1 20 57 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/9ba00d1b26f74716024886cf5b567764.pdf c56d3349d30da4e32444bc91dcd7571a PDF Text Text lmn.r i o r apim'.. Ji hes United States Court of Appeals FOR TH E FOURTH CIRCUIT — No. 71-1791 JO H N K. HART, it a i. . , A ppellants, v. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ARL1NCTON COUNTY, r r a i. . , Appalled. Appeal from the f Initcd States District Court for the Pastern District of Virginia at Alexandria J a mk s H. Si m m o n d k G r e g o r y FI. E v a n s 1500 North Courtlinu.sc Ktl. Arlington, Virginia R. D. Mo Il w a i n u , III P.O. Box 705 Petersburg, Virginia Counsel for Appelln t �TABLE OF CONTENTS Page .. 1 . I s s u e P r e s e n t e d f o r R e v ie w S t a t e m e n t o f t h e C a s e ......................................................... 1 S t a t e m e n t o f t h e F a c t s ................................................................... 3 Ar g u m e n t The Desegregation Plan Adopted And Put Into Effect By The Arlington County School Board Is Constitutionally Valid. ....... C o n c l u s io n ............................ _ ...................... C e r t i f i c a t e ................................... 7 26 28 TABLE O F CASES Adams v. School District No. 5, 444 F.2d 99 (4th Cir., 1971) cert, denied 404 U.S. 912 (1971) ......._.4, 8, 9, 10, 12, 19, 22, 23, 26 Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19 8 (1969) ............. Allen v. Asheville City Board of Education, 434 F.2d 902 (4th Cir., 1970) .............................. .................... ........................... 17, 19, 20, 25 Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond, 325 F. Supp. 828 (E.D. Va., 1971) ....... 25 Brice v. Landis, 314 F. Sup. 974 (N.D. Cal., 1969) ............ 14, 20, 22 ............... 8 Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294 (1955) .................... Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) 8 Chambers v. Iredell County Board of Education, 423 F.2d 613 (4th Cir., 1970) ....... 16, 19, 25 Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, et al., 402 U.S. 33 (1971) .......................................4, 8, 9, 10, 12, 19, 22 �Page Felder v. H arnett County Board of Education, 409 F.2d 1070 (4th Cir., 1969) ................................................. Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430 (1968) ................................. _........................ 8, 27 Green v. School Board of City of Roanoke, 316 F.Supp. 6 (W.D. Va. 1970) __________ ____________________________ ______ 21 Haney v. County Board of Education of Sevier County, 429 F.2d 364 (8th Cir., 1970) ____________ _______________________ 21 Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, 448 F.2d 746 (5th Cir., 1971) ...............— ......... - ------- ----- ---------- 21 Mims v. Duval County School Board, 329 F. Supp. 123 (M.D. Fla., 1971) ....................... .................... 23, 24 Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1 (1971) ....... 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 12, 19, 22, 27 Walton v. Nashville, Arkansas, Special School District No. 1, 401 F.2d 137 (8th Cir., 1969) ............................................................ 26 Wanner v. County School Board of Arlington County, 357 F.2d 452 (4th Cir., 1966) ................... - .............................. .......... 16 United States Court of Appeals 12,19, 22 FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 71-1791 JOHN K. HART, et al ., Appellants, v. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ARLINGTON COUNTY, e t a l ., Appellees. Appeal from the United States District C ourt for the Eastern District of Virginia a t Alexandria BRIEF FO R APPELLEES ISSUE PRESENTED FO R REVIEW The sole issue presented for review in this case is whether or not the desegregation plan adopted by the Arlington County School Board and put into effect in September, 1971, is constitutionally valid. STATEM ENT OF T H E CASE On May 6, 1970, plaintiffs initiated this action to complete the elimination of racial segregation in the public schools of Arlington County (App. 5) .* An answer on behalf 1 All references App. are to pages in the printed appendix. �2 of the County School Board of Arlington County and the Division Superintendent of Schools of Arlington County was timely filed (App. 8-9), and discovery procedures in volving interrogatories to defendants and requests for the production of documents were thereafter initiated by the plaintiffs (App. 1). On March 5, 1971, a pre-trial conference was held, at which time a hearing on the merits was scheduled for July 26, 1971 (R. 70).2 The hearing in this case was deliberately postponed by the District Court to await the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1, and its companion cases (App. 10). On June 28, 1971, the Arlington County School Board adopted and filed in the District Court its plan for the estab lishment of a unitary school system throughout the county, which plan was to be put into effect in September, 1971 (App. 19-28). On the morning of the hearing, plaintiffs amended their complaint to state their objections to the plan (App. 6-7, 11), which objections were subsequently overruled and the school board’s plan approved by the Dis trict Court in its memorandum opinion and order of August 10, 1971 (App. 10-15). See, 329 F. Supp. 953. On August 12, 1971, plaintiffs filed in the District Court their notice of appeal (R. 67) and on August 20, 1971 also filed an application for injunction pending appeal which was denied by the District Court the same day. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed a similar application in this Court, which application was denied on September 3, 1971. See, Record in No. 71-1792 (4 Cir., 1971). A further such application was presented to the Chief Justice of the United States, as Circuit Justice for the Fourth Circuit, and denied by him on September 4, 1971. See, No.A-262, 1971 Term. 2 All references R. are to pages in the record. 3 STA TEM EN T OF T H E FACTS The Arlington County School Division embraces the en tire county of Arlington and has an area of 25.7 square miles. It is less than one-half the size of the City of Rich mond which has an area of 63 square miles, and less than one-tenth the size of the adjacent county of Fairfax which has an area of 402 square miles (App. 41). For the school year 1971-72, the total elementary school population of the Division was estimated to be 11,233 stu dents, of which number 9,983 were white and 1,250 were Negro. Thus the racial ratio in the elementary schools was 89% white and 11% black (App. 15, 22), which ratio is substantially identical to that for the preceding years. See, Answers to Interrogatories (R. 19). At the beginning of the 1969-70 school year, the high schools and junior high schools of the county had been de segregated, while the elementary schools were being operated on the basis of geographic attendance zones established for each school. Under this arrangement, two of the twentynine elementary schools in the system—Drew and HoffmanBoston—were attended solely by Negro students, as the geographical boundaries of those schools encompassed allNegro residential areas, while eleven of the twenty-nine were attended by all, or virtually all, white students (App. 15, 35, 42). The Hoffman-Boston school also housed seventh grade students, of which some 70% were white students bussed in from other districts in the county (App. 42). On December 18, 1969, the school board adopted a resolution directing the Division Superintendent and his staff to prepare a staff study of the various alternatives available for desegregating the Drew Elementary School (App. 29-30). This resolution suggested consultation with appropriate federal agencies, a step which had already been taken by the Division Superin- �4 5 tendent who (1) had discussed the matter generally with representatives of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) earlier in the month (2) had caused data requested by HEW to be compiled by his staff and sub mitted and (3) was awaiting return of specific suggestions from HEW for consideration by his staff and the school board (App. 43). In the interim, the Division Superintend ent directed his research department to begin its own study of the problem in line with the school board’s resolution (App. 43). No response was ever received from HEW, and shortly after the research department had assembled its own data and begun a consideration of alternatives, the instant suit was filed (App. 44). Thereafter, the school board was ad vised of the pendency of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg litiga tion which would in all probability shed light on the prob lem the board was considering, and the board decided to await the outcome of that litigation before determining the method of desegregating Drew Elementary School (App. 44). No attempt was made by the plaintiffs to seek a hear ing of this matter for the 1970-71 school year. On April 20, 1971, the Swann case was decided. There after the school board and its staff returned to a consider ation of the Drew school situation, but this time did so in the larger context of establishing a unitary school system throughout the county in compliance with Swann (App. 44). On June 10, 1971, while these deliberations were going on, this Court decided a series of cases under the style of Adams v. School District No. 5, Orangeburg Co., S.C., 444 F.2d 99, specifically emphasizing for district courts and school boards various aspects of Swann and Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 401 U.S. 33. Some two weeks after Adams, the school board adopted and filed in the District Court its plan for the operation of a unitary system in Arlington County (App. 19). As stated by the Division Superintendent, the purposes of the school board’s plan were “first of all, primarily to elimi nate all vestiges of a dual system, to move to establish a true unitary system throughout the county, to provide and to establish racial balanced schools, and I think, then, to get on with the primary purpose of the school system which is the education of young people.” (App. 40). These objec tives would be accomplished by converting both the Drew and Hoffman-Boston schools to specialized pre-kindergarten and kindergarten facilities. In addition, the Drew school would also house an experimental model elementary school to be conducted on an integrated basis and utilizing imagi native new approaches to elementary education, as well as for adult education and other school programs. The Hoff man-Boston school would also be utilized, as in previous years, for the integrated seventh grade of the Thomas Jeffer son Junior High School (App. 10, 19-20). Former Drew and Hoffman-Boston students in grades one through six would be assigned to other elementary schools in the county in accordance with the following criteria (App. 21): A. The added students would not cause the receiving school to have an enrollment exceeding its established rated capacity by more than 5%, B. The ratio of black to white pupils in each school would be as close to 11 % as practical, within a range of 7% to 15%, with the exception of four elementary schools whose current enrollment already exceeded 15% (i.e. 18% to 22%). C. Family groupings would be taken into account in assignments to a particular school, so that family units would not be broken up. D. Transportation would be provided as needed. �6 Under the school board’s plan, all one-race schools in Arlington County are eliminated—there remain no one-race white schools and no one-race black schools. Moreover, stu dents advancing from an elementary school will attend the junior high school serving that elementary school and, in turn, will advance to the high school serving that particu lar junior high school (App. 20, 24). This feeder system insures that for the 1971-72 school year, and for every school year thereafter, every child in Arlington county will receive his elementary and secondary education in an integrated facility (App. 39-40). In addition, nineteen of the twentythree elementary schools affected by the plan will have racial ratios which fall within the 7% to 15% range established by the board as a target deviation from the 11% racial ratio of the system as a whole (App. 15, 22). Indeed, seven teen of these nineteen schools fall within one percent of the 11% racial ratio in the system as a whole (App. 15). Finally, faculty desegregation is achieved by establishing a ratio in each school as close to the ratio of black to white teachers in the school system as a whole, as is practical (App. 25). In no case is there more than a 4% deviation from the sys tem wide ratio (App. 25). The longest bus ride (in terms of lapsed time) for the former Drew and HofTman-Boston pupils is 29 minutes, while the average bus ride for such children is 22 minutes (App. 12, 40-41). Similarly, the average bus ride for ele mentary children in the system as a whole is also 22 minutes (App. 41). The additional transportation costs involved in the school board’s plan is approximately $11,000 per year. Adoption of an alternate plan to achieve the same degree of integration would involve busing 90% of the Drew and Hoffman-Boston students to other schools and replacing them with an equivalent number of white students from other schools and would entail an initial cost of $206,000 7 and an additional cost of $130,000 per year thereafter for transportation. Thirteen new buses, plus drivers, would be required for such an alternative “90% out 90% in” plan (App. 12, 45-48). See also, Brief for the Appellants, p. 17. No alternate plan submitted by the plaintiffs would elimi nate all one-race schools in the county, nor achieve as much actual desegregation as the school board’s plan (App. 50, 64). ARGUM ENT The Desegregation Plan Adopted And Put Into Effect By The Arlington County School Board Is Constitutionally Valid. Plaintiffs in the case at bar are Negro children who had been assigned to the Drew Elementary School when this suit was instituted and the parents or guardians of such chil dren. Asserting that all, or virtually all, of the pupils assigned to the Drew Elementary School were Negroes, plaintiffs alleged that the Arlington County School Board had failed to adopt and execute a plan “to completely convert said public school system to a unitary non-racial system.” (App. 4). (Emphasis supplied.) They sought an order from the District Court requiring the defendant school board “to adopt and forthwith implement” such a plan (App. 5). Even before this suit was filed, the school board had been aware of the Drew situation and had, by formal resolution, directed a staff study to be made of various alternatives for desegregating the Drew School. This resolution, however, did not specifically embrace the Hoffman-Boston Elemen tary School, the only other all-Negro school in the county, nor did it envision the desegregation of the eleven all-white, or virtually all-white, elementary schools in the county school system. After the study contemplated by the resolution had been initiated and prior to the date set by the District Court for a �9 8 hearing of this matter (July 26, 1971), the Supreme Court decided the Swann and Davis cases, supra, (April 20, 1971), and this Court decided the Adams cases, supra, (June 10, 1971). Because of the existence of Adams, no independent analysis need now be made of Swann and Davis, nor of their progenitors, Brown, Green and Alexander,3 In Adams, this Court remanded a series of school desegregation cases to their respective district courts with instructions to receive from the various school boards “new plans” which would give effect to Swann and Davis. Id., at 100. During the course of its opinion, this Court spelled out what is now required of district courts and school authorities in the fol lowing explicit language (444 F. 2d at 100-101): “It is now clear, we think, that in school systems that have previously been operated separately as to the races by reason of state action, “the district judge or school authorities should make every effort to achieve the greatest possible degree of actual desegregation, taking into account the practicalities of the situation.” Davis, supra at 91 S.Ct. at 1292. We remand these cases because the respective district judges did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court mandate that adequate consideration be given “to the possible me of bus trans portation and split zoning.” Davis, supra at ..... , 91 S.Ct. at 1292. Wherever schools are “all or predomi nately of one race in a district of mixed population (there will be required) close scrutiny to determine that school assignments are not part of state-enforced segregation.” Swann, supra a t ..... , 91 S.Ct. at 1281. Although the existence of “some small number of onerace, or virtually one-race, schools within a district is not in and of itself the mark of a system which still 3 Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) 349 U.S. 294 (1955); Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430 (1968); Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19 (1969). L practices segregation by law,” Swann, supra a t ..... , 91 S.Ct. at 1281, both the school authority and the district judge must nevertheless be concerned with the elimi nation of one-race schools. * * * The school authorities and the district court should consider the use of all techniques for desegregation, in cluding pairing or grouping of schools, noncontiguous attendance zones, restructuring of grade levels, and the transportation of pupils.” (Italics supplied.) Emphasizing the imperative nature of the commands itali cized above was (1) the specific authorization conferred upon district courts to employ independent educational experts at the expense of any local school board which sub mitted a plan that did not comply “with the directions set forth in this opinion . . .” and (2) the requirement that any district court which approved a plan achieving less actual desegregation than would be achieved under an alternative plan must find facts that made impracticable the achieving of a greater degree of integration “especially if there remain any schools all or predominantly of one race.” Id., at 101. (Emphasis supplied.) With the prescriptions of Swann and Davis thus focused in the commands of Adams, it was obvious that any plan for the establishment of a unitary school system in Arlington County which contemplated the desegregation of Drew School only—and which left another elementary school with an all-Negro student body and eleven other elementary schools with all-white, or virtually all-white, student bodies —could not possibly survive judicial appraisal. If a unitary system was to be established, all of the elementary schools comprising that system would have to be considered and desegregated if reasonably possible. Contrary to appellants’ �10 11 assertion, this was not a “self-imposed objective” of the defendant school board; it was a judicially imposed impera tive. See, Brief for the Appellants, p. 16. The command that the Arlington County School Board must “be concerned with the elimination of one-race schools” could hardly be complied with merely by passing a resolution expressing such concern and taking no other action, especially when the elimination of all one-race schools in the county was not only possible, but feasible. Adams, supra, at 101. In this setting, the school board adopted and submitted to the District Court a plan which (1) achieved the greatest possible degree of actual desegregation, taking into account the practicalities of the situation (2) eliminated all one-race schools, both white and Negro (3) insured that every child in the Arlington school system will receive both his elemen tary and secondary education in an integrated facility (4) established in substantially all of the elementary schools a student racial ratio which reflects the racial ratio of the system as a whole (5) racially balanced the faculties in each elementary school in the county so that the ratio of white to black faculty members in each school is substantially the same as the ratio of white to black faculty members in the system as a whole and (6) established in Arlington County a unitary school system which has neither “white” schools nor “black” schools—just schools. Achievement of the above stated objectives in compliance with the prescriptions of Swann and Davis and the com mands of Adams was possible in only two ways. One method —that adopted by the school board—entailed the conversion of the Drew and Hoffman-Boston schools from traditional elementary facilities to other educational programs and the establishment within the all-Negro geographic areas of those schools of a series of “satellite” zones by which elementary pupils formerly assigned to Drew and Hoffman-Boston would be assigned to various all-white, or predominantly white, schools in the county in accordance with criteria which would not only integrate every elementary school in the system, but would indeed racially balance substantially all of such schools. Bus transportation would be provided by the school board for all the pupils thus reassigned, 704 in number, and no such pupil would be required to be bused for as much as one-half hour to reach his newly assigned school. Indeed, since Arlington County is only seven miles long and slightly more than three miles wide, the average bus ride for such children would be the same as that for ele mentary pupils in the county generally. Care was taken to insure that no family groups would be disturbed by the new plan, and a feeder system was adopted to insure that the racial balance achieved in the elementary schools would be preserved, and even heightened, over the years. No overcrowding results under the school board’s plan, and the additional transportation cost incurred would be approximately $11,000 per year. In addition, the plan en ables the school board to utilize the existing Drew and Hoffman-Boston facilities for other innovative and highly desirable educational programs designed to increase the already outstanding excellence of the Arlington school sys tem. In this connection, it should be emphasized that the Drew and Hoffman-Boston schools are not being closed or removed from the public school system or converted to administrative or non-educational uses. On the contrary, these facilities have been reprogrammed under the school board’s plan to serve exclusively educational functions in the emerging fields of pre-kindergarten instruction for chil dren three and four years of age, model elementary school experimentation in ungraded education and for adult edu- �12 13 cation. In this setting, appellants’ assertion that the school board’s plan must be examined as if the Drew school was being “used to store furniture” is surely wide of the mark. See, Brief for the Appellants, p. 24. Essentially the school board’s plan for establishing a uni tary system of elementary schools in Arlington County tracks that utilized for the junior high schools in the CharlotteMecklenburg school system in Swann, which was subse quently approved by this Court and the Supreme Court. As stated by the Supreme Court (402 U.S., at 9 ): and replacing them with an equal number of white students drawn from the various predominantly white schools in the county. Mathematically, such a plan would require (a) re moving 102 of the 114 Negro elementary pupils at HoflmanBoston, leaving 12 Negro pupils there to be joined by 102 replacement white students from other schools in the county and (b) removing 530 of the 590 Negro elementary pupils at Drew, leaving 60 Negro pupils there to be joined by 530 replacement white students also drawn from other schools throughout the county. Such a plan (1) would sub stantially double the amount of busing necessary to achieve a unitary system (2) would entail an initial expenditure of $206,000 (including thirteen new buses) for the first year and an expenditure of $130,000 per year thereafter and (3) would, by unnecessarily continuing Drew and HoffmanBoston as traditional elementary schools, deprive the school board of facilities for its pre-kindergarten, model elemen tary school and adult education programs. By contrast to the plans described above, it is manifest at a glance that neither of the plans espoused by the appel lants in their brief even remotely approaches compliance with the controlling constitutional requirements. See, Brief for the Appellants, Appendix A. The first of these plans en visions the desegregation of Drew School by pairing or clustering it with five other elementary schools in the vi cinity, and is based upon a working paper prepared by the staff of the defendant school board pursuant to the resolu tion previously mentioned. While the plan effectively de segregates the Drew school, it falls far short of establishing a unitary school system in Arlington County. Under this plan, the elementary portion of the Hoffman-Boston school re mains an all-Negro facility, while four other schools in the county (Custis, Jamestown, Madison and Woodmont) re- “The Finger plan for the junior high schools employed much of the rezoning plan of the board, combined with the creation of nine “satellite” zones. Under the satel lite plan, inner-city Negro students were assigned by attendance zones to nine outlying predominantly white junior high schools, thereby substantially desegregating every junior high school in the system." (Italics sup plied. ) In addition, the feeder system aspect of the school board’s plan (1) counters the specific objection expressed by this Court in Felder v. Harnett County Board of Education, 409 F. 2d 1070, 1075 (4 Cir., 1969) that the plan there under consideration did “not eliminate the possibility that what ever feeder system is adopted to effect this transition will not recreate a dual system at the high school level” and (2) further evidences the school board’s awareness of, and intent to comply with, the teachings of the decisions of this Court in school desegregation cases. The only other plan which would achieve the results of the school board’s plan and honor the prescriptions of Swann and Davis, as well as the command of Adams, would be one which entailed assigning 90% of the black students in Drew and Hoffman-Boston to other schools in the county �14 15 main all white, five other schools (Barcroft, Jackson, Nott ingham, Page and Tuckahoe) remain 99% white and two schools (Key and Maury) remain 98% white. Thus, twelve of the twenty-nine elementary schools in the county would remain one-race, or virtually one-race, schools under this plan (App. 16,38-39). The appellants’ suggested plan for the desegregation of Hoffman-Boston is even more inadequate. It is the result of “hasty preparation” by Mr. Richardson, a witness for the plaintiffs, and manifestly represents an effort to bring this case within the scope of Brice v. Landis, 314 F. Supp. 974 (W.D. Cal. 1969) by attempting to show that a reason able alternative to the school board’s plan exists. It contem plates pairing Hoffman-Boston with three other elementary schools in the vicinity. While effectively desegregating the Hoffman-Boston Elementary School and the previously allwhite Custis Elementary School, it makes no provision for the Drew school which would remain all-black, nor for ten of the eleven all-white, or virtually all-white, elementary schools mentioned in the preceding paragraph, which schools would retain their 98-100% white status (App. 17, 62-63). Moreover, utilization of both of these plans simultaneously would not discharge the school board’s obligation to establish a unitary system. Combination of the appellants’ suggested plans would indeed eliminate all one-race black schools; however over one-third (ten of twenty-nine) of the county’s elementary schools would still remain 98-100% white. And no racial balancing of the county’s elementary schools would even be attempted, much less achieved. Obviously, even if combined, the plans which appellants put forth as alter natives to the school board’s plan (1) would not achieve a unitary system (2) would not eliminate all one-race, or virtually one-race, schools (3) would not achieve the greatest possible degree of actual desegregation taking into account the practicalities of the situation and, accordingly, would not honor the prescriptions of Swann and Davis nor comply with the commands of Adams. It is also inter esting to note that 1,664 pupils would be bused under these alternative plans which do not meet constitutional standards, while only 704 pupils would be bused under the school board’s plan which does meet these standards. If the defendant school board had adopted both of the appellants’ suggested alternatives, we submit that it would have been required, as were the various school boards in Adams, to prepare a “new” plan which would “give effect to Swann and Davis'" by according adequate consideration to the “use of bus transportation and split zoning.” Adams, supra, at 100- 101. In light of the legal deficiencies in the appellants’ suggested alternatives and the demonstrated drawbacks of the “90% out 90% in” plan, it is difficult to conceive how the plan adopted by the school board can be said to be invidiously discriminatory. In this connection, certain aspects of the case at bar must be emphasized. First, this case does not involve the closing of any school, merely the conversion of facilities from one type of educational program to another. Second, this case does not involve even a suggestion of “white flight,” and neither that term nor that concept was ever mentioned by any party at any point in these proceedings. Third, this case does not involve any reluctance on the part of the school board to assign and bus white children to formerly all-black schools located in all, or predominantly, Negro neighborhoods. On the contrary, the record discloses that a majority (70%) of white students have for years been transported to the formerly all-black Hoffman-Boston �16 17 Junior High School (Jefferson Annex) located in that com pletely Negro residential area (App. 42). See, Wanner v. County School Board of Arlington County, 357 F. 2d 452, 456 ( 4 Cir., 1966). Moreover, the plan adopted by the School Board envisioned the enrollment of a majority of white students in the model elementary school to be housed in the converted Drew facility which is located in an allNegro residential area, and that feature of the school board’s plan is even now in effect. See, Brief for the Appellants, p. 7. Significant in this context, is the decision of this Court in Chambers v. Iredell County Board of Education, 423 F.2d 613 (4th Cir., 1970). Under consideration in that case was a school desegregation plan in which one school, Unity School, remained all black with 285 students. That facility was to be replaced the following school year by a new school which was then under construction. When completed, the new facility would absorb Unity’s 285 black students and some 475 white students from three other schools, at which time the formerly all-black Unity School would be closed. Plain tiffs there alleged that the decision to close Unity was racially motivated “because it arose out of a disinclination to put white pupils into a previously all-black school.” Id., at 616. Rejecting this contention, this Court stated (423 F.2d at 616): school is not indicative of racial motivation when a school board has integrated another previously all-black school in the same system, then the mere conversion of a previously all-black school to a different educational program and the enrollment of a majority of white students in that identical facility, coupled with the previous assignment of a majority of white students to another formerly all-black school, can not be said to be racially motivated. Even more nearly in point and controlling is the decision of this Court in Allen v. Asheville City Board of Education, 434 F.2d 902 (4th Cir., 1970). In that case, the Asheville School Board decided that it was necessary to close two formerly all-black elementary schools and one formerly allwhite elementary school to achieve racial balance. After plaintiffs objected to the proposed plan on the basis of the closing of the two all-black schools, the school board modi fied the plan to provide for the continued operation of the formerly all-white school, with the two formerly all-black schools remaining closed. During the course of its opinion, this Court stated the plaintiffs’ objection to the plan and the reason therefore in the following language (434 F.2d at 905, 906): “This contention is not persuasive in light of the fact that the school board has already integrated Amity School, which was previously all-black and is now twothirds white. There appears to be no pattern of simply closing black schools because they have been black.” Similarly, in the case at bar, the Arlington County School Board long ago integrated the Hoffman-Boston Junior High School “which was previously all-black and is now twothirds white.” We submit that if the closing of an all-black “Able counsel for plaintiffs are unable to fault the Board’s plan other than a complaint with respect to the closing of two previously all-black schools and the im pact of their closing, in the context of the rest of the plan, upon black students. * * * “Plaintiffs insist, however, that the school board’s true reason for selection is undisclosed and is simply its ‘re luctance to send primary grade white children into traditionally all-black schools located in all-black neigh borhoods.’ ” �18 19 Rejecting plaintiffs’ contention that the Asheville School Board had unfairly discriminated against black students in the closing of the two schools there in question, this Court enunciated the following principles governing such situ ations (434 F.2d at 905, 906): elementary schools, or if they were reconstituted as such, 90 percent of the black students formerly in each school would have to be moved out into other schools and this 90 percent replaced by white students. Moreover, the purpose of the school board’s plan here is not merely to implement the Brown I I principle, but also to implement Swann, Davis and Adams. That the plan “effectively achieves that end” is acknowledged even by the appellants. See, Brief for the Appellants, p. 19. In addition, the school board’s plan is the only demonstrably rational and practical plan that will comply with the requirements of Swann, Davis and Adams. In Chambers, this Court expressed doubt that many school systems had achieved a higher degree of integration than then prevailed in Iredell County. Subsequently, in Allen, this Court stated that Asheville was “at or near the pinnacle of arithmetical desegregation in America.” Id., at 903. So far as we are aware, Asheville is still near the pin nacle of arithmetical desegregation in America; however, we submit that at the pinnacle of arithmetical desegregation in America is Arlington County. Here again, it should be pointed out that this distinction was achieved without closing any school, while in the Chambers and Allen cases, the all black facilities there under consideration were selected “for extinction” and were removed from the public school system. Allen v. Asheville City Board of Education, supra, at 905. None of the cases relied upon by appellants derogates from the principles enunciated in the Chambers and Allen cases. In Felder v. Harnett County Board of Education, supra, the basis of this Court’s decision was the complete failure of the school board to disestablish an entrenched dual school system in which only 4.3% of the black children were attending previously all white schools. Moreover, in that case there was not the slightest assurance of achieving In the first place, we think the mechanics of integra tion, where the purpose is obviously to implement the Brown I I principle and effectively achieves that end, is ordinarily a matter within the discretion of school ad ministrators. The question is not whether we might have selected different schools for extinction, nor even whether substantial evidence supports the Board’s deci sion, but is instead whether the Board’s decision is so plainly unfair thatit clearlyamounts toinvidious dis crimination in violationof the equal protectionclause. * * * .. . Moreover, the situation of which plaintiffs complain cannot possibly be changed except at the cost of in creasing the transportation of pupils approximately 40 percent. This is so because if the two black schools that have been closed were reopened, 70 percent of the black students formerly in each school would have to be moved out into other schools and this 70 percent re placed by white students. * * * It is urged upon us that even so, both schools that were closed are newer and physically better than most of the other schools retained. We agree that this is a relevant factor. But neither alone nor in context does it establish invidious discrimination. Such a factor is only one of many that enter into a school closing decision. We repeat that we do not sit to review state adminis trative decisions beyond the very limited reach of the Constitution. (Italics supplied.) Similarly, in the case at bar, as previously pointed out, if Drew and Hoffman-Boston had been retained as traditional �20 a unitary school system and the selection of the schools for closing was therefore suspect. See, Allen, supra at 906. In Green v. School Board of City of Roanoke, 316 F. Supp. 6 (W.D. Va. 1970), the closing of the formerly all black high school there under consideration would have caused overcrowding in the three remaining predominantly white high schools in the city. In the face of this circum stance, no adequate reason was advanced by the school board, in terms of its desegregation plan or otherwise, to justify discontinuance of the school in question. Brice v. Landis, 314 F. Supp. 974 (N.D. Cal. 1969) states nothing to the contrary. In that case, the closing of a 99% black school pursuant to the school board’s plan would have resulted in overcrowded classes and distorted pupil-teacher ratios at the three remaining predominantly white schools in the system. Id., at 977. Other “options, alternatives and courses of action” were available to the school board. Id., at 978. Pointing out that a particular desegregation plan “when not reasonably required under the circumstances” could be discriminatory, the District Court observed (314 F. Supp. at 978): “Whether the plan, as here presented, is a good faith, reasonably adequate implementation of constitutional principles involved, must be determined in the light, among other things, of the alternative options and courses of action available to the District.” (Italics supplied.) Commenting upon this decision in Allen, supra, this Court succinctly stated (434 F.2d at 907): “We are advertent to Brice v. Landis (N.D. Cal., Aug. 8, 1969), 314 F.Supp. 974, which held on the peculiar facts of the case that the closing of a Negro school was invidiously discriminatory and subject to in- 21 junction. We think it means no more than that and agree there may be such a case, but think it is not this one. If it is read to imply that it is ordinarily for the district courts to determine which schools shall be closed rather than for the school board, we reject the propo sition.” (Italics supplied.) Even less apposite is Lee v. Macon County Board of Edu cation, 448 F. 2d 746 (5 Cir., 1971). In that case, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed a decree of the district court which would have had the effect of leaving over 45% of the school district’s Negro students in all-black, or virtually all-black, schools. Id., at 748, 753. Moreover, the justification advanced by the school board for the pro posed closing of two formerly all-black schools was (1) that whites would resist going to school in facilities formerly used by blacks, and (2) that otherwise white students would flee the school system altogether. Id., at 750, 754. In light of these circumstances, the Court of Appeals directed the dis trict court to require the school board “forthwith to consti tute and implement a student assignment plan that complies with the principles established in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education.” Id., at 753. In short, Lee is a school closing, racially motivated, white-flight, non-unitary, non-Swann school desegregation case. Not one of the abovelisted considerations obtains in the case at bar. Haney v. County Board of Education of Sevier County, 429 F. 2d 364 (8 Cir., 1970) is equally inapplicable. In that case, the district court decreed the annexation of a small all black school district in the county by a larger all-white school district and, in addition, decreed that the facilities of the larger all-white school district would be utilized and, only if these facilities proved inadequate, would those of the formerly all-Negro district be used. There was nothing in the record to explain the closing of the facilities formerly used �22 23 for the instruction of black students. After referring to this Court’s decision in the Felder case and Brice v. Landis, supra, the Court of Appeals observed (429 F.2d at 372): meet the prescribed constitutional standards. See Brief for the Appellants, p. 17; Brief for Amici Curiae, p. 16. How ever, both are careful to avoid stating that there “is” such a plan or informing this Court of the details, or even the outlines, of such other plan. The reason for this equivocation is quite obvious—both appellants and amici know full well that there is no plan other than that adopted by the school board which rationally and practically accomplishes what this Court said in Adams must be done. The assertion that the school board’s plan unfairly bur dens the Negro students of Drew and Hoffman-Boston will not bear scrutiny. For years pupils at these schools have attended a “walk-in” facility and have not been required to be bused (App. 48-49). If attendance at a “walk-in” fa cility can be deemed a convenience, it is one which these students have enjoyed for years while thousands of other children in Arlington County have been bused (App. 13). To require them at this late date to forego this convenience so that a racially balanced, unitary school system can be established can hardly be considered unfair. This, we sub mit, is especially true when one remembers that the bus ride they are asked to take is, on the average, only ten minutes longer than the time it would take them to walk to the Drew and Hoffman-Boston facilities, and the walk to those facilities had to be made in all weather conditions through out the school year (App. 39). Finally, while the Drew and Hoffman-Boston students are now bused to other schools, over 40% of the Negro elementary students in Arlington County still attend their neighborhood schools (App. 15). In Allen, a similar contention was rejected by this Court in language subsequently deemed controlling and quoted at length in Mims v. Duval County School Board, 329 F. Supp. 123 (M.D. Fla., 1971). In Mims, approving a desegregation “The matter of utilization of available facilities is with in the province and discretion of the school board. There is a statement in the record that the class rooms of the former Sevier District are not of sufficient size to meet current state standards. These details, of course, are subject to many variations and much can be done within the existing framework of operation to suffi ciently utilize existing facilities. This is not a matter for court consideration but rather should be resolved on some rational non-discriminatory basis by the local school board.” (Italics supplied.) Throughout their briefs, both appellants and amici curiae make only glancing references to Swann, pay no respect to Adams and do not even mention Davis at all. Indeed, refer ence is made to Adams only for its one line affirmance of the district court’s retention of the Addison School in Roan oke; so far as appellants and amici are concerned, the rest of what this Court said in Adams does not even exist. Thus do they seek to avoid any consideration whatever of the school board’s clear obligation to eliminate one-race schools and achieve the greatest possible degree of actual desegre gation as required by Swann, Davis and Adams. Thus, too, do they seek to insinuate that the school board in this case can get by with something less than full compliance with the commands of these decisions, even though full compliance can be had, as demonstrated by the plan which the school board adopted and put into effect last September and which this Court and the Chief Justice of the United States refused to enjoin. In addition, both appellants and amici persist in pressing the illusion that there “may” be other plans which would �24 plan which involved the closing of seven black elementary schools, the district court observed (329 F. Supp. at 132133): “In their second argument plaintiffs seek to have this Court require the School Board to bus white children to the core city for all elementary grades, not just to sixth grade centers, so to achieve equal busing of the races. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit resolved the same argument in Allen v. Asheville City Board of Education [434 F.2d 902, 907 (4 Cir., 1970)] with these words: We are asked to decide whether the district court, in approving the plan, unconstitutionally placed ‘the burden of desegregation’ upon black pupils in the school system. It is urged upon us that the plan ap proved by the district court ‘places an unfair, racially discriminatory burden upon black children’ in that black children in grades 1 through 5 who previously attended all-black Livingston and Herring Elemen tary Schools will be required to travel as much as five or six miles in order to attend previously all-white schools. This is said to be an unfair allocation of the ‘burden’ of integration, and it is suggested that the Constitution requires that an equivalent number or proportion of white children in the same grades be required to travel an equivalent distance to enter schools outside their previous attendance zones. We hold that such a pattern of assignment imple mented by free school bus transportation does not violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The rationale in the Second Circuit is essentially the same. In Norwalk Core v. Norwalk Board of Education, [423 F.2d 121, 124 (2 Cir., 1970)] the Court noted: Plaintiffs would eliminate what they call unequal treatment by having, in effect, one white child bussed 25 out of his neighborhood for every black child bussed out of his—in other words, deprive as many whites of neighborhood advantages as blacks are deprived by being bussed to schools predominantly white. But the problem is not as simple as a one black, one white ratio. It is a question of the Board, with the facilities available having ‘acted in the utmost good faith, in a nonarbitrary and deliberate manner, in order both to insure racial balance and to provide high quality education.’ * * *” Nor will it do to assert that the school board’s plan sug gests to black children that it would be dangerous if “blacks make up more than 15% of the enrollment of any school.” See, Brief for the Appellants, p. 15. This assertion is instantly blunted by the fact that four elementary schools in Arling ton County already had black students in excess of 15% when the school board’s plan was adopted. Moreover, the alternative arrangements for the Drew school espoused in plaintiffs’ brief would limit black enrollment to 21% in each of the schools affected. Does this arrangement suggest that any number of black students in excess of 21 % in any school is dangerous? Was any such message explicit or implicit in the racially balanced plans approved by this Court in Chambers and Allen? Neither, we submit, does the plan adopted by the school board in the case at bar carry such an inference. It is, of course, primarily the obligation of the school board to frame and put into effect a plan which establishes a uni tary school system, and, as pointed out in Davis, supra at 37, the “measure of any desegregation plan is its effectiveness.” From Brown II to Adams, the decisions confirming this principle have been legion and consistent. As stated in Brad ley v. School Board of City of Richmond, 325 F. Supp. 828, 832-833 (E.D.Va. 1971): �26 “A second principle guiding the Court—almost as ob vious as the doctrine of precedent—is that it is primarily the School Board’s duty to run the schools, and not this Court’s nor the plaintiffs’ . . . Because both expertise and responsibility are the School Board’s, it is to their proposals that courts look first for a legally sufficient plan. . . . When they assume the ‘responsibility which Brown II placed squarely on the School Board,’ Id., 442, 88 S. Ct. 1696, courts will not presume to dictate a selection between equally effective desegregation plans.” Wanner v. County School Board of Arlington County, 357 F. 2d 452, 436 (4th Cir. 1966). (Italics supplied.) Echoing these observations are those of Judge Bryan in his special concurring opinion in Adams, supra, at 102: “. . . I think the only pattern the school authorities and the Courts must observe is one honoring the prescrip tions of Swann and Davis. So long as it is in keeping with these decisions, my understanding is that formu lation of a plan is entrusted to the discretion of the school authorities . . . ” (Italics supplied.) We submit that in the case at bar the obligation resting upon the Arlington County School Board has been fully dis charged by the adoption of a desegregation plan which honors the prescriptions of Swann and Davis, complies with the commands of Adams, and is therefore constitutionally valid. CONCLUSION In Walton v. Nashville, Arkansas, Special School District No. 1, 401 F. 2d 137, 144 (8 Cir., 1969), Judge Blackmun, speaking for a court which sustained the non-reemployment of certain Negro teachers in a school desegregation case, made the following observations: 27 “We are conscious in this case, as we have been in earlier ones, that the process of school integration is not easy and that there will be hurts and disappointments as integration is accomplished. Certainly, under the precepts of the Brown decisions, it has been too long delayed at Nashville. But we are told that it has now been fully accomplished there. That fact should be a source of satisfaction for all citizens, white as well as black.” (Italics supplied.) In the case at bar, this Court is also informed that inte gration has now been fully accomplished in Arlington Coun ty. It is so informed by the plan itself, which is currently before this Court and was adopted to carry out the following policy of the school board (App. 40): “The purposes that the board had was, first of all, pri marily to eliminate all vestiges of a dual system, to move to establish a true unitary system throughout the county, to provide and to establish racial balanced schools, and I think, then, to get on with the primary purpose of the school system which is the education of young people.” It is similarly informed by the appellants who admit that the plan is one “which unquestionably does away with the last vestiges of school segregation remaining from the legis latively imposed dual school system” and who further ac knowledge that it “is undisputed that the Arlington School Board has put into effect a plan that fully complies with the primary mandates laid down in” Brown, Green and Swann. See, Brief for the Appellants, pp. 1,9. Finally, this Court is so informed by the District Court in the following language of its opinion, 329 F. Supp. at 955956 (App. 14): “The Arlington County School Board has now fully complied with the Supreme Court decision in Brown I �28 —A unitary school system as required by Green and Alexander has been established—Arlington will have neither black nor white schools—just schools.” In light of the foregoing, and for the reason heretofore stated, we submit that the decision of the Distirct Court is clearly correct and should be affirmed. Respectfully submitted, Jam es H. Simmonds G r e g o r y U. E v a n s 1500 North Courthouse Road Arlington, Virginia R. D. McIlwaine, III P.O. Box 705 Petersburg, Virginia Counsel for Appellees CERTIFICATE I certify that two copies of the within brief for appellees were mailed, with first class postage prepaid, to S. W. Tucker, Esquire, 214 East Clay Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219; to Robert M. Alexander, Esquire, 2011 South Glebe Road, Arlington, Virginia 22204; to Allison W. Brown, Jr., Esquire, Suite 501, 1424 Sixteenth Street, N.W., Washing ton, D.C. 20036; to Lawrence J. Latto, Esquire, 734 Fif teenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005; and to Jack Greenburg, Esquire, Suite 2030, 10 Columbus Circle, New York, New York 10010, counsel for plaintiffs; and to William H. Allen, Esquire, and John B. Jones, Jr., Esquire, 888 Six teenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006, counsel for amici curiae, this 10th day of March, 1972. R. D. M c Ilw a in e , III � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource RG 66, Personal Papers of Henry Gardner Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Brief for Appellees, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, No. 71-1791: John K. Hart, et. Al v. County School Board of Arlington County, et al Description An account of the resource Brief for Appellees, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, No. 71-1791: John K. Hart, et. Al v. County School Board of Arlington County, et al 17 pages Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 66, Personal Papers of Henry Gardner Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource No date Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1970s Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource This image is subject to copyright. Unauthorized use of the images in the Local History Collections of the Arlington Community Archives is prohibited. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 66_1_1_1_176 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/37b0c0f7e640d8ff1383858ce4ece796.pdf 02b1ec55a781c83ccfde78e297b1d50e PDF Text Text PUBLIC SCHOOLS March 9, 1995 Mr. Robert McGregor, Jr. President Arlington NAACP Branch 5266 North 19th Road Arlington, VA 22207 Dear Mr. McGregor: In response to your recent request, I am enclosing the following documents from our 1970s archives: 1. United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Case No. 71-1791, John K. Hart, et al., Appellants, v. County School Board o f Arlington County, et al., Appellees 2. PLAN FOR DESEGREGATING DREW AND HOFFMAN-BOSTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS If we can be of further assistance in this regard, please do not hesitate to call upon us. Our office telephone number is (703) 358-6005. Sincerely, Jorge P. Osterling Director, Community Services mpb Enclosures (2) cc: Henry D. Gardner 1426 N. QUINCY STREET ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22207 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource RG 66, Personal Papers of Henry Gardner Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letter to Robert McGregor, Jr. President, Arlington NAACP Branch, from Jorge P. Osterling, Director, Community Services, March 9, 1995 Description An account of the resource Letter to Robert Mc Gregor, Jr. President, Arlington NAACP Branch, from Jorge P. Osterling, Director, Community Services, March 9, 1995 indicating he is enclosing material from his desegregation files. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 66, Personal Papers of Henry Gardner Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Robert McGregor Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 3/9/95 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1990s Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource This image is subject to copyright. Unauthorized use of the images in the Local History Collections of the Arlington Community Archives is prohibited. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 66_1_1_1_175 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/f4d0982f0881ffb6ae640e639535ce63.pdf f005ba3609689ca6a0bbd0856f398dae PDF Text Text United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 71-1791 JOHN K. HART, et al ., Appellants, v. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ARLINGTON COUNTY, e t a l ., Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Alexandria BRIEF FOR APPELLEES ISSUE PRESENTED FOR REVIEW The sole issue presented for review in this case is whether or not the desegregation plan adopted by the Arlington County School Board and put into effect in September, 1971, is constitutionally valid. STATEMENT OF THE CASE On May 6, 1970, plaintiffs initiated this action to com plete the elimination of racial segregation in the public schools of Arlington County (App. o ) -1 An answer on behalf 1 All references App. are to pages in the printed appendix. �iV.rf 1 Felder v. I la melt Comity lltMid of Kthnalimi, 109 l-*.2tl 1010 (lilt Cir., 1969) .............................................................................12, 19, 22 firAiii.ok r i i Cask...................... si 1 Given v. ( 'utility School Itoaid of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 150 (I960) .......................................................................................... .....0, 27 S . ikm i.i ok niii Iacts. ... iv :'r ’ . 3 Green v. School Board of City of Roanoke, 316 F.Supp. G (W.D. Va. 1970) ..................................... ,...................................................... 21 | i » K PkiISKWiKM I u ivKVIKW ............... ;:U 'K j .. AuCIJMKNT T i . I s v i ^ i i u linn Adopted And Put Into E f c By The lr V i ' v . l o fet Arlington Comity School l o r I C n t l l o n l Valid.... V iad s osiuinly Concmision ..... -........... -................ 26 C i i I I A K .................... llVKCT 20 Al.Is V S h . l n - i iu N l 5 I!!l 2 99 (lih C r , 1971 c r , l. . . . i t n i . l i . , \d i. ) et i nud 1 1 U S 012 (1971 ... -, 8 9 1 , 12 1 , 22 23 2 h 0 . ) I , , 0 , 9 , , G 0 Allen v A h villc City Boai of K l c i h , 431 l, d 902 ( l h C r , . .e d tu.tm ,2 . -i i . 1970) .............................. 17, 1 , 20, 25 9 P a h - v S l c l Hoard of City o Richmond, 325 1.Supp. 028 ud.y . iio f ' (KIT Va., 1971 ............................. 25 ) I i c v I. u i , 314 1.Sup. 971 (N.O. C l , I ) .... n t: . a d t * a . 960 1 , 20, 22 4 11 (|‘ 11 ......... I 13 » ) I u v I .il «f Iinii.l 319 I S 291 (191 ) . S i. . .h.lii, I. .5 8 Cl 0 ,., V I.I I I..|> .. I tf K 11. i . ,.. I \,. y . di.e ii., loi l.. G|3 *?l v Ho o l tf K . t. l o , 317 I . . . i . d i .in IS Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, 418 l**.2d 716 (5llt Cir., 1971) ......... :................................ ....... 21 Mims v. Duval County School Board, 329 F. Supp. 123 (M l). Fla., 1971) .;.................................................................................. 23, 21 Swann v. Charlotle-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1 (1971) ....................... ................ ......... 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 12, 19, 22, 27 i A > i l O k CAtji*) iJl Ahv.aml. * v Holme;. County I o m of Education, 390 U.S. 1 • . '.l 9 . ..... (1969 ............................... * ) Ilnncy v. County Board of Education of Sevier County, 420 l;.2d 361 (0th Cir., 1970) ............................................ ............................. 21 Walton v. Nashville, Arkansas, Special School DhtuYi No . 1, -101 F.2d 137 (8th Cir., 1969) ............................................................... 26 Wanner v. Comity School Boaid of Arlington County, 357 F.2d 1:»2 (4th Cir., 19G6) ................................................. 16 �2 3 of the County School i’oard of AIlinglon County and the Divish-u Superintendent of Schools of Arlington Counly was timely lllcil (App. !1 !l), anil discovery procedures in volving interrogatories lo defendants and requests for die production of doeuinenls were thereafter iniliated by die plaintiffs (App. 1). On March 5, 1971, a pre-trial conference was held, at which time a hearing on the merits was scheduled for July 2b, 197-1 (R. 70) A The hearing in this case was deliberately postponed by the District Court to await the decision of the United Slates Supreme Court in Swann v. Charlollc-McckIcnlnirg Board o/ Education, 402 U.S. 1, and its companion cases (App. 1 0 ).On June .20, 1971, the Arlington County School Board adopted and filed in the District Court its plan for the estab lishment of a unitary school system throughout the county, which plan was lo be put into effect in September, 1971 (App. 19-20). On the morning of the hearing, plaintiffs amended their complaint lo stale their objections to the phut (App. G-7, 11), which objections were subsequently overruled and the school board's plan approved by the Dis trict Court in ils memorandum opinion and order of August 10,1971 (App. 10-15). See, 329 F.Supp.953. On August 12, 1971, plaintiffs filed in the District Court their notice of appeal (R. 67) anti on August 20, 1971 also filed an application for injunction pending appeal which was denied by the District Court the same day. Thereafter, plaiulilfs fil<<l a similar application in this Court, which applii od'Hi was denied on September 3, 1971. Sec, Record in No. 71-1792 (-1 flic., 1971). A Outlier such application v. ■■| . eulid to the Chief Justice of the United States, -is ( !in .-it jo lit e fia die 1 'inIII ( tin-nil, and ile.ii. .1 by |ii,n on 5 Sept. I , !, 1971. See, |','||. A 2li2, 1971 ’li mi. .'il'A l'Il.'.lt-'.ii'f ( Ji* TD K i-7 f.Y.3 . ' ' I f i. is > . It. i'll- to | t . * The Arlington Comity School Division unbraces the cm lire county of Arlington and has an area of 25.7 square miles, ft is less than one-half the size of the City of ciiliniond which has an area of G3 square miles, arid less Ilian one-tenth the size of the adjacent county of Fairfax which has an area of 402 square miles (App. 41). For the school year 1971-72, the total elementary school population of the Division was estimated to be 11,233 stu dents, of which number 9,903 were white and 1,250 were Negro. Thus the racial ratio in the elementary schools was 89% white and 11% black (App. 15, 22), which ratio is substantially identical to that for the preceding years. See, Answers to Interrogatories (R. 19). At the beginning of the 19G9-70 school year, the high Schools and junior high schools of the counly had been de segregated, while the elementary schools were being operated on the basis of geographic attendance zones established for each school. Under this arrangement, two of the twentynine elementary schools in the system—Drew and HoffmanBoston-- -were attended solely by Negro students, as the geographical boundaries of those schools encompassed allNegro residential areas, while eleven of the twenty-nine were attended by all, or virtually all, while students (App. 15, 35, 42). The Hodman-Boston sehool also housed seventh grade students, of which some 70% were while students bas ed in from other districts in the county (App. 12). On December Ifl, I9G9, the school board adopted a resolution ilireetiu.; the Division Superintendent and his stall* to prepare a si of study of the various alternatives available for desegre alia ; the Drew l-'.h-nenlary School (App. 29 50). ’I hit i, -. h .'o i suggested ei " Uillaliou with appropriate frderd ....one!. -. a step v.Iii. h ha.! .dread) be. o taken by the D’ Men .* !:• �• 1 3 top.ill'll I wlu> (1) Ikk! 11 issi'i I the matter griu’inlly with isn representatives of the Department of lli-allli, F.ducalinn and Wclfaio (Iir.'.V) earlier in (ho month (2) had caused data re. guested by 11K\V to bo compiled by his stall' and sub mit led and (3) was awaiting return of specific suggestions from 11IIW for consideration by his staff and the school board (App. 13). In the interim, the Division Superintend ent directed his research department to begin its own study of the problem in line with the school board’s resolution (App. 13). No response was ever received from HEW, and shortly after the research department had assembled its own data and begun a consideration of alternatives, the instant suit was filed (App. 44 ). Thereafter, the school board was ad vised of the pendency of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg litiga tion which would in all probability shed light on the prob lem the board was considering, and the board decided to await the outcome of that litigation before determining the method of desegregating Drew Elementary School (App. 41). No attempt was made by the plaintiffs to seek a hear ing of this matter for the 1970-71 school year. On April 20, 1971, the Swann ease was decided. There after the school board anti its staff returned to a consider ation of the Drew school situation, hut this time did so in the huger context of establishing a unitary school system throughout the comity in compliance with Swann (App. 41). On June 10, 1971, while, these deliberations were going on, ltd . ........I di i ided a series of eases under the style of A dam i v. School District j\ro. !>, Orangeburg Co., S.C., 411 filed in tlu: District Canal its plan for the operation of :t unitary .system in Arlington County (App. 19). As stated by the Division .Superintendent, the purposes ol the school board’s plan were “first of all, primarily to elimi nate all vestiges of a dual system, to move to cslabli;,h a true unitary system throughout the county, to provide and li establish racial balanced schools, and I think, (hen, to gr on with the primary purpose of the school system which i the education of young people.” (App. 40). These objee lives would be accomplished by converting both the Drev and IIodman-Boston schools to specialized prc-kindcrgartci and kindergarten facilities. In addition, the Drew sclioo would also house an experimental model elementary schon to be conducted on an integrated basis and utilizing iniagi native new approaches to elementary education, as well a for adult education and other school programs. The IIolT man-boston school would also be utilized, as in previou years, for the integrated seventh grade of the Thomas JefTer son Junior High School (App. 10, 19-20). Former Drev and IIodman-Boston students in grades one through si: would be assigned to other elementary schools in the ronup in accordance with the following criteria (App. 21): l\2il 99, 'perifil ally e, uph.rv.iug for district eon its and A. The acltled students would not cause the re school to have an enrollment exceeding its establish.’. rated capacity by more than 5%, 11. The ratio of black to white pupils in each srho would be ns close to 11 % as practical, u it 1 in a ran;;.1.' 1 7% to 13%, with the exception of four element.ir schools whose current enrollment already esc.vile. 13% (i.e. 111% to 22% ). Mia. .1 li'iud. va> ime: a: p. i (■ of .V.e.ooi and ttarls V I'unu'il ; . of Silo,.,I ( too'.n'whna 11 n] Mobile County, 401 II.Ji. ltd. 1 ol: Iii 11■ after Ailo,m, I i l h i l hoard adopted and 9 i; le e i o C. Family gp'oupings would be taken into aeeoont assignments to a parlieul.tr school, so that family e.iit would not he broken up. ~ 1). Transportation would he provided as ne« d,.l. �6 V IInder. tin* >vlu-ol board's plan, all one-race schools in Arlington County arc eliminated there remain no one rare while schools aiul no ohc-raco black schools. Moreover, .stu dents advancing from an elementary school will attend ilic junior school serving dial elemenlary school and, in lum, will advance to llic high school serving that particu lar junior high school (App. 20, 21). This feeder system insures that for the 1971-72 school year, and for every school year thereafter, every child in Arlington county will receive his elementary and secondary education in an integrated facility (App. 39-10). In addition, nineteen of the tw'cntytlu ee elementary schools afTectcd by the plan will have racial ratios which fall within the 7% to 15% range established by the board as a target deviation from the 11% racial ratio of the system as a whole (App. 15, 22). Indeed, seven teen of these nineteen schools fall within one percent of the 11% racial ratio in the system as a whole (App. 15). Finally, faculty di segregation is achieved by establishing a ratio in each school as close to the ratio of black to white teachers in the school system as a whole, as is practical (App. 25). In no ease is there more than a 4% deviation from the sys tem wide ralio (App. 25). The longest bus ride (in terms of lapsed time) for the former Drew and I lofTman-Boston pupils is 29 minutes, while the average bus ride for such children is 22 minutes (App. 12, 40-41). Similarly, the average bus ride for ele mentary children in the system as a whole is also 22 minutes (App. !1). The additional transportation costs involved in the ;elun! b«»;nd\s plan is appro..‘manly $11,000 per year. Adopt'ihi of an nllei iialc plan to achieve the same degree of iiitrgiMiM.,1 would involve Im dug 90'/• of lie: Drew and I Ill'll. I I it l i t i i'o loo \'ii!i •• i •l .• • .hi -liidi ills i 1111 i . . | i n l to ollc i | i i >. l i t . i i ‘i l i o . i l . of v.liio uid l e p l . i i il l-; ‘ Old. til. lo..n and an additional cost of .'[1130,000 per year iheicafier fo transportation. Thirteen new' buses, plus diivias, would L required for such an alternative “90% out 90% in” pin (App. 12, 45-43). See also, Jhief for the Appellants, j>. 1/ No alternate plan submitted by tin: plainliHs would, «.limi natc all one-race schools in the county, nor achieve as mud actual desegregation as the school board's plan (App. 5( 64). ARGUMENT Tlic Desegregation Plan Adopted Ami Put Into F.fl'ect By The Arlington County School Board Is Constitutionally Valid. Plaintiffs in the ease at bar arc Negro children who ha< been assigned to the Drew Flcmcntary School when thi suit was instituted and the parents or guardians of such chil dren. Asserting that all, or virtually all, of the pupils assigno to the Drew Elementary School were Negroes, plainliil alleged that the Arlington County School Foard had failo to adopt and execute a plan “to completely convert .sail public school system to a unitary non racial system,” (Apj 4 ). (Emphasis supplied.) They sought an order from lh District Court requiring ihc defendant school board “t adopt and forthwith implement" such a plan (App. 5 ). Even before this suit was filed, the school hoard had bee aware of the Drew situation and had, by formal resohilioi directed a stall study to be made of various alternatives fo desegregating the Drew School. This resolution, howvwi did not specifically embrace ihe I Inli’mau-l'oMnn I’lenion tary School, the only other all Negro school in the eoanq. nor did it envision the desegregation of the clown all w!i' < or virtually all while, elementary sellouts in the e.-i.n. school .system. After the slnd) cnnlcntpt tied by the o\ .1 ! . iniii.it d and pi ini' In lie dale sol 1*; Ilie 1' i t ■< . �9 a homing i>f iliis nineti'i* (July 29, 19/1), tin.' Supreme Court ilcciile.l tin- Swann ami Paris cases, supra, (April 20, 19 7 I), ami this Court ilivitlcil tin: Adams eases, supra, (June 10, 19VI). lie cause of lire existence of Adams, no independent analysis need now be made of Swann and Davis, nor of their progenitors, Drown, Green and Alexander.' In Attains, this Court remanded a series of school desegregation cases to their respective district courts with instructions to receive from the various school hoards “new plans” which would give effect to Swann and Davis. Id., at 100. During the course of its opinion, this Court spelled out what is now required of district courts and school authorities in the fol lowing explicit language (-M l 1'. 2d at 100-1.01) : “It is now clear, we think, that in school systems that have previou ly been operated separately as to the races by reason of slate action, “the district judge or school authorities should tnal.c every effort to achieve the greatest possible degree of actual desegregation, taking into account the pruclietdilit s of the situation.” Davis, supra at ..... 91 S.Cl. at 1292. We remand these eases because the respective district judges did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court mandate that adequate consideration lie given "to the possible use of bus trans portation anti split zoning.” Davis, supra at ......, 91 S.Ct. at 1292. Wherever schools arc “till or predomi nately of one race in a district of mixed population (tl h iv will he required) close scrutiny lo determine dial jh Iio o I assignments are not part of stale-enforced M"ng aliiill." Swann, Nllpl'it til ......, 01 S.Cl. nl I/Oil. /. |l III IIi*•1 (1 1 1 1* 1 in«* of “.M small IIIII•)l>i,r of Ollt!1 ill|l! i if * , or vii licilly mie-iace, .schools within a district is * i".i in ;i.wl of iijrlf the w;uh of n system which >tiII » / • l\ .. i , • / • • o. .. r .g ... .. /: ,v t~ . ii I ' . I H ' i (i'»,i) ;if) u s . ../ A'...- . i f c„ V Il * iI ;* practices segregation by law,” Sv/au.i, .inpra a t ..... , 9 ‘ S.Cl. al 12151, built IIn: school inilhoiily a ml the ill-hit judge must neverihch'ss he co,teemed with the dint tuition of onc-rucc schools. * e * The school authorities and the district court slioul consider the use of all techniques for desegregation, ii eluding pairing or grouping of schools, nonconligitui attendance zones, restructuring of grade levels, and tl transportation of pupils ” (Italics supplied.) Emphasizing the imperative nature of the commands ital ci/.ed above was (1) the specific authorization conferrr upon district courts to employ independent education; experts at the expense of any local school hoard which sul milted a plan that did not comply “with the directions s forth in this opinion . . ,** and (2) the requirement that at district court which approved a plan achieving lc>s nctu. desegregation than would be achieved under an altcmnth j)lan must find facts that made impracticable (lie nchievii of a greater degree of integration “especially if there reinm any schools all or predominantly of one race ” Id., at 10 (Emphasis supplied.) With the prescriptions of Swann and Davis thus focus* in the commands of Adams, it was obvious that any plan'h the establishment of a unitary school system in Arliugk County which contemplated the desegregation of Ore .School only and which left another elementary selio with an all Negro student body and eleven other element i schools with all-while, or virtually all-white, student l\\li — could not possibly survive judieial appraisal. If a imita system was to be c.slabli.-.hed, all o| tin* <le.ueniar\ seh, . comprising that systeni would have to be eoiidde.. .1 • desegregated if iv.isoii.ihly po.» ihle. Contrary lo ap( .11 . �10 assertion, this was not a “self-imposed objective” of the defendant school hoard; it was a judicially imposed impera tive. See,' Brief for the Appellants, p. 16. The command that the Arlington County School Board must “be concerned with the elimination of one-race schools” could hardly he complied with merely by passing a resolution expressing such concern and taking no other action, especially when the elimination of all one-race schools in the county was not only possible, but feasible. Adams, supra, at 101. In this setting, the school board adopted and submitted to the District Court a plan which (1) achieved the greatest possible degree of actual desegregation, taking into account the practicalities of the situation (2) eliminated all one-race schools, both white and Negro (3) insured that every child in the Arlington school system will receive both his elemen tary and secondary education in an integrated facility (4) established in substantially all of the elementary schools a student racial ratio which reflects the racial ratio of the system as a whole (5) racially balanced the faculties in each elementary school in the county so that the ratio of white to black faculty members in each school is substantially the same as the ratio of white to black faculty members in the system as a whole and (6) established in Arlington County a unitary school system which has neither “white” schools nor “black" schools—just schools. Achievement of the above stated objectives in compliance with the prescriptions of Swann and Davis and the com mands of Adams was possible in only two ways. One method — that adoptetl by the school board entailed the conversion of the Drew and Hodman-Boston .schools from traditional elementary facilities to other educational programs and the tslahlishment within the all-Negro * '.graphic areas of those •« schools of a series of “satellite” ■ i.< by which elementary /< 11 pupils formerly assigned to Drew and Hodman-Boston would be assigned to various all-white, or predominantly white, schools in the county in accordance with criteria which would not only integrate every elementary school in the system, but would indeed racially balance substantially all of such schools. Bus transportation would be provided by the school board for all the pupils thus reassigned, 704 in number, and no such pupil would be required to be bused for as much as one-half hour to reach his newly assigned school. Indeed, since Arlington County is only seven miles long and slightly more than three miles wide, the average bus ride for such children would be the same as that for ele mentary pupils in the county generally. Care was taken to insure that no family groups would be disturbed by the new plan, and a feeder system was adopted to insure that the racial balance achieved in the elementary schools would be preserved, and even heightened, over the years. No overcrowding results under the school board’s plan, and the additional transportation cost incurred would be approximately $11,000 per year. In addition, the plan en ables the school board to utilize the existing Drew and Hoflman-Boston facilities for other innovative and highly desirable educational programs designed to increase the already outstanding excellence of the Arlington school sys tem. In this connection, it should be emphasized that the Drew and Hodman-Boston schools arc not being closed or removed from the public school system or converted to administrative or noil-educational uses. On the contrary, these facilities have been reprogrammed under the school board's plan to serve exclusively educational functions in the emerging fields of pre-kindergarten instruction for chil dren three and four years of age, model elementary school experimentation in ungraded education and for adult edit- �1 2 cation. In this setting, appellants’ assertion that the school board's plan must be examined as if the Drew school was being “used to store furniture” is surely wide of the mark. See, brief for the Appellants, p. 24. Essentially the school board’s plan for establishing a uni tary system of elementary schools in Arlington County tracks that utilized for the junior high schools in the CharlotteMecklenburg school system in Swann, which was subse quently approved by this Court and the Supreme Court. As stated by the Supreme Court (402 U.S., at 9 ): “The Finger plan for the junior high schools employed much of the rezoning plan of the board, combined with the creation of nine “satellite" zones. Under the satel lite plan, inner-city Negro students were assigned by attendance zones to nine outlying predominantly white junior high schools, thereby substantially desegregating every junior high school in the system." (Italics sup plied.) In addition, the feeder system aspect of the school board’s plan (1) counters the specific objection expressed by this Court in Fehler v. Harnett County Board of Education, 409 F. 2d 1070, 1075 (4 Cir., 1969) that the plan there under consideration did “not eliminate the possibility that what ever feeder system is adopted to effect this transition will not recreate a dual system at the high school level” and (2) further evidences the school board’s awareness of, and intent to comply with, the teachings of the decisions of this Court in school desegregation cases. . The only other plan which would achieve the results of die school hoard's plan and honor the prescriptions of Swann and Davis, as well as the command of Adams, would he one which entailed assigning 90% of the black students in Drew and I lolfinandloston to other schools in the county 13 and replacing them with an equal number of while students drawn from the various predominantly white schools in the county. Mathematically, such a plan would require (a) re moving 102 of the 114 Negro elementary pupils at IIollinanBoston, leaving 12 Negro pupils there to be joined by 102 replacement white students from other schools in the county and (b) removing 530 of the 590 Negro elementary pupils at Drew, leaving 60 Negro pupils there to be joined by 530 replacement white students also drawn from other schools throughout the county. Such a plan (1) would sub stantially double the amount of busing necessary to achieve a unitary system (2) would entail an initial expenditure of $206,000 (including thirteen new buses) for the first year and an expenditure of $130,000 per year thereafter and (3) would, by unnecessarily continuing Drew and IloffmanBoston as traditional elementary schools, deprive the school board of facilities for its pre-kindergarten, model elemen tary school and adult education programs. By contrast to the plans described above, it is manifest at a glance that neither of the plans espoused by the appel lants in their brief even remotely approaches compliance with the controlling constitutional requirements. Sec, Brief for the Appellants, Appendix A. The first of these plans en visions the desegregation of Drew School by pairing or clustering it with five other elementary schools in the vi cinity, and is based upon a working paper prepared by the staff of the defendant school board pursuant to the resolu tion previously mentioned. While the plan effectively de segregates the Drew school, it falls far short of establishing a unitary school system in Arlington County. Under this plan, the elementary portion of the Hofiinan-Boston school re mains an all-Negro facility, while four other schools in the county (Custis, Jamestown, Madison and Woodinont) re- �It 15 main all white, five other schools (Barcroft, Jackson, Nott ingham, Page and Tnckahoe) remain 99% white and two schools (Key and Maury) remain 93% white. Thus, twelve of the twenty-nine elementary schools in the county would remain one-race, or virtually one-race, schools under this plan (App. 16,38-39). The appellants’ suggested plan for the desegregation of Hodman-Boston is even more inadequate. It is the result of “hasty preparation” by Mr. Richardson, a witness for the plaintiffs, and manifestly represents an effort to bring this case within the scope of Brice v. Landis, 314 F. Supp. 974 (W.D. Cal. 1969) by attempting to show that a reason able alternative to the school board’s plan exists. It contem plates pairing Hodman-Boston with three other elementary schools in the vicinity. While edcctivcly desegregating the Hodman-Boston Elementary School and the previously allwhite Custis Elementary School, it makes no provision for the Drew school which would remain all-black, nor for ten of the eleven all-white, or virtually all-white, elementary schools mentioned in the preceding paragraph, which schools would retain their 98-100% white status (App. 17, 62-63). Moreover, utilization of both of these plans simultaneously would not discharge the school board’s obligation to establish a unitary system. Combination of the appellants’ suggested plans would indeed eliminate all one-race black schools; however over one-third (ten of twenty-nine) of the county’s elementary schools would still remain 98-100% white. And no racial balancing of the county's elementary schools would even be attempted, much less achieved. Obviously, even if combined, the plans which appellants put forth as alter natives to the school board’s plan ( I) would not achieve a unilaiy system (2) would not eliminate all one-race, or virtually one-race, schools (3) would not achieve the greatest possible degree of actual desegregation taking into account the practicalities of the situation and, accordingly, would not honor the prescriptions of Swann and Davis nor comply with the commands of Adams. It is also inter esting to note that 1,664 pupils would be bused under these alternative plans which do not meet constitutional standards, while only 704 pupils would be bused under the school board’s plan which docs meet these standards. If the defendant school board had adopted both of the appellants’ suggested alternatives, we submit that it would have been required, as were the various school boards in Adams, to prepare a “new” plan which would “give effect to Swann and Davis” by according adequate consideration to the “use of bus transportation and split zoning.” Adams, supra, at 100-101. In light of the legal deficiencies in the appellants’ suggested alternatives and the demonstrated drawbacks of the “90% out 90% in” plan, it is difficult to conceive how the plan adopted by the school board can be said to be invidiously discriminatory. In this connection, certain aspects of the case at bar must be emphasized. First, this case docs not involve the closing of any school, merely the conversion of facilities from one type of educational program to another. Second, this case does not involve even a suggestion of “white flight,” and neither that term nor that concept was ever mentioned by any party at any point in these proceedings. Third, this case docs not involve any reluctance on the part of the school board to assign and bus white children to formerly all-black schools located in all, or predominantly, Negro neighborhoods. On the contrary, the record discloses that a majority (70% ) of white students have for years been transported to the formerly all-black Ilolfman lloston �16 Junior High School (Jefferson Annex) located in that com pletely Negro residential area (App. 12). Sec, U'anner v. County School Board of Arlington County, 357 F. 2d 452, ■156 (1 Cir., 1966). Moreover, the plan adopted by the School Board envisioned the enrollment of a majority of white students in the model elementary school to be housed in the converted Drew facility, which is located in an allNegro residential area, and that feature of the school board’s plan is even now in effect. See, Brief for the Appellants, p. 7. Significant in this context, is the decision of this Court in Chambers v. Iredell County Board of Education, 423 F.2d 613 (4th Cir., 1970). Under consideration in that case was a school desegregation plan in which one school, Unity School, remained all black with 285 students. That facility was to be replaced the following school year by a new school which was then under construction. When completed, the new facility would absorb Unity’s 285 black students and some 475 white students from three other schools, at which time the formerly all-black Unity School would be closed. Plain tiffs there alleged that the decision to close Unity was racially motivated “because it arose out of a disinclination to put white pupils into a previously all-black school.” Id., at 616. Rejecting this contention, this Court stated (423 F.2d at 616): "This contention is not persuasive in light of the fact that the school board has already integrated Amity School, which was previously all-black and is now twothirds white. There appears to be no pattern of simply closing black schools because they have been black.” Similarly, in the case at bar, the Arlington County School Board long ago integrated the Iloffman-liostnn Junior High School “which was previously all-black and is now twothirds while”’ We submit that if the closing of an all-black 17 school is not indicative of racial motivation when a school board has integrated another previously all-black school in the same system, then the mere conversion of a previously all-black school to a different educational program and the enrollment of a majority of white students in that identical facility, coupled with the previous assignment of a majority of white students to another formerly all-black school, can not be said to be racially motivated. Even more nearly in point and controlling is the decision of this Court in Allen v. Asheville C ity Board of Education, 434 F.2d 902 (4th Cir., 1970). In that case, the Asheville School Board decided that it was necessary to close two formerly all-black elementary schools and one formerly allwhite elementary school to achieve racial balance. After plaintiffs objected to the proposed plan on the basis of the closing of the two all-black schools, the school board modi fied the plan to provide for the continued operation of the formerly all-wbite school, with the two formerly all-black schools remaining closed. During the course of its opinion, this Court stated the plaintiffs’ objection to the plan and the reason therefore in the following language (434 F.2d at 905, 906): “Able counsel for plaintiffs arc unable to' fault the Board’s plan other than a complaint with respect to the closing of two previously all-black schools and the im pact of their closing, in the context of the rest of the plan, upon black students. * • * “Plaintiffs insist, however, that the school board’s true reason for selection is undisclosed and is simply its ‘re luctance to send primary grade white children into traditionally all-black schools located in all-black neigh-borhoods.’ ” �18 19 Rejecting pl.iimilTs’ contention tlu t the Asheville School Hoard had unfairly discriminated against black students in the closing of the two schools there in question, this Court enunciated the following principles governing such situ ations (131 F.2d at 905, 906): elementary schools, or if they were reconstituted as such, 90 percent of the black students formerly in each school would have to be moved out into other schools and this 90 percent replaced by white students. Moreover, the purpose of the school board’s plan here is not merely to implement the Brown II principle, but also to implement Swann, Davis and Adams. That the plan “effectively achieves that end” is acknowledged even by the appellants. Sec, Brief for the Appellants, p. 19. In addition, the school board’s plan is the only demonstrably rational and practical plan that will comply with the requirements of Swann, Davis and Adams. In Chambers, this Court expressed doubt that many school systems had achieved a higher degree of integration than then prevailed in Iredell County. Subsequently, in Allen, this Court stated that Asheville was “at or near the pinnacle of arithmetical desegregation in America.” Id., at 903. So far as we arc aware, Asheville is still near the pin nacle of arithmetical desegregation in America; howevrr, we submit that at the pinnacle of arithmetical desegregation in America is Arlington County. Here again, it should be pointed out that this distinction was achieved without closing any school, while in the Chambers and Allen cases, the allblack facilities there under consideration were selected “for extinction” and were removed from the public school system. Allen v. Asheville City Board of Education, supra, at 905. None of the cases relied upon by appellants derogates from the principles enunciated in the Chambers and Allen cases. In Felder v. Harnett County Board of Education, supra, the basis of this Court's decision was the complete failure of the school board to disestablish an entrenched dual school system in which only 4.3% of the black children were attending previously all white schools. Moreover, in that case there was not the slightest assurance of achieving In the first place, we think the mechanics of integra tion, where the purpose is obviously to implement the Brown II principle and effectively achieves that end, is ordinarily a matter within the discretion of school ad ministrators. The question is not whether we might have selected different schools for extinction, nor even whether substantial evidence supports the Board’s deci sion, but is instead whether the Board’s decision is so plainly unfair that it clearly amounts to invidious dis crimination in violation of the equal protection clause. « * • . . . Moreover, the situation of which plaintiffs complain cannot possibly be changed except at the cost of in creasing the transportation of pupils approximately “ 10 percent. This is so because if the two black schools that have been closed were reopened, 70 percent of the black students formerly in each school would have to be moved out into other schools and this 70 percent re placed by white students. * * • It is urged upon us that even so, both schools that were closed are newer and physically better than most of the other schools retained. We agree that this is a relevant factor. But neither alone nor in context does it establish invidious discrimination. Such a factor is only one of many that enter into a school closing decision. II'e repeat that we do not sit to review state adminis trative decisions beyond the very limited reach of the Constitution. ( Italics supplied.) Simil.illy, in the ease at bar, as previously pointed out, if Drew and I lolfman Boston had been retained as traditional �20 a unitary school system atul the selection of tire schools for closing was therefore suspect. See, Allen, supra at 906. In Green v. School Board of C ity of Roanoke, 316 F. Supp. 6 (W.D. Va. 1970), the closing of the formerly allblack high school there under consideration would have causcil overcrowding in the three remaining predominantly white high schools in the city. In the face of this circum stance, no adequate reason was advanced by the school board, in terms of its desegregation plan or otherwise, to justify discontinuance of the school in question. Brice v. Landis, 314 F. Supp. 974 (N.D. Cal. 1969) states nothing to the contrary. In that case, the closing of a 99% black school pursuant to the school board’s plan would have resulted in overcrowded classes and distorted pupil-teacher ratios at the three remaining predominantly white schools in the system. Id., at 977. Other “options, alternatives and courses of action” were available to the school board. Id., at 970. Pointing out that a particular desegregation plan “when not reasonably required under the circumstances” could be discriminatory, the District Court observed (314 F. Supp. at 978): "Whether the plan, as here presented, is a good faith, reasonably adequate implementation of constitutional principles involved, must be determined in the light, among other things, oj the alternative options and courses of action available to the District." (Italics supplied.) Commenting upon this decision in Allen, supra, this Court succinctly stated (434 F.2d at 907): “ We are advertent to Ilrire v. Landis (N.D. Cal., Aug. M 1969), 314 F.Nupp, 971, which held on the , peculiar / m is n[ the case that the closing of a Negro school was invidiously disc iicoinatoiy and subjec t to in- 21 junction. We think it means no more than that and agree there may be such a ease, but think it is not ibis one. / / it is read to im ply that it is ordinarily for the district courts to determine which schools shall be closed rather than for the school board, we reject the propo sition." (Italics supplied.) Even less apposite is Lee v. Macon County Board o/ Iedu cation, 448 F. 2d 746 (5 Cir., 1971). In that ease, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed a decree of the district court which would have had the effect of leaving over 45% of the school district’s Negro students in all-black, or virtually all-black, schools. Id., at 748, 753. Moreover, the justification advanced by the school board for the pro posed closing of two formerly all-black schools was (1) that whites would resist going to school in facilities formerly used by blacks, and (2) that otherwise white students would llec the school system altogether. Id., at 750, 754. In light of these circumstances, the Court of Appeals directed the dis trict court to require the school board “forthwith to consti tute and implement a student assignment plan that complies with the principles established in Swann v. Charloltc-Mecklenburg Board of Education." Id., at 753. In short, Lee is a school closing, racially motivated, white-flight, non-unitary, non-Swann school desegregation ease. Not one of the abovelisted considerations obtains in the ease at bar. Haney v. County Board of Education of Sevier County, 429 F. 2d 364 (8 Cir., 1970) is equally inapplicable. In that ease, the district court decreed the annexation of a small all black school district in the county by a larger all-white school district and, in addition, decreed that the facilities of the larger all-white school district would he utilized and, only if these facilities proved inadequate, would those of die formerly all-Negro district be used. There was nothing in the record to explain the closing of the facilities formerly used �22 23 for the instruction of black students. After referring to this Court’s decision in the Felder ease and Brice v. f.anitis, siiprn, the Court of Appeals observed (129 l\2d at 372): meet the prescribed constitutional standards. Sec Brief for the Appellants, p. 17; Brief for Amici Curiae, p. 16. How ever, both arc careful to avoid stating that there “is” such a plan or informing this Court of the details, or even the outlines, of such other plan. The reason for this equivocation is quite obvious—both appellants and amici know full well that there is no plan other than that adopted by the school board which rationally and practically accomplishes what this Court said in Adams must be done. The assertion that the school board’s plan unfairly bur dens the Negro students of Drew and Hoffman-Boston will not bear scrutiny. For years pupils at these schools have attended a “walk-in” facility and have not been required to be bused (App. 48-49). If attendance at a “walk-in” fa cility can be deemed a convenience, it is one which these students have enjoyed for years while thousands of other children in Arlington County have been bused (App. 13). To require them at this late date to forego this convenience so that a racially balanced, unitary school system can be established can hardly be considered unfair. This, we sub mit, is especially true when one remembers that the bus ride they are asked to take is, on the average, only ten minutes longer than the time it would take them to walk to the Drew and Hoffman-Boston facilities, and the walk to those facilities had to be made in all weather conditions through out the school year (App. 39). Finally, while the Drew and Hoffman-Boston students are now bused to other schools, over 40% of the Negro elementary students in Arlington County still attend their neighborhood schools (App. 15). In Allen, a similar contention was rejected by this Court in language subsequently deemed controlling and quoted at length in Mims v. Duval County School Board, 329 F. Supp. 123 (M.D. Fla., 1971). In Mims, approving a desegregation “The matter of utilization of available facilities is with in the province and discretion of the school board. There is a statement in the record that the class rooms of the former Sevier District are not of suflicicnt size to meet current state standards. These details, of course, are subject to many variations and much can be done within the existing framework of operation to suffi ciently utilize existing facilities. This is not a matter for court consideration but rather should be resolved on some rational noil-discriminatory basis by the local school board." (Italics supplied.) Throughout their briefs, both appellants and amici curiae make only glancing references to Swann, pay no respect to Adams and do not even mention Davis at all. Indeed, refer ence is made to Adams only for its one line affirmance of the district court’s retention of the Addison School in Roan oke; so far as appellants and amici are concerned, the rest of what this Court said in Adams does not even exist. Thus do they seek to avoid any consideration whatever of the school board’s clear obligation to eliminate one-race schools and achieve the greatest possible degree of actual desegre gation as required by Swann, Davis and Adams. Thus, too, do they seek to insinuate that the school board in this case can get by with something less than full compliance with the commands of these decisions, even though full compliance enn be had, as demonstrated by the plan which the school board adopted and put into effect last September and which this Court and the Chief Justice of the United States refused to enjoin. In addition, both appellants and amici persist in pressing the illusion that there “may” be other plans which would �24 plan xvlilcli involved the closing of seven black elementary schools, the district court observed (329 I'\ Snpp. at 132133): “ In their second argument plaintilTs seek to have this Court require the School Board to bus white children to the core city for all elementary grades, not just to sixth grade centers, so to achieve equal busing of the races. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit resolved the same argument in Allen v. Asheville City Board of Education [434 F.2d 902, 907 (4 Cir., 1970)] with these words: We are asked to decide whether the district court, in approving the plan, unconstitutionally placed ‘the burden of desegregation’ upon black pupils in the school system. It is urged upon us that the plan ap proved by the district court ‘places an unfair, racially discriminatory burden upon black children’ in that black children in grades 1 through 5 who previously attended all-black Livingston and Herring FJcmcntary Schools will be required to travel as much as five or six miles in order to attend previously all-white schools. This is said to be an unfair allocation of the ‘burden’ of integration, and it is suggested that the Constitution requires that an equivalent number or proportion of white children in the same grades be required to travel an equivalent distance to enter schools outside their previous attendance zones. We hold that such a pattern of assignment imple mented by free school bus transportation does not violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The rationale in the Second Circuit is essentially the same. In Norwalk Core v. Norwalk Board of Education, [423 I'.2d 121, 124 (2 Cir., 1970)] the Court noted: I’laiutilfs would eliminate what lliry call unequal treatment by having, in elfect, one white child bussed 25 out of his neighborhood for every black child bussed out of his - in oilier words, deprive as many whites of neighborhood advantages as blacks arc deprived by being bussed to schools predominantly white. But the problem is not as simple ns a one black, one white ratio. It is a question of the Board, with the facilities available having ‘acted in the utmost good faith, in a nonarbitrary and deliberate manner, in order both to insure racial balance and to provide high quality education.’ * * *" Nor will it do to assert that the school board’s plan sug gests to black children that it would be dangerous if “blacks make up more than 15% of the enrollment of any school.” See, Brief for the Appellants, p. 15. This assertion is instantly blunted by the fact that four elementary schools in Arling ton County already had black students in excess of 15% when the school board’s plan was adopted. Moreover, the alternative arrangements for the Drew school espoused in plaintiffs’ brief would limit black enrollment to 21% in each of the schools affected. Does this arrangement suggest that any number of black students in excess of 21 % in any school is dangerous? Was any such message explicit or implicit in the racially balanced plans approved by this Court in Chambers and Allen? Neither, we submit, does the plan adopted by the school board in the case at bar carry such an inference. It is, of course, primarily the obligation of the school board to frame and put into effect a plan which establishes a uni tary school system, nnd, as pointed out in Oltvis, utfjrit at 37, the “measure of any desegregation plan is its effectiveness.” F'roin Brown II to Adams, the decisions confirming this principle have been legion and consistent. As stall'll in Bind ley v. School Board of C ity of Richmond, 325 F. Snpp. t!2H, 1132-1)33 (E.D. Va. 1971): �27 26 “A second principle guiding the Court—almost as ob vious as the doctrine of precedent—is that it is primarily the School Board’s duty to run the schools, and not this Court’s nor the plaintiffs’ . . . Because both expertise ami responsibility arc the School Board’s, it is to their proposals that courts look first for a legally sulficicnt plan. . . . When they assume the ‘responsibility which Brown' II placed squarely on the School Board,’ Id., 412, 88 S. Ct. 1696, courts will not presume to dictate a selection between equally effective desegregation plans.’’ Wanner v. County School Board of Arlington County, 357 F. 2d 452, 436 (4th Cir. 1966). (Italics supplied.) Echoing these observations arc those of Judge Bryan in his special concurring opinion in Adams, supra, at 102: “. . . I think the only pattern the school authorities and the Courts must observe is one honoring the prescrip tions of Swann and Davis. So long as it is in keeping with these decisions, my understanding is that formu lation of a plan is entrusted to the discretion o/ the school authorities . . .” (Italics supplied.) We submit that in the ease at bar the obligation resting upon the Arlington County School Board has been fully dis charged by the adoption of a desegregation plan which honors the prescriptions of Swann and Davis, complies with the commands of Adams, and is therefore constitutionally valid. CONCLUSION III Walton V. Nashville, Arkansas, Special School District No. I, 401 F. 2d 137, 144 (8 Cir., 1969), Judge Blackmon, speaking for a court which sustained the non-reeinploynicnt of certain Negro teachers in a school desegregation case, made the following observations: “We arc conscious in this ease, as we have been in earlier ones, that the process of school integration is not easy and that there will be hurts and disappointments as integration is accomplished. Certainly, under the precepts of the Brown decisions, it has been loo long delayed at Nashville. But we are told that it has now been fully accomplished there. That fact should be a source of satisfaction for all citizens, white as well as black.’’ (Italics supplied.) In the case at bar, this Court is also informed that inte gration has now been fully accomplished in Arlington Coun ty. It is so informed by the plan itself, which is currently before this Court and was adopted to carry out the following policy of the school board (App. 40): “The purposes that the board had was, first of all, pri marily to eliminate all vestiges of a dual system, to move to establish a true unitary system throughout the county, to provide and to establish racial balanced schools, and I think, then, to get on with the primary purpose of the school system which is the education of young people.” It is similarly informed by the appellants who admit that the plan is one “which unquestionably docs away with the last vestiges of school segregation remaining from the legis latively imposed dual school system” and who further ac knowledge that it “is undisputed that the Arlington School Board has put into effect a plan that fully complies with the primary mandates laid down in” Brown, Green and Swann. See, Brief for the Appellants, pp. 1, 9. Finally, this Court is so informed by the District Court in the following language of its opinion, 329 F. Supp. at 955956 (App. 14): “The Arlington County School Board has now fully complied with the Supreme Court decision in Broun 1 �21 : • -A unitary school system as required l)y Creel am! Alexander lias been rslablidird Arlington will 11a\ o neither black nor while schools jn.sl schools.’* Til li;;!it of the foregoing, ami for (lie reason heretofore stall'll, we submit lliat (lie decision of (lie Dislirct Court is clearly correct ami should be affirmed. Respectfully submitted, , J a m e s II. Sim m o n o s G r e g o r y U. E v a n s 1500 North Courthouse Road Arlington, Virginia R. D. M c I h v a in k , III P.O .Box 705 Petersburg, Virginia Counsel Ior Appellees (H' K IriCAYK .T I certify that two copies of the within brief for appellees were mailed, with first class postage prepaid, to S. W. Tucker, Esquire, 211 East Clay Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219; to Robert M. Alexander, Esquire, 2011 South Glebe Road, Ailinglnn, Viiginia 2220-1; to Allison VV. Brown, Jr., Esquire, Suite 501, 1121 Sixlrenlh St reel, N.W., Washing ton, n.C . 2(10:50; to T.awrencc J. I.allo, Esquire, ‘ .'ll l'if/ ll riltll Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005; and to Jack Greenbur;;, I'equire, Suite 20,'50, 10 Columbus Circle, New Vol k, New. York 10010, conn el for plaint iff:;; and In William 11. All* n, Esquire, and John 11. Jones, Jr., Esquire, fit',II Sixteiulh Siiii I, N, \V,, W. 11i11;;I'ni, n.C. 20(jl'b, conn,el lor .....5 I . lie-. Ill'll day of M .a ll, 10/2. I! . I) . ; 11:f ■ i i 'll � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource RG 66, Personal Papers of Henry Gardner Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Brief for Appellees, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, No. 71-1791: John K. Hart, et. Al v. County School Board of Arlington County, et al Description An account of the resource Issue presented for Review: John K. Hart, et al v. County School Board of Arlington County. Issue presented for review is "whether or not the desegregation plan adopted by the Arlington County School Board and put into effect in September 1971 is constitutionally valid. 15 pages Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 66, Personal Papers of Henry Gardner Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1971 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1970s Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource This image is subject to copyright. Unauthorized use of the images in the Local History Collections of the Arlington Community Archives is prohibited. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 66_1_1_1_159 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/e8b637a1f0d8e1d8d03ee617ff4a895b.pdf 3ea4b7e7b12d3fc60c688c6bc03b715a PDF Text Text F e b r u a r y 11, 1991 Mrs. E l i z a b e t h C a m p b e l l 2207 N. T u c k a h o e Street A r l i n g t o n , Va. 22205 D ear Mrs. Campbell: I e n j o y e d t a l k i n g w i t h you today. I h a ve a lways a d m i r e d you a nd the foresightedness that you p o s s e s s e d in c h a n g i n g the A r l i n g t o n P u b l i c Schools. Enclosed is a c o p y of the a r t i c l e I m e n t i o n e d to y ou today. Sincerely, H E N R Y D. G A R D N E R Asst. S u p e r i n t e n d e n t for Pers o n n e l HDG-cf Enc. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource RG 66, Personal Papers of Henry Gardner Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letter to Elizabeth Campbell from Henry D. Gardner, Asst. Superintendent for Personnel, February 11, 1991 Description An account of the resource Letter to Elizabeth Campbell from Henry D. Gardner, Asst. Superintendent for Personnel, February 11, 1991 expresses admiration for her foresightedness with regard to Arlington Public Schools. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 66, Personal Papers of Henry Gardner Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Arlington Public Schools Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2/11/91 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1990s Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource This image is subject to copyright. Unauthorized use of the images in the Local History Collections of the Arlington Community Archives is prohibited. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 66_1_1_1_158 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/8acc5b9fd211414bedf1b839ce52c7d7.pdf a8bc789f3da712f52cc7289f4a5dd051 PDF Text Text ARLINGTON COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD Item No. / A 3 Arlington School Board Action Item ___ Barcroft Parent Request/ Grade 3 Students_____ Date Prepared: 4/16/86____ Meeting D a t e ____________ For Information Meeting Date For Action 5/8/86 Initiated by: Parent request to Board Staff contact: X Dr. Arthur W. Gosling Explanation of Subject/Issue: Barcroft school parents have requested the following: (1) That third grade children attending the school who reside in the Nauck community be permitted to complete their elementary school education at Barcroft school. These children otherwise are assigned to several different North Arlington elementary schools for grades 4-6. (2) That the school division study the issues related to school attendance for children residing in the Nauck community. Superintendent's Recommendation: A # (1) Assign current third grade students from the Nauck community who currently attend Barcroft for grades 1-3 only to continue attending that school for grades 4-6. Nothing in this decision, however, precludes parents from exercising all existing opportunities for transfers, including the opportunity for a younger sibling to accompany an older sibling to a designated elementary school in the northern section of the County. (2) Direct the Superintendent to develop an issues paper for Board review in fall 1986. This paper would identify issues relating to school attendance assignments for all children residing in the Nauck community, grades K-12. Comments: A staff team consisting of Operations, Assistant Superintendent Relations was formed to review this unanimous in its recommendations for the Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent for for Personnel, and the Director of School/Community request. The team met on several occasions and is action to the School Board. Please move forward your information item from the meeting on April 24, 1986. �� Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource RG 66, Personal Papers of Henry Gardner Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Arlington County School Board Action Item: Barcroft Parent Request, Grade 3 Students, April 16, 1986. Handwritten note on reverse. Description An account of the resource Arlington County School Board Action Item: Barcroft Parent Request, Grade 3 Students, April 16, 1986. Includes Superintendent's Recommendation that current Barcroft third grade students from Nauck be permitted to continue attending that school for grades 4-6. Handwritten note on reverse. 2 sides, front and back. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 66, Personal Papers of Henry Gardner Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Arlington Public Schools Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 4/16/86 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1980s Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource This image is subject to copyright. Unauthorized use of the images in the Local History Collections of the Arlington Community Archives is prohibited. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 66_1_1_1_157 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/80364377784ad50a47e0599ff14cea9c.pdf 1530bfd7f7be38fd9198974548d2322a PDF Text Text 7 • ASD 25-6.01 (Revised) October, 1985 attendance area. It is understood that such a request shall be related to the student’s appearance before that judge or before a judge of a similar court in another jurisdiction and shall be based on the student's court involvement. 2. Procedure a. The Court requests reassignment of the student through the office of the receiving principal. Request for assignment is accompanied by detailed background information which shows the need for spe cial placement and will also serve to give the receiving school the information necessary to assist the student effectively. b. The receiving principal reviews the request and sends a copy of his/her response to the court and to the Director of Student Ser vices and Programs and to the Director of Assessment. F. Instructional Transfers/Alternate Course Selections 1 . Instructional Transfers - Elementary and Intermediate Schools a. Policy Parents of students enrolled in elementary and intermediate schools may request transfer to another elementary school or intermediate school for instructional reasons when, in the opinion of the parents and the principals of the schools involved, such a transfer would be in the student's best interest and provided that: (1) The transfer will not raise the percentage of students attending the receiving school from other attendance areas for instruction reasons in excess of 4$ for elementary schools (K-6) and 4$ for intermediate schools (based on September 30 student membership report). This percentage constraint is applied to all students on instructional trans fers, not just those that occur in any one particular school year. (2) The parents assume the responsibility for special transporta tion arrangements if such are necessary. (3) These special assignments may be terminated if, in the opin ion of the principal or the parents involved, it is creating a situation harmful to the student or other students. (4) The transfer does not cause the receiving school to exceed, or continue to exceed, its standard accommodation level. (5) The transfer does not change the percentage of black students in either the sending or receiving school to fall below 7% or to exceed 19% of the school's student population. In those schools where the percentage of black students was not within the 7-19$ range at the time of the desegregation plan's approval, then the percentage figure at the time is Page 6 of 8 �ASD 25-6.01 (Revised) October, 1985 the percentage of black students that cannot be exceeded as a result of the transfer. The percentage figure to be used is that reported in the most recent Civil Rights Report. (6) This policy is not applicable to the H.B. Woodlawn, Page, Drew, or Jackson schools since they function as special instructional units. (7) Each transfer request must stand on its own merit. b. Procedures (D Requests for new instructional transfers for the upcoming school year may not be submitted prior to January 1 . (2) Principal of the sending school will act on requests during the month of February. (3) Principal of the receiving school will act on requests during the month of March. - w Requests received after February 1 will be acted on by the sending and receiving principals by March 31. (5) The new request for transfer must be made by the parents in writing to both the principals of the sending and receiving schools. Coordinating the processing of the transfer request and notification, in writing, to all parties involved of its disposition, is the responsibility of the principal of the sending school. Transfers are contingent upon agreement of both principals. (6) No student transfers will take place during April, May, and June. (7) Renewal instructional transfer requests must be reviewed each year during the month of April. This responsibility rests with the principal of the receiving school. The parent of the student and the principal of the sending school must be advised on the status of each transfer during the month of April. (8) Use of a Waiting List: Each school principal will maintain a list of requested transfers. Those requests longest out standing should be acted on first after the renewals have been determined. (9) Annually, the principals of each elementary and intermediate school will report to the Director of Assessment by June 1 , the status of Instructional Transfers on the Annual Instruc tional Transfer Report. Page 7 of 8 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource RG 66, Personal Papers of Henry Gardner Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource ASD 25-6.01 (revised), October 1985 Description An account of the resource ASD 25-6.01 (revised), October 1985; re instructional transfers. 2 pages Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 66, Personal Papers of Henry Gardner Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource unknown Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1985-10 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1980s Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource This image is subject to copyright. Unauthorized use of the images in the Local History Collections of the Arlington Community Archives is prohibited. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 66_1_1_1_155 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/eed77b90049c52675607f3c8f279e6f5.pdf 51f05e0efe94cced44d4f636312afebc PDF Text Text �� Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource RG 66, Personal Papers of Henry Gardner Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Handwritten note regarding Mrs. Syphax's support that black students in third grade at Barcroft remain there through sixth grade, May 3, 1984 and unrelated handwritten note on back Description An account of the resource Handwritten note regarding Mrs. Syphax's support that black students in third grade at Barcroft remain there through sixth grade, May 3, 1984 and unrelated handwritten note on back. 2 pages, front and back Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 66, Personal Papers of Henry Gardner Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource unknown Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 5/3/84 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1980s Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource This image is subject to copyright. Unauthorized use of the images in the Local History Collections of the Arlington Community Archives is prohibited. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 66_1_1_1_154 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/e6b2c2fb46a7311b208637eb1cd4000e.pdf 59b72ab6645a08486aa9fa1aee73269b PDF Text Text 'ABINGDON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 3035 South Abingdon Street MEMORANDUM. March 22, 1983 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Response to Mrs. Syphax’ Questions on Racial and s Ethnic Distribution of Students Affected by Reduced Bussing Five students from the ]>rew area were reassigned to Abingdon as of the 1983/84 school year. To date, none o ' these students have attended Abingdon. One student f attends private school. The other four students elected to remain in their present schools on instructional transfers. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource RG 66, Personal Papers of Henry Gardner Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Memo to Dan Brown from Margaret McCourt-Dirner, Principal re "response to Mrs. Syphax's Questions on Facial and Ethnic Distribution of Students Affected by Reduced Busing, March 22, 1983 Description An account of the resource Memo to Dan Brown from Margaret McCourt-Dirner, Principal re "response to Mrs. Syphax's Questions on Racial and Ethnic Distribution of Students Affected by Reduced Busing, March 22, 1983 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 66, Personal Papers of Henry Gardner Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Arlington Public Schools Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 3/22/83 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1980s Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource This image is subject to copyright. Unauthorized use of the images in the Local History Collections of the Arlington Community Archives is prohibited. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 66_1_1_1_153 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/f8ece171a0bf7630723ebb9409d82631.pdf 89cfd5c6403d87229c16cc27b434e951 PDF Text Text Arlington Public Schools Randolph Elementary School March 22, 1984 MEMORANDUM TO: Daniel Brown FROM:s k /Bob McNeal i SUBJECT: Racial and Ethnic Distribution of Students Affected by Reduced Bussing In response to question n2 of your memo dated March 20, 1984, Randolph School has experienced no problems related to the change in bussing. In answer to question "3, we have no such students enrolled in our 3rd grade. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource RG 66, Personal Papers of Henry Gardner Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Memo to Daniel Brown from Bob McNeal re "Racial and Ethnic distribution of Students Affected by Reduced Busing, March 22, 1984 Description An account of the resource Memo to Daniel Brown from Bob McNeal re "Racial and Ethnic distribution of Students Affected by Reduced Busing, March 22, 1984 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 66, Personal Papers of Henry Gardner Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Arlington Public Schools Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 3/22/84 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1980s Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource This image is subject to copyright. Unauthorized use of the images in the Local History Collections of the Arlington Community Archives is prohibited. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 66_1_1_1_152 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/96028e120145dfb9d2dac6644014ea6f.pdf b8944d00128db09bf6953a7b93834bc3 PDF Text Text BARCROFT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 625 South Wakefield Street Arlington, Virginia 22204 March 23, 1984 MEMORAMOI im . TO I Daniel L. Brown Director, School /Commun ity Rela.tiona iW Vr FROM: SUBJECT: King Third Grade Students Affected by Reduced Busing There- have been no problems encountered at Barer oft during the 1983-84 school year related to the change in busing. Listed below are the black students presently enrolled in the third grade. Their receiving schools (1984-85) are listed, too. PIe ase cont ac t me shou1d you need add it ional informati o n . S tu g en Home School G oods r, Lakita Potter, Charles Thompson, Damon McKinley McKi n 1ey McKi n 1ey Dunbar, Jamal Johnson, Carmen Jame stown J ame s town J amest own Jones, Sher m a n Locke, Shae Pinkney, Carmen R ichardson, Sj u von T aylor Tay1or T aylor Smith, Celvinna No 11 in gh a i m NK/p k � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource RG 66, Personal Papers of Henry Gardner Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Memo to Daniel L. Brown, Director, School/Community Relations from Nancy King re "Third Grade Students Affected by Reduced Busing, March 23, 1984. Description An account of the resource Memo to Daniel L. Brown, Director, School/Community Relations from Nancy King re "Third Grade Students Affected by Reduced Busing, March 23, 1984. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 66, Personal Papers of Henry Gardner Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Arlington Public Schools Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 3/23/84 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1980s Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource This image is subject to copyright. Unauthorized use of the images in the Local History Collections of the Arlington Community Archives is prohibited. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 66_1_1_1_151 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/6c9eab80b98ec746a76473a64bb47c48.pdf 544345963027f430007b09ae98ae531a PDF Text Text ARLINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1426 NORTH OUINCY STREET ARLINGTON VIRGINIA 22207 School-Community R elatio n!, March 20, 1984 MEMORANDUM TO: PRINCIPALS OF ABINGDON, BARCROFT AND RANDOLPH FROM: Daniel L. Brown SUBJECT: Racial and Ethnic Reduced Bussing Distribution of Students Affected . by The following questions have been raised by School Board Member, Mrs. S y phax: 1. What is the racial or ethnic distribution in the three schools that received the students affected by reduced bussing? 2. Have there been any problems at the three receiving schools related to the change in bussing? 3. If the black students that are now enrolled, in the 3rd. grade but scheduled to be bussed to other schools were to remain in their present schools, would there be a negative effect on the schools that were to receive them? I can supply information for question number one according to the October 1983 Civil Rights Survey Summary Please detail any problems associated with the change requested in question number 2. in bussing as For question number 3, I need to know the number of black third grade students you have that are supposed to go to schools in North Arlington. Please list the number of students according to the receiving school. I will call the receiving school to see what impact it will have if the students remain in their present schools. Thank you for your cooperation. be secured. I need the information as soon as it can � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource RG 66, Personal Papers of Henry Gardner Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Memo to principals for Abingdon, Barcroft and Randolph from Daniel L. Brown re "Racial and Ethnic Distribution of Students Affected by Reduced Busing, March 20, 1984 Description An account of the resource Memo to principals for Abingdon, Barcroft and Randolph from Daniel L. Brown re "Racial and Ethnic Distribution of Students Affected by Reduced Busing, March 20, 1984 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 66, Personal Papers of Henry Gardner Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Arlington Public Schools Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 3/20/84 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1980s Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource This image is subject to copyright. Unauthorized use of the images in the Local History Collections of the Arlington Community Archives is prohibited. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 66_1_1_1_150 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/39d3e4cec0b7de460f8eb2a24619df32.pdf de75945565c02fa5505523fa715a270a PDF Text Text ARLINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1426 NORTH QUINCY STREET ARLINGTON VIRGINIA 22207 March 27, 1984 School-ComuniXy Relationi MEMORANDUM TO: Or. Charles Nunley FROM: Daniel L. Brown SUBJECT: Request for Information Regarding Racial and Ethnic Distribution of Students Affected by Reduced Bussing. The following questions have been raised by School Board Member, Mrs. S yphax: 1. What is the racial or ethnic distribution in the three schools that received the students affected by reduced bussing? 2. Have there been any problems at the three receiving schools related to the change in bussing? 3. If the black students that are now enrolled in the 3rd. grade, but scheduled to be bussed to other schools, were to remain in their present schools, would there be a negative effect on the schools that were to receive them? Response to Question No. 1: The three schools that were to receive black students as a result of the reduced bussing were Abingdon, Barcroft and Randolph. The racial and ethnic distribution data has been taken from the Summary of Civil Rights Survey as of October 20, 1983. American Indian/Alaskan Asian Black White Hispanic Total Abingdon 1 .2% 161 28.6% 116 20% 22940.7% 56 9.9% 563 Barcroft 1 .4% 37 15.7% 73 30.9% 104 44.1% 21 8.9% 236 44 10.0% 131 29.9% 218 49.8% 45 10.3% 438 Randolph �Response to Question No. 2: The three memorandums from the receiving schools (Abingdon, Barcroft, Randolph), indicated that there were no problems as a result of the changes related to bussing during the 1983-84 school-year. Response to Question No. 3 Communication with the principals of the three schools,(Abingdon, Barcroft, and Randolph), revealed that Abingdon and Randolph received none of the black students as a result of bussing. Barcroft, therefore will be affected if the 10 third grade students leave as present policy dictates or if they remain pending policy change. If the third grade students leave then Barcroft would no doubt lose at least a half teacher allocation. Barcroft presently has ten black third graders. Four schools are affected by the change in bussing. The distribution of the ten black students according to where they are designated to go for the fourth grade are McKinley3 students, Jamestown- 3 students, Taylor- 3 students and Nottingham- 1 student. Conversations with the four principals of the affected schools revealed the following information: William Wysong, Principal at McKinley, indicated that he did not think that the three black students would make a significant difference and that they probably should be given an option. Lionel Seitzer, Principal at Jamestown, stated that he presently has only one black child in the primary grades K-3 and that he will have none in the fourth grade if the three at Barcroft remain there for the 1984-85 school-year. He further stated that presently he has only twelve black students - five in special education and seven in regular education. Ralph Stone, Principal at Taylor, stated that he presently has eight black students out of 71 third graders which represents 11%. If the three at Barcroft attend Taylor next year he will have eleven black students out of 74 fourth graders which will represent 15% of the fourth grade class. Edward Reynolds, Principal at Nottingham indicated that one black student would not make that much of an impact but cautions that we could be moving toward predominantly white schools in North Arlington. It is obvious that the school most affected by this change has been Barcroft. Conversations with principals in the North Arlington schools reveals that the impact on each school differs slightly. enclo s u r e s : � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource RG 66, Personal Papers of Henry Gardner Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Meme to Dr. Charles Nunley from Daniel L. Brown re "Request for Information Regarding Racial and Ethnic Distribution of Students Affected by Reduced Busing," March 27, 1984 Description An account of the resource Nunley from Daniel L. Brown re "Request for Information Regarding Racial and Ethnic Distribution of Students Affected by Reduced Busing, "March 27, 1984. Answers to questions posed by School Board member Evelyn Syphax. 2 pages Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 66, Personal Papers of Henry Gardner Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Arlington Public Schools Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 3/27/84 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1980s Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource This image is subject to copyright. Unauthorized use of the images in the Local History Collections of the Arlington Community Archives is prohibited. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 66_1_1_1_148 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/7b6d80f4d8164493c6360c34afe884aa.pdf faa176921a84acd2aa14232de952b4eb PDF Text Text ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM DATE: May 27, 1983 SUBJECT: Proposed Changes In Busing Plan TO: Chairman and Members, Arlington County School Board FROM: Charles G. Flinn, County A t t o r n e y ^ ^ Cynthea L. Perry, Assistant County Attorney We understand that the Superintendent has proposed a plan to reduce the distances over which elementary pupils in kindergarten through grade 3 in the Drew Area of the Arlington School Division are bused. Those pupils are now bused to 12 other elementary schools, of which six are a considerable distance from the Drew Area. The six are Ashlawn, Jamestown, McKinley, Nottingham, Taylor, Tuckahoe Elementary Schools. All six require bus trips of from 30-40 minutes and the busing distance and time for all are greater than the average distance and times for all other students bused as well as all other students in kindergarten through the 3rd grade, now being bused. The students bused from the Drew Area to these six schools are all black. In order to reduce the distances over which these children are bused, the Superintendent has recommended and the School Board has agreed in principle with the following plan. Under the plan the pupils in kindergarten through 3rd grade now bused to Nottingham would be bused to Barcroft Elementary School, those bused to Jamestown, Taylor and Tuckahoe would be bused to Barrett Elementary School, and those bused to Ashlawn would be bused to Randolph Elementary School. The estimated effect of the change on the black enrollment at each of the ten schools is as follows: Present Black Enrollment Number Ashlawn Jamestown McKinley Nottingham Taylor Tuckahoe Abingdon Barcroft Barrett Randolph As a percentage of total Projected Black Enrollment Number 38 20 34 28 43 23 11.2% 6.7% 11.6% 8.8% 8.1% 9.7% 30 70 53 23 111 28.7% 17.3% 9.8% 27.7% 148 74 49 119 ii 13 18 31 18 As a percentage of total - & I Projected Total 9.5% 4.1% 4.7% 5.9% 6.2% 8.6% 316 270 277 302 499 208 31.9% 26.8% 18.6% 29.2% 464 276 264 407 �In October, 1982, 16.6% of the pupils in the Arlington Elementary Schools were black. The result of this changed busing plan will be to reduce the time and distance of busing for the pupils reassigned from the six elementary schools to the four schools in question here. A child in kindergarten through 3rd grade with a older sibling in grade 4-6 of one of the six schools may continue to go to the school to which the older sibling is assigned, at the parents' choice. Issue Presented Does the proposed busing plan violate the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendement? Analysis of the Issue This office has previously advised the Superindent that the 1971 Plan for Desegregating Arlington Schools does not continue to bind the School Board in future years, but that it should continue to be reviewed for guidance when later adjustments are made because it is part of the history of desegregation of the formerly segregated black-white system in Arlington. See the Memorandums to Superintendent Nunley dated December 10, 1981, and February 2, 1982. In reviewing the cases, it is an established principle that the precise terms of a desegregation plan do not remain binding once they are carried out. Pasadena City Board of Education v. Spangler, 96 S. Ct. 2697 (1976). Moreover, if a school system is doing more than the Fourteenth Amendment requires, it may recede from the action in excess of Fourteenth Amendment requirements. Crawford v. Board of Education, etc., 102 S. Ct. 3211 (1982). We interpret this to mean also that a school system can arrange pupil placement in alternative ways so long as it does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. What a school system cannot do is assign pupils so as to perpetuate or reestablish a dual black-white (or other dual) system. Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman, 99 S. Ct. 2971 (1979). In this connection schools identified as "black" or "white" could be evidence of a dual system. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 91 S. Ct. 1267 (1971). With this background in mind, in reviewing the presently proposed changes in the busing plan, we have considered several issues: 1. Effect of change from existing busing plan on young children; 2. Effect of change from existing busing plan on blacks; 3. Effect of change from existing busing plan on racial balance in the ten schools affected by the plan. On the first of the three issues, it appears that a legitimate basis for a school system to assign pupils is the goal of reducing the length of bus trips for very young pupils. See the case of Thompson v. School Board of Newport News, 363 F. Supp. 458 (E.D. Va. 1973), affirmed, 498 F.2d 195 (4th Cir. 1974). This case included the testimony of a pediatrician that lengthy bus rides had a harmful effect on young children. The trips that - 2- �were avoided by the approval of the neighborhood plan varied from six miles to 27 miles and from 25 minutes to 65 minutes. The average trip in that case was 42 minutes which is close to the estimated time for the trips to the six elementary schools proposed to be reduced here. Thus although this may be a basis for a reduced busing plan, more analysis would be helpful to assess the applicability of this principle to Arlington. In connection with the second consideration, Arlington's present busing plan has been approved as not violating the Fourteenth Amendment. However, we do not think this earlier approval means that the School Board may not modify the busing plan so as to reduce the burden on one group. This goal to modify the burden seems reinforced here because the plan reduces the length of bus trips for very young blacks and does not increase the length of trips for anyone else. The third issue requires consideration of the changes in racial balance in the affected schools. The Constitution does not require that every school reflect the racial composition of the whole school system. Swann, supra. However, many courts look more closely at plans with wide disparities in the degree of balance or imbalance. Kelley v. Metropolitan County Board of Education, etc., 687 F.2d 814 (6th Cir. 1982). Before this change takes place, the affected schools range from black enrollment of 6.7% to 28.7%. After the changes, the range is estimated from 4.1% to 31.9%. The increase at the top end of the range seems less dramatic than that at the bottom. Although we do not think the reduction to a 4.1% black enrollment makes the school in question all white, it does appear that the school deserves special attention so that steps to prevent further racial imbalance can be taken where possible, as well as steps to increase racial balance. Thus, we do not think this factor means the proposed changes violate the Fourteenth Amendment but it does create a situation in which the Board needs to give more attention to racial balance in some schools. Conclusion We conclude that the proposed change in the Arlington Busing Plan will not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. However, it would be advisable for the School Board to review this and future changes in pupil placement to see whether the changes can be made or adjusted so that they achieve these legitimate goals at the same time as they promote a favorable racial balance in the Arlington Public Schools. CGF:cjr -3- � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource RG 66, Personal Papers of Henry Gardner Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Memo to Chairman and Members, Arlington County School Board from Charles G. Flinn county Attorney and Cynthea L. Perry, Assistant county Attorney, May 27, 1983 regarding proposed changes in busing plan. Description An account of the resource Memo to Chairman and Members, Arlington County School Board from Charles G. Flinn county Attorney and Cynthea L. Perry, Assistant county Attorney, May 27, 1983 regarding proposed changes in busing plan. 3 pages Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 66, Personal Papers of Henry Gardner Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Arlington Public Schools Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 5/27/83 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1980s Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource This image is subject to copyright. Unauthorized use of the images in the Local History Collections of the Arlington Community Archives is prohibited. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 66_1_1_1_145 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/5b9d848cf0ccc40c59818020506e964f.pdf 6aba12e01ad91f8ba5e1aa2b7c8d27be PDF Text Text i a ARLINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS Division of Operations MEMORANDUM April 28, 1983 TO: Superintendent of Schools FROM: Administrative Staff SUBJECT: Reduced Busing - Drew Area Students The School Board, at the April 21, 1983 meeting, approved the follow ing motion: "The Arlington County School System no longer has neighborhood schools in the black South Arlington community. The students from there are bused to other schools not of their neighborhoods, most of the students being bused to schools in the northern section of our County, such as Jamestown, Taylor, Tuckahoe, Nottingham and McKinley. The trips involve between thirty and forty minutes of" travel time each way. There is no opportunity for after-school activities because there are no late buses from the elementary schools. Considering these factors, I move the following: 1. That the students from the Drew area in grades K-3 have re duced busing time by assigning them to a school closer to their neighborhood; 2. That the staff has the option of determining the number of schools the students could attend 3. That if a parent desires a child in Grade K through 3 to accompany an older sibling to the designated elementary school in the northern section of the County that they be given their choice; 4. That the Superintendent and staff study these points and re port back to the Board before May 5." BACKGROUND: The present method of assigning black students from the Drew and HoffmanBoston attendance areas began in September, 1971 as a part of the "Plan for Desegregating Drew and Hoffman-Boston Elementary Schools," as affirmed by the Federal Court on August 10, 1971. The plan is as follows: "The students in grades 1-6 of Drew and Hoffman-Boston will be assigned to elementary schools throughout the Arlington School System. Kinder gartens will continue at both Drew and Hoffman-Boston. No present school boundaries will be changed. A school will not be assigned students in such numbers that its total enrollment will exceed its rated capacity by more than 5%. Every elementary school will be integrated. In future years, students advancing from an elementary school will attend the junior high school or schools serving that elementary school and then to the senior high school or schools serving that junior high school." �Supt. of Schools - 2- April 28, 1983 Since 1971, with the closing of several elementary schools, the areas of assignment in the Drew and Hoffman-Boston area have changed. The practice has been to change the geographical area assignment from the school closed to the school that remained open where the majority of the students were assigned. Maps showing the elementary, intermediate and senior high school districts in the Drew/ Hoffman-Boston area are attached. ALTERNATIVES; The gist of the motion of April 21 then is to allow parents living in the Drew area, who reside in the districts assigned to Ashlawn, Jamestown, McKinley, Nottingham, Taylor and Tuckahoe, the option of having their children attend kinder garten through the third grade in a school closer to home. By allowing this, the time riding on the bus would be reduced. In an effort to provide the School Board with more than one alternative to accomplish that, we have obtained a projection for 1983-84 of the number of students eligible for this option. Secondly, we offer three alternatives; one that would have the students attend one of three schools, Abingdon, Barcroft and Randolph; a second having all of the children attend Barcroft, and the third with Barrett as the one school. The reasons for and the shortcomings of each alternative are included. PUPIL PROJECTIONS; 1982-83 Enrollment K-3 1-3 ASHLAWN JAMESTOWN MCKINLEY NOTTINGHAM TAYLOR TUCKAHOE 7 7 20 6 33 + 8 8 23 = 56 Number in 3rd Grade - 1 2 3 1 3 5 15 Number in Drew Kindergarten in Assigned Areas Number Remaining 1983 - = = = = = = 6 5 17 5 5 3 41 + + + + + + + 2 4 4 5 7 2 24 Total Projections 1983-84 8 9 21 10 12 5 65 Since a percentage of Drew area children may attend Drew School in grades 1-6, the projected number of 65 is the maximum number that would be eligible for this option. The probability is, based upon discussion with principals, that 7 to 10 of the children attending Drew kindergarten may remain at Drew. Therefore, the range of projected enrollment is from 55-65 students. All projections listed in the alternatives are calculated at close to the mid-point in the range, or 59 students. We used 59 rather than 60 because this allows us to subtract one student from each of the seven northern schools in showing the possible maximum reduction in the number of black students in those schools. ALTERNATIVE I One approach is to assign the students to Abingdon, Randolph and Barcroft. In this alternative we propose transporting the students in the regular buses from the Drew area. This approach would not have the children riding on the same buses as the other children in their districts. �Supt. of Schools -3- April 28, 1983 At present the ethnic breakdown for those schools is as follows: Alaskan Native American Indian ABINGDON BARCROFT RANDOLPH - Asian & Pacific Islander 13 118 43 5.3% 38.6% 10.5% Black Non-Hispanic 70 53 111 28.7% 17.3% 27.0% White 146 111 225 59.9% 36.3% 54.9% Hispanic 15 24 31 6.1% 7.8% 7.6% TOTAL 244 306 410 This alternative would result in substantially reducing the travel time for students to and from schools. It would not require any additional busing. If all three schools were selected, the percentages of black students at both Abingdon and Randolph could be considered. ALTERNATIVE II The second alternative would be to assign all of the students to Barcroft. Once again, this would not require additional busing, would reduce the travel time, and it would increase the student population at Barcroft. Further, the percentage of black students, based upon this year's enrollment, would be approximately 36%. ALTERNATIVE III The third alternative would be to assign pupils to Barrett. This could be considered if Barrett is not selected for closing. It would increase Barrett's projected enrollment in 1983 to 288 students, based upon the most recent projections. To accomplish this one of two busing procedures could be used; first, to have the students ride the buses from Drew district that go to the northern schools that they would ordinarily attend. This would not require additional busing. However, it would lengthen the time of the bus run to the other schools. It would result in students being brought to Barrett early and having to wait after school for the bus to return to pick them up. The other approach would be to have an additional bus run to bring the students from Drew to Barrett. The estimated cost of the bus run is $3,000. The October 21 ethnic breakdown of data on Barrett is as follows: Alaskan Native American Indian 0 Asian & Pacific Islander 49 20.9% Black Non-Hispanic 23 9.8% White 105 44.9% Hispanic TOTAL 57 24.4% 234 If the students were assigned to that school, the percentage of black students would be close to 28%. One other factor related to this, which is obvious, is that the numbers of black students at the six North Arlington schools would be reduced. The number and percentage of black students in those schools is as follows: ASHLAWN JAMESTOWN MC KENLEY NOTTINGHAM TAYLOR TUCKAHOE 38 20 34 28 43 23 11.2% 6.7% 11.6% 8.8% 8.1% 9.7% One additional bit of information has to do with the travel time. The Transportation Department has provided us with the average time for one-way runs. The average is arrived at by picking one day in the year and timing the run. However, �-4- Supt. of Schools traffic and weather conditions would extend this amount of time. follows : ASHLAWN JAMESTOWN MC KENLEY NOTTINGHAM TAYLOR TUCKAHOE April 28, 1983 The averages are as 20 minutes 30 20 24 " 20 21 " It must be re-emphasized, however, that these averages are affected by traffic conditions and weather, and it is conceivable that they could be increased by as much as 10 minutes per run. HDG:cf Att � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource RG 66, Personal Papers of Henry Gardner Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Memo to Superintendent of Schools from Administrative Staff re "reduced Busing-Drew Area Students" Description An account of the resource Memo to Superintendent of Schools from Administrative Staff re "reduced Busing-Drew Area Students." 4 pages Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 66, Personal Papers of Henry Gardner Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Arlington Public Schools Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource No date Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1980s Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource This image is subject to copyright. Unauthorized use of the images in the Local History Collections of the Arlington Community Archives is prohibited. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 66_1_1_1_140 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/b9648035892679da7bfbddb384a76544.pdf b4117cfcb6a27e91274eb2a991846275 PDF Text Text S A . s . A R L I N G T O N P U B L I C S C H O O LS D i v i s i o n of P e r s o n n e l and P ayroll February MEMORANDUM Dr. Arthur Henry SUBJECT: D. Drew Area W. 27, 1986 Gosling Gardner Students vis-a-vis Barcroft. B e c a u s e this item w i l l be d i s c u s s e d at the M arch 3rd senior s taff m e e t i n g , I am p r o v i d i n g some b a c k g r o u n d information, with several attachments. A t t a c h m e n t 1 is S e c t i o n 2 from the c o u r t app r o v e d d e s e g r e g a t i o n of 1971. You w i l l note under 2.b the r atio of b la c k to w h i t e s t u d e n t s that was i n c l u d e d in that c ourt app r o v e d plan. A t t a c h m e n t 2 is a m e m o of A p r i l 28, 1983 that p r o v i d e s the b a c k g r o u n d i n f o r m a t i o n and i n c l u d e s the S chool B o a r d ' s a d o p t i o n of A p r i l 21, 1983 r e g a r d i n g st u d e n t s from the D r e w area who w e r e a l l o w e d to a t t e n d s c h o o l s closer to their neighborhood. A l t e r n a t i v e #1 was the p l a n that the S c h o o l B o a r d a p p r o v e d , with the m a j o r i t y of the s t u d e n t s going to Bar c r o f t . Mrs. Syphax, Attorney, and A t t a c h m e n t 3 c o n t a i n s the m o t i o n a p p r o v e d by the Board. A t t a c h m e n t 4 is d ated M a y 27, 1983. the l e gal opinion presented from by the C o u n t y A t t a c h m e n t 5 is a m e m o of M a r c h 20, 1984 from E v e l y n S y p h a x to Dr. N u n l e y and the data that Dan B r o w n c o l l e c t e d that year r e g a r d i n g the s t u d e n t s in a t t e n d a n c e at A b ingdon, B a r c r o f t and Rand o l p h . T h e r e was a l egal paper p r e p a r e d by C indy P e r r y at that time. She is s e n d i n g me a copy of it. I will fo r w a r d that to senior s taff w h e n it arrives. In addi t i o n , on M a y 3, 1984 the S chool B o a r d a p p r o v e d the foll o w i n g : " F o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n M r s . S y p h a x m oved that the B o a r d s u p p o r t the c o n t i n u e d a s s i g n m e n t of the ten black stu d e n t s in third g r a d e at B a r c r o f t and not send them to schools in N o r t h A r l i n g t o n , and that they be a l l o w e d to c o m p l e t e sixth g ra d e at B a r c r o f t - s e c o n d e d by Mrs. N u c k o l s - p a s s e d 4-0." My u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the s i t u a t i o n at the p r e s e n t time is that those s t u d e n t s who w e r e in t hird g r a d e in 83-84 are still in a t t e n d a n c e at B a r c r o f t . The t hird g r a d e s t u d e n t s of the fol l o w i n g year went to the a p p r o p r i a t e N o r t h A r l i n g t o n schools. See the last a t t a c h m e n t s , p ages 6 and 8 of ASD 25-6.01, s p e c i f i c a l l y i n s t r u c t i o n a l transfers. Se c t i o n F. l a ( 5 ) , r e g a r d i n g the p e r c e n t a g e of b l a c k students. HDG-cf Att. 3/3 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource RG 66, Personal Papers of Henry Gardner Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Memo to Dr. Arthur W. Gosling from Henry D. Gardner re "Drew Area Students vis-avis Barcroft," February 27, 1986 Description An account of the resource Memo to Dr. Arthur W. Gosling from Henry D. Gardner re "Drew Area Students vis-avis Barcroft," February 27, 1986 and supplementary material. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 66, Personal Papers of Henry Gardner Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Arlington Public Schools Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2/27/86 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1980s Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource This image is subject to copyright. Unauthorized use of the images in the Local History Collections of the Arlington Community Archives is prohibited. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 66_1_1_1_139 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/85ee4a2b955ff945b229707132d83430.pdf 2c162baae1932533f9b577b446437131 PDF Text Text A R L I N G T O N P U B L I C S C HOOLS O f f i c e of the S u p e r i n t e n d e n t MEMORANDUM April TO: Members FROM: A r t h u r W. RE: of Barcroft 16, 1986 the S c h o o l B oard G o s l i n g Parent Requ e s t , Grade 3 Students INTRODUCTION D uring the m e e t i n g on M a r c h 20, 1986, five pa r e n t s from the Barcroft S c h ool addressed the B o a r d on the issue of school a t t e n d a n c e areas for c h i l d r e n r e s i d i n g in the N a u c k c o m m u n i t y . T hey r e q u e s t e d two things: 1. T hat third-grade children att e n d i n g the school who r e s i d e in the N a u c k c o m m u n i t y be p e r m i t t e d to c o m p l e t e their e l e m e n t a r y s ch o o l e d u c a t i o n at B a r c r o f t school. These children otherwise are assigned to several different North Arlington elementary schools for g rade s 4-6. 2. T h a t the s c h o o l d i v i s i o n s tudy school attendance for c h i l d r e n commun it y . the issues r e l a t e d to res i d i n g in the N auck Staff has r e v i e w e d e n r o l l m e n t data for t hird g r a d e s t u d e n t s at B a r c r o f t . C u r r e n t l y t here are 10 s t udents in g r a d e three who reside in the N a u c k community and w o uld be a s s i g n e d to new s c h o o l s for g r a d e s 4-6. In a d d i t i o n , 5 c h i l d r e n are in the selfc o n t a i n e d s p ec i a l e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m at B a r c r o f t and are el i g i b l e to m o v e into an upper e l e m e n t a r y p r o g r a m in 1986-87. Ther e f o r e , the total number of s t u d e n t s a f f e c t e d for the 1 9 8 6 - 8 7 s c h o o l year is 15. CONSIDERATIONS A staff team c o n s i s t i n g of the S u p e r i n t e n d e n t , the A s s i s t a n t S u p e r i n t e n d e n t for O p e r a t i o n s , the A s s i s t a n t S u p e r i n t e n d e n t for P ers o n n e l , and the D i r e c t o r of S c h o o l / C o m m u n i t y R e l a t i o n s has r e v i e w e d this request. T h e team c o l l e c t e d e n r o l l m e n t data for all potentially affected scho o l s , r e v i e w e d the historical b a c k g r o u n d r e l e v a n t to s c h o o l a s s i g n m e n t for c h i l d r e n re s i d i n g in the Nauck co m m u n i t y , and i d e n t i f i e d and discussed relevant issues. �- 2- Enroilment data are a t t a c h e d s i g n i f i c a n t data are as follows: to this report, The most 1. B a r c r o f t enro l l s 60 s t u d e n t s from the N a u c k community. Of the 13 g rade 3 stud e n t s , 10 are scheduled for r e a s s i g n m e n t in 1986 - 8 7 , and 3 are s c h e d u l e d to remain at B a r c r o f t . Barcroft's b lack s t udent e n r o l l m e n t in 1 985-8 6 r e p r e s e n t s 33.4% of the total s c hool popul a t i o n . 2. T a y l o r E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l has 37 black s t udents (6.5% of the total) of w h o m 7 r e s i d e in the N a u c k c o m m u n i t y . Of those 7 students, 3 are e n r o l l e d in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n , 2 in g r a d e 4, and 1 each in g rades 5 and 6. 3. J a m e s t o w n E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l has 17 b l a c k s t u d e n t s (5.5% of the total), 12 of w h o m reside in the Nauck community. Of t hese 12 s tudents, 4 are s p ecial education stud e n t s ; and g r a d e s 3, 4, 5, and 6 have r e s p e c t i v e l y 1, 3, 1, and 3 students. 4. N o t t i n g h a m E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l has 19 b lack s t u d e n t s (6.5% of the total), 9 of w h o m r eside in the Nauck community. Of t hese 9, 3 are enr o l l e d in s p ecial educ a t i o n , 1 in g r a d e K, 2 in g rade 1, 2 in g rade 4, and 1 in g r a d e 6. 5. M c K i n l e y E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l has 23 b lack s t u d e n t s (6.4% of the total) , 14 of w hom reside in the Nauck community. Of the 14 stud e n t s , 8 are sp e c i a l edu c a t i o n s tudents; 1 each in g r a d e s K, 1, 4, and 5; and 3 in g r a d e 6. The h i s t o r i c a l b a c k g r o u n d is c o m p l e x and is d i r e c t l y re l a t e d to d e s e g r e g a t i o n efforts. Students from the N a u c k c o m m u n i t y attend, under the B o a r d ' s cu r r e n t attendance boundaries, the foll o w i n g schools: Barcroft, Tayl o r , Jamestown, Nottingham, M c K i n l e y , Abin g d o n , T u c k a h o e , G l e n c a r l y n , Ran d o l p h , A shlawn, and O ak r i d g e . M os t of the c h i l d r e n atte n d D re w for k i n d e r g a r t e n and then are dispersed to se v e r a l schools. At Barcroft, some s tu d e n t s from N a u c k stay for g r a d e s 1-6 w h e r e a s o t h e r s a t t e n d the s c h o o l s o n l y for g r a d e s 1-3. T h o s e s tudents are s c h e d u l e d to a t t e n d Taylor, J a m e s t o w n , N o t t i n g h a m , and M c K i n l e y s c hools for g rades 4-6 b ase d upon their r e s i d e n c e location. Prior to 1983-84, Nauck community students attended a specific elementary school for g r ades 1-6. For the 1983-84 s chool year, howe v e r , the B o a r d s h i f t e d all g rades 1-3 students from the a bove four North Arlington schools to Barcroft. Students were to a t t e n d t hese four schools, however, for g rades 4-6. �-3For the 1 9 8 4 - 8 5 s c h o o l year, the B o a r d p e r m i t t e d s t u d e n t s from the N a u c k c o m m u n i t y who w o u l d be e n t e r i n g g r a d e 4 to r e m a i n at B a r c r o f t . T h e s e s t u d e n t s c u r r e n t l y are in the 5th grade. W h i l e there are m a n y issues r e l a t e d to s chool a t t e n d a n c e for c h i l d r e n r e s i d i n g in the N a u c k c o m m u n i t y , the staff team e lected to focus on t hose issues a s s o c i a t e d w it h the r e q u e s t to a l l o w c u r r e n t 3rd g r a d e s t u d e n t s to r e m a i n at Barcroft for g r ades 4-6. The team r e c o g n i z e s that a d d i t i o n a l and p r o f o u n d issues e xist re l a t i n g to the broa d e r q u e s t i o n s of K - 1 2 a t t e n d a n c e for all c h i l d r e n in the N a u c k c o m m u n i t y . Issu e s and c o n s e q u e n c e s i d e n t i f i e d in c l u d e the foll o w i n g : 1. P r o g r a m cont inui ty and a "s en s e of p l a c e . " _ Permitting s tuden t s to r e m a i n at B a r c r o f t w ould e nhance p r o g r a m continuity for them. In addition, s tudents de v e l o p stron ger links to a s c hool w hen they c o n t i n u e to a t tend the same one over a long p e r i o d of time. 2. P a r e n t access. B a r c r o f t is e a s ily a c c e s s i b l e to p a r e n t s of stu d e n t s res i d i n g in the N a u c k c o m m u n i t y . Principals of Ta y lor, Jamestown, McKinley, and Nottingham have stated that very few p a r e n t s from the N a u c k c o m m u n i t y participate actively in their schools. Distance is c o n s i d e r e d one s i g n i f i c a n t reason. 3. Barcroft stability. P a r e n t s from B a r c r o f t b e l i e v e that the total s c h o o l b e n e f i t s when t r a n s i e n c y is lessened. K e e p i n g the N a u c k 3rd g r a d e r s at B a r c r o f t in g rade 4 c reate s a m o r e stable, p r e d i c t a b l e s t u d e n t p o p u l a t i o n for s ta f f i n g and r e l a t e d school purp o s e s . 4. Mi nor i ty s t u d e n t m e m b e r s . The s chool s y s t e m c u r r e n t l y has s e v e r a l s c h o o l s in N o r t h A r l i n g t o n w i t h o n l y a few minority students attending. W h i l e the p r o p o s a l under consideration affects only 15 s t udents, nevertheless this small numb e r does i m pact each i n v o l v e d school. 5. Implications for the intermediate and high scho o l attendance. We can a n t i c i p a t e p r e s s u r e to a l l o w these students to continue with their classmates to i n t e r m e d i a t e and high s c h o o l s rather than to s c h o o l s lo c a t e d in N o r t h A r l i n g t o n . 6. P l a n n i n g for f u t u r e years. This is the s e cond time in three y ears that this r e quest has come befo r e the Board. It is r e a s o n a b l e to a s sume that p o s i t i v e a c t i o n on the c u r r e n t r e q u e s t w i l l lead to similar or more r e q u e s t s in the future. �-47., I m p l i c a t i o n s for o ther elementary schools. Several other schoo l s receive students from the Nauck comm u nity. These sc h o o l s are Ashlawn, Randolph, T u ckah o e , O a k r i d g e , and A b i n g d o n . T he A s h l a w n st u d e n t s a ttend Randolph for grades 1-3, and the Tuckahoe s t uden t s a t t e n d A b i n g d o n for these grades. RECOMMENDATIONS The staff team has c o n s i d e r e d the above e n r o l l m e n t data. We r e c o m m e n d two actions: issues, history, and 1. Assign current t hird grade s tudents from the N auck c o m m u n i t y who c u r r e n t l y a t t e n d B a r c r o f t for g r a d e s 1-3 o nly to c o n t i n u e a t t e n d i n g that s chool for g r a d e s 4-6. Nothing in this decision, however, precludes pa r e n t s from exercising all e x is t i n g opportunities for tran s fers, inc l u d i n g the opportunity for a younger s iblin g to a c c o m p a n y an o lder s ibling to a d e s i g n a t e d e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l in the n o r t h e r n se c t i o n of the County. 2. D i r e c t the S u p e r i n t e n d e n t to d e v e l o p an issues paper for B o a r d r e v i e w in fall 1986. This paper w ould id e n t i f y issues rel a t i n g to s chool attendance assignments for all children residing in the N auck c o m m u n i t y , grades K-12. A W G :cb Attachments Map S t u d e n t s e n r o l l e d in A r l i n g t o n s c h o o ls from the D r e w of 4/2/86 S u m m a r y of C i v i l R i g h t s s t a t i s t i c s as of O c t o b e r 25, area 1985 as ��ARLINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS STUDENTS ENROLLED IN ARLINGTON SCHOOLS FROM THE DREW AREA AS OF 4/2/86 SCHOOLS SpEd K 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 12 TOTAL 14 2 10 . 12 7 6 4 13 3 7 4 1 1 7 5 1 5 1 57 5 60 4 90 2 7 1 12 Elementary Abingdon Ashlawn Barcroft Barrett Drew Glebe Glencarlyn Henry H-B Mont Jamestown Key Long Branch McKinley Nottingham Oakridge Page Randolph Taylor Tuckahoe 8 2 9 4 Jackson 2 TOTAL ELEM. 5 49 2 13 7 4 1 1 1 1 1 4 8 3 1 3 3 49 1 1 1 1 6 3 1 3 1 2 2 2 3 1 1 3 1 14 9 4 5 1 3 36 7 9 1 6 4 6 2 3 5 1 2 64 46 42 30 33 27 28 319 7 11 28 6 22 1 15 38 1 38 TOTAL INTER. 6 20 9 16 Jefferson Kenmore Page Swanson Williamsburg H-B Woodlawn 8 5 8 Intermediate 55 93 9 10 11 12 Wakefield Wash.-Lee Yorktown H-B Woodlawn 25 14 19 2 18 16 24 17 10 14 1 16 5 19 76 45 76 3 TOTAL SR. HI. 60 58 42 40 200 60 58 42 40 612 Sr. High GRAND TOTAL TW:pg 4/3/86 49 64 46 42 30 33 27 28 38 55 �ARLINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS Assessment Office SUMMARY OF CIVIL RIGHTS STATISTICS AS OF OCTOBER 25, 1985 SCHOOLS NO. 7 a Abingdon Ashlawn Barcroft Barrett Drew Glebe Glencarlyn Henry H-B Kind. Jackson Jamestown Key Long Branch McKinley Nottingham Oakridge Page Randolph Taylor Tuckahoe 1 .2 Total Elem. Jefferson Kenmore Swanson Williamsburg Total Inter. H-B Woodlawn Wakefield Washington-Lee Yorktown Total Sr. High 118 28 .3 78 ___ 46 ■5 13 ___ 2___ 29 ■3 ___ 1 242 ___ 1 _ _ J._ _ _ .3 59 ___ 1___ 6 10 ___ 1 3 _ 116 59 41 16 57 31 46 32 28 9 .1 JLC:pg 10/25/85 7 22.5 9.5 24.1 16.3 3.3 9.4 54.0 16.1 13.0 15.9 4.2 18.6 11.5 11.5 5.5 10.0 8.4 9.9 5.6 7.7 NO. i HISF ANIC % NO. % WH] NO. TOTAL 127 28 108 32 114 79 44 111 14 18 17 42 138 23 19 134 6 147 37 30 24.2 9.5 33.4 11.3 29.2 25.7 9.8 30.3 30.4 28.6 5.5 6.7 26.8 6.4 6.5 23.6 1.6 31.5 6.5 8.3 45 42 35 104 32 55 78 66 2 13 5 306 131 31 15 92 15 79 58 22 8.6 14.3 10.8 36.7 8.2 17.9 17.4 18.0 4.4 20.6 1.6 49.1 25.5 8.7 5.1 16.2 4.1 16.9 10.2 6.1 234 196 101 101 229 143 81 129 24 22 273 159 186 263 243 286 317 195 441 282 44.6 66.7 31.3 35.7 58.7 18.1 35.2 52.2 34.9 88.6 25.5 36.2 73.5 82.9 50.2 85.9 41.8 77.6 77.9 525 294 323 283 390 307 448 366 46 63 308 623 514 358 293 569 369 467 568 362 1,068 14.3 1,268 17.0 1,226 16.4 3,905 52.2 7,476 74 151 60 14 13.1 32.2 12.5 3.6 139 85 58 58 24.6 18.1 12.1 15.1 124 54 99 15 21.9 11.5 20.7 3.9 229 179 261 297 40.5 38.2 54.5 77.3 566 469 479 384 299 15.8 340 17.9 292 15.4 966 50.9 1,898 10.2 24.2 14.1 4.8 21 364 143 157 5.1 21.6 9.1 12.4 10 206 343 30 2.4 12.2 21.8 2.4 340 702 864 1,020 82.3 41.7 55.0 80.3 413 1,682 1,571 1,271 1 .2 1 .1 3 .2 3 .2 42 407 221 61 6 .1 731 14.8 685 13.9 589 11.9 2,926 59.3 4,937 1 1 1.1 .9 36 23 38.7 20.4 7 22 7.5 19.5 49 67 52.7 59.3 93 113 2,100 14.5 2,352 16.2 2,136 14.7 7,913 H-B Cont. Langston Cont. GRAND TOTALS NO. BL^ CK 1H m | 1 AS IAN/ PACIFIC ISLAND 3 ^ AMER. INDIAN/ ALASKAN NATIVE 16 .1 54.5 14,517 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource RG 66, Personal Papers of Henry Gardner Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Memo to School Board members from Arthur W. Gosling re "Barcroft Parent Request, Grade 3 Students" Description An account of the resource Memo to School Board members from Arthur W. Gosling re "Barcroft Parent Request, Grade 3 Students" re placement of third-grade children residing in Nauck being permitted to complete their elementary school education at Barcroft School including supplementary material. 7 pages Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 66, Personal Papers of Henry Gardner Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Arlington Public Schools Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource No date Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1980s Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource This image is subject to copyright. Unauthorized use of the images in the Local History Collections of the Arlington Community Archives is prohibited. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 66_1_1_1_132 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/ec46bf4b414ac8c6f54b1534b4047a69.pdf cbf44ff0317e4ea56a138284ae610d82 PDF Text Text ARLINGTON COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD Item No. Arlington School Board Information Item ___________________ Barcroft Parent Request, Grade 3 Students Date Prepared: 4/16/86 Meeting Date 4/24/86 For Information Meeting Date 5/8/86 For Action Initiated by: Parent request to Board Staff contact: Dr. Arthur W. Gosling Explanation of Subject/Issue: Barcroft school parents have requested the following: (1) That third grade children attending the school who reside in the Nauck community be permitted to complete their elementary school education at Barcroft school. These children otherwise are assigned to several different North Arlington elementary schools for grades 4-6. (2) That the school division study the issues related to school attendance for children residing in the Nauck community. Super intendent12 Recommendation: s (1) Assign current third grade students from the Nauck community who currently attend Barcroft for grades 1-3 only to continue attending that school for grades 4-6. Nothing in this decision, however, precludes parents from exercising all existing opportunities for transfers, including the opportunity for a younger sibling to accompany an older sibling to a designated elementary school in the northern section of the County. (2) Direct the Superintendent to develop an issues paper for Board review in fall 1986. This paper would identify issues relating to school attendance assignments for all children residing in the Nauck community, grades K-12. Comments: A staff team consisting of Operations, Assistant Superintendent Relations was formed to review this unanimous in its recommendations for the Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent for for Personnel, and the Director of School/Community request. The team met on several occasions and is action to the School Board. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource RG 66, Personal Papers of Henry Gardner Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Arlington School Board Meeting, Item E-2, "Barcroft Parent Request, Grade 3 Students," prepared April 16, 1986 Description An account of the resource Arlington School Board Meeting, Item E-2, "Barcroft Parent Request, Grade 3 Students," prepared April 16, 1986. Requested third grade children attending the school who reside in the Nauck community be permitted to complete their elementary education at Barcroft School. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 66, Personal Papers of Henry Gardner Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Barcroft School parents Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 4/16/86 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1980s Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource This image is subject to copyright. Unauthorized use of the images in the Local History Collections of the Arlington Community Archives is prohibited. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 66_1_1_1_131 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/12cff87edf9ba96aafe259e7a265da7f.pdf 79c7ac32fc6e8cf0817dc3b75211a60c PDF Text Text H I S T O R Y O F CKEPJTYDALE S C H O O L T h e h i s t o r y of C h e r r y d a l e S c h o o l is m o r e t h a n J u s t an a c c o u n t of a b u i l d i n g , a s u c c e s s i o n of y e a r s , a n d a s t o r y o f a P T A w h i c h s t r u g g l e d t o m a k e its c h i l d r e n ' s e d u c a t i o n m o r e meaningful. It is t h e h i s t o r y o f a c o m m u n i t y a n d a c o u n t r y a nd the v e r y i m p o r t a n t p l a c e a s c h o o l p l a y s i n the g r o w t h and d e v e l o p m e n t o f both. In 1 9 0 8 w h e n t he C h e r r y d a l e S c h o o l w a s b u i l t , the c o m m u n i t y of C h e r r y d a l e w a s c h a n g i n g f r o m a r u r a l b a c k w a t e r to a thriving village. More and mo r e of D o r s e y Dona l d s o n ' s c h e r r y orchards, w h i c h had g i v e n t h e i r name to the community, were f a l l i n g to t he a x e as n e w c i t i z e n s a r r i v e d v i a t h e W a s h i n g t o n a n d Old D o m i n i o n E l e c t r i c R a i l r o a d w h i c h w a s c o n s t r u c t e d t h r o u g h C h e r r y d a l e e n r o u t e to G r e a t F a l l s a n d m a d e c o m m u t i n g t o W a s h i n g t o n convenient. The^ f i r s t t r o l l e y h a d m a d e its m a i d e n v o y a g e to G r e a t F a l l s in 1906. In 1910, t w o y e a r s a f t e r C h e r r y d a l e w a s b u i l t , the C l a r e n d o n E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l (Maury) a nd F o r t M y e r H e i g h t s S c h o o l (Wilson) w e r e b u i l t . T h e o r i g i n a l C h e r r y d a l e s c h o o l b u i l d i n g at 3 7 1 0 Lee H i g h w a y is the o l d e s t s c h o o l s t i l l in use in A r l i n g t o n Coun t y . No r e c o r d s r e m a i n t o d a y to t e l l us t h e e n r o l l m e n t o f C h e r r y d a l e d u r i n g t h e s e e a r l y y e a r s b u t we k n o w it w a s o n e o f the l a r g e s t a n d m o s t i m p o r t a n t s c h o o l s i n t h e C o u n t y o f A l e x a n d r i a (to b e r e n a m e d A r l i n g t o n in 1920). B y 1 9 1 2 it w a s one of o n l y six t e e n schools in the c o u n t y — 12 for whites, ^ for N e g r o e s — n o n e of w h i c h g a v e I n s t r u c t i o n b e y o n d t h e e i g h t h grade. B y 1922 it e m p l o y e d t w e l v e t e a c h e r s — m o r e t h a n a n y o t h e r s c h o o l i n t h e > C o u n t y — a n d h a d A 3 9 p u p i l s in 13 d i f f e r e n t c l a s s e s . ' " T h e C h e r r y d a l e S c h o o l d r e w its p u p i l s f r o m a n a r e a e n c o m p a s s i n g the Maywood, Thrifton, C h a i n Bridge, Woodmont, Dominion Heights, Hi g h v i e w Park and Cherry d a l e sections. It w a s i n t h e W a s h i n g t o n S c h o o l D i s t r i c t , the o t h e r s c h o o l s i n t h i s d i s t r i c t b eing, Carn e , S a e g m u l l e r a n d H a l l ' s Hill. S e v e r a l y e a r 3 p r i o r to 1916 the Patrons' L e a g u e o f C h e r r y d a l e S c h o o l w a s o r g a n i z e d a n d w a s the p r e d e c e s s o r o f the Parent-Teachers Association. At the O c t o b e r 1 9 1 6 m e e t i n g of t he L e a g u e , t h e f i r s t p r e s e r v e d m i n u t e s t e l l us, t he L e a g u e v o t e d t o p a y a 96 ^ e l e c t r i c l i g h t b i l l a nd a p p r o p r i a t e d $10 to b u y a c o u c h f o r c h i l d r e n w h o m i g h t b e o o m e ill at s c h o o l . An a d d i t i o n a l $ 2.50 h a d t o b e a u t h o r i z e d f o r t h i s p u r c h a s e a t the n ext m e e t i n g . �2 In February 1917 the Installation of a telephone In the school vma authorised, the business, rate on a party line being $36,00 per annum— up from $24. A toll telephone for the use of the community was also installed later, adding a small accumulation of funds for the League. During the next few years the need for more space grew drastically— World War I and the importance of Washington as a world capitol bringing an influx of government employees to the area. A building program was begun. A new building was erected to- the west of the old school and an auditorium which would serve the whole county as a recreation and civic meeting place was built onto the old Cherrydale School. The Patron's League purchased 400 chairs and installed lighting flxturos at a cost of $90 for the auditorium. All the local dignitaries were invited to a house warming on Juno 11, 1917. The winter of 1917-1918 was a severe one with a scarcity of coal which made entertainments at the school impossible. In November 1917 the League agreed to put gas in the school building and in the auditorium so that hot lunches could be served the children in cold weather. On May 11, 1917 > a constitution and by-laws were adopted which changed the name "Patron's League" to "ParentTeachers School Association." At the time there were a hardy 36 members, very few of which attended the monthly meetings with any regularity. Then as now, the problems of the community and the country were reflected in the discussions recorded by the PTA. World War I loomed large in the minds of all U. S. citizens in 1917. The U. S. Food Administration, headed by Herbert Hoover, wrote the local PTA's urging every housewife to sign a Food Conservation Pledge Card and requesting their cooperation in sugar rationing. And in a paroxysm of patriotism the Cherrydale PTA passed in 1918 a resolution which opposed "the teaching of the German Language in any school supported by the tax payers of Virginia." Some timeless school problems plagued the Cherrydale PTA even in 1917. There was some discussion about expelling children for going to the golf links on school days. These truants were probably to be found at the nearby Washington Country Club which had moved to its present site in 1907. And several nasty letters were directed to a local merchant, Mr. McCormick, about his selling cigarettes to schoolboys. �3 Mr.•McCormick ignored those letters and finally tha PTA discussed taking him to court. The records do not reflect whether Mr. McCormick continued, to accomodate the children in thoir vice or whether they had to move to a now supplier. Later, in 1919. tho PTA decided something had to be done about the speeding on the newly improved Lee Highway in front of the school. Before this improvement, Lee Highway (the old C-eorgetown-Fairfax Turnpike) had been alternately a sea of mud or dust. One .wealthy resident along the road; Mr. John Clarlc, had earlier become so disgusted with its condition he had it surfaced with crushed oyster shell all the way from Eosslyn to hl3 address at 2627 Lae Highway. Washington Avenue (now Boulevard) was, however, the "main street" of Cherrydale ac the time. The Cherrydale PTA was concerned about the beauty of its community and wrote to the Board of Supervisors about the empty tar cano left by workmen along Lee Highway which marred "tha beauty of the landscape"— especially with spring just around the corner. In 1918 it sponsored a "Clean Up The Yards" contest in which 86 Cherrydale children participated. One member complained it was absurd to offer prises for well-kept grounds when Cherrydale School grounds were in such a "disgraceful condition." As the need for more classrooms grew so did the need for more playground space. In 1917 the PTA had tried to obtain a right-of-way to the use of the alley Just behind the auditorium and in 1921 bought an adjoining lot from Mrs. White, the .landowner, for $900 to increase the grounds. An additional $300 was needed to have the area graded and still more money was required for seeds and plantings. Playground space continued p o be an acute problem at Cherrydale. It was not until 1962, after a concerted and intensive PTA campaign, that at long last four lots were purchased back of the school. However, this property was still tied up in litigation in 1964. By 1921, the Cherrydale PTA was more than just a concerned parents' group. As landlords of the auditorium, they profited from its. heavy community use. Dozens of groups met and performed there so the PTA decided to rent the use of the piano at $1.00 per function. In 1918-19, $64,00 was gained in this way, giving an indication of the hub-bub of activity centered at the school. In 1927 the PTA raised the rates— charging $5.00 for a series of rehearsals and $2.00 for a single performance. Finally, in 1924 the PTA went on record �4 "as disapproving of tha promiscuous renting of the auditorium" and sent ito objections to the School Board. In 1920 the ETA went into the moving picture business, entering into a joint venture with KaJ. King, who showed films in the auditorium on a regular basis. The enterprise was so successful that the PTA finally bought tho projector outright and in 1920-21 made $1832,31» les3 tho expenses incurred for operators, rental of films and advertising. Presumably, the Pottcrton's put the PTA out of business when they opened'the county's first movie house, "Pioneer Hall" at 4018 Lae Highway, as the records reflect that in 1924 the PTA attempted to dispose of their projector. The PTA also raised money by membership dues (50^), card parties, tag days, candy sales, paper drives, fairs, and most of all, by sponsoring well-attended dances. This latter practice was called to a halt in 1927 when the Arlington County Board of Education decided school property was not the proper place for such goings on. A Chautauqua held at Cherrydale in the summer of 1922 netted the PTA $53.07, one-half the proceeds the other half was given to the Fire Department. All in all, the treasurer's reports of these years look like those of a well-run aggressive corporation; however, the proceeds were devoted to the improvement of the school and all the time the PTA was expanding and improving the grounds, buying books and clocks, furniture and furnishings for the school, which in 1922 had 439 pupils. A history of Cherrydale School is not complete without some mention of the Cherrydale Volunteer Fire Department, the first company in the county. A serious fire around 1905 had caused the concerned citizens to organize the company. Its entire equipment consisted of one short ladder and ten roundbottom leather buckets. Two hand-drawn chemical oarts, which cost $350, were purchased in 1912 and were housed in a shed behind the school. The present station house was built in 1919, the initial contribution being made by President and Mrs. Woodrow Wilson who "bought" a brick, Mora than one PTA meeting was disrupted by all the men present having to respond to the sound of the fire siren which the PTA had helped to buy in 1922. In 1923 the Fire Department was allowed to build a 30,000 gallon cistern on the school grounds; besides heipins the fire fighters, it was hoped this would help clear up the drainage problems in the school yard. The Fire Department was still using the school grounds in 1929 when tho PTA asked it to remove a dangerous iron tower beside tho school. �5 Also of historic interest was the establishment of #1^9 in 1917, by H. 0„ Slower, a member of the This was one of ths-earliest Boy Scout troops in the country, being founded only seven years after the national organisation was formed. B o y Scout troop C h e r r y d a l e PTA. On April 25, 1926, seven years after WWI ended, the unveiled a memorial stone in the schoolyard in memory of the men from Chorrydale who lost their lives in the war. This was a well-publicized event and drew a large crowd. D.A.K. The library at Chorrydale School, one of the six original libraries in the county, was the first and only library in the area. It was first formally organized by the Cherrydale League of Women Voters in 1923 which operated and maintained it as a public service for seven years. In 1931 the PTA took over its operation, Mrs. Martha Rauh, president of the PTA, being the librarian. The library was located on the second floor of the old building and. the public was invited to check out any of its 1,000 volumes. Library cards cost 5fS. In 193° the PTA helped organize the Cherrydale Library Association and complete control was given over to this group when it moved to its new quarters at 3828 Lee Highway in 1938. In 1958 the library building was condemned and the PTA and other community groups were successful in their fight to retain a local branch of the library rather than letting it be combined with the central library as proposed. In the summer of 1929 Cherrydale was one of the first schools in the state to initiate a "Summer Round-Up," a campaign to examine and treat incoming school children in co-operation with the State Health Department. Doctors examined UU children ar.d dentists treated 18 pupils at no expense during June of that year. In 1930, Cherrydale was cited as having the best pre school examination program in Virginia. A permanent clinic was established in the school and Summer Round-Ups were held annually, until at least 195^-. The PTA has continued to conduct annual health checks for all the children at Cheirrydale. In October 1926 the Welfare Committee of the PTA recommended establishing a lunch room in the girl’s basement where gas was available. A three-burner gas stove was donated by Mrs. L. A. Little and three barrels of dishes were given by the Willard Hotel. The PTA decided it couldn't afford a hotwater heater or tubs for dish-washing, so one wonders how satisfactory, or sanitary, the lunch room experiment was, but by 1927 the minutes refer to the lunch room as "the cafeteria." In 1932-33, free milk and 25(^ lunches were being served on a daily ba3is. As late as 1956 the PTA was still trying to get �6 a hot-lunch program for Cherrydale, one of only eight schools in the county without such services. . Finally, in 1958 the cafeteria wing off the multi-purpose room was completed and began operations. The minutes of the FTA from 1916 and those of 1971 reflect many similar concerns: 1. Grounds— throughout the years the appearance the school grounds caused constant dissatisfaction among-the garden-minded members of the Cherrydale PTA. Trees and grass and shrubs and hedges and flower boxes were planted almost annually, but the trampling of little feet and lack of care finally led the PTA to have the entire area surfaced with asphalt in 1948-1949. The "unsettled boundary of Lee Highway" .held up the first fence around the school ground in 1925, but after it was installed it seemed to always need paint and repairs. 2. Equipment— the Cherrydale PTA's minutes reflect a generous and up-to-date spirit in acquiring new equipment for their school. In the 20's sewing machines, athletic equipment, drinking fountains, a victrola, maps, football standards, song books, a new piano, a new set of reference books--"The Bookhouse a hectograph for copying papers, a new stage curtain, and many more useful articles were bought for the school. In the 30's, furniture, musical instruments, music, field trips and more books were paid for during these depression years. In the 40's, 50's and 60's the library fund became a part of the annual budget, so also did the Safety Patrols, organized in 1937— the PTA buying raincoats and sending some children to camp each year 3. Health— besides standing behind a strong athletic program the Cherrydale PTA ha3 always helped disseminate knowledge and literature concerning the health of children. In 1926 the new Shlck Test for Diptheria was explained and promoted The Summer Kouna~Up became an annual PTA function and the .PTA paid for several tonsillectomies for needy children in 1928-31. In 1935 the school opening was delayed for two week3 as a precaution asainst Infantile paralysis having been brought into the county by people on vacation. 4. Safety— traffic on Lee Highway has always worried the PTA and from the beginning it has Jangled the ear of the authorities for more and better traffic regulations around the school. In April 1929 a gala "Safety Pagent" was sponsored by the PTA in which the Safety Patrols and Eire Laddies played prominent roles. �7 5. PTA Membership— from the beinning one of the ma concerns of the PTA has been how to attract members ana next how to get them to come to the meetings— on time. In the first pi-oserved minutes* October 13* 1916, we find the secretary of the then Patron's League complaining about tardiness! "But, 'Hope' springing eternal in the human breast causes us not to diepair. And, sometime everybody will be present at the opening hour." Membership drives have dominated the history of the Cherrydale PTA— almost annually we see a kernel of active members trying to come up with a better idea of how to gain new members. Perhaps the lowest point was reached in 1925 when there were only 11 paid members of the group. The next year Miss Elliot, the principal, facetiously suggested giving a child whose parents attended the meeting an "E" in his weakest subjeot of that month. Instead a $20 loving cup was purchased and passed to the best represented class each month. By 1930 there were 233 members, showing the effectiveness of either the loving cup or the persistence of the membership chairmen. , The PTA song in the 20's and 30's was "Our Battle Hymn for Children" with which the meetings were opened. Card parties* lawn parties, talent nights, cake sales, square dances, fairs, plays, carnivals, minstrel shows and entertainments of all sorts lured the non-members to join the PTA through the years as the stalwart group tried to perpetuate itself. In 1973., the Cherrydale PTA boasts 186 members, attesting their success. In 1928 the Woodmont School, built in 1926, was affiliated with the Cherrydale PTA and was supported by its treasury and organization for several years and maintained close ties until at least 1934. In 1929 there was a proposal afoot to use the old Cherrydale School as a house of detention or a "School for Incorrigibles." The Cherrydale PTA would not hear of it and soon the plan was dropped. In 1939— 41 Cher?cydale was one of the few schools in Arlington which offered classes in religious education for those students desiring to take it. The old Cherrydale School building was renovated in 19511 the entire interior being gutted and rebuilt. When the school year started in 1958, the 286 students were all crowded into the old building, attending classes in a double shift-8-12; 12:30-4. The 1917 building was being completely renovated �8 after years of agitation by the ETA. The dedication of the now building was January 18, 1959 and the sorely tried teachers and students once again could stretch out a bit and get down to work bcX'ore ‘te school year was over. In I960 Cherrydale was designated as a kindergarten center and was home-base for 100 five-year-olds from the Monroe, Wilson and Cherrydale areas. No bus service was budgeted for their transportation so the FTA had to arrange car pool3. Playground space was critical at this time ar.d it was then that the School Board was finally persuaded to buy the four lot3 behind the school between Oakland and Nelson Streets. In 1565-66 the Arlington School Board concluded that the many small, old schools which clustered around the Lee Highway corridor were inefficient and uneconomical and suggested consolidation. Planning and study groups were formed under the aegis of the School Board, and PTA' s from nine to ten schools were called upon to consider the situation and come up with an overall plan for the future of the schools in the area. After many meetings and much soul searching, the Cherrydale PTA decided the old school had to be abandoned. In 1971, new school boundaries were drawn and finalised splitting the Cherrydale School district into three parts— Page School, the new Glebe school to be ready in 197172, and the new Uocdmont School to be ready in 1972-73. In the meantime Cherrydale will be used as a kindergarten through third grade for the Woodmont School district during 1971-72. On May 18, 1971, the Cherrydale PTA held its final meeting. One can not help but wonder how many children, eager or reluctant, learned to read and write here and learned the first ABC's of good citizenship over the years. . One thing is certain, all the children, wherever they now may be, can take a full measure of pride in their school's unswerving devotion to progress end its extraordinary tradition of civio responsibility which have characterized Cherrydale School and made it a leader in this community for 63 years. Compiled and written by Judith A. (Mrs. Peter S.) Taylor, Kay, 1971 Sources: Notes and minutes of the Patron's League and PTA of Cherrydale School, October 13, 19l6~precent; Eleanor Lee Templeman, Arlington Heritage:__Vignettes of a Virginia County. 1959; Dorothy Ellis Lee, A jit;.to.-v of Arlimt o n County. Vi r inf a, 19J ; l6: L e s l i e L. Shelton, "Fire Lighting in Arlington County,'' The Arlington H i s t o r i c a l Magazine, Vol. II (October, 1961), pp. 50-57. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource RG 66, Personal Papers of Henry Gardner Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource "History of Cherrydale School" by Mrs. Peter S. Taylor Description An account of the resource History of Cherrydale School by Mrs. Peter S. Taylor. 9 pages Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 66, Personal Papers of Henry Gardner Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Mrs. Peter S. Taylor Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource No date Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1970s Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource This image is subject to copyright. Unauthorized use of the images in the Local History Collections of the Arlington Community Archives is prohibited. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 66_1_1_1_123 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/dac0d4fb3e22a236879f43c345c92d13.pdf a2031fc642575611390bccee98afbf35 PDF Text Text Juno 3„ 1971 Mrs* Fetor S. Taylor 1819 llorth Lincoln Street Arlington, Virginia 22207 Dear Mrs. Taylors f o t On behalf of the school system and the School Board 7 . should like to offer our congratulations on the excellent "History of Chcrrydale School".which you have recently written. This dociirr.ent reflects careful research combined with excell and interesting writing and results in a source material tha should bo of great value to all those interested in the history of Arlington County. we are taking the liberty of placing copies of this document in the official Board files in order that it may be available through the years to all interested persons. Sincerely yours. Robert L. Chisholm Superintendent RICib/s cct Mr. Stiss, Social Studies i � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource RG 66, Personal Papers of Henry Gardner Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letter to Mrs. Peter S. Taylor from Robert L. Chisholm, Superintendent, congratulating her on her essay "History of Cherrydale School," June 8, 1971. Description An account of the resource Letter to Mrs. Peter S. Taylor from Robert L. Chisholm, Superintendent, congratulating her on her book "History of Cherrydale School,: June 8, 1971. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 66, Personal Papers of Henry Gardner Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Robert L. Chisholm, Superintendent Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 6/8/71 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1970s Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource This image is subject to copyright. Unauthorized use of the images in the Local History Collections of the Arlington Community Archives is prohibited. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 66_1_1_1_122 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/c8c4c66e1f028e3f8cde7661ccf04f97.pdf a50def8f8884edd56842de4605b0c9cd PDF Text Text A R L IN G T O N C O U N T Y , V IR G IN IA D E P A R T M E N T OF LIB RA RIES 1015 N O R T H Q U IN C Y S T R E E T A R L IN G T O N . V IR G IN IA 2 2 2 0 1 L E L IA B . S A U N D E R S D IR E C T O R O F L IB R A R IE S (7 0 3 ) 5 2 7 -4 7 7 7 J U D IT H S E G E L A S S IS T A N T D IR E C T O R J uly 16, 1984 R o ta ry C lu b o f A rjifig to n George W alz, P r u d e n t P.O. Box 1 2 7 / A r lin g t o n / A 22210 5 Dear Mr. Walz: Y o ur o rg a n iz a tio n undoubtedly has m inutes, m ee tin g announcements, new sletters, scrapbooks and photographs w hich are im p o rta n t to keep and to re fe r to o cc a sio n a lly, but w hich are not used re g u la rly in the day-to-day business of your group. We w ish to rem in d you th a t your lib r a r y serves as a deposito ry and a "keeper" fo r such papers and records. Its C oum m unity A rc hiv e s Program has tra in e d a num ber of vo lun teers to pro vide p r e lim in a ry arrangem ent and preserva tio n o f m anuscript and a rc h iv a l records, and the L ib ra ry has been a llo te d space in a closed school for th is program . I t is also a p p ly in g fo r grant assistance fo r a co o rdina to r and fo r m a te ria ls to operate th is im p o rta n t service. The L i brary's C o m m unity A rc hiv es program is designed fo r non-governm ental records — those from th e many o rgan izatio n s, lik e yours, w hich have had an im p o rta n t p a rt in A rlington's developm ent, h is to ry , and q u a lity o f lif e . O rg a n iz a tio n a l records placed w ith the L ib ra ry are acce ssib le to mem bers o f th e do n atin g group when the y w ish to re fe r to an e a r lie r a c t iv it y and to researchers do ing com m unity research. T h is is a us e fu l se rvice to con tin u in g and v it a l co m m unity groups w here o ffic e rs change re g u la rly , w hich have no perm anent "headquarters" b u ild in g , whose records need system a tic o rg a n iz a tio n or pre se rv a tiv e measures and w hich need to be accessible fo r re fe re n ce , and whose records are an im p o rta n t p a rt o f our community's histo ry. �A rlin g to n C ounty D ep a rtm e nt o f L ib r a rie s V irg in ia n a C o lle c tio n Request fo r C o m m un ity A rc hiv e s J uly 16, 1984 Page 2 In a d d itio n to th e C o m m unity A rc h iv e s pro gram , the V irg in ia n a C o lle c tio n o f the C e n tra l L ib r a ry has p rin te d lo c a l h is to ry and c u rre n t m a te ria ls about A rlin g to n , used fre q u e n tly by scho la rs, students, lo c a l churches, clubs, neighborhoods, and by genealo g ists stu d y in g A rlin g to n , it s in s titu tio n s and fa m ilie s . Y o ur o rg a n iz a tio n a l h is to rie s and your n e w sle tte rs are an im p o rta n t resou rce, and we urge you to co n tin ue in c lu d in g the V irg in ia n a C o lle c tio n on y o ur m a ilin g lis t fo r these v a lu ed m a te ria ls. We w ould also lik e to have you t e ll yo ur in d iv id u a l mem bers th a t our Com m unity A rc hiv e s program seeks person a l papers, photographs, fa m ily h is to rie s o f A rlin g to n ia n s , maps, newspapers, fa m ily records, business records - as lo ng as they p e rta in to A rlin g to n . Because o f th e very inten se in te re s t in our C ounty h is to ry from it s re s id e n ts, students, scho lars, fa m ily h is to ria n s , and p lan n ers, i t has become very im p o rta n t to c o lle c t a ll we can lo c a te about it s p eo p le, homes, businesses, and neighborhoods. C heck your fa m ily papers and photo c o lle c tio n , and i f you have ite m s o f in te re s t and do not w ish to p art w ith the m , th e lib r a r y can make copies. H e lp us to docum ent th e many phases o f A r lin g ton's h is to ry . S in c e re ly , L e lia B. Saunders L ib ra ry D ire c to r LBS/tg � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource RG 66, Personal Papers of Henry Gardner Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letter to Rotary Club of Arlington President, George Walz from Lelia B. Saunders, Director of Libraries, July 16, 1984, encouraging organization to donate their material to the Community Archives program Description An account of the resource Letter to Rotary Club of Arlington President, George Walz from Lelia B. Saunders, Director of Libraries, July 16, 1984, encouraging organization to donate their material to the Community Archives program. 2 pages Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 66, Personal Papers of Henry Gardner Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Lelia B. Saunders Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 7/16/84 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1980s Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource This image is subject to copyright. Unauthorized use of the images in the Local History Collections of the Arlington Community Archives is prohibited. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 66_1_1_1_120