

95a



96a

NORTHEAST

Feeder Schools for 7-8 Grade Centers

W. H. Gaston J. L. Long

Brown, J. H. Bayles
City Park Crockett, David
Colonial Lakewood
Conner, S. S. Lee, Robert E.
Hassell, T, C. Lipscomb, W. L.
Kiest, E. J. Jackson, Stonewall
Reinhardt Mount Auburn
Sanger, Alex Sanger, Alex

(East of St. (West of St,
Francis) Francis)

Truett, G. W. Roberts, O. M.
Austin, Stephen F.

Robert T. Hill

Casa View 
Harris, F. C. 
Hexter, Victor 
Gill, C. A,
Rice, Charles 
Reilly, M. T. 
Wheatley, Phyllis



s

School Anglo
No. %

Bryan Adams 3240 95.2
James Madison 0 0
Skyline 2040 64.6
Woodrow Wilson 888 59.0

NORTHEAST

Senior High Schools 
9-12

Black M-A
No. % No. %

0 0 163 4.8
1685 98.1 30 1.7
925 29.3 193 6.1
287 19.0 331 22.0

Minority Total
Bldg.
Cap.

%
4.8 3403 3500

99.8 1715 i 2100
35.4 3158 4000
41.0 1506 1500

97a



98a

NORTHEAST

Feeder Schools for Senior High Schools 

9-12

Bryan Adams

Casa View 
Conner, S. S,

(North of Ferguson) 
Hexter, Victor 
Gill, Charles A.
Kiest, E. J.
Reilly, M. T. 
Reinhardt 
Sanger, Alex (East 

of St. Francis) 
Truett, G. W.

Skyline

Bayles 
Conner, S. S.

(South of Ferguson) 
Rowe, Edna 
Sanger, Alex 

(West of St.
Francis)

Silberstein, Ascher 
Urban Park

James Madison

Brown, John H. 
City Park 
Colonial 
Frazier, J. C. 
Harris, F. C. 
Hassell, T. C.
Rice, Charles 
Wheatley, Phyllis 
Austin, Stephen F.

Woodrow Wilson

Crockett, David 
Lakewood 
Lee, Robert E. 
Lipscomb, W. H. 
Jackson, Stonewall 
Mount Auburn 
Roberts, O. M.



SOUTHEAST SUB-DISTRICT

SOUTHEAST
K-3

School Anglo Black M-A Minority Total
Bldg.
Cap.

No, % No. % No. % %
Buckner 93 12.0 490 63.0 194 25.0 88.0 777 750Dunbar 0 0 700 100.0 0 0 100.0 700 1000Lagow 447 92.0 6 1.2 33 6.8 8.0 486 800
Macon 221 85.0 2 .8 37 14.2 15.0 260 450
Rhoads 0 0 441 100.0 0 0 100.0 441 1200
Runyon 312 87.4 18 5.0 27 7.6 12.6 357 800
Thompson 0 0 521 100.0 0 0 100.0 521 1700Titche 249 85.6 18 6.2 24 8.2 14.4 291 800
Anderson, Wm. 305 85.4 10 2.8 42 11.8 14.6 357 800Moseley 340 93.2 0 0 25 6,8 6.8 365 800



SOUTHEAST

4-5-6
School K-3* Anglo Black M-A Minority Total

Bldg.
Cap.

No. % No. % No. % %
Ireland 283 347 63.5 157 28.8 42 7.7 36.5 829 800
San Jacinto 292 386 51.5 333 44.4 31 4.1 48.5 1042 800
Hawthorne 165 316 57.9 201 36.8 29 5.3 42.1 711 800
Adams, J. Q. 402 469 57.7 266 32.8 77 9.5 42.3 1214 1000
Rylie 0 406 57.5 244 34.6 56 7.9 42.5 706 800
Blair 483 123 34.5 194 54.3 40 11.2 65.5 840 800
Blanton 304 219 57.2 154 40.2 10 2.6 42.8 687 800
Dorsey 167 161 54.0 77 25.9 60 20.1 46.0 465 800
Burleson 0 282 57.7 150 30.7 57 11.6 42.3 489 800

K-3 students are not included in the ethnic ratios for grades 4-5-6



101a

SOUTHEAST

Feeder Schools for 4-5-6 Centers

Ireland Adams, J. Q.

Ireland Adams
Macon Anderson, Wm.
Thompson* Thompson*

San Jacinto Rylie

San Jacinto Lagow
Rhoads
Titche

Buckner/ Burleson*

Hawthorne Blair

Hawthorne
Dunbar Burleson
Runyon Moseley

Buckner / Burleson*
Blanton

Blanton Dorsey

Dunbar Dorsey
Buckner / Burleson*

Assigned to more than one school



SOUTHEAST 
Middle Schools 

7-8

School Anglo Black M-A Minority Total
Bldg.
Cap.

No. % No. % No. % %
Hood, J. B. 839 80.4 514 37.0 36 2.6 39.6 1389 2500
Florence, Fred 795 59.2 482 35.9 66 4.9 40.8 1343 1700
Comstock 800 58.6 403 29.5 183 11.9 41.4 1366 1700

102a



103a

Comstock

SOUTHEAST

Feeder Schools for 7-8 Grade Centers

Hood

Blanton 
Hawthorne 
San Jacinto 
Ireland (North 

of Lake June) 
Silberstein 
Urban Park 
Rowe 
Frazier 
Rhoads

Florence

Adams, J. Q.
(East of Buckner) 

Runyon 
Anderson, Wm. 
Thompson 
Titche 
Dunbar 
Macon (North 

of Elam Road)

Buckner/ Burleson
Blair
Dorsey
Moseley
Lagow
Ireland (South 

of Lake June) 
Adams, J. Q.

(West of Buckner) 
Macon (South of 

Elam Road)



SOUTHEAST 
Senior High Schools 

9-12

School Anglo Black
No. % No. %

Lincoln 0 0 1380 100.0
W. W. Samuell* 1850 89.0 89 4.3
H. Grady Spruce 1667 71.7 412 17.7

Bldg.
M-A

No. %
Minority

%
Total Cap.

0 0 100.0 1380 2100
140 6.7 11.0 2079 3000
246 10.6 28.3 2325 3000

Children enrolled in the program for the deaf are included.



105a

SOUTHEAST

Feeder Schools for Senior High Schools

Lincoln

Dunbar, Paul 
Rhoads, J. J. 
Thompson, H. W.

W. W. Samuell 
Adams, J. Q. (North 

of Lake June) 
Blanton, A. W, 
Hawthorne, Nathaniel 
Ireland (North of 

Lake June)
Runyon, John (North 

of Lake June)
Titche, Edward 
San Jacinto

H. Grady Spruce

Adams, J. Q.
(South of Lake June) 

Anderson, Wm.
Blair, W. A.
Buckner/ Burleson 
Dorsey, Julius 
Ireland, John (South 

of Lake June)
Macon, B. H.
Moseley, Nancy 
Runyon (South 

of Lake June)
Lagow, Richard



S O U T H W E S T  SU B -D IST R IC T  

SO U T H W E ST  

K -3 ; K -2

School Anglo 
No. %

Black
No. %

M-A.
No. %

Minority
%

Total

Douglass
K-3

5 3.2 63 39.6 91 57.2 96.8 159

Juarez
K-2

8 5.4 22 21.8 107 72.8 94.6 137

Bldg.
Cap.

400

2 0 0

106a



U J U g .

Cap.

800
400
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
400
500
400
800
500
400
400
750
800
800

J f  S O U T H W E S T  3
4-5-6

Anglo Black M-A Minority

No. % No. % No. % %
35 12.7 234 84.8 7 2.5 87.3

118 72.4 0 0 45 27.6 27.6
132 69.5 47 24.7 11 5.8 30.5
108 51.4 64 30.5 38 18.1 48.6
139 52.5 1 .4 125 47.1 47.5
81 33.3 126 51.9 36 14.8 66.7

139 60.4 0 0 91 39.6 39.6
183 55.5 59 17.9 88 26.7 24.6
130 58.6 40 18.0 52 23.4 41.4
39 37.9 7 6.8 57 55.3 62.1

136 61.6 2 .9 85 38.5 39.4
119 49.8 7 2.9 113 47.3 50.2
31 7.8 352 88.9 13 3.3 92.2
80 43.7 -0- -0- 103 56.3 56.3
40 25.0 8 5.0 112 70.0 75.0
70 41.9 -0- -0- 97 58.1 58.1

159 59.8 22 8.3 85 31.9 40.2
230 69.9 14 4.3 85 25.8 30.1
110 53.9 39 19.1 55 27.0 46.1
112 32.8 196 57.5 33 9.7 67.2
116 44.8 142 54.8 1 .4 55.2
41 16.9 196 81.0 5 2.1 83.1

eluded in the ethnic ratios for grades 4-5-6.
11 be a 4-6 Vanguard School and 250 student stations will be re 
/ill be provided from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.



SO U T H W E ST

4-

School K-3* Anglo Black
No. % No. %

Daniel Webster 404 194 56.2 124 35.9
Martin Weiss 251 97 55,4 56 32.0
Winnetka 248 98 49.8 6 3.0
Lanier** 272 76 12.3 100 16.1

Bldg.M-A Minority Total Cap.
No. % %

27 7.8 43.7 749 800
22 12.6 44.6 426 800 M*
93 47.2 50.2 445 400 §

444 71.6 87.7 620 800 So

* K-3 students are not included in the ethnic ratios for grades 4-5-6.
Sidney Lanier School will be a 4-6 Vanguard School and 250 student stations will be reserved for 

integration purposes. Programming will be from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.



3

School Anglo
No. %

William H. Atwell 245 45.5
T. W. Browne 570 58.3
D. A. Hulcy 150 24.3
L. V. Stockard 605 54.3
W. E. Greiner 624 57,1

SOUTHWEST 
Middle Schools 

7-8
Black M-A

No. % No. %
273 50.6 21 3.9
308 31.5 99 10.2
423 68.7 43 7.0
65 5.9 439 38.8
77 7.0 392 35.9

Minority Total
Bldg.
Cap.

%
54.5 539 1700
41.7 977 1700
75.7 616 2500
44.7 1109 1400
42.9 1093 1300

109a



110a
SOUTHWEST

Feeder Schools for 7-8 Grade Centers

William H. Atwell D. A. Hulcy

Terry, T. G. 
(North of 
Camp Wisdom) 

Turner, Adelle 
Twain, Mark 

(South of 
Loop 12)

Alexander, Birdie 
Lee, Umphrey
Terry, T. G. g 

(South of 
Camp Wisdom)

Weiss, Martin

L. V. Stockard
T. W. Browne Arcadia Park
Carpenter, John 
Cochran, Nancy 
Davis, Jeff 
Stemmons, L, L. 
Twain, Mark 

(North of

Cowart, L. P. 
Donald, L. O. 
Hall, L. K.
Jones, Anson 
Peabody, George 
Lanier

Loop 12) 
Webster, Daniel

Douglass
Juarez (

W. E. Greiner

Henderson, M. B. 
Hogg, James 
Hooe, Lida 
Peeler, J. F. 
Reagan, John 
Rosemont 
Stevens Park 
Winnetka



School Anglo

SOUTHWEST 
Senior High Schools 

9-12
Black M-A Minority Total

No. % No. % No. % %
David W. Carter 705 38.3 1051 57.0 87 4.7 61.7 1843
Justin F. Kimball 1653 74.6 306 13.8 ' 258 11.6 25.4 2217
Sunset 1216 60.8 124 6.2 661 33.0 39.2 2001
Adamson 440 32.6 438 32.5 471 34.9 67.4 1349

Bldg.
Cap.

2000
2100
1800
1300

111a



112a

SO U TH W E ST

Feeder Schools for Senior High Schools 9-12

David W. Carter Sunset

Alexander, Birdie Arcadia Park
Lee, Umphrey 
Terry, T. G.

Cowart, L. P. 
Hooe, Lida

Turner, Adelle Jones, Anson
Twain, Mark 

(South of
Peabody, George 
Rosemont

Loop 12) Stevens Park
Weiss, Martin Winnetka

Justin F. Kimball Adamson

Carpenter, John Bowie
Davis, Jeff Henderson
Donald, L. O. 
Cochran, Nancy

Hogg
Peeler

Hall, L. K. 
Stemmons, L. L.

Reagan
Budd

Twain, Mark Lanier
(North of Juarez
Loop 12) 

Webster, Daniel
Douglass



E A S T  O A K  CLIFF S U B -D IST R IC T  

E A S T  O A K  CLIFF

K -3

School Anglo Black M-A Minority
No. % No. % No. % %

B. F. Darrell 3 .5 619 97.5 13 2.0 99.5
T, D. Marshall 2 .3 649 98.6 7 1.1 99.7
E. M, Pease 0 0 723 100.0 0 0 100.0
Erasmo Seguin 11 1.4 737 91.5 57 7.1 98.6

Total

835
658
723
805

Bldg.
Cap.

750
750
800
750

113a



K-3'

357
403
898
889
378
310

0

588
390
242
862
770

0

0

423
0

EAST O A K  CLIFF  
K -3; 4-5-6

Anglo 
No. %

Black 
No. %

M-A
No. %

Minority
%

Total
Bldg.
Cap.

65 29.7 56 25.6 98 44.7 70.4 576 800
8 1.5 497 89.2 52 9.3 98.5 960 800
0 0 620 99.5 3 .5 100.0 1231 1400
5 .8 580 97.5 10 1.7 99.2 1284 1350
1 .3 302 99.7 0 0 99.7 681 1000
2 .8 249 98.4 4 .8 99.2 563 800

. 0 0 634 99.8 1 .2 100.0 635 1000

0 0 422 94.8 1 23 5.2 100.0 • 1033 1350
1 .3 364 97.9 7 1.8 99.7 762 500
0 0 278 99.6 1 ,4 100.0 521 800
0 0 490 100.0 0 0 100.0 1152 800
0 0 406 98.8 5 1.2 100.0 1181 1350
0 0 865 99.3 5 .7 100.0 670 800

13 2.0 601 91.6 42 6.4 98.0 656 800

2 .4 448 99,6 0 0 99.6 873 800
1 .2 613 98.2 10 1.6 99.8 624 800

eluded in the ethnic ratios for grades 4-5-6.
ool wui be a 4-8 Vanguard School and 300 student stations will be reserved 
Programming will be from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

114a



East Oak Cliff 
Middle Schools

Bldg.
School Anglo 

No. %
Black

No. %
M-A

No. %
Minority

%
Total Cap.

O. W, Holmes 1 .1 1926 98.7 23 1.2 99.9 1950 2500
Harry Stone 0 0 650 100.0 0 0 100.0 650 800
Boude Storey 18 .9 2041 97.2 40 1.9 99.1 2099 2000
J. N, Ervin 2 1.0 198 99.0 0 0 99.0 200 1000

115a



116a

EAST OAK CLIFF 

Feeder Schools for 7-8 Grade Centers

O. W. Holmes
Bryan, J. N. (East of Lancaster)
Bushman, W. W.
Harllee, N, W,
Johnston, A. S.
Mills, R. Q.
Miller, W. B.

Harry Stone

Pease, E. M./Jackson, M.
Darrell, B. F./Young, W.

Boude Storey 
Bowie, James
Bryan, J. N. (West of Lancaster)
Budd, Harrell
Lisbon |
Marsalis, T. L.
Oliver, Clara/Marshall, T. D.
Russell, C. P./Seguin 
Thornton, R. L.

Ervin, J. N.



East Oak Cliff 
Senior High Schools 

9-12

School Anglo
' No. %

Black
No. %

Roosevelt, F. D. 7 .3 2590 99.1
South Oak Cliff* 0 0 4162 100.0

M- A Minority Total
Bldg.
Cap.

No. % %
17 .6 99.7 2615 2200
0 0 100.0 2762* 2600

The former Zumwalt School will house 1,400 ninth grade students from South Oak Cliff High School.

117a



118a

EAST OAK CLIFF

Feeder Schools for Senior High Schools 9-12 

F. D. Roosevelt

Bryan, J. N. (East of Lancaster)
Bushman, W. W. (North of Fordham) jf
Johnston, A. S.
Miller, W. B.
Mills
Harllee

South Oak Cliff

Bryan, J. N. (West of Lancaster) 
Ervin, J. N.
Marsalis, T. L.
Lisbon
Oliver, Clara/Marshall, T. D. 
Thornton, Ft. L.
Russell, C. P./Seguin, E.
Bushman, W. W. (South of Fordham) 
Pease, E. M./Jackson M.
Darrell/Young



S E A G O V IL L E  S U B -D IST R IC T

School Anglo

No, %
Kleberg

K-6
236 69.6

Central
5-6

240 86.3

Seagoville
K-4

549 82.8

Seagoville 817 81.1
7-12

S E A G O V IL L E

Black M- A

No. % No. %
83 24.4 1 20 6.0

22 7.9 16 5.8

85 12.8 29 4.4

148 14.7 43 4.3

Bldg.
Minority Total Cap.

%
30.4 339 300

13.7 278 300

17.2 663 600

19.0 1008 750

119a



T R A N S P O R T A T IO N

T R A N S P O R T A T IO N *  

Grades 4-8

Anglo Percent Black Percent M/A Percent Total
Northwest 2,835 35.4 3,574 44.6 1,601 20.0 8,010
Northeast 1,412 29.0 3,263 67.0 199 4.0 4,874
Southeast 2,129 47.9 2,081 46.8 234 5.3 4,444

Total 6,376 36.8 8,918 51.5 2,034 11.7 17,328
Grades 4-8

Districtwide Enrollment and Ratios — Grades 4-8 
4-8 23,019 40.2 26,442 46.2 7,754 13.6 57,215

* These figures do not include students being voluntarily transported to 4-6 grade Vanguard Schools, 7-8grad< 
Academies and 9-12 grade Magnet Schools.
It is contemplated that the magnet schools and the various transfer options available will prevent any over 
crowding of buildings which seems to exist in the figures quoted on the previous pages.

120a



SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER 

(Number and Title Omitted)

Filed: Apr. 15, 1976

The Court, finding it necessary to correct clerical 
errors in the student assignments made in the Final 
Order entered in this case, hereby Orders that the cor­
rections in the attached Appendix be incorporated in 
and made a part of the Final Order of April 7, 1976.

It is so ORDERED, this, the 15th day of April, 1976.

/s /  W. M. TAYLOR, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT 
JUDGE

APPENDIX

Page 53a - The Northwest Sub-District boundary 
should read as follows: The boundary is the 
Dallas-Fort Worth Toll Road commencing 
at the western boundary of the DISD and 
extending east to Hampton Road; Hamp­
ton Road north to Singleton; Singleton east 
to Vilbig; Vilbig north to Morris; Morris 
east to Sylvan; Sylvan north to the Trinity 
River; the Trinity River south to the Texas 
& Pacific Railroad; east on the Texas & 
Pacific Railroad and Pacific Street to Live 
Oak; northeast on Live Oak to Haskell;



122a
southeast on H ask ell to S w iss; northeast 
on S w iss to Beacon; northw est on Beacon  
to Lindell; w est on Lindell to Hubert; north  
on Hubert to Lew is; w est on Lew is to 
G reenville ; north on G reenville to M iller; 
w est on M iller to M cM illan ; north on M c­
M illan  to the alley  between M orningside  
and M cC om m as; w est on the alley  between  
M orningside and M cC om m as to Central 
E x p r e s s w a y ; north  on Central E x ­
pressw ay to Lovers Lane; east on Lovers  
Lane to S killm an ; south on S killm an to the 
M isso u ri-K a n sa s-T ex a s R ailroad; east on 
the M isso u ri-K a n sa s-T ex a s R ailroad to 
A bram s Road; south on A bram s Road to 
M o c k i n g b i r d  L a n e ;  n o r t h e a s t  on  
M ockingbird Lane to W hiterock Creek.

Page 78a - The seventh line from  the top of the page  
sh o u ld  read , . . sch ools or such  
program s as special, vocational and 
bilingual , .

Page 83a - A fter the sentence “ Tri-E thnic Com m ittee  
m em bers sh all be appointed by the Court 
for staggered tw o-year term s beginning  
July 1, 1976,” the follow ing sentence 
should be inserted: “The Court requests  
that the Plaintiffs, D ISD , N A A C P  and 
other Intervenors, and A m icu s Curiae 
m ake recom m endations (if they so desire) 
to the Court as to persons w illin g  and able 
to serve as m em bers of the Tri-Ethnic  
Com m ittee, when vacancies occur.”



Page 92a - Appendix A —

Delete Reilly as a K-3 Center.

Page 93a - Appendix A — Enrollment data should be changed as shown below:

School K-3 Anglo Black M/A Minority Total
Building
Capacity

No. % No. % No. %
Conner 250 175 54.0 136 42.0 13 4.8 46.0 574 800
Truett 352 303 53.5 240 42.3 24 4.2 46.5 919 1300
Reilly 311 492 55.8 369 41.8 21 2.4 44.2 1193 1250

123a



Page 94a - A p p end ix  A  — The feeder schools for Conner and Truett should be changed as 
show n below  and R eilly  added as a 4, 5, 6 grade center with feeder sch ools as 
show n below:

Conner

Conner 
Brown*

Truett

Truett 
Brown*

* Assigned to more than one school.

Page 109a - A p pendix A  — Enrollm ent data should be changed as show n below:

Reilly

R eilly
H exter
Rice

School Anglo Black M/A Minority Total
Bldg.
Cap.

No. % No. % No. % %
Griener 640 54.7 112 9.6 418 35.7 45.3 1170 1300

124a



Page 110a - Appendix A —
James Bowie School should be added to the list of feeder schools for W. E. 
Griener Middle School.

Page 115a - Appendix A -— Enrollment data should be changed as shown below:

School Anglo Black M/A Minority Total
Bldg.
Cap.

No. % No. % No. % %
Storey 2 .1 2008 98.7 24 1.2 99.9 2032 2000

Page 116a - Appendix A  —
Delete James Bowie School from the list of feeder schools for Boude Storey 
Middle School.

125a



126a

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER 

(Number and Title Omitted)

Filed: Apr. 20, 1976

The Motion of Plaintiffs to Alter or Amend the judg­
ment entered on April 7, 1976, having come on before 
the Court, and the Court being of the opinion that it is 
well taken and should be sustained, it is therefore OR­
DERED that the April 7, 1976, judgment, Section VI, 
subsection 2 on page 67a, be and hereby is amended to 
read as follows:

“2. English-as-a-Second Language (ESL) 
programming shall be expanded as rapidly as 
possible to serve all students who are unable 
to effectively participate in traditional school 
programming due to inability to speak and un­
derstand the English language. Emphasis 
shall be given to expanding ESL pro­
gramming in grades 7-8 and 9-12.”

/s /  W. M. TAYLOR, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT 
JUDGE

4/20/76
Date



SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER CHANGING ATTEN­
DANCE ZONES OF JAMES MADISON HIGH 

SCHOOL AND LINCOLN HIGH SCHOOL

(Number and Title Omitted)

The Court’s desegregation expert, Dr. Josiah C. Hall, 
has called the Court’s attention to a possible error in 
the attendance zones established for James Madison 
High School and Lincoln High School under the 
Court’s April 7, 1976, Final Order resulting in the 
following situation:

(a) Students in grades 9, 10, 11 and 12 residing in 
the Charles Rice Elementary School atten­
dance zone have been assigned under the April 
7, 1976, Final Order to James Madison High 
School but actually reside closer to Lincoln 
High School than James Madison High School 
and will be going past Lincoln High School in 
order to reach James Madison High School, and

(b) Students in grades 9, 10, 11 and 12 residing in 
the Paul L. Dunbar Elementary School atten­
dance zone have been assigned under the April 
7, 1976, Final Order to Lincoln High School but 
actually reside closer to James Madison High 
School than Lincoln High School and will be 
going past James Madison High School in or­
der to reach Lincoln High School.

The Court’s desegregation expert, Dr. Josiah C. Hall, 
has recommended to the Court that the Court correct 
this situation and that:



128a

(a) Students in grades 9, 10, 11 and 12 residing in 
the Charles R ice E lem entary School atten­
dance zone should be assigned  to Lincoln  H igh  
School, and

(b) Students in grades 9, 10, 11 and 12 resid ing in  
the Paul L. Dunbar Elem entary School atten­
dance zone should be assigned to Jam es 
M adison H igh  School.

The Court’s desegregation expert, Dr. Josiah C. H all, 
has advised the Court that these recom m ended  
changes w ill not change the ethnic com position  of 
either Lincoln H igh  School or Jam es M adison H igh  
School as exist under the Court’s A p ril 7, 1976, Final 
Order and such changes w ill create no problem s as to 
building capacity at either Jam es M adison or L incoln  
H igh Schools and that such changes w ill create no ad­
m inistrative problem s for the D allas Independent 
School District.

The Court h avin g  considered such observations and 
recom m endations m ade by Dr. H all is of the opinion  
and so finds that sam e are correct and w ell taken and 
that Dr. H a ll’s recom m ended changes in the atten­
dance zones for Jam es M adison H igh  School and L in ­
coln H igh  School should be m ade. The Court is  a lso  of 
the opinion and so finds that such recom m ended  
changes are not contrary to the intent and spirit of the 
entire student assign m ent plan for all grade levels  
contained in the Court’s A p ril 7 ,1976, Final Order, and 
particularly as sam e pertains to that of high school 
student assign m ents contem plated for grades 9-12.



THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Court’s 
Final Order of April 7, 1976, including Appendix A 
thereto,* be, and the same is hereby, changed, altered 
and amended as follows:

(a) Students in grades 9, 10, 11 and 12 residing in 
the Charles Rice Elementary School atten­
dance zone are assigned to Lincoln High 
School, and

(b) Students in grades 9, 10, 11 and 12 residing in 
the Paul L. Dunbar Elementary School atten­
dance zone are assigned to James Madison 
High School.

DATED August 18th, 1976.

/s /  W. M. TAYLOR, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT 
JUDGE

* For point of reference, the feeder elementary schools for James 
Madison High School appear at p. 98a of Appendix A and the feeder 
elementary schools for Lincoln High School appear at p. 105a of 
Appendix A.



APPENDIX “ C”

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 76-1849

EDDIE MITCHELL TASBY and 
PHILLIP WAYNE TASBY, by their parent and next 

friend, SAM TASBY, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants 

Cross Appellees,

METROPOLITAN BRANCHES OF THE DALLAS
N.A.A.C.P.,

Plaintiffs-Intervenors 
Appellants-Cross Appellees,

versus

DR. NOLAN ESTES, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees 

Cross Appellants.

No. 77-1752

EDDIE MITCHELL TASBY and PHILLIP WAYNE 
TASBY, by their parent and next friend, SAM TASBY,

ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,



METROPOLITAN BRANCHES OF THE DALLAS 
N.A.A.C.P., ET AL„

Plaintiffs-Intervenors,
Appellants,

versus

DR. NOLAN ESTES, ET AL„
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 77-2335

CONCERNED CITIZENS OF GLENVIEW,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DR. NOLAN ESTES, General Superintendent, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 
Northern District of Texas

(April 21, 1978)

Before COLEMAN, TJQFLAT, and FAY, Circuit 
Judges.

TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge:

The Dallas Independent School District (DISD), the 
eighth largest urban school district in the country, has



been the subject of desegregation litigation for over 
twenty years.1 In 1975, a panel of this court remanded 
the case to the district court with instructions that a 
plan be im plem ented that w ould effectively 
desegregate the school system. Tasby v. Estes, 517 
F.2d 92 (5th Cir.), cert, denied, 423 U.S. 939, 96 S.Ct. 299 
(1975). On remand, a new school desegregation plan 
was adopted by the district court. Tasby v. Estes, 412 
F. Supp. 1192 (N.D. Tex. 1976). In these consolidated 
appeals, the NAACP, interveners in the desegregation 
case2, primarily challenge the student assignment 
portion of the district court’s order; this will be re­
ferred to as the main appeal. The NAACP claims that 
the student assignment plan cannot pass constitu­
tional muster because of the large number of one-race 
schools it establishes. The plan divides the DISD into 
six subdistricts, one of which is nearly all black and 
contains only one-race schools.3 In the other five sub­

1 The first action to desegregate the Dallas schools was filed in 
1955. For a discussion of the Fifth Circuit precedents relating to the 
desegregation of the DISD, see Tasby v. Estes, 517 F.2d 92, 95 (5th 
Cir.), cert, denied, 423 U.S. 939 (1975).
2 In 1975, following remand, the NAACP moved to intervene in 
the DISD desegregation case, Tasby v. Estes, stating that it repre­
sented the interests of its members, and its members’ children, in 
the protection of constitutional rights. Record, vol. 1, at 48-51, No. 
76-1849. At the hearing held by the district court on the NAACP’s 
motion, counsel for the NAACP moved to amend the motion to in­
tervene by adding the names of three school children. 13th Supp. 
Record, vol. 7, at 13, No. 76-1849. The DISD continues to contend, as 
it did below, that the NAACP lacks standing to be a party in this 
case. We find the DISD’s contention to be groundless. We consider 
the criteria for intervention in a school desegregation case, as 
established by Hines v. Rapides Parish School Bd., 479 F.2d 762 
(5th Cir. 1973), to have been met and affirm the district court’s order 
granting intervention.
3 This subdistrict has approximately 27,500 students attending 
sixteen schools. For the purpose of this opinion, we define as one- 
race a school that has a student body with approximately 90% or 
more of the students being either Anglo or combined minority 
races. We reiterate the admonition of the prior panel, however, that 
the 90% figure is not a “magic level below which a school [will] no 
longer be categorized as ‘one-race.’ ” 517 F.2d at 104.



districts, containing som e 160 schools, approxim ately  
fifty are still essen tia lly  one-race schools. Tw o other 
m atters concerning the D ISD  are also  before this 
court: the exclusion of the H ighland Park Independent 
School District from  the district court’s desegregation  
plan4 and the acquisition and sale of certain school 
sites by the D ISD .5

I. The M ain A p p eal

A  detailed description of the proceedings in this 
com plex litigation prior to 1975 can be found in the 
opinion of the previous panel, w hich is reported at 517 
F.2d 92 (5th Cir.), cert, denied, 96 S.Ct. 299 (1975). That 
panel disapproved the district court’s 1971 plan w hich  
sought to elim inate the vestiges of a dual school s y s ­
tem  in the D ISD  and remanded the case for the for­
m ulation of a m ore effective student assign m ent plan.

Since 1971, substantial changes have occurred in the 
DISD. The residential patterns of D allas have shifted; 
m any areas are now  naturally integrated. W hat w as

4 This issue arose from the district court’s order in Tasby v. Es­
tes, reported at 412 F. Supp. 1185 (N.D. Tex. 1976), and is part of 
appeal No. 76-1849.
5 Following the implementation of the district court’s desegrega­
tion plan now under review, the district court authorized the DISD 
to acquire a shopping center for conversion into classrooms and 
administrative facilities and to sell a ten-acre parcel of unim­
proved land. 22d Supp. Record, vol. 1, atl.No. 76-1849. The proprie­
ty of this action is raised in appeal No. 77-1752, brought by the 
NAACP. In appeal No. 77-2335, the Concerned Citizens of Glen­
view, a corporation of parents of children who will be assigned to 
the converted shopping center, appeals the dismissal by the dis­
trict court of a separate action that it brought to halt the conver­
sion of the shopping center.



form erly a m ajority  A n g lo  system  has becom e a 
predom inantly m inority one, although the p op u la­
tion of the city of D allas rem ains m ajority  A n g lo .6 A s  
the district court recognized in fashioning the plan  
now  before us, there m ay be special considerations in ­
volved in devisin g  a school desegregation plan in an 
urban area w ith a predom inantly m inority enrollm ent 
that m ay ju stify  the m aintenance of som e one-race  
schools. 412 F. Supp. at 1195-1199. See Calhoun v. 
Cook, 522 F.2d 717 (5th Cir.), rehearing denied, 525 F.2d 
1203 (5th Cir, 1975) (d iscu ssin g  sim ilar developm ents  
in A tlanta, G eorgia).

In d evising its plan, the district court considered  
num erous proposals to desegregate the school s y s ­
tem. Plans were subm itted by the original plaintiffs; 
the N A A C P ; the D ISD ; Dr. Joseph A . H all, a court- 
appointed expert; and the Education Task Force of the 
D allas A llian ce, a triethnic group and am icus curiae 
in this suit.7 A fter developing a volum in ous record  
and holding hearings for over a m onth on the feasib ili­
ty and effectiveness of these p roposals, the district 
judge drew a com prehensive plan dealing, inter alia, 
with special program s, transportation, discipline, 
facilities, personnel, and an accountability system , as 
w ell as student assign m ents. 412 F. Supp. at 1195, 
1212-21. W e find it necessary to remand again the stu­
dent assignm ent portion of the plan for further con­
sideration, On remand, the district court should recon­

6 In 1971, the DISD was 69% Anglo: in 1975, it was 41.1% Anglo, 
44.5% black, 13.4% Mexican-American, and 1% “ other” races.
7 Plans were also submitted by a group of students at Skyline 
High School, the Alliance for Integrated Education, and “a num­
ber of groups and concerned parents.” 412 F. Supp. at 1194 n. 4.



sider the other provisions of its plan in the light of the 
relief it ultimately orders.8

The order under review calls for the creation of six 
subdistricts, generally reflecting the geographical 
sections of the DISD, for student assignment pur­
poses. Four of these subdistricts, Southwest, 
Northwest, Northeast, and Southeast, have ap­
proximately the racial makeup, plus or minus five 
percent, of the DISD as a whole. The other two sub­
districts each contain a predominant ethnic group. 
Seagoville, geographically isolated from the rest of 
the DISD, has an approximately eighty-two percent 
Anglo enrollment and is the only predominantly 
Anglo subdistrict. East Oak Cliff, bounded by the 
Trinity River bottom on one side and by Interstate 35 
on the other, is approximately ninety-eight percent 
black.

The district court order provides for uniform grade 
configurations throughout the DISD: kindergarten 
through third grades (K-3) Early Childhood Education 
Centers, fourth through sixth grades (4-6) Inter­
mediate Schools, seventh and eighth grades (7-8) Mid­
dle Schools, and ninth through twelfth grades (9-12)

8 The DISD has taken a rather unique position in this appeal. It 
supports the present plan in to to, but seeks to have the adminis­
trative portions of the plan vacated if the student assignment por­
tion is not upheld. The Curry intervenors, who have represented a 
group of residents in a northern section of the DISD since 1971, 
claim that the district court erred in ordering a strict 44% Anglo, 
44% black, 12% Mexican-American ratio for all future DISD top 
administrative posts. Because we wish to grant the district court 
enough latitude on remand to devise a plan that will be workable, 
we are not binding it to the present non - student- assignment por­
tions of its order.



138a

H igh Sch ools.9 W herever possib le , present student 
assignm ents are retained in “naturally  integrated” 
areas. Students in the K -3  E arly  Childhood Education  
Centers rem ain in their neighborhood sch o o ls .10 In the 
areas that are not naturally  integrated, students in 
grades 4-8, the Interm ediate and M iddle Schools, are 
assigned to centrally located schools. H igh  school 
s t u d e n t s  a r e  a s s i g n e d  to th e ir  tra d i t io n a l  
neighborhood schools.

V arious program s to increase the desegregation of 
the D IS D ’s schools are to be im plem ented. M ajority  - 
to-m inority transfers are perm itted at all grade 
lev e ls .11 Present m agnet high schools and m agnet

9 Although the order specifies these grade configurations, the 
DISD’s facilities combine K-6 in most elementary schools.
10 Two exceptions were made by the district court in order to con­
vert elementary school facilities to magnet school use. Emphasis 
is placed on improving the quality of early education in these Ear­
ly Childhood Education Centers.
11 Under this provision, any student assigned to a grade con­
figuration in a particular school

in which the percentage of members of his race is greater 
than the District-widB percentage of members of his race 
for [that grade configuration] shall be permitted to trans­
fer to any . . . school in the School District containing his 
grade level in which the percentage of members of his race 
is less than the District-wide percentage of his race for 
[that grade configuration],

412 F. Supp. at 1217. Mexican-Americans, however, are permitted 
the option of minority-to-majority transfers if they comprise less 
than five percent of the school to which they are originally as­
signed. This provision was made to afford them the opportunity to 
transfer to a school that offers the DISD’s Bilingual Education 
Program. 412 F. Supp. at 1218.



comprehensive high schools12 are to be maintained 
and new ones are to be established. The goal is the in­
stitution of magnet 9-12 schools throughout the DISD. 
412 F. Supp. at 1205.

The DISD acknowledges that the creation of the all 
black East Oak Cliff subdistrict and the existence of a 
substantial number of one-race schools militate 
against the finding of a unitary school system. It con­
tends, however, that this is the only feasible plan in 
light of natural boundaries and “white flight.” The dis­
trict court was instructed in the opinion of the prior 
panel to consider the techniques for desegregation ap­
proved by the Supreme Court in Swann v. Charlotte- 
Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 91 S.Ct. 
1267 (1971). We cannot properly review any student 
assignment plan that leaves many schools in a sys­
tem one race without specific findings by the district 
court as to the feasibility of these techniques. Davis v. 
East Baton Rouge Parish School Board, No. 75-3610 
(5th Cir. April 7, 1978). There are no adequate time- 
and-distance studies in the record in this case. Conse­
quently, we have no means of determining whether the 
natural boundaries and traffic considerations 
preclude either the pairing and clustering of schools 
or the use of transportation to eliminate the large 
number of one-race schools still existing. See Mims v.

12 The magnet concept is designed to attract students to a school 
because of the special career, vocational, or other programs it 
offers. Magnet schools proposed by the DISD will provide inten­
s i ve  t r a i n i ng  in a number  of f ields,  inc luding 
mathematics/ science, child-related careers, creative arts, busi­
ness and management, and health professions. The number of 
black, Mexican-American, and Anglo students in each magnet 
comprehensive high school was ordered to be in proportion, plus 
or minus 10%, to the percentage of each group in the 9-12 student 
population in the DISD. 412 F. Supp. at 1215-16.



Duval County School Board, 329 F. Supp. 123, 133-34 
(M.D. Fla. 1971).

Of particular concern are the high schools that are 
one race. Although students in the 4-8 grade con­
figurations are transported within each subdistrict to 
centrally located schools to effect desegregation, the 
district court’s order leaves high school students in 
the neighborhood schools. Within three of the four 
integrated subdistricts13, this results in high schools 
that are still one-race schools.14 The district court is 
again directed to evaluate the feasibility of adopting 
the Swann desegregation tools for these schools and to 
reevaluate the effectiveness of the magnet school con­
cept.15 If the district court determines that the utiliza­
tion of pairing, clustering, or the other desegregation 
tools is not practicable in the DISD, then the district 
court must make specific findings to that effect.

The district court’s current desegregation plan re­
quires the DISD to provide transportation for students 
who are reassigned to a new attendance zone or who 
choose to attend a magnet school. 412 F. Supp. at 1218. 
A similar provision was not made for those students 
who choose the majority-to-minority transfer option.
13 This excludes East Oak Cliff, the black subdistrict, and 
Seagoville, the one predominantly Anglo subdistrict.
14 In the Northwest subdistrict, one high school is 95% minority 
and two high schools are 96% Anglo. In the Northeast subdistrict, 
one high school is 99.8% minority and one is 95% Anglo. In the 
Southeast subdistrict, one school is 100% minority and one is 89% 
Anglo.
15 The NAACP’s brief cites a statement to the press by Dr. Nolan 
Estes, superintendent of the DISD, that the magnet school concept 
has not been effective in desegregating the school system in 
Dallas. Brief for Intervenors-Appellants, No. 77-1752, at 7.



This omission was error by the district court. The 
school board, not the students or their parents, must 
assume the burden of transporting the students. 
Swann, 402 U.S. at 26-27, 91 S. Ct. at 1281. On remand, 
the district court is directed to include the majority-to- 
minority transfer option in the transportation provi­
sion of the plan finally adopted.

II. The Highland Park Independent School District

After the prior panel remanded this case to the dis­
trict court, the plaintiffs joined seven independent 
suburban school districts in the Dallas area as defen­
dants.16 The plaintiffs alleged that these school dis­
tricts retained vestiges of dual school systems and 
that they joined with the DISD in utilizing a student 
transfer procedure that aided the DISD in maintaining 
segregated schools. On the basis of this allegedly un­
lawful procedure, the plaintiffs sought to have the 
suburban school districts included in the DISD 
desegregation plan.

The plaintiffs moved for the voluntary dismissal of 
all but one of the suburban school districts, and the 
district court dismissed them without prejudice. The 
remaining school district, Highland Park Indepen­
dent School District, was dismissed with prejudice by 
the district court after an evidentiary hearing. Tasby 
v. Estes, 412 F. Supp. 1185 (N.D. Tex. 1975).

The Highland Park Independent School District was 
created in 1914. It generally serves as the school dis­

16 These school districts were Carrollton-Farmers Branch, 
DeSoto, Duncanville, Highland Park, Irving, Lancaster, and 
Wilmer-Hutchins Independent School Districts.



140a

trict for the cities of Highland Park and University 
Park, although its boundaries are not coterminous 
with those of the cities. At the time of its inception, the 
Highland Park school system was outside the city 
limits of Dallas; now, the city of Dallas completely 
surrounds Highland Park and University Park. The 
school system is comprised of six schools,17 and the 
current enrollment has stabilized at approximately 
4,600 students, all of whom are Anglo. The DISD has 
approximately thirty times more students than the 
Highland Park system.

Prior to 195818, the Highland Park System con­
formed with Texas law and segregated school chil­
dren by race. In order to accomplish this, the few black 
school children residing within the school district 
were transported to the DISD, with their tuition being 
paid by the Highland Park school system.19 Some 
Anglo students were allowed to transfer into the 
Highland Park system until 1971, primarily because 
either they resided in the cities of Highland Park or 
University Park or they had moved out of the school 
district and were being allowed to continue their 
education in the system. 412 F. Supp. at 1190-91.

17 There are four elementary schools, one middle school, and one 
high school in the Highland Park school system.
18 Even after the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Bd. of 
Education, 349 U.S. 294 (1955), Texas laws required segregation. 
The penalties for violating the statutes included loss of funding 
and accreditation. 412 F. Supp. at 1189.
19 The figures show that the greatest number of black students 
for whom tuition was paid by the Highland Park school system 
during any academic year was eleven. 412 F. Supp. at 1190.



The district court found that the Highland Park In­
dependent School District has not maintained a policy 
of school segregation since 1958. This finding is sup­
ported by the record and, as it is not clearly erroneous, 
is accepted by this court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a). Given 
this twenty year history of nondiscrimination and the 
negligible effect that the system’s prior policy of 
segregation had on the DISD or its own system, we 
find that the district court did not err in refusing to in­
clude the Highland Park Independent School District 
In the student assignment plan for the DISD. See 
Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman, 97 S.Ct. 2766, 
2775-76 (1977); Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717(1974).

III. The Acquisition and Sale of School Sites.

On October 11, 1976, following the implementation 
of the district court’s plan to desegregate DISD, the 
Board of Education of the DISD20 unanimously resolv­
ed that an election be called to authorize the Board to 
issue $80,000,000 in bonds for school site acquisitions, 
construction, and equipment. The bond issue passed 
overwhelmingly in all subdistricts on December 11, 
1976.

The prior panel had directed the district court

to evaluate all of the site acquisition, school 
construction and facility abandonment plans 
put forward by the DISD in light of the impact 
which these undertakings will have upon the 
disestablishment of the dual school system.

20 This body was composed of six Anglos, two blacks, and one 
Mexican-American.



Only those projects which will foster the de­
segregation process should be approved by 
the district court and such approval should be 
given only after full hearing and after the 
making of findings of fact and conclusions of 
law regarding each such project.

517 F.2d at 110. The DISD submitted forty-two plans, 
including thirty-two site acquisitions and construc­
tions and ten abandonments, to the district court on 
February 17,1977, and a hearing was held on February 
24. On March 2, the district court approved each of the 
plans. In appeal No. 77-1752 the NAACP questions the 
district court’s approval of two of these plans: the ac­
quisition of the A. Harris Shopping Center for conver­
sion into a school21 and the sale of one parcel of unim­
proved land. The shopping center and the land in ques­
tion are both located in the East Oak Cliff subdistrict.

The A. Harris Shopping Center site occupies 
twenty-eight acres of land, divided into two tracts by a 
street. There are 305,000 square feet of existing build­
ing space on the eighteen acre tract. The site was pur­
chased by the DISD for approximately $1,800,000, an 
amount far below what it would cost the DISD to 
purchase twenty-eight acres and build comparable 
floor space.22 The DISD proposed an initial outlay of 
$500,000 for renovation, of the existing structures, with 
an additional $1,000,000 to be spent over the next five 
years. 2d Supp. Record, vol. 1, at 29, 167, No. 77-1752.

21 The NAACP filed a motion to stay the conversion of the shop­
ping center, which the district court denied on April 5, 1977. The 
NAACP then filed a motion to stay with this court, which was car­
ried with the case. In accordance with our determination of the 
merits of this issue, that motion is denied.
22 Testimony in the record indicates that it would cost more than 
$30.00 a square foot to construct this amount of building space. 2d 
Supp. Record, vol. 1, at 28-29, No. 77-1752.

142a



The DISD’s plans for the shopping center complex 
include a K-12 school23, facilities to provide a number 
of education services24, and facilities to provide social 
services25. There will also be traditional grade levels 
K-3, 4-6, 7-8, and 9-12. These different educational 
operations will be conducted as distinct facilities with 
separate administrations, teaching staffs, and phy­
sical education programs. The DISD anticipates that 
it will ultimately assign approximately 2,400 students 
to the traditional K-12 school units.

The crux of the NAACP’s argument about the shop­
ping center site is that its location in East Oak Cliff, 
with an attendance zone that encompasses only East 
Oak Cliff schools, perpetuates school segregation in 
Dallas. Virtually all of the students to be assigned to 
the new school will be black. The NAACP also raises 
questions concerning the combination of programs to 
be implemented in the shopping center site. One of the 
programs is to be a “metropolitan” school, an alter­
native school for “ troubled” students, i.e., those 
students who experience difficulty in the more tradi­
tional school setting. A lso raised as grounds for not

23 This K-12 school is to be developed as a career education 
program under a $600,000 grant. The district court ordered the 
DISD to implement this program “ as rapidly as possible.” 412 
F. Supp. at 1216.
24 These educational services are to include a pre-school, a con­
tinuing education program (evening), a personnel development 
center, a gifted and talented program, a fine arts center, a recrea­
tional center (day and evening), an extended day program, alter­
native schools for troubled students, a vocational/ industrial arts 
program, pupil personnel services or special education, and in­
structional services.
25 These social services are to incl ude a senior citizens program, 
a health services agency, family services, a parent education 
program, and employment agencies.



converting the shopping center to educational use are 
the traffic problem because of its location near two 
freeways and the inferiority of the facilities.86

We defer to the DISD’s expertise in establishing 
suitable programs for the school children of Dallas. 
The long-range plans for the shopping center site in­
clude many valuable facets for the education of the 
community. The DISD has stated that the programs 
will be separated, the existing structures will be 
renovated, and unoccupied space will be converted to 
traditional recreational and playground space 
suitable for the various grade-level school units. We 
are remanding this case to the district court for fur­
ther consideration of its student assignment plan; on 
remand, the district court is directed to consider 
assigning Anglo students to the new complex. As the 
DISD notes, the shopping center site is easily accessi­
ble to the entire city. 2d Supp. Record, vol. 1, at 30, No. 
77-1752. Time-and-distance studies should emphasize 
the feasibility of transporting Anglo students to at­
tend school there.

The unimproved land in question is located on the 
southern edge of East Oak Cliff, some twenty-five 
miles from the northern edge of the DISD. It is 
therefore isolated from the remaining Anglo students 
who do not reside in naturally integrated areas: The 
record also reflects that the site has poor access poten­
tial. Given these facts in the record, we find no error in 
the district court’s approval of the sale of this land.

26 No playgrounds were available and the existing structure was 
allegedly dilapidated and structurally deficient.



145a

The Concerned Citizens of Glenview, a corporation 
of parents of school children who will be assigned to 
the shopping center complex under the present stu­
dent assignment plan, brought a separate action to en­
join construction and renovation of the A. Harris 
Shopping Center. On May 18, 1077, the district court 
held a hearing on the Concerned Citizens’ request for 
injunctive relief. At that hearing, the district judge 
ruled that this case should be dismissed on the basis of 
the doctrine of virtual representation, i.e., Concerned 
Citizens was in effect represented by the NAACP 
when the issue was presented in the Tasby case. The 
Concerned Citizens claims on appeal that the focus of 
its suit, that the shopping center facility will be in­
ferior thereby denying the students equal protection 
of the laws, is different from that of the NAACP, that 
the use of the shopping center will perpetuate a dual 
school system.

We have considered the adequacy of the proposed 
shopping center facility in connection with the 
NAACP’s appeal. Our disposition in that case renders 
moot the appeal of the Concerned Citizens of Glen­
view.

IV. Conclusion

In No. 76-1849, we REMAND the case to the district 
court for the|ormulatio^
plan and for findings t o j u ^ ^ ^ m a ^ ^ m M e o f  any 
one-race schools that may be a part of that plan. The 
district court is directed to include in its plan a 
majority-to-minority transfer option with adequate 
transportation. As for the remaining provisions of its



order here under review, the district court is to 
reassess such provisions in light of the remedy it 
fashions with respect to school assignments. The dis­
trict court’s exclusion of the Highland Park Indepen­
dent School District from its desegregation plan for 
the DISD is AFFIRMED.

In No. 77-1752, the district court’s approval of the 
sale of the ten-acre parcel of land in East Oak Cliff and 
the acquisition of the A. Harris Shopping Center is 
AFFIRMED, with the proviso that the district court 
consider the feasibility of desegregating the new com ­
plex. The appeal in No. 77-2335 is DISMISSED as 
moot.

146a

APPENDIX “D”

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FIFTH CIRCUIT

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

May 22, 1978

TO ALL PARTIES LISTED BELOW:

NO. 76-1849 — EDDIE MITCHELL TASBY, ET AL. v.
METROPOLITAN BRANCHES OF 
THE DALLAS NAACP v. DR. NOLAN 
ESTES, ET AL.



147a

Dear Counsel:

This is to advise that an order has this day been 
entered denying the petition(s) for rehearing, on 
behalf of appellees, and no member of the panel nor 
Judge in regular active service on the Court having re­
quested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc 
(Rule 35, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure: Local 

H Fifth Circuit Rule 12) the petition for rehearing en 
banc has also been denied.

See Rule 41, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure for 
issuance and stay of the mandate.

Very truly yours,
EDWARD W. WADSWORTH, 
Clerk

/si BRENDA M. HAUCK 
Deputy Clerk

bmh

^  cc: Mr. Edward B. Cloutman
Ms. Sylvia M. Demarest 
Mr. E. Brice Cunningham 
Mr. Warren Whitham 
Mr. Mark Martin 
Mr. James W. Deatherage 
Mr. Richard E. Gray 
Messrs, Robert H. Mow

Robert L. Blumenthal 
Mr. James A. Donohoe 
Messrs. H. Ron White 

Walter L. Irvin 
Daniel Solis



148a

APPENDIX “E”

IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 76-1849

EDDIE MITCHELL TASBY, ET AL„
Plaintiffs-Appellants 

Cross Appellees,

METROPOLITAN BRANCHES OF THE DALLAS
N.A.A.C.P.,

Plaintiffs-Intervenors 
Appellants-Cross Appellees,

versus

DR. NOLAN ESTES, ET AL„
Defendants-Appellees 

Cross Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 
Northern District of Texas

MOTION FOR STAY OF MANDATE 
(The Dallas Independent School District)



The Defendants-Appellees and Cross Appellants, 
the Board of Trustees of the Dallas Independent
School District and its General Superintendent, move 
the Court to stay the mandate in this action and not 
permit the same to be issued out of said cause until the 
further order of the Court on the ground and for the 
reason that they expect and intend, in good faith, 
within the time allowed by law, to apply to the 
Supreme Court of the United States of America by 
petition for a review on Writ of Certiorari of the deci­
sion and judgment of this Court of April 21,1978, inNo. 
76-1849 insofar as this Court has remanded the case to 
the District Court for the formulation of a new student 
assignment plan for the Dallas Independent School 
District and for findings to justify the maintenance of 
any one-race schools that may be a part of that plan.

WHEREFORE, the Defendants-Appellees and Cross 
Appellants, the Board of Trustees of the Dallas In­
dependent School District and its General Superinten­
dent, pray that this Court make and enter an ap­
propriate order staying the issuance of the mandate in 
this action insofar as this Court has remanded the case 
to the District Court for the formulation of a new stu­
dent assignment plan for the Dallas Independent 
School District and for findings to justify the 
maintenance of any one-race schools that may be a 
part of that plan until the further order of the Court.

Respectfully submitted,
/s /  WARREN WHITHA.M 

Warren Whitham 
210 Adolphus Tower 
Dallas, Texas 75202 
214/748-9657



150a

Mark Martin 
1200 One Main Place 
Dallas, Texas 75250 
214/658-1500
Attorneys for Defendants- 
Appellees and Cross Appellants

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A  copy of the foregoing Motion for Stay of Mandate 
has been mailed this 24th day of May, 1978, by the 
undersigned attorneys for Defendants-Appellees and 
Cross Appellants (Dallas Independent School Dis­
trict) to the following attorneys of record:

Mr. Edward B. Cloutman, III 
8204 Elmbrook Drive, Suite 200 
P.O. Box 47972 
Dallas, Texas 75247 
Mr. Thomas E, Ashton, III 
Dallas Legal Services 

Foundation, Inc.
912 Commerce Street, Room 202 
Dallas, Texas 75202 
Mr. E. Brice Cunningham 
2606 Forest Avenue, Suite 202 
Dallas, Texas 75215 
Mr. Nathaniel R. Jones 
1790 Broadway, 10th Floor 
New York, New York 10019 
Mr. Robert H. Mow, Jr.
Mr. Robert L. Blumenthal 
3000 One Main Place 
Dallas, Texas 75250
Mr, James A. Donohoe 
1700 Republic National Bank 

Building
Dallas, Texas 75201

Ms. Vilma S, Martinez 
Mexican-American Legal Defense 

and Educational Fund 
28 Geary Street
San Francisco, California 94108 
Mr. Lee Holt,
City Attorney
New City Hall
Dallas, Texas 75201
Mr. Martin Frost
3131 Turtle Creek Boulevard
Suite 222
Dallas, Texas 75219
Mr. John Bryant
8035 East R. L. Thornton
Dallas, Texas 75228
Mr. H. Ron White
1907 Elm Street, Suite 2100
Dallas, Texas 75201
Mr. James G. Vetter, Jr.
555 Griffin Square Building 
Suite 920
Dallas, Texas 75202



151a

and to the following intervenor pro se:

Mr. James T. Maxwell 
4440 Sigma Road, Suite 112 
Dallas, Texas 75240

/s /  WARREN WHITHAM 
Warren Whitham

Mark Martin
Attorneys for Defendants- 
Appellees and Cross Appellants

%



APPENDIX “F”

SU M M A R Y EXAMPLES OF NON-STUDENT 
ASSIGNMENT REQUIREMENTS INCLUDED IN 
THE DISTRICT COURT’S APRIL 7, 1976, FINAL 
ORDER

1. The requirement to provide a comprehensive 
program of instruction in all areas based on the 
developmental needs of young children and the 
DISD’s Baseline Curriculum Program.

2. The requirement that this K-3 approach shall be 
primarily diagnostic-prescriptive.

3. The requirement that the approach in the 
Baseline Curriculum implementation for K-3 include:

(a) Individualization of instruction.

(b) Principal and staff planning for im­
plementing the program in each school in con­
junction with parent advisory committees at 
each school.

(c) Reduction of the adult-pupil ratio from 
that which exists with an adult-student ratio 
of 1-10 as a goal to be achieved as rapidly as 
possible.

(d) Continuation of a staff development 
program to implement the DISD Baseline 
Curriculum to meet early childhood education



needs and further individualization of instruc­
tion with involvement of parents in par­
ticipating roles.

(e) Partnerships with community groups, 
business and other agencies which serve 
young children.

(f) Efforts to maximize parental involve­
ment in planning, reinforcing and com­
plementing their children’s learning.

(g) Use of the Early Childhood Education 
Centers as Administrative units which have a 
primary responsibility for delivering quality 
learning experiences.

4. The requirement to establish in 1976-77 at least 
two exemplary development and demonstration 
classes for children in the East Oak Cliff Subdistrict.

5. The requirement to continue to develop 
prototypic enrichment programs for K-3 students.

6. The requirement that the instructional program 
in 4-6 and 7-8 centers follow the DISD’s Baseline 
Curriculum.

7. The requirement that each principal and his 
staff in the 4-6 and 7-8 centers develop in conjunction 
with parent advisory committees’ plans for the im­
plementation of the Baseline Curriculum in his 
school.

153a



8. The requirement that new campuses and 
facilities provided for in Paragraph XIII have 
programs which include extracurricular activities 
and full participation in Interscholastic League ac­
tivities.

9. The requirement that the DISD shall continue to 
implement its career education plan, for grades 1-12 as 
rapidly as possible.

10. The requirement that the present bilingual 
program be expanded as rapidly as possible, to all 
pupils in grades K-6.

11. The requirement that the English-as-a-Second 
Language program be expanded as rapidly as possi­
ble to serve all students who are unable to effectively 
participate in traditional school programming due to 
inability to speak and understand the English 
language with emphasis to expand this programming 
in grades 7-8 and 9-12.

12. The requirement that the DISD provide mul­
ticultural social studies educational programs in all 
grade levels.

13. The requirement that the Plan A Program (a 
State special education program) now provided by the 
DISD be administered according to the State Board of 
Education Plan and Guidelines.

14. The requirement that students who require 
special instructional techniques and arrangements by 
reasons of handicapping conditions be served by the

154a



DISD’s special educational program, consistent with 
the State Board of Education Plan and Guidelines.

15. The requirement that the DISD in concert with 
teachers, principals and parents develop a clear and 
simply-stated policy on student discipline including 
provision for due process procedures and that all 
parents and students be fully advised of these rules 
and regulations.

16. The requirement that the DISD develop 
recruiting and employment policies to insure that 
competent personnel are employed.

17. The requirement that by 1979-80 the percen­
tages of Black and Mexican-American personnel ap­
proximate as a minimum 31% Black and 8% Mexican- 
American as to teachers, principals and other cer­
tified professional personnel excluding the 142 top 
salaried administrators mentioned below.

18. The requirement as to the 142 top salaried ad­
ministrative positions that by September 1, 1979, the 
following ethnic percentages be achieved, to-wit: 44% 
Anglo, 44% Black and 12% Mexican-American, with 
the further requirement that one-third of this transi­
tion be achieved by September 1, 1977, one-third by 
September 1, 1978, and the final one-third by 
September 1, 1979. (A variance of 5% in the percen­
tages is permitted.)

19. The requirement with respect to these 142 
positions that at all times after September 1,1979, the 
Anglo/Black percentages remain equal except that



both will decrease if the percentage of the Mexican- 
American enrollment increases above 12%.

20. The requirement that the competence of per­
sonnel be continually assessed in accordance with 
policies and procedures established by the DISD.

21. The requirement that in depth training of 
teachers, principals and administrators be provided 
as needed to implement the Court’s Order and that 
attendance of such personnel be required.

22. With respect to the internal accountability 
system and auditor, the implied requirement of an af­
firmative action program in recruiting and employ­
ment.

23. With respect to the internal accountability 
system and auditor, the implied requirement to give 
standardized achievement tests to students.

24. With respect to the internal accountability 
system and auditor, the implied requirement to have 
(a) parent involvement efforts, (b) staff development 
programs, (c) communications and community 
relations programs, (d) student leadership training 
programs, and (e) safety and security (including due 
process procedures programs).

25. The requirement for an external educational 
audit of DISD.

26. With respect to the external educational audit, 
the implied requirement that educational offerings

158a



and course offerings in the DISD are subject to the Dis­
trict Court’s study, examination and approval.

27. With respect to the external educational audit, 
the implied requirement that parents and community 
be encouraged to participate in the educational 
process on the 9-12 level.

28. To the extent that the external educational audit 
deals with the operation and management of business 
and affairs of the DISD and the education, curriculum 
and program aspects of the DISD, then with respect to 
the external educational audit, the implied require­
ment that hearings can be had and. action taken by the 
Court with respect to these matters.



#

...