Estes v. Dallas NAACP Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Public Court Documents
August 11, 1978

Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Estes v. Dallas NAACP Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1978. 4b2ddc29-b19a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/f499717b-9035-400f-8afe-e27a9c3e3ca6/estes-v-dallas-naacp-petition-for-writ-of-certiorari-to-the-united-states-court-of-appeals-for-the-fifth-circuit. Accessed May 17, 2025.
Copied!
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. # ...